Barack Obama was illegally placed in the White House using election data rigging by Facebook and Google.
Now that all of the Facebook, Google and Twitter election manipulation has come out, it can be seen that they rigged the elections.
Barack Obama was illegally placed in the White House using election data rigging.
Hillary Clinton got exposed doing the same thing.
- New York, Illinois and California state officials ran election rigging with the help of Twitter, Facebook and Google executives
- They did it in 2008, in the mid-terms and in 2016
- There was little, or no, Russian involvement and 100% Silicon Valley tech company involvement
- Podesta, Wasserman Schultz, Brazille, Schmidt were key criminal masterminds in the schemes
- Scam was paid for with Solyndra, Tesla, Abound, Fisker payola kick-backs
- Eric Schmidt documented in Obama’s campaign office rigging web data to manipulate internet on Election Night
- FBI Agent: “...this could be the biggest criminal investigation in history!”
- All of the technical parts of the crime operated by Silicon Valley tech oligarchs
- Millions of pages of evidence now sent to Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
By FBI2 Commission
President Trump created a voter fraud commission to investigate widespread voter fraud and already states that are controlled by Democrats are refusing to cooperate because they say it is a waste of time.
The Washington Examiner reported: In a letter sent Wednesday to all 50 secretaries of state, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity’s vice chairman — Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach — requests the full names of all registered voters, their addresses, dates of birth, the last four digits of their Social Security numbers, voting history and other personal information.
Alex Padilla, California’s Democratic secretary of state, released a statement Thursday vowing that he will “not provide sensitive voter information” to a commission that is pursuing “debunked claims of massive voter fraud.” but Padilla was part of the largest election rigging schemes in history.
Padilla went on to call the commission a “waste of taxpayer money” and a “distraction from the real threats of the integrity of our elections today,” which he considers to be Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.
Padilla is a liar, a recent study was released that indicated that upto 5,700,000 people cast illegal votes in the previous presidential eletcion.
A new study by an independent think tank strongly supports President Trump’s assertion that millions of people voted illegally in the Presidential 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
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016
The Washington Times reported: A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.
As many as 5.7 million non-citizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.
Kamala Harris of California has been charged with, and sued for corruption and bizarre sex mistress arrangements with Willie Brown. Huge numbers of California Senators have been arrested for corruption. 90% of CA Senators have financial conflicts of interests!!!!! Thousands of citizen insiders have reported corruption to San Francisco Police Department and West Coast FBI!
The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.
Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.
Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted.
Hey California. Here’s an URGENT SIGALERT:
There’s a snake hidden in your midst, coiled inside your election machinery. Exercise extreme caution. Be on the lookout for a late-model black SUV with illegally-tinted windows… and a million votes tied up in the trunk.
Executives (and owners) of the election company that counted approximately 40 per cent of California’s vote have been convicted of bribing and suborning public officials. They’ve been busted for rigging elections—a couple times per decade—for the past 40 years. Top executives have gone to jail. Still, they soldier on, tabulating and counting the vote, as if nothing had happened. And we let them.
Two days before the California primary, I wrote, “If the 2016 Democratic primary in California is rigged, it’s ‘‘the boys’ from one company—Sequoia Pacific nee Dominion Voting Systems, working out of San Leandro, and Oakland, and tiny Exeter in the San Joaquin Valley—who’ll likely be charged with making it happen.”
I’m not gifted psychically. But making that call was easy. Why? Because these are the go-to guys for this sort of thing. Also, several years ago California’s then-Secretary of State left to go to work for the company, after steering them a good chunk of the state’s business.
So, there’s that.
A felony conviction may prevent you from voting in states like Florida, but having a arm-long rap sheet doesn’t disqualify you from counting millions of other people’s votes. Just ask Katherine Harris.
They say a picture’s worth a thousand words, so I’m also publishing a video showing Sequoia/Dominion being caught in the act of rigging an election. But first, a brief criminal history of the company that rigged the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary election in California.
