RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

 

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: , , ,

Arizona Senate Poll Analysis (Cont.)

Richard Charnin
Nov.3, 2018

The latest CNN, NBC, CBS AZ senate polls show Sinema up by 4,6 and 3%. FOX has the race tied at 46%. The FOX internal numbers say otherwise.

McSally leads by 48.7-45.8%. But this is conservative as FOX gives her just 3% of Dems and 85% of Repubs. The assumption is that they split Independents 50-50%.

When will the MSM learn? You can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/az/arizona_senate_mcsally_vs_sinema-6328.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/392088280/Fox-Arizona-Late-October-Complete-Topline-October-31-Release#from_embed

AZ Party ID McSally Sinema
Rep 50% 85% << low 8%
Dem 40% 3% << low 92%
Ind/Other 10% 50% 50%
Total 100.0% 48.7% 45.8%
11/2 Early voting (000) 1461 ballots 611 Rep (41.8%) 495 Dem (33.9%)
Let’s make these plausible adjustments (in bold) to McSally’s shares. McSally has 51.4%.
AZ Party ID McSally Sinema
Rep 50% 88% 8%
Dem 40% 6% 92%
Ind/Other 10% 50% 50%
Total 100.0% 51.4% 45.8%
Sensitivity Analysis- McSally’s total share from worst case lower left cell (48.7%) to best case upper right (52.2%)
McSally % Rep
McSally 85% 86% 87% 88%
%Dem
8% 50.7% 51.2% 51.7% 52.2%
7% 50.3% 50.8% 51.3% 51.8%
6% 49.9% 50.4% 50.9% 51.4%
5% 49.5% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0%
4% 49.1% 49.6% 50.1% 50.6%
3% 48.7% 49.2% 49.7% 50.2%
Note: The AZ 2016 final exit poll Party ID differs from the FOX poll. But the HRC and DJT total vote shares nearly match.
AZ 2016 Party ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 28.0% 89.0% 7.0% 3.0% 0.0%
Rep 32.0% 7.0% 88.0% 3.0% 0.0%
Ind 40.0% 44.0% 47.0% 5.0% 2.0%
Total 100.0% 44.8% 48.9% 3.8% 0.80%
Votes 2,573 1,152 1,259 98 21
Margin 107 4.2%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 3, 2018 in 2018 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags:

Sharyl Attkisson: Collusion against Trump timeline

Richard Charnin
Aug. 20, 2018

A great resource from Sharyl Attkisson: Collusion Against Trump Timeline

“On the other side, evidence has emerged in the past year that makes it clear there were organized efforts to collude against candidate Donald Trump–and then President Trump. For example:

– Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.

– A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material–in part–to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.

– There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press, including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.

– The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and politially-motivated “unmaskings” of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.

– Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump’s alleged Russia ties.

But it’s not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these events.

Here’s a work in progress”.

………………

We the media have “fact-checked” President Trump like we have fact-checked no other human being on the planet—and he’s certainly given us plenty to write about. That’s probably why it’s so easy to find lists enumerating and examining his mistakes, missteps and “lies.”

But as self-appointed arbiters of truth, we’ve largely excused our own unprecedented string of fact-challenged reporting. The truth is, formerly well-respected, top news organizations are making repeat, unforced errors in numbers that were unheard of just a couple of years ago.

So since nobody else has compiled an updated, extensive list of this kind, here are:
50 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era:-the Definitive List

Our repeat mistakes involve declaring that Trump’s claims are “lies” when they are matters of opinion, or when the truth between conflicting sources is unknowable; taking Trump’s statements and events out of context; reporting secondhand accounts against Trump without attribution as if they’re established fact; relying on untruthful, conflicted sources; and presenting reporter opinions in news stories—without labeling them as opinions.

What’s worse, we defend ourselves by trying to convince the public that our mistakes are actually a virtue because we (sometimes) correct them. Or we blame Trump for why we’re getting so much wrong. It’s a little bit like a police officer taking someone to jail for DUI, then driving home drunk himself: he may be correct to arrest the suspect, but he should certainly know better than to commit the same violation.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 20, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Memo to the President Ahead of Monday’s Summit

Richard Charnin
July 15,2018

Ray McGovern and Bill Binney have written an open letter to President Trump ahead of Monday’s summit. 

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/

With Friday’s indictments of Russian intelligence officers, Ray McGovern and Bill Binney have written an open letter to President Trump making clear that the “evidence” behind the indictments is as fraudulent as the intelligence alleging WMD in Iraq. It is being published exclusively here ahead of the Trump-Putin summit on Monday.

BRIEFING FOR: The President
FROM: Ray McGovern, former CIA briefer of The President’s Daily Brief, and William Binney, former Technical Director at NSA

SUBJECT: Info Your Summit Briefers May Have Missed

We reproduce below one of our most recent articles on “Russia-Gate,” which, in turn, draws from our Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Memorandum to you of July 24, 2017.

At the time of that Memorandum we wrote:

“Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack.”

“We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI,” we wrote. However, we now have forensic evidence that shows the data provided by Guccifer 2.0 had been manipulated and is a fabrication.

We also discussed CIA’s cyber-tool “Marble Framework,” which can hack into computers, “obfuscate” who hacked, and leave behind incriminating, tell-tale signs in Russian; and we noted that this capability had been employed during 2016.  As we pointed out, Putin himself made an unmistakable reference to this “obfuscating” tool during an interview with Megan Kelly.

Our article of June 7, 2018, explains further:

“Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack”

If you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny. It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever been questioned by his team.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — including two “alumni” who were former National Security Agency technical directors — have long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he called the “emails related to Hillary Clinton” via a “hack” by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee computers who copied the material onto an external storage device — probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.

more…

My Books
Trump Won the True Vote: Polling Anomalies, Democratic Defections, Independents and Late Undecided Voters
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 15, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders, and then she rigged the presidential.

Richard Charnin
June 23, 2018

Clinton rigged the primary against Sanders-  and then she rigged the presidential. The MSM was in the tank for HRC.  In the presidential election, Clinton’s pre-election and unadjusted exit poll vote shares were inflated in anticipation of the fraud.

http://projectcensored.org/clintonistasdnc-illegally-stole-democratic-primaries-bernie-sanders/

“Finally, almost all election ballots are counted by computers and cannot be verified by the public. Apart from being non-transparent, this method of counting ballots is also problematic because electronic voting machines can easily be hacked. Essentially, Clintonista computer hackers could have flipped a minimum number of votes spread over a maximum number of polling stations by inserting a malicious code or algorithm into the voting tabulation software. As a result, this code would allow the final number of votes to “remain random in a way that would avoid detection by election fraud analysis tools.”

Suspiciously, multiple studies show that across all primary states, Clinton performed best in counties with electronic voting machines that didn’t leave a paper trail. https://www.theepochtimes.com/voting-machines-in-16-states-tied-to-george-soros-ally_2176907.html

Additionally, Election Justice USA found that the computer counts differed widely from the exit poll projections, but only for the Democratic Party primaries. According to election analyst Richard Charnin, Bernie Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded vote share by greater than the margin of error in 11 of 26 primaries: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. Charnin reported that the probability of this occurring is 1 in 77 billion, which raises the strong possibility of election fraud. Yet, almost no discrepancies were found in the data for the Republican Party primaries. This is particularly remarkable, because the exit polls were conducted on the same day, in the same precincts, with the same interviewers, and used the same methodologies for both the parties. So, this evidence suggests that the computer counts were only accurate for the Republican Party, while the computer counts for the Democratic Party primaries remain largely unverified.

The exit polls for the Democratic primaries were conducted by Edison Research, which is the exclusive provider of exit polls to the National Election Pool (NEP), which includes ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and the Associated Press. The National Election Pool has a policy that exit pollsters must adjust and force all state and national exit polls to match the recorded vote count, as if the computerized votes are always correct and as if there is no fraud!”

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/23743/

My Books
Trump Won the True Vote: Polling Anomalies, Democratic Defections, Independents and Late Undecided Voters
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Exposing the 2016 Popular Vote Myth

Exposing the 2016 Popular Vote Myth

Richard Charnin

April 5, 2018

The myth that Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million is parroted daily by pundits, even Trump supporters. Clinton won a fraudulent recorded popular vote, but Trump won the True Vote. It’s 2018 and the pundits still fail to recognize the historical fact that the recorded vote is never the same as the True Vote.  It’s past time for a great awakening.

Trump won the estimated True Vote by 50.5-43.4%, a 9.7 million vote margin. We estimate the True Vote based on the following simple models:

  • 1 Adjustments to the recorded vote: illegal votes , disenfranchised voters, voting machine flips 
  • 2 Race: Census breakdown and shares of white and non-white voters
  • 3 Returning 2012 voters and 2016 vote shares
  • 4 Party-ID: Gallup voter survey and vote shares
  • 5 When Decided: before and after Sept. 1

Given Model 1 adjustments to the recorded vote, we calculate an estimated True Vote. In models 2,3,4,5 we estimate vote shares required to match the True Vote.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1672204415 https://www.theepochtimes.com/voting-machines-in-16-states-tied-to-george-soros-ally_2176907.html http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/

 Input Estimate Clinton Trump Other
Illegal 3.0 mil 85% 10% 5%
Disenfranchise 4.0 mil 85% 10% 5%
Machine Flip 7.0 mil 0% 90% 10%
1 Adjust Total Clinton Trump Other Margin
Recorded  136.22 65.72 62.89 7.61 2.83
48.25% 46.17% 5.59% 2.08%
Illegal -3.0 -2.55 -0.30 -0.15 -2.25
Disenfran 4.0 3.40 0.40 0.20 3.00
Vote Flip 0.0 -7.00 6.30 0.70 -13.30
Total Vote 137.22 59.57 69.29 8.36 9.72
 True Vote 43.41% 50.50% 6.09% 7.08%
2 Census Pct Clinton Trump Other
white (adj.) 73.30% 32.4% 61.14% 6.5%
Black 12.45% 84% 13% 3%
Latino 9.22% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 3.67% 65% 27% 8%
Other 1.36% 56% 36% 8%
True Vote 100.00% 43.41% 50.50% 6.09%
Recorded 100% 48.25% 46.17% 5.59%
3 Party-ID Gallup Pct Clinton Trump Other
Dem 31.0% 88.0% 10.0% 2.0%
Rep 28.0% 5.0% 92.0% 3.0%
Ind 41.0% 36.0% 53.0% 11.0%
True Vote 100.0% 43.44% 50.59% 5.97%
Votes 137.22 59.61 69.42 8.19
4 Returning 2012 voters Mix Clinton Trump Other
Obama 41.33% 85% 10% 5%
Romney 40.80% 5% 92% 3%
Other 1.54% 35% 40% 25%
DNV (new) 16.32% 35% 51% 14%
True Vote 100.0% 43.43% 50.61% 5.96%
Votes 137.22 59.59 69.45 8.18
5 When Decided Pct Clinton Trump Other
Before Sept 1 60.0% 48% 48% 4.0%
After Sept 1 40.0% 37% 54% 9.2%
True Vote   43.41% 50.50% 6.09%

Sensitivity Analysis

Trump
% Whites 59.0% 60.0% 61.0% 62.0% 63.0%
% Blacks Trump %
16% 49.28% 50.01% 50.75% 51.48% 52.21%
15% 49.15% 49.89% 50.62% 51.35% 52.09%
14% 49.03% 49.76% 50.50% 51.23% 51.96%
13% 48.91% 49.64% 50.37% 51.10% 51.84%
12% 48.78% 49.51% 50.25% 50.98% 51.71%
Clinton
16% 44.63% 43.90% 43.16% 42.43% 41.70%
15% 44.75% 44.02% 43.29% 42.56% 41.82%
14% 44.88% 44.15% 43.41% 42.68% 41.95%
13% 45.00% 44.27% 43.54% 42.80% 42.07%
12% 45.13% 44.39% 43.66% 42.93% 42.20%
Share Margin
16% 4.65% 6.12% 7.58% 9.05% 10.51%
15% 4.40% 5.87% 7.33% 8.80% 10.26%
14% 4.15% 5.62% 7.08% 8.55% 10.02%
13% 3.90% 5.37% 6.83% 8.30% 9.77%
12% 3.65% 5.12% 6.59% 8.05% 9.52%
Vote Margin
16% 6.38 8.39 10.40 12.41 14.43
15% 6.04 8.05 10.06 12.07 14.08
14% 5.70 7.71 9.72 11.73 13.74
13% 5.36 7.37 9.38 11.39 13.40
12% 5.01 7.03 9.04 11.05 13.06

My Books

Trump Won the True Vote

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

LINKS TO  POSTS

RECENT POSTS

2018 midterms

AZ Senate vs Governor a major discrepancy

17 House races: what-if?

Repub CA House races too close to call flipped to Dems

Did the GOP actually win the House?

2018 House probability analysis indicates fraud

GOP House: Red wave?

What is the probability Dems will win the House?

Arizona CBS Senate Poll More Anomalies

Generic vote forecast model vs RCP average (10-29)

Analysis of inflated Democratic generic polls indicates Republicans will win the House

GOP wins Texas-SD-19 for first time in-139-years

Florida Governor Polling Analysis

Trump has a higher approval rating than MSM polls

Rasmussen vs. WaPo: Trump approval

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2018 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis