RSS

Author Archives: Richard Charnin

About Richard Charnin

In 1965, I graduated from Queens College (NY) with a BA in Mathematics. I later obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University and an MS in Operations Research from the Polytechnic Institute of NY. I started out as a numerical control engineer/programmer for a major defense/aerospace manufacturer and then moved to Wall Street as a manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for several major investment banks. I consulted in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations. In 2004 l began posting weekly "Election Model" projections based on state and national polls. As "TruthIsAll", I have been posting election analysis to determine the True Vote ever since.

Bill Binney States that the NSA Has 32 Pages of Communications Between Seth Rich and Julian Assange, As Revealed by a FOIA Request

Richard Charnin
April 21, 2019

Mark F. McCarty in Medium.com
View story at Medium.com

“About six months ago, a blogpost by “Publius Tacitus” appeared regarding attorney Ty Clevenger’s FOIA request regarding Seth Rich:
“But now there is new information that may corroborate what the human sources quoted in the Fox article claimed about Seth’s role in getting the DNC documents to Wikileaks. Borne from a FOIA request filed in November 2017 by attorney Ty Clevenger, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. The NSA informed Clevenger in a letter dated 4 October 2018 that:

Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.”

Here’s what Binney says:

“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange. And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files, 32 pages, but they’re all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore you can’t have them.

That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices.

If Binney is interpreting this correctly — and bear in mind that, not only is he extraordinarily bright, but he is sometimes referred to as “the father of the NSA” — this provides strong support for the hypothesis that Seth was indeed Wikileaks’ source for the DNC emails it published. Assange has strongly hinted at this, Sy Hersh claims to have a trusted informant inside the FBI who states that he has seen FBI documents verifying this, and Binney himself says that he has two sources inside the intel community vouching for this.”

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 21, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

Bill Binney: The Mueller Report lied about the DNC Server. It was a leak not a Russian hack

Richard Charnin
April 19, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

“CIA DIRECTOR MIKE Pompeo met late last month with a former U.S. intelligence official who has become an advocate for a disputed theory that the theft of the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential campaign was an inside job, rather than a hack by Russian intelligence.

Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system.

Binney claims the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the Democratic National Committee e-mails were leaked by an insider instead. He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote this theory. Binney said that the “intelligence community wasn’t being honest here”. He has also been frequently cited on Breitbart News. In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 19, 2019 in 2016 election

 

Trump had the Big MO: He won voters who decided after Sep1 by at least 48-40%

Richard Charnin
Feb. 24, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

National Exit Poll- When Decided 

The NEP is ALWAYS adjusted to match the recorded vote.

The 2016 NEP indicates that of the 26% of voters who decided after Oct.1, 48% voted for Trump and 40% for Clinton. Of the 74% who decided before Oct.1, Clinton led 51-45%.

Of the 40% of voters who decided after Sept.1, Trump won by 48.0-42.0%. Clinton won voters who decided before Sept.1 by 52.5-45.0%.

Were Clinton’s  poll shares rigged to match the recorded vote? Clinton won the national recorded vote by 2.8 million. She won IL, CA and NY by a combined 7 million votes. Therefore Trump won the recorded vote by at least 4 million everywhere else.

But Trump’s True Vote margin had to be higher than 4 million. As many as 3 million of Clinton’s 7 million margin in IL, CA and NY may have been fraudulent- matching her national 2.8 million margin. Were Clinton’s votes inflated (rigged) in these and other states?

Since the NEP was forced to match Clinton’s 48.3-46.2% recorded vote, it appears that her vote shares were inflated.

The third-party Recorded vote is another clue that Clinton’s vote was rigged.
According to the National Exit Poll, 4% of voters who decided before Oct.1 voted for a third party candidate; 12% voted third party after Oct.1. Jill Stein had just 1% of the total recorded vote. Could it be that Jill really had at least 3% of which 2% or more were shifted to Clinton?

Click for state deciders href=”https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit?fbclid=IwAR2CRD4z4Z7Q_qpEYNDM9EOj8q5Jzy1_LkKM1lF5TqZngXsp48WoTcMcUE8#gid=1036252757″

Decided…. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Post Oct. 1 26% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0%
Pre Oct. 1.. 74% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0%
Total……… 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%

Decided….. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Post Sept. 1 40% 42.0% 48.0% 10.0%
Pre Sept 1.. 60% 52.5% 45.0% 2.5%
Total……… 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%

State exit poll………….. IL…….. CA……. NY
Total Recorded %…… 56-39-5.. 62-32-4. 60-37-3
Before Oct.1……….….66-32-2.. 67-29-4. 67-31-2 < Rigged?
After Oct.1…………… 33-55-12. 51-42-7. 38-53-9 < shift to Trump & 3rd party
Votes (mil)…………….. 5.5……. 14.2……. 7.5
Margin (mil)…………… 0.95……. 4.3…….. 1.7 Total 6.95 million

https://scontent.fmia1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52830928_2582663225109009_9135850851154264064_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeG2bdqKdBw2QbAT7jh9x2Lr4oMSzVQnHH3lptQnmmyZ6Xt68OirxZBqcDJdq7uk5Tg5IEydhOqjPRmZTKn7kN-sr2MleovhVwa0itVqhnhrFA&_nc_ht=scontent.fmia1-1.fna&oh=f96540887d5279fbe3444495fb3ae42c&oe=5D248212

 
3 Comments

Posted by on February 24, 2019 in 2016 election

 

STATES OFFERING DRIVER’S LICENSES TO UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS

Richard Charnin
Feb. 17, 2019

From Q: It’s very simple – w/o the illegal vote D’s lose.
Previous illegal imm high pop v D win by county provided.
[Example 2]

Why do D’s push for illegals to obtain a driver’s license?
Does having a DL make it easier to vote?

This brief summarizes state legislation authorizing driver’s licenses or authorization cards for unauthorized immigrants (not to be used for federal identification purposes) and examples of limits or exceptions for legal immigrants’ licenses.

http://www.ncsl.org/…/states-offering-driver-s-licenses-to-…

What states provide DL’s to illegals?
What checks are in place within each of the ‘DL granted states’ to prevent 2x-3x-4x-5x voting?

Compare v. 2016 Presidential election results.
What do you notice?
Do you believe in coincidences?
Memes are important.
#FactsMatter
Q

Total…………..Clinton…………………Trump
136,216,677 65,719,398 48.25% 62,889,892 46.17%
DL states
34,675,682 19,700,670 56.81% 12,439,441 35.87%
Non DL
101,540,995 46,018,728 45.32% 50,450,451 49.68%
No photo description available.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 17, 2019 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , ,

Did CBS and CNN low-ball Trump’s Democratic SOTU viewers and approval?

Richard Charnin
Feb 7, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Did CBS and CNN low-ball Trump’s Democratic SOTU viewers and approval?

According to CBS and CNN, 76% of  viewers approved of Trump’s SOTU. But the percentage of Democratic viewers was very low considering that CBS and CNN viewers are heavily Democratic.  Trump must have done much better among Democratic viewers than indicated in each poll and may have had over 80% total approval.

On CBS, Republican viewers (44%) outnumbered Democrats (25%) and Independents (31%) with 30% of Dems approving, 97% of Repubs and 82% of Independents. One would expect that CBS viewers would be overwhelmingly Democrats.

Assume CBS viewers were Dem 60%, Rep 20%, Ind 20%. Then to match Trump’s total 76% approval, estimated Dem approval is 66%, Rep 97%, Ind 86%.  This is plausible.

Assume CBS viewers represented Gallup national voter affiliation (34% Dem, 25% Rep, 41% Ind). Then to match Trump’s 76% approval, estimated Dem approval is 56%, Rep 97%, Ind 80%.

On CNN, Dem approval is 36%, Rep 87%, Ind 57%. Then to match 76% Trump approval, CNN viewers must have been: Dem 15%, Rep 75%, Ind 10%. This is not plausible.

Assume CNN viewers were Dem 45%, Rep 30%, Ind 25% with  Dem approval 66%, Rep 97%, Ind 87%. Then Trump had 81% total approval. This is plausible.

CBS poll Pct Approv
Dem………25% 30% < NOT PLAUSIBLE. Only 25% Dem viewers?
Rep……….44% 97%
Ind………..31% 82%
Total…….100% 76%

CBS1……. Pct Approv
Dem……. 60% 66% < 60% Dem is plausible
Rep……… 20% 97%
Ind………. 20% 86%
Total…….100% 76%

CBS2……. Pct Approv
Dem……. 60% 75% < 60% Dem is plausible
Rep……… 20% 97%
Ind………. 20% 86%
Total…….100% 82%   TRUMP 82% TOTAL APPROVAL

Gallup……Pct Approv
Dem………34% 56%
Rep……….25% 97%
Ind………..41% 80%
Total…….100% 76%

CNN poll.. Pct Approv
Dem………15% 36% < NOT PLAUSIBLE. Only 15% Dem viewers?
Rep………..75% 87%
Ind…………10% 57% Only 10% Ind?
Total…….100% 76%

CNN1….. Pct Approv
Dem……. 30% 60% < only 30% Dem viewers?
Rep…….. 30% 87%
Ind……… 40% 80%
Total…….100% 76%

CNN2….. Pct Approv
Dem……. 45% 66% <plausible
Rep…….. 30% 97%
Ind……… 25% 87%
Total…….100% 81%  TRUMP 81% TOTAL APPROVAL

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 7, 2019 in 2018 Elections

 

Tags: , ,

2016 Census Race Demographic & National Exit Poll indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.27, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

This analysis of the 2016 National Exit Poll Race cross tab and corresponding Vote Census indicates that Clinton did not win the true popular vote.

She won the recorded vote, which is never the same as the true vote. The recorded vote is often fraudulent. The National Exit Poll (NEP) is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it requires adjusting the category percentage mix and corresponding vote shares. 

Recorded vote:  Clinton  48.25%- Trump 46.17%;  Margin 2.83 mil; Trump has 57% of whites. The NEP indicates Whites were 71% of the electorate.

The Census indicates Whites were 73.3% of the electorate (0.4% MoE). Making just this change to the NEP and keeping vote shares constant, Trump wins by 703,000.

Sensitivity Analysis (assume Whites 73.3% of the electorate)
1. Trump 57% of whites+21% other (black, hispanic, asian, other)
Trump 47.39%- Clinton 46.88%;   Margin 703,000

2. Trump 58% of whites+21% other 
Trump 48.12%-Clinton 46.14%; Margin 2.700 million

3. Trump 59% of whites+22% other 
Trump 49.12%-Clinton 45.14%; Margin 5.425 million

National Exit
Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 29.0% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Clinton Margin
Calc 100.0% 47.73% 46.56% 5.71% 1.17%
136,216 65,016 63,422 7,778 1,594
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833

……

Census
National Exit Poll
Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 73.31% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 26.69% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Trump Margin
Calc 100.00% 46.88% 47.39% 5.73% 0.52%
136,216 63,852 64,555 7,809 703
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833

Sensitivity Analysis

Trump % White
Trump % 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white Trump
24.0% 48.19% 48.93% 49.66% 50.39% 51.12%
23.0% 47.93% 48.66% 49.39% 50.12% 50.86%
22.0% 47.66% 48.39% 49.12% 49.86% 50.59%
21.0% 47.39% 48.12% 48.86% 49.59% 50.32%
20.0% 47.12% 47.86% 48.59% 49.32% 50.06%
Clinton
24.0% 46.07% 45.34% 44.61% 43.88% 43.14%
23.0% 46.34% 45.61% 44.88% 44.14% 43.41%
22.0% 46.61% 45.88% 45.14% 44.41% 43.68%
21.0% 46.88% 46.14% 45.41% 44.68% 43.94%
20.0% 47.14% 46.41% 45.68% 44.94% 44.21%
Trump margin
24.0% 2,885 4,882 6,879 8,876 10,873
23.0% 2,158 4,155 6,152 8,149 10,146
22.0% 1,430 3,428 5,425 7,422 9,419
21.0% 703 2,700 4,698 6,695 8,692
20.0% -24 1,973 3,971 5,968 7,965
Census NEP
Census 2016 Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 100,849 73.31% 37% 57% 6%
Black 17,119 12.44% 89% 8% 3%
Latino 12,682 9.22% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 5,049 3.67% 65% 27% 8%
Other 1,843 1.34% 56% 36% 8%
Calc 137,567 100.0% 47.42% 46.84% 5.73%
65,234 64,431 7,877
Margin 803
National Exit Poll
NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37% 57% 6%
Black 12.0% 89% 8% 3%
Latino 11.0% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 4.0% 65% 27% 8%
Other 2.0% 56% 36% 8% Clinton Margin
Calc 100.00% 47.93% 46.31% 5.76% 1.62%
136,216 65,288 63,082 7,846 2,207
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1447777586
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1088655249
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

Other adjustments: True Vote Sensitivity
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit?fbclid=IwAR3x0INVIU5VkxsAhSG4IU3JonEc0DOThwK2iwBIoQVx92ld6feg4DM1SfA#gid=1672204415

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2019 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

2018 House Election: Dems needed a 5.6% popular vote margin to win the House

Richard Charnin
Jan. 20, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Nate Silver calculated that the Dems needed a 5.6% popular vote margin to win the House (218-217). https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

The Dems won by 8% (53.1-45.1%, 8.9 million recorded votes) a 235-200 seat margin. 

But the Dems won 32 of 38 tossups- a 1 in 100,000 probability, an indicator of fraud. Thirty-three of the 38 tossups were held by Repubs. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2018/11/11/2018-house-probability-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Rasmussen was the only pollster to project a Repub win: 46-45%.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.html

The National Generic Exit Poll was forced to closely match the recorded vote. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nB_kFzxGOEDQoNU6X1x7YyG6Mc3-Tb1S1r8TjmamwqQ/edit#gid=210218497

2018 NEP Party ID Republicans Democrats Other
Republicans 33% 94% 6% 0
Democrats 37% 4% 95% 1%
Independents 30% 42% 54% 4%
Calc share 100% 45.10% 53.33% 1.57%
Calc vote 111,478,885 50,276,977 59,451,689 1,750,218
Popular vote 111,835,736 50,449,312 59,379,804 2,006,620
Popular share 100% 45.10% 53.10% 1.80%
House 201 234

Assuming Silver’s analysis,  a Dem popular vote margin under 5.6% would result in the Repubs winning the House. For example, if the Repubs had 47% of Independents, keeping other NEP percentages constant, the  Dems would have a 51.8-46.6% win (5.2% margin, 5.6 million votes) but the Repubs would win the House.

Generic Party-ID Rep Dem Other
Rep 33% 94% 6% 0%
Dem 37% 4% 95% 1%
Ind  30% 47% 49% 4%
Share 46.60% 51.83% 1.57%
Votes 51,408 57,177 1,732

A 1% gain/loss in margin results in a gain/loss of approximately 7 seats =17/2.6. (17=235-218; 2.6= 8.2-5.6)

Dem Margin Dem Seats
8.23% 235
7.36% 230
6.49% 225
5.63% 218
4.78% 215
3.93% 210
3.09% 205

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 20, 2019 in 2018 Elections

 

Tags: , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis