Category Archives: Uncategorized

2016 Census Race Demographic & National Exit Poll indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.27, 2019


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


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%
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

Other adjustments: True Vote Sensitivity

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.

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%
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



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.

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.


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.

“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.

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!”

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.

 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

% 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%
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



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



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


Tags: , , ,

Mainstream Media and the Mathematics of Conspiracies

Mainstream Media and the Mathematics of Conspiracies

Richard Charnin
Dec. 31, 2017

Mainstream media pundits who called me a JFK / Seth Rich “Conspiracy Theorist”  avoided mathematical proofs in my blog posts, five books and the 84-page Moore complaint.  They also failed to mention that I was the only analyst in the universe to exactly forecast the electoral vote in each of the last three elections. Granted, a combination of skill and luck. My Blog  Posts:

The True Pundit: The election experts, who submitted affidavits in the complaint, agree that the irregularities in 20 precincts of Jefferson County alone are enough to reverse the outcome of the election. Richard Charnin, who holds three degrees in applied mathematics, and who has written four books on election fraud, calculates the probability of the election results in these precincts happening naturally is “less than one in 15 billion.”


Porter also defended the campaign against questions about one of the election experts that it cited in the court brief, Richard Charnin. Charnin has claimed there is a “less than one in 15 billion” chance that voter fraud played no role in the Alabama outcome. Bash questioned Charnin’s credentials, noting he has previously used mathematical analysis to claim that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy.

The Hill: Moore and his campaign filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Montgomery, Alabama, listing several allegations and called for “a new special election.” His complaint alleges that out-of-state residents had been allowed to vote and that election fraud experts had concluded through statistical analyses that fraud had taken place. One of the election experts Moore cites is Richard Charnin, who also posts about JFK conspiracy theories and the murder of DNC staffer, Seth Rich.

Washington Post:   Richard Charnin, who provided the court with an argument that there was just enough possible fraud to swing the election, claimed to have “mathematically” proved a conspiracy behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In 2016, Charnin alleged that mass election fraud had stolen key Democratic primaries from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), to the benefit of eventual nominee Hillary Clinton.

NPR:  Richard Charnin, one of those so-called experts, is a well-known conspiracy theorist whose blog contains sections about the John F. Kennedy assassination and claims that Trump won the popular vote in the 2016 election — even though he in fact lost it by almost 3 million votes.

LAW AND CRIME: Nearly three weeks have passed, and Moore has still refused to concede to Democrat Doug Jones who won the election by more than 20,000 votes. The Alabama Secretary of State is expected to certify the election results on Thursday (and says he plans to despite the complaint). The complaint, filed in Alabama state court, also called for a new election. However, probably most entertaining (troubling? frightening?), is that in the complaint, Moore’s attorneys attach several affidavits from so-called election experts including Richard Charnin, who calculated that the probability of the elections results in these precincts happening naturally is ‘less than one in 15 billion.”

RAW STORY: Richard Charnin, the purported “expert” in voter fraud who has been cited by the Roy Moore campaign to claim that Democrat Doug Jones did not legitimately win this month’s Alabama Senate special election, is a notorious conspiracy theorist who has claimed that he has “mathematically proved” that there was a vast conspiracy to assassinate former President John F. Kennedy. As noted by CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins, Charnin in 2014 published a book called “Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy,” which was described as “a mathematical analysis of unnatural deaths, witness testimony, altered evidence and media disinformation” about Kennedy’s assassination in 1963. In essence, the book examines purportedly “unnatural” deaths of key people related to the supposed assassination plot — and concludes that it’s mathematically impossible for their deaths to be a coincidence. “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy is based on a statistical analysis of unnatural JFK-related deaths, Dealey Plaza eyewitness observations, medical, acoustic and photographic evidence,” reads the book’s description. “Warren Commission defenders and the Corporate Media avoid the evidence and continue to promote the bogus Single Bullet Theory and that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository.” Collins says that Charnin has written extensively on his personal blog about both voter fraud conspiracies and has also calculated the probabilities that the DNC had former staffer Seth Rich murdered to cover up his ties to WikiLeaks.

The Telegraph-UK:” It cited “irregularities in 20 precincts” of the state’s Jefferson County which it said were “enough to reverse the outcome of the election,” quoting the views of conspiracy theorist Richard Charnin who claims the 2004 presidential election and 2016 Democratic primary were also rigged”.

NY Magazine: One of the experts Moore cites is Richard Charnin, who says the probability that the election results are accurate is “less than one in 15 billion.” Charnin runs a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis,” and is known for pushing dubious voter-fraud claims, like that George W. Bush stole the 2004 election from John Kerry, Bernie Sanders is the rightful winner of the 2016 Democratic primary, and President Trump actually beat Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, not just the Electoral College.

Newsweek: the election, which marked the first time a Republican had lost a Senate election in Alabama in over two decades, Moore has refused to concede to Jones. The suit cites three “national election integrity experts” who state fraud occurred during December 12’s special election and includes Moore’s claim of passing a polygraph test to prove he did not commit any acts of sexual misconduct or molestation with teenage girls, according to “This is not a Republican or Democrat issue as election integrity should matter to everyone,” Moore said according to “We call on Secretary of State Merrill to delay certification until there is a thorough investigation of what three independent election experts agree took place: election fraud sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election.”

New York Times: was not immediately clear when a judge would consider Mr. Moore’s complaint or the affidavits from several people his campaign described as experts in elections; To support his arguments, Mr. Moore included affidavits from several people his campaign described as experts in elections; one has claimed to have “mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate” President John F. Kennedy. (Mr. Moore has himself indulged in conspiracy theories, including that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.)

BBC: Moore’s lawsuit alleges that there were voting irregularities in 20 precincts and calls for a fraud investigation and a new election. One of the election experts cited in the suit is Richard Charnin, a conspiracy theorist who also claims there was widespread voter fraud against Donald Trump in the presidential election. Mr Moore’s lawyer said the purpose of the complaint was to “preserve evidence of potential election fraud and to postpone the certification of Alabama’s Special Election by Secretary of State John Merrill until a thorough investigation of potential election fraud, that improperly altered the outcome of this election”.

NBC: The statement gives few details of the purported irregularities, which it says were substantiated “with a reasonable degree of statistical and mathematical certainty” by three election experts.The statement identifies only one of the experts, Richard Charnin, whom it quotes as saying the probability that the official election results were accurate was “less than one in 15 billion.” Charnin, who says he has three degrees in applied mathematics, is a prominent figure among believers that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy. He has also argued that the Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election and that Hillary Clinton stole the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

The Hill: Porter also defended the campaign against questions about one of the election experts that it cited in the court brief, Richard Charnin. Charnin has claimed there is a “less than one in 15 billion” chance that voter fraud played no role in the Alabama outcome. Bash questioned Charnin’s credentials, noting he has previously used mathematical analysis to claim that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a conspiracy.

NY DAILY NEWS: Roy Moore tried and failed to challenge the outcome of the U.S. Senate special election where he was bested by Democrat Doug Jones. We are grateful that Alabamians rejected Republican Moore, with his bigoted views and documented history of attempts to seduce teen girls, won’t be in the Senate. But count us disappointed that Moore’s ex-colleagues on the Alabama Supreme Court denied him fair opportunity to prove his cockamamie claim that rampant voter fraud denied him so many votes that he should have beaten Jones instead of losing by around 22,000 votes.

THE ATLANTIC: of the lawsuit focused on what Moore’s attorneys described as electoral anomalies that raise questions about the 22,000-vote margin. They include “expert testimony” from a Florida-based elections analyst named Richard Charnin who wrote in an accompanying letter that there was “overwhelming statistical proof of fraud in Jefferson County.” (Charnin is perhaps best known, to the extent that he is, as a positor of conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and, more recently, the 2016 murder of Seth Rich, a staffer with the Democratic National Committee.) Moore alleges that in Republican precincts in the county, there was an unexplained drop-off in votes by people who checked off a straight party-line vote for the GOP but did not vote for Moore.

THE GUARDIAN: The filing cited “experts” including Richard Charnin, who has a blog dedicated to John F Kennedy conspiracy theories and has also floated conspiracies over the 2016 death of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee staffer. Another cited authority, James Condit Jr, has espoused antisemitic views and promoted conspiracies about a supposed Jewish takeover of the Vatican.

DAILY DOT:  Richard Charnin, who prognosticates elections online, said he saw enough evidence to say that the election could have been swung illegally for Doug Jones. Charnin’s previous claim to fame is that he thinks it’s mathematically proven that John F. Kennedy’s assassination was a conspiracy. “I mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate JFK – and cover it up,” Charnin says on his website. “JFK Calc is a spreadsheet database of suspicious and unnatural witness deaths and other statistical anomalies. Many witnesses who were called to testify in four investigations died unnaturally. The probability is one in trillions – absolute mathematical proof of a conspiracy.

LAGNIAPPEMOBILE All three experts submitted affidavits to the court along with Moore’s complaint, though only one was identified by the Moore campaign in its statement announcing the legal challenge. Richard Charnin is quoted as saying the probability of the election results in certain precincts in Jefferson County happening naturally is “less than one in 15 billion.” Charnin is no stranger to post-election controversy, though. He has a history of making similar claims after races won by both parties like the 2004 presidential election of George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton’s victory in the 2016 Democratic primary. According to the New York Times, Charnin has also claims to have “mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate” President John F. Kennedy.


NY DAILY NEWS: One “expert” named by Moore was Richard Charnin, who has claimed to have “mathematically proved a conspiracy to assassinate” President John F. Kennedy. A website run Charnin specializes in writings about election fraud and notes about JFK conspiracies. In a blog post from earlier this month, Charnin cites the “the FACT that the recorded vote is ALWAYS fraudulent” and claims that President Trump won the 2016 popular vote, which he lost by nearly 3 million. While Charnin calling the Alabama victory of Jones fraudulent is therefore not surprising, Moore’s camp said that a thorough investigation should be launched based on his expertise.

1 Comment

Posted by on December 31, 2017 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis