Leaked document: DNC stole elections for Hillary

[Grandote]

It seems bernie sanders was right, the dnc has been pulling shenanigans since at least a year ago. This document was leaked by a russian hacker who broke into the dnc files. It was reported in the news, the hack at least, this document will of course fall into the black hole that any bad news about hillary always falls into.

They not only worked to ensure hillary won the primary by helping her and no other dem candidates, they also falsified the voting results in states that don't keep paper records. What do you think they will do in the general election? More of the same of course.

https://thehornnews.com/proof-dnc-rigged...y-clinton/

Busted! Document proves DNC, Clinton rigged election
JUNE 17, 2016 63 Comments

• FACEBOOK
  
  
• LINKEDIN
  
  
• TWITTER
  
  
  

Did former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee conspire to rig the Democratic primary process?
It’s an accusation supporters of Clinton’s rival presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have been making for months, and the claim that has caught the eye of academics.
Now, critics say a newly leaked document may offer definitive proof.
“A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed,” The New York Post reported Thursday.
According to US Uncut, the document indicates the “DNC was diligently cleaning up Clinton’s record, using ‘specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”
HRC is a commonly used abbreviation for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“The document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 — a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that ‘our goals & strategy’ are to ‘provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC,’” The New York Post reported.
In other words, the leaked document shows the DNC was actively working to get Clinton elected, while ignoring her rivals like Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley.
In the document’s “Reporter Outreach” section, the paper reads: “Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.”
View image on Twitter
[img=640x0]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClEmpXKWMAAPDPI.jpg:small[/img]

[/url]

The leaked document, if verified as authentic, would provide credibility to multiple election fraud accusations made towards the Clinton campaign in recent months.
“Beginning in Iowa and climaxing with the holy mess that occurred in Arizona, the Democratic presidential primaries have been a Wagnerian Ring Cycle of electoral ‘shenanigans,’ cynical rule-bending and outright voter suppression,” The Huffington Post reported in March of this year. “The DNC has relied upon its favorite scapegoats (benign incompetence, and of course, Republicans) to explain away the convenient ‘mishaps’ and anomalies that have consistently favored Clinton as she elbows her way to the Democratic coronation ceremony in Philadelphia.”
Adding more credibility to this accusation of widespread Democratic primary election fraud is a recent paper out of Stanford University, where two graduate students from the prestigious school declared that election fraud may have swung the election for Clinton.
“First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama,” the paper reads.
“As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.”
Since the stunning reveal, the DNC and mainstream media have remained mute on the situation — and it’s infuriating some Sanders supporters.

[url=https://twitter.com/JordanChariton]✔@JordanChariton
So memo gets leaked showing collusion b/w DNC &@HillaryClinton from year ago, DNC doesn't deny its authenticity-no TV coverage. DISGUSTING
10:14 PM - 16 Jun 2016

[Grandote]

The hillary crowd will hate this one. You will see nothing about it in the major media of course. Basically it shows that hill stole elections from sanders.

http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-ber...ion-fraud/?

Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies

113 0 1 4 June 18, 2016
After applying various statistical models to subsets of 2016 primary voting data several academic researchers conclude Hillary Clinton’s win was only possible through widespread vote fraud.

Hillary Fraud - One in 77 Billion

Widespread allegations of election fraud and voter suppression across the United States during the 2016 Democratic Primary has sparked the interest of several academic researchers and what they discovered in their research is disturbing.

The researchers each performed independent studies in which a few different statistical was applied to analyze various subsets of vote data and of the studies came to the same conclusion.

Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud.

In fact, one of the statistical models applied by Standford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots.

In these locations Hillary won by massive margins.

On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton.

Analysis also showed repeatedly irregularities and statistically impossible reverses in reported live votes in several locations across the country.

In commenting on the research, Barragan stated that some of the models are rock solid and 59 years old and the results seen here have never been witnessed in non-fraudelent election during that time period.

To summarize, at least four different independent studies were conducted with various statistical models applied.

The researchers applied the different statistical models to:

Actual vote counts as they were reported
Discrepancies in polling data verse actual counts.
Various subsets of demographic polling data verse actual vote counts
The results of each study corroborated the with the results of the others and some of the researchers have review the work of the others’ and go onto to confirm the findings in those studies.

It will take months for the studies to undergo peer review.

However, all of their research statistically proved there there must of been widespread fraud to create the discrepancies in the vote counts that exist in all 3 subsets of the data analyzed.

The research of Barragan, done collaboratively with Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands.

That research corroborates independent mathematical research conducted by Richard Charnin.

Further independent research was conducted by Beth Clarkson of Berkeley who also not only corroborated the two previous studies but reviewed them and after her research was done and confirmed their results.

A PDF Summary of the Barragan/Geijsel study “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America” can be found here.

The meat of the study is contained in the Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References to Barragan’s Study and in the attachments which follow.

Attachment:

Page 1

This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.

Instead of “1” the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.
Fractions in results reports are not visible.Votes containing decimals are reported as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used

[Lechter]

Deleter of the Free World...

[luckydate]

I don't have a dog in the fight - I see the presidency for what it really is. I'm so happy this is being talked about more and more. It was only a matter of time and I'm grateful that it's time has come. Props to those that watch the watchers!!

[Goyakla1]

Maaaan.. U really need some new political parties over there... A 2 party system as it is is doomed to be a mess..where are the 1 procent...u defenetly need new idears and gunlaws.. U loose the same amount of ppl to guns in a year Than under the whole damn Nam war......How Can anybody defend that with a statement from the ancient past when they didnt have fx AK 47.. I dont get it at all.

[Lechter]

Great points all, Goy... fact is since 2008, about 50 people a year on average succumb to "mass shootings" with what are characterized as  with "assault weapons".  Totally unacceptable.

Meanwhile, at the same time, over 30,000 people a year die as a result of gang related handgun violence.  Many of them formerly resided in Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.  But let us not distract ourselves with this trivial reality, the Kardashians are coming on soon.

Will criminals obey new laws constraining the possession and use of guns?  If not, then who then will these laws effect?

Yet several Democrat congresspeople chose to shut down government process to protest the lack of controls on rifles mischaracterized as assault weapons.  All while distributing flyers soliciting contributions for their party.  Have you ever experienced success with sitting on floor?

Now with the suicide bombings at the airport in Turkey, one must wonder, will this same cohort of naïve political distractors again disrupt democratic process by calling for a ban on bombs? 

Truth is, they cannot deal with real problems.  Hell, they can't even call them by their name.  All they can do is distract from the real problems with phony issues that the media gleefully perpetuates.  In the end, its all about control... of you.

There is no problem in the U.S. that cannot be solved with a rational order of priorities.  Problem is, a politician's only priority is to retain power to advance their particular ideology.  To them, people only matter for their vote.  Nothing else.

If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.