Voter Fraud US Elections Part I
Voter Fraud US Elections Part II
I was prepared to stand down as my President elect Trump felt it would be in the best interest of our country and a divided nation.
It is now very clear that Hillary Clinton tears have dried up and now she is looking toward the President again.
She just can’t believe those entire union loyalists that have always voted Democrat let here down, so the count must be incorrect.
As I mentioned the other day, what kind of person wants to rule rather then govern the executive branch, and work with a unified senate and house regardless of party.
What happened to country first?
Realities are what they are. Clinton would be a rubber stamped, Obama legacy keeping executive order and fiat government, and the republicans would be seen as obstructers, with no power over the purse.
I’m just waking up and saw this article. You can bet your bottom dollar if the Clinton’s, Obama or Trump doesn’t know who I am by now, before I’m done illuminating the debacles originated by the Clinton’s, Sectary of State Clinton, DNC and Clinton Foundation and attempts to over throw the function of three branches of the U. S. of America by said same, in order to force all Americans to accept executives orders and fiat rather then bills from the congress, this Thread will be seen by those interested in their judicial and political future.
I have yet to express my full scope of thoughts, as I was preparing to stand down.
Were going to find out if the system is rigged.
If its ok to rule by executive orders and fiat, to the extent that makes the House’s Bills irrelevant and or both Houses in affective do to a Presidents Pet Bull as the Senate Majority Speaker, then do something about it.
Electoral Votes Discussions.
Peaceful Assembling in Protest more defined as it looks like folks think its cool to be destructive.
Screaming murder “Pigs” in reference to Cops, former Police Officers during rallies and marches is rather hateful speech, and can be seen as a encouragement for others to murder police officers, which by the way is happening a lot today, even during lunch breaks and trafficking citations.
What if thousands of folks marched in front of the White House, shouting, kill the President? What you going to do? Break out the portable potties, blankets, food and water? The EPA can provide furniture to burn in they want to I guess. All I know, is the EPA will ticket me if I make a warming fire on a farm.
Party over Country values, traditions, civil rights and free speech discussions ahead.
Hillary Clinton will never be President because she will have to be pardoned by Obama, and Mr. President, very soon I might add,
because I’m now making it my mission to force the truth out of the cracks of in justice.
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday condemned a growing push to force recounts in three states pivotal to his Nov. 8 victory, confronting the Green Party-backed effort for the first time even as he worked to address key Cabinet vacancies.
The New York billionaire, who charged the election was "rigged" on a daily basis before his victory, called the developing recount effort "a scam" in a statement released by his transition team.
Trump had been ignoring Green Party nominee Jill Stein's fight to revisit vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin officials announced late Friday they are moving forward with the first presidential recount in state history.
"The people have spoken and the election is over," Trump declared Saturday. He added, "We must accept this result and then look to the future."
“The Real Voter Fraud - The New York Times - nytimes.com - David Leonhardt - NOV. 8, 2016
These ideals have a stirring power, even in a year as uninspiring as 2016.- on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline:
“In Ohio, residents who make a minor error filling out personal information will have their votes discarded. It already happened to Roland Gilbert, a legally blind retired lawyer who in 2014 put the date in the wrong place on his ballot, as Reuters reported.
“Thousands of indisputably registered and eligible voters,” said Subodh Chandra, a lawyer suing the state, “are going to be disenfranchised solely because they made trivial, immaterial errors and omissions.”
In Texas, people have posted photographs to social media showing signs at polling places that claim voters need photo identification. They do not, thanks to a judge’s ruling, but the signs remain.
In Wisconsin, some state employees have made it difficult to obtain voter-identification cards, defying a court order. The same has happened here in North Carolina, with perfectly eligible voters receiving the runaround.
North Carolina has also closed polling places in some areas and changed early-voting hours. At a library in Charlotte on Saturday, the early-voting line stretched for hours. The changes have most likely contributed to the 9 percent decline — equaling 65,000 votes — in African-American early voting here, versus 2012. In Florida, which hasn’t had the same suppression, African-American voting is up.
Then there is the largest form of disenfranchisement: the combination of the imprisonment boom and state laws barring former prisoners from voting. As a result, 6.1 million Americans, and one in every 13 African-Americans, lack the ballot.
The stated rationale for making voting harder — fears of widespread voter fraud — has been thoroughly debunked. Only a minuscule number of people vote illegally.
The previous two statements were written to shame republicans and question republican’s integrity.
In North Carolina, a local party chairman emailed election officials to remind them that limited early voting was “in the best interest of the Republican Party.” In Green Bay, Wis., the Republican city clerk declined to put a polling place on a university campus because “students lean more toward the Democrats,” according to an email uncovered by Ari Berman, author of “Give Us the Ballot.”
Fortunately, the evidence suggests the tactic alters the outcome only in the very closest elections. (Not all of the disenfranchised end up voting for Democrats.) But no one should take much comfort from this. For one thing, some elections — potentially, this year’s races for president, governor and senator in North Carolina — are extremely close. And results aside, are we actually fighting over whether Americans have the right to vote?”
In the words of the New York Times author David Leonhardt, November. 8, 2016, Trump has nothing to worry about, but calls out republicans in a bias article.
We now know how far these cry babies will go to stay in power.
New York Times - By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MAGGIE HABERMAN
“WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Sunday that he had fallen short in the popular vote in the general election only because millions of people had voted illegally, leveling his claim — despite the absence of any such evidence — as part of a daylong storm of Twitter posts voicing anger about a three-state recount push.
“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Mr. Trump wrote Sunday afternoon.
The series of posts came one day after Hillary Clinton’s campaign said it would participate in a recount effort being undertaken in Wisconsin, and potentially in similar pushes in Michigan and Pennsylvania, by Jill Stein, who was the Green Party candidate. Mr. Trump’s statements revived claims he made during the campaign, as polls suggested he was losing to Mrs. Clinton, about a rigged and corrupt system.
.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, On Sunday morning, Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser, extended a public campaign to undermine one contender, Mitt Romney — a remarkable display by a member of a president-elect’s team. She accused Mr. Romney of having gone “out of his way to hurt” Mr. Trump during the Republican primary contests.
Officially, Mr. Trump’s transition team has dismissed the recount effort as “ridiculous” and a “scam,” saying there was no evidence of voter fraud that would justify the recounts. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has also said that it has turned up no signs of such fraud or other irregularities, and the Obama administration has issued statements expressing its confidence in the validity of the vote tallies.
But Mr. Trump appeared fixated on Sunday on the recount and his electoral performance. In a series of midafternoon Twitter posts, not long before he boarded a flight to New York from Florida, Mr. Trump boasted that he could have easily won the “so-called popular vote” if he had campaigned only in “3 or 4” states, presumably populous ones.
“I would have won even more easily and convincingly (but smaller states are forgotten)!” he wrote.
The afternoon messages followed a string of early-morning Twitter posts in which the president-elect railed against the recount efforts. In an initial post at 7:19, Mr. Trump wrote: “Hillary Clinton conceded the election when she called me just prior to the victory speech and after the results were in. Nothing will change.”
He went on to quote a comment by Mrs. Clinton during one of their debates, in which she said she was horrified by Mr. Trump’s refusal to say that he would accept the outcome of the election. And he noted that in her concession speech, she had urged people to respect the vote results.
“‘We have to accept the results and look to the future, Donald Trump is going to be our President,’” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, quoting Mrs. Clinton. “‘We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.’ So much time and money will be spent — same result! Sad.”
One person who spoke with Mr. Trump over the holiday weekend said the president-elect had appeared to be preoccupied by suggestions that a recount might be started, even as his aides played down any concerns. Another friend said Mr. Trump felt crossed by Mrs. Clinton, who he believed had conceded the race and accepted the results.
Mr. Trump’s aides echoed his concerns about the recount effort in appearances on Sunday morning television news programs. Ms. Conway, who was his campaign manager, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Mrs. Clinton and her campaign advisers would have to decide “whether they’re going to be a bunch of crybabies.”
The Clinton campaign will not contribute financially to the recount effort, but it will have its lawyers present at the recount, campaign officials said.”
MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MAGGIE HABERMAN of the New York Times, says there is no evidence of voter fraud. Who's right?
The political Left steadfastly opposes the enactment of Voter ID laws designed to guard against voter fraud in federal elections. To justify this stance, leftists typically argue that the incidence of such fraud is exceedingly rare, and that initiatives like Voter ID requirements are therefore not only unnecessary, but actually serve as a de facto form of vote suppression. Following are some examples of individuals and organizations that hold this view:
· Attorney General Eric Holder, who contends that "instances of in-person voting fraud are extremely rare," told a Texas audience in December 2011: "This notion that there is widespread in-person voter fraud is simply belied by the facts." Holder portrays Voter ID laws as nothing more than "political efforts" designed to make it "more difficult" for "groups that are not supportive of those in power" -- i.e., nonwhite minorities "who ... aren't necessarily supportive of the Republican Party" -- to "have access to the ballot."
· In an April 2014 address to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, President Barack Obama declared: "[L]et's be clear, the real voter fraud is the people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud."
· Hillary Clinton dismisses voter fraud as a "phantom epidemic" that exists chiefly in the imagination of conservatves.
· In September 2012, an ABC News story depicted voter fraud as a largely "non-existent problem."
· In an April 2014 decision regarding the implementation of a Wisconsin Voter ID law, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman wrote that "virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin."
· And in a June 2014 New York Times opinion piece, Dartmouth College assistant professor Brendan Nyhan asserted that "voter fraud is exceptionally rare across the country." He classified such fraud as "a misperception ... that is far more prevalent than the practice itself."
This section of Discover The Networks is intended to refute, with hard evidence, the foregoing assertions of the Left. The section consists of excerpts from hundreds of news stories reporting on fraud and improprieties in the voter-registration process as well as at the ballot box. These excerpts are arranged in chronological order according to when they were first published.
Voter Fraud in the US: Documented:
Part 1 consists of excerpts dealing with large-scale voter fraud cases involving hundreds, thousands, and in some cases millions of individuals or transgressions.
Part 2 consists of excerpts dealing with voter fraud cases involving dozens, or scores, of individuals or transgressions.
Part 3 consists of excerpts dealing with voter fraud cases involving smaller -- or, in some instances, indeterminate -- numbers of individuals or transgressions.
Taken together, the news items that comprise Parts 1 through 3 demonstrate that election-related fraud in the U.S. is in fact a problem of significant magnitude. That said, the full extent of the problem cannot be known for certain, simply because, as blogger John Hinderaker explains: "By definition, those who perpetrate [voter fraud] seek to go undetected, and it is a circular argument to say that there is no need for better law enforcement because our current lax enforcement hasn’t caught many violators."
Massive Voter Fraud Discovered in North Carolina’s 2012 Election - By PJ Media - April 2, 2014
Judicial Watch and Allied Educational Foundation Submit Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Tennessee’s Attempt to Remove Ineligible Voters from Voter Registration Lists - By Judicial Watch - June 13, 2012
Voter Fraud: Research Study Suggests Major Election Problems - By Examiner.com - February 20, 2012
Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade - By Pew Charitable Trusts - February 14, 2012
The Constitution and the Right To Vote: Protecting against Voter Fraud – October 6, 2011
Special Report: The Voter Fraud Threat to Free and Fair Elections - By Judicial Watch - August 4, 2011
FBI Investigating ACORN for Voter Fraud – October 16, 2008
CNN Exposes How ACORN Steals Votes for Democrats – October 10, 2008
Diebold Electronic Vote Fraud Confirmed – February 1, 2008
NH Voter Fraud: Domiciles at State Campsite – November 6, 2013
MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MAGGIE HABERMAN of the New York Times, says there is no evidence of voter fraud. Well there wrong, just study the evidences.
President Elect Trump is correct in stating there could be as many as 2 million votes one way or the other, voting for either major party or smaller party as claimed by one party requesting recount along side Hillary Clinton and tricky Bill, only thing is, Hillary, Bill or the Clinton Foundation want to chip in on the million dollar cost. But the minute fake vote’s change the count, the Clinton’s Attorneys would attempt to seize power, forcing the Supreme Court to go into immediate secession to determine the race’s out comes.
Only one decision could be made, and that would be to honor electoral votes.
It’s quite frankly, like spoiled children who lost their iPods or video game.
Voter Fraud exists and until it’s proven other wise, the resources available through the internet debunks this notion voter fraud doesn’t against.
Could be as high as 2 to 3 million illegal voters after you add up the dead people voting or double votes. I was sent two absentee ballots, but only filled out one.
Author was bias and in accurate by not clarifying there are facts regarding illegal voting.
New York Times - By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and MAGGIE HABERMAN
Trump claims ‘serious voter fraud’ in 3 states
The Hill - Cyra Master – November 27, 2016
“President-elect Donald Trump alleged Sunday evening that there were "serious voter fraud" issues in three states during the election, calling out results from Virginia, New Hampshire and California.
The Twitter accusation capped off an active day on the social media platform for the president elect. He started the morning saying a Green Party-launched recount in Wisconsin, along with efforts in Michigan and Pennsylvania, will not change the results of the election.
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally - 12:30 PM - 27 Nov 2016
But in the afternoon, he tweeted an unsubstantiated claim that "millions of people" voted illegally and said he would have won the popular vote if those "illegal" votes were discounted.
Trump won 290 Electoral College votes, but trails Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by more than 2 million in the popular vote tally.
Clinton won all the three states Trump singled out on Sunday night. In California, Clinton bested Trump by more than 3 million votes, taking 61.6 percent to his 32.8 percent. In Virginia, she won by 185,689 votes, or 49.9 percent to 45 percent. The margin in New Hampshire was much closer, with some 2,700 votes separating the two.
The claim that people voted illegally has gained traction in conservative circles after being publicized by controversial Infowars radio host Alex Jones, who published an article earlier this month with the headline, "Report: 3 million votes in presidential election cast by illegal aliens."”
Political fact-checker Politifact has said the accusation is "highly suspect" and Internet fact-checker Snopes rates the claim unproven.
By Allison Graves on Friday, November 18th, 2016 at 10:58 a.m.
Two of the world's biggest internet companies, Google and Facebook, are taking new steps to fight the rising tide of fake news. (Inform)
Were there 3 million illegal votes from undocumented immigrants in this year’s presidential election? Well, that’s what some websites are saying.
"Report: 3 million votes in presidential election cast by illegal aliens," reads a headline on InfoWars, a conspiracy website ran by Alex Jones. The article has been shared via Facebook more than 48,000 times when we last looked.
Three million votes in the U.S. presidential election were cast by illegal aliens, according to Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.
So is there any truth to it?
What follows is saying all evidences Trump is using comes from tweets on twitter or faccebook comments from people.
Well you can add another to the growing list of researchers that are familiar with voting fraud, my self just because of curiosity and having the ability to read rather quickly, I’m able to read and digest facts from fiction.
I think if anyone has the time, they study all the evidences, and those that have limited time or no time to research and study, often believe in the New York Times and Political fact-checker Politifact has said the accusation is "highly suspect" and Internet fact-checker Snopes rates the claim unproven.
Snopes is the place on the internet where fake news is posted by authors writing fiction.
Politifact makes its decisions based on what? It’s not research. I’ve presented enough evidences to support President-elect Trumps accusation.
Electors will meet on Dec. 19 to certify the results of the Electoral College.
With the Clintons supporters reported as intimidated, threatening death to electoral voters and several electoral voters claiming they will change their vote to Democrat Party.
Were about to find out how affective the Clinton’s Tactics really are. Often the most crooked prevails but this timer around, the President elect Trump has the American People over whelming by counties and perishes, but not the populous vote of Californians who want to leave the Union and make their own country.
There are other huge municipalities that had large turn outs for Clinton as President, but the heart land and rust belt of a nation, rose up and snagged their country back from ultimate power rulers based on the Democrat ideology politically and socially; a party only a few, who can tell you what the party once stood for.
The Democrat Party is presently known as the Party of free stuff, the Party for the Middle Class whom in droves rejected its Union’s Parties nominee for President.
I guess jobs really do matter.
Now we know how far the Clintons will go to seize power.
Now we know how far the Clintons will go to seize power.
“A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald Trump, calling the Electoral College "corrupted from its original intent" and saying voting for the president-elect would "bring dishonor to God."
Meanwhile, a separate movement is openly lobbying for enough electors to refuse to vote for Trump.
Calling themselves the Hamilton Electors – a nod to Alexander Hamilton’s explanation of the Electoral College’s job as to ensure “the office of the President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” – the group spurred by Democratic electors hopes to trigger the selection of another candidate through electors either changing their votes or abstaining from voting for Trump.”
What’s your definition of a Christian? Why did you throw away your integrity? Why did you not take an oath to be an electoral voter if you knew you couldn’t vote for the RNC/GPO’s Nominee?
You say you can’t vote for Trump because your Christian consequence won’t allow you to vote.
What does GOD have to do with your decision to follow through with your oath?
Down deep I think you are a Democrat. How does supporting corruption taste in your mouth.
Democrats voted for the Democrats’ Nominee, just like Republicans voted for their nominee, with the exception of several GOP Party Leaders and folks like you that clearly see the big picture.
As a Christian you should know, GOD is the judge of all. You are not basing your decision on politics like others do in a huge attempt to keep Religious ideologies out of politics.
"I do not see how Donald Trump is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the presidency," he said in his Saturday post. "Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from Scripture otherwise. If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I cannot and will not vote for Donald Trump for president."
If you think Trump wasn’t qualified, then why didn’t you vote for Clinton when you could or resign your post once Trump became your parties’ nominee for President?
You are not a candidate to hold any office or position of trust in a political party and not because you’re a Christian, but because you don’t know when to separate yourself from religious ideologies or politics.
Trump is a great man and he will prevail and who knows, you might even find another job better suited to your Christian values, one thing for sure, it’s not politics.
The Constitution is pretty clear regarding the reason Electoral Votes were created, unless you want California’s or another huge populated city to represent you.
By not voting you are illustrating that the venting process that got you your post as an electoral voter must change. Strengthening Unity to defeat your opponent, do you remember that notion?
You’re like the woman who waits until 8 months of pregnancy to get an abortion for reasons of birth control. We need to make decisions based on our feelings and heart, consequence as well for sure, and those of us that bare the cross of Jesus Christ have a burden to set the example.
You have chosen a path you believe to be good, yet through dishonesty by breaking your oath to vote republican, you are discrediting yourself, as no Christian goes back on their word, and before giving your word, were to seek counsel with GOD, asking for wisdom and direction and guidance, just as the living GOD has motivated me to counsel thee, for
I am a Christian, and I obey the Commands of old times. I also don’t lie or come to conclusions about the effectiveness to mediate votes for a President nationally, throughout America, so Americans that voted have a say in democracy rather then allowing folks in large cities or states like California, etc., to decide the fate of all Americans who voted over whelming for republicans in both houses of congress and President Trump you can’t support. You made the following statement:
A Republican elector from Texas says he is resigning his position instead of casting his vote for Donald Trump, calling the Electoral College "corrupted from its original intent" and saying voting for the president-elect would "bring dishonor to God."
When did you figure this out, when Trump was nominated or in the past few days? It matters because a Christian would have vacated the office you had long ago as not to cause problems for others.
Your position is quite insane in view of what the Democrats ruled by President Obama, the Clintons and DNC, have done and gotten away with. Where is your out rage for those above the law with ultimate power? At least Trump will work with both houses of the congress, improve the GDP, by encouraging private investors and businesses to grow, benefiting from lower taxes and less red tape. Even you will get a Middle Class tax break and hopefully you have a job, because multi millions don’t.
To say come back aboard, counsel with GOD and set an example seems to far reaching, as you have said, “To say voting for the president-elect would "bring dishonor to God," is quite frankly rather presumptuous, unless GOD spoke to you.
So what gives, are you a Prophet of the Living GOD? Will Trump destroy a nation in economic danger of default do to 1.4% GDP and a national deficit your kids if you have any, liker you and others now, will are and will be burdened with.
So are you a foreteller of things to come, as other religious leaders assume the role to be?
The Bible speaks of Love, compassion and faith, of the three, which is the greatest to a Christian?
If you look at a voters map, you will see where blue areas are at and red areas are throughout America.
Rural and the rust belt, the unionist states like Wisconsin voted republican. Trump even took Ohio.
Popular vote - 2.9M votes counted
Donald Trump (R) 47.79%; Hillary Clinton (D) 47.01%; Gary Johnson (L) 3.62%; Jill Stein (G) 1.05%; Darrell Castle (O) 0.41%; Monica Moorehead (O) 0.06% and Rocky De La Fuente (O) 0.05%.
I’ve never seen a recount by a candidate that got 1.05% of the vote before.”
“WASHINGTON — Jill Stein is on track to raise twice as much for an election recount effort than she did for her own failed Green Party presidential bid.
Fueled by the social media hashtag #recount2016 and millions of dispirited Hillary Clinton voters, Stein's recount drive had already netted $6.3 million by Monday, according to her campaign website. That's close to the $7 million she posted as a goal and millions more than the roughly $3.5 million she raised during her entire presidential bid.
Citing without evidence concerns about "cyber hacking," Stein wants a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — places that Clinton, a Democrat, thought were safely in her column. Instead, Republican Donald Trump won all three and with them the electoral votes needed to win the White House.
Stein won no states and wouldn't directly or immediately benefit from a recount — nor would she likely be able to topple Trump. Even Clinton's attorney Marc Elias wrote there's "no actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology."
But Stein's effort could help her in other ways.
By continuing to raise money, she is building up a larger donor list that she can later turn to if she runs again. She also can try to influence policy by urging those donors to call lawmakers or contribute to other politicians. Her campaign says 137,000 people have contributed to the recount.
A bigger supporter list can command bigger fees if Stein chooses to lease it out to other campaigns.”
The Hill - Niall Stanage
“Democrats are unenthusiastic about the recount effort being mounted by Jill Stein of the Green Party, seeing it as a futile effort that serves only to distract opponents of President-elect Donald Trump's policy and personnel decisions.
Some Democrats even come close to echoing Trump's charge that re-tallying votes from the presidential race is just a "scam" being advanced by Stein, who has raised more than $6 million to fund potential recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, three states critical to the Republican nominee's win.
"It's a waste of time and money. It is not going to change anything," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who served as campaign manager for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
"I think it probably was the Stein people looking for a way to stay relevant, raise some money and take the stink off of them. Instead of everybody screaming, 'You made Trump happen,' she is counting the votes to change that whole narrative."
Stein has pushed back vigorously against such criticism. She acknowledges that the recounts are unlikely to change the election's outcome, even if they proceed in all three states, which is far from guaranteed. But she says it is a worthwhile exercise aimed at ensuring elections are conducted fairly.
"We need to change our voting system. We need to implement these safeguards so that we are not asking the question after the fact," she told CBS News.
On a fundraising page, Stein pledges that any unused money for the recounts will go "toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform."
Aides to former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton have sought a middle ground on Stein's push. The remaining Clinton campaign team will "participate" in the effort but is not actively supporting it.
In a Medium post on Saturday, Clinton lawyer Marc Elias wrote, "Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves."
The Clinton team's involvement will likely be limited to having lawyers or other experts at recount sites to watch over the proceedings.
"My sense is that the Clinton people would have preferred this not to happen and are going to be involved only in a monitoring capacity," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic strategist and a veteran of several presidential campaigns, including that of 2004 nominee John Kerry.”
"We need to change our voting system. We need to implement these safeguards so that we are not asking the question after the fact," she told CBS News.
She wants safeguards.
If there isn’t any voter fraud, why the safeguards.
It’s about cash from lots of donations, in order to lease to other political parties, building good will and a platform to get your agenda heard.
The Clinton’s attorneys just kicking back until they make sure the second count is accurate.
There’s No Evidence Our Election Was Rigged
ProPublica - Jessica Huseman, Scott Klein
President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter on Sunday to claim that he would have won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”
There is no evidence that millions of people voted illegally. If there were, we’d have seen some sign of it.
ProPublica was an organizing partner in Electionland, a project run by a coalition of organizations including Google News Lab, Univision, WNYC, the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and the USA Today Network. We monitored the vote with a team of more than 1,000 people, including about 600 journalism school students poring over social media reports and more than 400 local journalists who signed up to receive tips on what we found. We had access to a database of thousands of calls made to a nonpartisan legal hotline. We had four of the nation’s leading voting experts in the room with us and election sources across the country. Thousands of people texted us to tell us about their voting experience.
We had an unprecedented real-time understanding of voting in the United States, and while we saw many types of problems, we did not see mass voter fraud of any kind — especially of the sort Donald Trump alleges.
Trump’s claim tracks closely with an Infowars piece published less than a week after the election, claiming that 3 million votes were cast by illegal aliens. The website, run by conservative radio host and noted conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, attributed the number to an unsubstantiated tweet by Gregg Phillips, the founder of VoteStand, a voter fraud app. While Infowars attributed the number to VoteFraud.org, there has been no report on the number by VoteFraud.org and Phillips told Politifact he was not affiliated with the organization. He would not provide Politifact with any information about how he arrived at the number, saying he was still verifying its accuracy. As Politifact points out, there is no evidence to support the number.
On a call Monday morning with reporters, Trump transition spokesman Jason Miller cited two studies to back up the president-elect’s claim of illegal voting. The research, he said, spoke to “issues of both voter fraud and illegal immigrants voting.”
Experts say the studies did not speak to these issues. The first study Miller cited was published in 2014 and has been widely debunked by a number of researchers. While the study claimed that 14 percent of non-citizens were registered to vote, that turned out to be an error in self-reporting. The question pertaining to citizenship was confusing, leading citizens to regularly mark themselves as non-citizens.
Miller also cited a 2012 Pew Study which found that there were thousands of people on the rolls who had moved or died. David Becker, now the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, was the primary author of the study, and told us there was “no link” between this study and voter fraud.
“The rolls are out of date because people are moving or dying in the normal course of things, not because people go and intentionally register in two states,” he said, adding that his two decades of experience has shown him that out-of-date rolls are not used for fraud. He added that now that 20 states are participating in the Electronic Registration Information Center Inc. — or ERIC — which allows states to share registration information, the voting rolls in 2016 were “far more up to date” than the rolls in 2012.
Beyond the study, Becker said the warning signs of millions of ineligible voters casting ballots are simply not present, nor were they on Election Day, which Becker spent in the Electionland newsroom. In fact, he said, it’s likely Electionland — and many other election observers — would have known about this long before the election actually took place.
“There would have been an unprecedented number of new registrants that would not have had matched social security or driver’s license numbers,” Becker said. “There was no exceptional registration, there were no crazy long lines, there were no language difficulties, and there wasn’t an exceptionally high number of mail-in ballots.”
Tammy Patrick, another Electionland expert and a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said that no elections officials have raised flags related to tampering. Jurisdictions do regular audits to ensure that the number of sign-ins equals the number of votes being cast, and none of those audits have found problems. In fact, with the fervor raised in advance by the president-elect himself, Patrick said this election was the best monitored in her memory.
“People were watching,” she said. “We had more international observers than ever before. Thousands of political party observers at the polls. Campaign observers in the polling places.”
Third-party candidate Jill Stein has raised less sweeping doubts about the validity of the vote. These came on the heels of a Nov. 22 piece in New York Magazine, claiming that researchers had found “persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked.” The story went on to say that “in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots.”
However, the story did not seem to hold up under scrutiny. One of those researchers, J. Alex Halderman, writing in a Medium post, disagreed with New York Magazine’s characterization of his research, saying only that systems were vulnerable, pointing to the hacks on the Democratic National Committee and the voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona. He did, however, call for manually checking paper ballots.
I’m basing my assumptions on the aforementioned information relating to voter fraud and not these two studies.
The information is enough to claim there is voter fraud going on by the millions of incidents or lack of participation in voting do to laws that don’t allow 6.6 million criminals.
Trump is good at bringing attention to serious issues in rather unique methods of speech and that’s ok by me.
I’ll say this though, the lack of present evidence doesn’t mean voter frau hasn’t rooted itself, so one person votes for grandma or great grandma in a nursing home or from the grave.
Years ago, a friend of mine brought a house from some brothers who charged their mothers credit cards after she died, then lost the house to a forced sale.
Even others home care seniors with illnesses affecting thought, registered voters, casting their vote for someone else’s political ideology.
I don’t think any one will be able to actually count to three million people physically going to the ballot box dropping off two ballots.
Would people actually dress up and alter their appearance to vote someone else?
I read some counties and states reject ballots with mistakes. That alone could be in the millions.
Stein is right, place safeguards, like an ID, Voter card and address and the opportunity for a ballot, if voter request, inspect it for mistakes.
The only proof that voter fraud isn’t rooted in, is from those observing elections and the type of people that didn’t show up, profiling I guess.
Lots of evidences on the side of Trump’s assertions that voter fraud, mistakes and mishaps is on going.
Voter Fraud in the US: Documented:
USA TODAY – November 30, 2016
MADISON, Wis. — Green Party candidate Jill Stein paid $3.5 million Tuesday to clear the way for Wisconsin's presidential vote recount but had a judge reject her lawsuit to require all Wisconsin counties to do the recount by hand.
Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn said the effort to force the hand recount, which was backed by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign, did not meet the state’s legal standard for prohibiting the use of machines in the recount, saying that the two campaigns did not show a hand recount, though more thorough, was necessary or show there was a clear and convincing evidence of fraud or other problems.
Bailey-Rihn said there were good reasons to do a hand recount but no legal basis for her to mandate it.
"I follow the law. That's who I am despite my personal opinions," said Bailey-Rihn, who was elected to the bench last spring.
Debbie Greenberger, an attorney for the Stein campaign, said she was uncertain whether their side would appeal but said she hoped county clerks would heed the judge’s praise for a hand recount.
Also Tuesday, Clinton's lawyers backed Stein's effort in Dane County Circuit Court to force the hand recount in all counties. The Clinton camp, which has already acknowledged a recount is unlikely to change the outcome in Wisconsin, said in a court filing Tuesday that a hand recount would provide greater confidence in the final result of the election and might catch more mistakes than a machine count.
State officials said there was no legal basis for forcing counties to use a hand recount since there was no evidence it was better than electronic tallies in this case and would delay the process for the counties that weren't already planning to count ballots by hand.
"Asking (counties) to retool their plans fewer than two days before the recount is set to begin would (create) additional burdens and could delay the recount's end date — putting at risk whether Congress will honor Wisconsin's slate of presidential electors," the state Department of Justice argued in a motion.
The Stein campaign brought forward a series of experts in statistics and computer science who argued for a hand recount by describing a series of hypothetical ways that computer hackers might reprogram voting machines.
"I am strongly of the opinion that a hand recount is going to provide a more accurate result," University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman said.
In all but one case, the experts called by Stein acknowledged that they had no evidence that any hacking had happened. The one exception was testimony by University of California-Berkeley Philip Stark about a statistical analysis that found unusual patterns in the digits of vote totals reported in certain smaller election wards in Wisconsin. Those patterns are not proof of any problem with the election, however.
State officials initially estimated the cost of the recount at $1 million but increased the amount after counties gave the state their own more detailed estimates of what it would cost in their jurisdictions. As the cost increased this week, independent candidate Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente said Tuesday he would not be paying part of its cost and participating in it.
An analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found wide variance in those county cost figures, which averaged $1.31 to recount each vote cast around the state.
Under Wisconsin law, the Stein camp will get a refund if the recount costs less than expected and will have to pay more if it costs more. But that money might be difficult to raise once the recount is done.
Stein, who drew more votes in Wisconsin than Clinton's losing margin in this state to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, criticized the cost of the recall Tuesday but paid it, ensuring the statewide recount would begin on Thursday.
"We stand by our commitment to verify that the vote in Wisconsin was accurate and secure and this exorbitant cost will not deter us," Stein said in a statement. "While this excessive fee places an undue burden on our efforts, we are committed to paying this cost in order to ensure that the voting in Wisconsin was accurate."
The state elections commission said it would only charge $3.5 million initially to Stein, leaving off an additional $400,000 in county costs that should have been added to the statewide estimate but were dropped because of a spreadsheet error.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission agreed Monday to conduct the recall if the money is paid but was sued by Stein after the agency declined to require the hand recount in all counties.
It will be a race to finish the recount in time to meet a daunting federal deadline, and the lawsuit could delay the process.
Stein filed a lawsuit Monday in Pennsylvania to force a recount there and her supporters began filing recount requests at the precinct level in the Keystone State. Stein — who received just a tiny piece of the national vote — also plans to ask for a recount in Michigan on Wednesday.”
Elector won't vote for Trump, urges Electoral College to join him
December 6, 2016
DETROIT — A single missing ballot was enough to scuttle the recount of a Michigan precinct Monday.
The computerized poll book in Rochester Hills precinct 11 listed the names of 848 voters who cast ballots there, but the ballot box contained just 847 ballots. So where is the other ballot? The poll workers' notes offered no explanation.
"It didn't match on the canvass and it doesn't match now," said Joe Rozell, Oakland County's director of elections. "This precinct is not recountable."
Two Michigan counties began the recount process Monday, hours after a federal judge ordered the immediate start of the presidential recount. Six counties are expected to start the recount process Tuesday, with the last batch of counties to start Dec. 12.
The Michigan Republican Party on Monday filed a notice of intent to appeal U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith's ruling to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. A hearing in a lawsuit filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals last week by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette and attorneys for President-elect Trump to stop the recount are to be heard Tuesday afternoon.
Under Michigan law, a precinct can't be recounted if the poll book and ballot box numbers don't match, unless there is a valid explanation. In such cases, the results from the original election night tally stand.
But it isn't just an issue in Oakland, the same problem is appearing in precincts in several counties.
In Wayne County, about one-third of precincts showed discrepancies during the November canvass, said Krista Haroutunian, chair of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers. Those discrepancies could make those precincts — 610, including 392 in Detroit — ineligible for recount, though a final decision has yet to be made.
The problems raise questions about the overall accuracy of Michigan's vote, said Keenan Pontoni, state coordinator for Recount Michigan, the effort of Green Party candidate Jill Stein to recount Michigan's 4.8 million ballots, which produced a 10,704-vote victory for Republican Trump in the presidential race.
USA TODAY Jeff Burlew on Twitter: @JeffBurlew
TALLAHASSEE — “Three central Florida voters are mounting an unlikely bid to overturn the presidential election result in the Sunshine State.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in Leon Circuit Court, they assert that Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, actually won Florida. The plaintiffs, who live in Osceola and Volusia counties, say the state’s official election results were off because of hacking, malfunctioning voting machines and other problems.
They're asking for a hand recount of every paper ballot in Florida, at the expense of defendants including Trump, Gov. Rick Scott and the 29 Republican presidential electors from Florida.
But even lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledge time isn’t on their side. Clint Curtis, an Orlando attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the defendants may not respond by the time the Electoral College meets on Dec. 19.
"They can ignore it entirely,” he said.
He said he has received a “deluge” of reports from voters across the state of problems on election day, including people being turned away at the polls and told they’d already voted. Florida Division of Elections officials reported only a few "minor issues" on election day.
Curtis said he hopes Trump, who has blasted recount efforts elsewhere, will get behind one in Florida. Officially, Trump got more than 4.6 million votes in Florida, beating Clinton by more than 112,000 votes.
“He’s mentioned he wants to fix the rigged system,” he said. “This will give the opportunity to do that. If it were a normal politician, I’d say our chances are very slim. But it’s not a normal politician — it’s Donald Trump.”
December 6, 2016
Two Democratic electors from Colorado filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday, challenging a state law that requires they vote for the winner of the state's popular vote, the Denver Post reports.
Polly Baca and Robert Nemanich had pledged to support Democrat Hillary Clinton, the winner of Colorado's nine electoral votes.
But now they are joining so-called "Moral Electors" in other states and say they'll shift their Democratic votes to a consensus Republican pick -- if one emerges.
The "Moral Electors" want to persuade Republican electors in other states to vote for a third-party candidate, the Post reports, in an attempt to keep Donald Trump from receiving 270 electoral votes.
Several states, including Colorado, prohibit electors from voting against the candidate who won the state's electoral votes. And Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams has already threatened to replace Baca and Nemanich if they try.
"Instead of honoring the will of the Coloradans who voted for them, these two faithless electors seek to conspire with electors from other states to elect a president who did not receive a single vote in November," Williams said in a statement.
"The very notion of two Colorado electors ignoring Colorado's popular vote in an effort to sell their vote to electors in other states is odious to everything we hold dear about the right to vote," he added.
The members of the Electoral College are slated to meet on Dec. 19 to cast their official votes for president.
Trump clinched 306 electoral votes on Nov. 8.
Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:18 pm
“Voting machines in more than one-third of all Detroit precincts registered more votes than they should have during last month’s presidential election, according to Wayne County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News.
Obama's last minute attempt to interfere with the elections was preempted.
The Hill - December 16, 2016
“Voters in the Electoral College will not receive an intelligence briefing over reported Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election, according to a new report.
Sources confirmed Electors will not receive any national intelligence before they cast ballots this Monday, NPR said Friday.”
Last Minute Push to Sway Electoral College Voters Intensifies
“On the eve of Monday’s meetings of the Electoral College to select America’s next president, the pressure on hundreds of Electoral College voters from pro and anti-Trump forces has only intensified. One Arizona elector told the Washington Post that she has been receiving 50 letters and 3,000 emails a day, mostly attempting to convince her to vote for anyone other than Trump on Monday. A Texas elector told Politico he has received more than 200,000 emails in total, while others have received harassing phone calls, hate mail, and even death threats after activists published their contact info online. While there is essentially no chance that the efforts to sway Electoral College voters away from Trump will be able to change the result of the election, that hasn’t stopped the progressive activists and organizations that have committed themselves to the cause, nor has it stopped Trump supporters and Republican Party officials from contacting electors and making sure they are going to stick with Trump.