Getting mugged on Memory Lane
Just before the 2000 election, in the state capitol of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Commissioner for Elections Jerry Fowler was convicted of taking real money—maybe ten million dollars—for a period of a decade.
Fowler, a large slow-moving beefy man, had somehow parleyed playing in exactly four football games in 1964 as a lineman for the Houston Oilers into a lifelong career in Louisiana politics.
The name of the bag man passing all that cash to Fowler was Pasquale “Rocco” Ricci, of Marlton, New Jersey. Having a name right out of The Soprano’s doesn’t make you a wise guy. But what Rocco did is the very definition of organized crime.
After being convicted of bribing the Election Commissioner in the State of Louisiana for more than a decade, Rocco Ricci was sentenced to a year.
A year of home detention.
“Phil Foster, Please Leave Our Elections Alone”
What that means in real terms: If there were five statewide elections in Louisiana during this decade, one every two years, Rocco Ricci went to the Big House for about 70 days for each statewide election he fixed.
Only in his case the Big House meant his mansion in Marlton, New Jersey, instead of Jimmy Swaggart’s old mansion, which was his residence in Louisiana.
During the scandal, New Orleans newspapers asked, “What was Sequoia’s salesman Phil Foster doing when he delivered cash-filled envelopes on five occasions to businessman Pasquale Ricci, who passed them, in turn, to Louisiana election commissioner Jerry Fowler?”
Good question. Foster never answered, or publicly explained why he was never called to account for his role in the scheme that put his buddy Jerry Fowler in prison.
But hey…today’s a new day, and here he is again, the ultimate bad penny, working for the same company. Back in the game!
That’s him, second from left, in a recent photo whose caption reads: “Secretary Schedler, Phil Foster, Customer Relations with Dominion Voting Systems, WVLA reporter and Commissioner of Elections Angie Rogers.”
At the same time, in another part of the forest
Remember hanging chad? These are those guys. That same year, 2000—a banner year for the company—Sequoia Pacific was responsible, according to a later Dan Rather-led investigation, of causing what became known as the Florida Vote Snafu. There were even suggestions it might have been deliberate.
At the time the company was known as Sequoia Pacific. Then—even though key personnel remained the same—they changed their name. Not just once. Twice. First to Sequoia Voting Systems. Then, after a move to Canada, where the glare of public scrutiny is slightly less white-hot, to Dominion Voting Systems.
When Sequoia Pacific began its modern life in the 1960s it was known as Automatic Voting Machine, a subsidiary of Defense contractor Rockwell International, which spun it off to a Rockwell executive named Lloyd A. Dixon Jr.
Incidentally, the defense industry motif recurs in other election companies, like the industry’s largest, E S &S, which was Dixon’s main competitor. Its President was Ransom Shoup, who also went to the Big House, in 1979. His company went on to become the industry’s largest, but apparently escaped a Justice Dept. investigation only after a change in Administrations in Washington.
“We had to get Ronald Reagan elected President to get this thing (the investigation) killed,” quipped E S & S’s President at the time.
“Tacho’s got a question for you”
In a Nov 29, 1985 Chicago Tribune report headlined “VOTE MACHINES CAN BE A DIFFICULT SELL” E S &S marketing director Ron Lawyer told the paper, “Whether working in the United States, Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America, the first disquieting question of potential customers is always the same: ‘Can these things be rigged?’”
Lawyer spoke of a meeting he and Ransom Shoup took in the palace of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza. in Managua, Nicaragua. Shoup was trying to sell Somoza some voting machines. “Tacho (Somoza) had only one question,” Lawyer told the Tribune. “Can I be guaranteed the election?”‘
Back at what would one day be Sequoia Pacific and then Dominion Voting Systems, Lloyd Dixon Jr. lasted as president and CEO until January of 1973, when he went to prison. Dixon got caught bribing election officials in Buffalo, and went to federal prison. At the same time, the company was also fined for bribing Texas and Arkansas election officials.
It was not a particularly auspicious beginning. Founder Lloyd Dixon Jr.’s sordid history got the company off on the wrong foot. But America is a country filled with entrepreneurial zeal, as well as a forgiving nation, and its hard to keep a company with a good get-rich quick proposition down.
Mugged on Memory Lane II
Sequoia/Dominion’s next owner was an infamous financier and corporate raider credited with creating the leveraged buyout, and leading the way for the Wall Street flim-flam men, like Michael Milken, who followed.
Louis Wolfson’s eternal claim to fame, however, was that he bribed a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court on the United States of America, “Dishonest Abe” Fortas, the only Justice ever forced to resign in disgrace. Fortas got caught palming a lifetime yearly “retainer” from Wolfson’s family foundation.
Fortas cut himself a deal, and at the FBI’s behest taped phone calls with Wolfson, where the desperate financier pleaded with Fortas to for Christ’s sake dummy up.
It is in the transcripts of these phone calls that the word “cover-up” first enters the American lexicon, according to NY Times-man and wordsmith William Safire, a Nixon speechwriter when the sordid chapter played out.
Speaking loudly so the tape recorder would clearly pick up his words, Fortas said “No I can’t do that! That would be a cover-up!”
The Modern Age had begun.
Caught in the Act
As a politician, Susan Bernecker was unremarkable, running—and losing—in a ho-hum race for the New Orleans City Council in the mid-90’s. However she distinguished herself in a much more important way, documenting how the second largest election company in America—Sequoia Pacific, both then and now—rigged an election.
It turns out to be frightfully easy.
Susan was surprised when she lost, she told me, and felt a twinge of suspicion that things might not be kosher. For one thing, she said, there were way more “Bernecker for City Council” signs festooning the lawns in her district, pretty much the gold standard for predicting local races where polling is prohibitively expensive.
So, what happened?
“In Louisiana,” she explained, more than five years later, “every candidate that runs for office is allowed, by law—three days after the election—to go and check the voting machines. The candidates themselves can inspect the machines. But very few ever do.”
So, having nothing to lose, or so she thought, spunky Susan Bernecker showed up at the warehouse at the appointed time to check the machine, and brought a cameraman in tow. Inside she encountered a startled election technician.
“The election techs thought all they had to do was check in the rear of the machine, where when you push a button you get the numbers. So that’s what he did. He gave me a long ticker tape and said, ‘here are your results.’”
Rage Against the (Election) Machine
“And I said, ‘Well, that’s nice, but I’d like to see how you arrived at this number.’”
“And he said, ‘Well, this is all you have.’ So I said, ‘Show me how the machine works.’”
“So he proceeded to open the machine and show me, okay, you push this number and if the machine’s in a certain mode it will give you your tally in a liquid crystal display. When you press your selection, its supposed to show up in the liquid crystal display.”
“So I pressed a few of them, and noticed when you pressed my name—voted for me—my name did not show up in the liquid crystal display. My opponent’s name showed up.”
On the video, we watch as she hunches over the machine, and narrates for the cameraman. “Pressing Bernecker… Got Giambelluca. Again… I’m pressing Bernecker, I got Giambelluca.”
“And I was like, oh my god! And my name didn’t show up again, and I did it again, and again, and my name showed up about every three to fourth time. So I asked my cameraman to turn on the camera. What am I doing with a cameraman? I’m not a reporter, and I had a gut feeling that I might need some kind of proof of… something.”
“So I went to the next machine, and the next machine, and the next machine. And the same thing occurred all down the row.”
“So what we did is set up a press conference a few days later, because I felt—for my own safety—that I had to get this out on the news.”
Alice goes down the well-known rabbit hole
Even to run against her opponent in New Orleans, with its pervasive mob influence, had taken a big supply of moxie. Brave is one thing. This, however, was worse. Was she frightened?
“Actually I was scared to death,” she replied evenly. “Because if—if this was vote fraud, if this was manipulation of the voting machines—they knew that I knew… But nobody else knew!”
Bernecker matter-of-factly described what happened next. “My life was threatened continuously,” she said. “On practically a daily basis.”
With little warning, Susan Bernecker fell down a deep dark rabbit hole. For her, nothing has been quite the same since.
The connection between corruption in Susan Bernecker’s long-forgotten local race in New Orleans and the the “Florida Vote Snafu” after the 2000 Presidential Election is systemic corruption at Sequoia Pacific, or Dominion (or whatever it calls itself these days).
Why is this important now? Because the company’s fingerprints are all over the 2016 Democratic primary in California.
Susan Bernecker had an interesting take on why she happened to have been singled out to lose. “I have my own theory. On the ballot at the same time was a big gambling initiative, on whether or not to allow gambling in Louisiana, which had already lost several times.”
“If there was scamming or fraud going on in that election, it was a consequence of all the gambling money involved. Everybody knows about gambling. Where gambling is, there’s always corruption.”
Which makes sense. And where there’s a buck to be made peddling goods and services to the government of the United States of America, the easiest and safest way to do it is through massive and virtually untraceable election fraud using electronic voting machines but it is even easier using Google.
So far, pretty much, no one’s the wiser.
For the last three national elections, Google, Facebook and Twitter combined network resources to become ten thousand times bigger than Dominion Voting Systems and a million times more evil in the election rigging business.
As Google Causes Fake News, Voices on the Margins Raise Alarm
By DAISUKE WAKABAYASHI
MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONTROLLED BY DNC COVERS UP TESLA CRIMES AND GOOGLE ELECTION RIGGING
Credit Minh Uong/The New York Times
SAN FRANCISCO — When David North, the editorial chairman of the World Socialist Web Site, noticed a drop in the site’s traffic in April, he initially chalked it up to news fatigue over President Trump or a shift in political consciousness.
But when he dug into the numbers, Mr. North said he found a clearer explanation: Google had stopped redirecting search queries to the site. He discovered that the top search terms that once brought people to the World Socialist Web Site were now coming up empty.
“This is not an accident,” Mr. North said. “This is some form of deliberate intervention.”
Accusations that Google has tampered with search results are not uncommon and date back to the earliest days of its search engine. But they are taking on new life amid concerns that technology behemoths are directly — or indirectly — censoring controversial subjects in their response to concerns over so-called fake news and the 2016 presidential election.
In April, Google announced an initiative called Project Owl to provide “algorithmic updates to surface more authoritative content” and stamp out fake news stories from its search results.
“They’re really skating on thin ice,” said Michael Bertini, a search strategist at iQuanti, a digital marketing agency. “They’re controlling what users see. If Google is controlling what they deem to be fake news, I think that’s bias.”
Despite Google’s insistence that its search algorithm undergoes a rigorous testing process to ensure that its results do not reflect political, gender, racial or ethnic bias, there is growing political support for regulating Google and other tech giants like public utilities and forcing it to disclose how exactly its arrives at search results.
Most people have little understanding of how Google’s search engine ranks different sites, what it chooses to include or exclude, and how it picks the top results among hundreds of billions of pages. And Google tightly guards the mathematical equations behind it all — the rest of the world has to take their word that it is done in an unbiased manner.
“The complexity of ranking and rating is always going to lead to some lack of understanding for people outside of the company,” said Frank Pasquale, an information law professor at the University of Maryland. “The problem is that a lot of people aren’t willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.” In his book, “The Black Box Society,” Mr. Pasquale warned about the potential risks from an overreliance on secret algorithms that control what information we see and how critical decisions are made.
As the dominant search engine with an estimated 90 percent global market share, Google was criticized by both the right and the left of the political world during the 2016 election.
In June 2016, a video from the pop culture site SourceFed accused Google of manipulating automatically completed search suggestions to favor Hillary Clinton. Google denied the claim, but right-wing media seized on the video as an example that the company was tipping the scales in her favor.