Progressive groups are reportedly set to protest at the various Electoral College meetings throughout the country on Monday, while this weekend, a group called Unite for America began addressing personalized videos to electors in which celebrities like Martin Sheen and Bob Odenkirk refer to the electors by name and ask them to vote their conscience and reject Trump.
Texan Chris Suprun, a Republican elector who wrote a New York Times op-ed announcing his decision to oppose Trump, has faced a barrage of criticism and vitriol from Republicans, and has even been accused by a Texas television station of making up his claim that he worked as a 9/11 first responder.
Suprun is also one of almost 80 electors, the rest of whom are all Democrats, to have requested an intelligence briefing on Russia’s alleged interference in the election, according to Politico. That request, which was supported by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and former Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, was denied on Friday by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who said that the intelligence community is busy preparing the report that President Obama asked for regarding Russia’s involvement in the election. The consensus opinion among U.S. intelligence officials that Russia intervened in the election in order to help Trump win has only raised the stakes for those still working to oppose real estate mogul’s election.
21 states, comprising 236 electoral votes, do not have laws which forbid “faithless electors” from voting for candidates who did not win their respective states. Half of states do have such laws, though the repercussions vary. In Colorado, Republican secretary of state Wayne Williams says he has been authorized by a state court to remove any electors who cast their vote for anyone other than Colorado popular-vote winner Hillary Clinton, and he plans to ignore a federal court ruling on Friday which called his authority to do that into question. That ruling, by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, suggested that any effort to remove an elector after voting has begun would likely violate the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution. Lawyers supporting the faithless elector movement celebrated that 10th Circuit ruling as an indication that electors in other states are now free to vote for whomever they want on Monday as well, regardless of their state’s elector-binding laws.
Trump is set to receive 306 electoral votes on Monday, well over the 270 he needs to become president. It thus remains extremely unlikely that efforts to select a candidate other than Trump will be successful, particularly when you consider the fact that most electors are state political party leaders or elected officials, and thus very, very unlikely, at least on the Republican side, to buck their party’s president-elect. Because of this, most activists have been calling for a compromise candidate like Mitt Romney or John Kasich who might be palatable to such electors, rather than pushing for more votes for Clinton, who won the nationwide popular vote by nearly 3 million votes but lost the Electoral College. The most feasible anti-Trump efforts aim to sway nearly 40 Republican electoral voters who are bound to Trump, which would then throw the responsibility for selecting the next president to the U.S. House of Representatives (and that scenario would still overwhelming favor Trump becoming president.)”
Associated Press – December 18, 2016
WASHINGTON — “Donald Trump is lashing out on Twitter in advance of the Electoral College vote. The president-elect says: "If my many supporters acted and threatened people like those who lost the election are doing, they would be scorned & called terrible names!"”
STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press – December 19, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — “There were many protesters but few faithless electors as Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote Monday — ensuring that the billionaire will become America's 45th president.
An effort by anti-Trump forces to persuade Republican electors to abandon the president-elect came to practically nothing and the process unfolded largely according to its traditions. Trump's polarizing victory Nov. 8 and the fact Democrat Hillary Clinton had won the national popular vote had stirred an intense lobbying effort, but to no avail.
Even one of Trump's fiercest Republican rivals, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, said it was time to get behind the president-elect.
"We want unity, we want love," Kasich said as Ohio's electors voted to back Trump at a statehouse ceremony. Kasich refused to endorse or even vote for Trump in the election.”
Trump seeks ‘major investigation’ into unsupported claims of voter fraud
The Washington Post - Jenna Johnson – 25 January 2017
President Trump plans to ask for a “major investigation” into allegations of widespread voter fraud as he continues to claim, without providing evidence, that he lost the popular vote in November's election because millions of illegal votes were cast, according to tweets posted Wednesday.
The White House has yet to provide details, but Trump said in back-to-back tweets that the investigation into “VOTER FRAUD” — Trump used all capitals for emphasis — would cover “those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal” and “those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time).”
“Depending on results,” Trump tweeted, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!”
Trump did not indicate who would lead such an investigation or what ground it would cover. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on whether it would now launch an investigation.
Trump continues to face scrutiny, along with some mockery, for insisting during a private reception with congressional leaders Monday that there were between 3 million and 5 million ballots illegally cast in the election, allowing his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to win the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes, although she lost the electoral-college vote to Trump. The president and his aides have yet to provide any verifiable facts to back up his claim, and analyses of the election found virtually no confirmed cases of voter fraud, let alone millions.
Trump's campaign attorneys fought recount attempts in several states by Green Party candidate Jill Stein and stated in a recent court filing, “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.”
A Trump adviser told The Washington Post on Wednesday that Trump has been stewing about his popular-vote count for weeks and insisting to friends that Clinton benefited from illegal votes in Democratic-leaning states such as California. He has mentioned to several of them his interest in launching an investigation into possible voter fraud, said the adviser, who was not authorized to speak publicly.
The adviser went on to frame Wednesday's tweets as a deeply personal move by Trump reflective of his thinking on the election and did not have details on whether congressional leaders had been briefed on Trump's desire to have an investigation, although the adviser said Trump did tell them Monday about his broader concerns regarding the election count during a reception at the White House.
Trump also tweeted that he will make his pick to fill the Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court on Feb. 2. Scalia died last February.
Voter Fraud US Elections Part I
Voter Fraud US Elections Part II
Voter Fraud US Elections Part I