In the days after the election, the top Google search results for “final election vote count 2016” was a link to a story that wrongly stated that Mr. Trump, who won the Electoral College, had also defeated Mrs. Clinton in the popular vote.
In the research that led to the creation of Project Owl, Google found that a small fraction of its search results — about 0.25 percent of daily traffic — were linking to intentionally misleading, false or offensive information. For a company that aims to deliver the most relevant information for all queries, that constituted a crisis.
David North, editorial chairman of the World Socialist Web Site, in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Credit Laura McDermott for The New York Times
Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines used by human raters to determine what is a good search result and what is a bad one. Google said its global staff of more than 10,000 raters do not determine search rankings, but their judgments help inform how the algorithm performs in the future.
Google has often said that it cannot reveal too much or people would use that information to try to game the rankings. The opacity around Google’s algorithm has given birth to a cottage industry of search engine optimization experts who dissect the company’s comments.
To assuage criticism about that lack of transparency, Google made public its guidelines for search quality in 2013. Pandu Nayak, a Google fellow who focuses on search quality, said disclosing the guidelines is more meaningful.
“The actual algorithm is not as important as what the algorithm is trying to do,” said Mr. Nayak. “Being completely transparent of what you’re trying to achieve is the central goal because how you accomplish that can change.”
Google said hundreds of factors go into its search algorithm and the formula is also constantly evolving. The company said it conducted 150,000 search experiments and implemented 1,600 changes last year.
This is why it’s hard to pinpoint exactly why search traffic plummets for a site like the World Socialist Web Site, which calls itself the “online newspaper of the international Trotskyist movement.” Mr. North, the site’s chairman, said traffic coming in from search is down 70 percent since April, citing data from Alexa, a web traffic analytics firm owned by Amazon.com.
In an open letter to Google last month, Mr. North traced his site’s traffic decline to Project Owl. Mr. North said he believed that Google was blacklisting the site, using concerns over fake news as a cover to suppress opinions from socialist, antiwar or left-wing websites and block news that Google doesn’t want covered.
In mid-April, a Google search for “socialism vs. capitalism” brought back one of the site’s links on the first results page but, by August, that same search didn’t feature any of its links. The site said 145 of the top 150 search terms that had redirected people to the site in April are now devoid of its links.
Mr. North said that Google has not responded to his claims. Google declined to comment on the World Socialist Web Site.
Mr. North argued the drop-off in traffic is the result of Google directing users toward mainstream media organizations, including The New York Times. The World Socialist Web Site claimed that search referral traffic had fallen since April at a variety of other left-wing, progressive, socialist or antiwar publications like AlterNet and Consortiumnews.
The New York Times could not find the same level of traffic declines at all of those publications, based on data from SimilarWeb, a web analytics firm. Traffic coming from search engines for the World Socialist Web Site was down 34 percent during the months of May to July, compared with the preceding three months, according to SimilarWeb. Traffic that did not come from search was up 1 percent during the same period.
Mr. North said his site provides critical analysis for current events and it has nothing in common with sites peddling blatantly untrue stories. But he said he is opposed to any actions taken by Google under the pretext of stopping fake news.
“I’m against censorship in any form,” he said. “It’s up to people what they want to read. It’s not going to stop with the World Socialist Web Site. It’s going to expand and spread.”
‘I don’t want it to look like EPA used our own social media accounts to reach our support goal’ – EPA Director of Web Communications
(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch obtained 900-pages of documents from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which reveal the agency’s use of the mass-sharing Thunderclap social media platform to covertly promote its policies in violation of federal law.
The documents show that EPA staffers, via the Thunderclap platform, recruited outside groups to lobby in support of the Clean Water Rule or “Waters of the United States.” Thunderclap shares member messages across multiple Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr accounts simultaneously.
Federal law prohibits agencies from engaging in propaganda, which is defined as covert activity intended to influence the American public. Federal law also prohibits agencies from using federal resources to conduct grassroots lobbying to prod the American public to call on Congress to act on pending legislation.
The EPA’s Director of Web Communications Jessica Orquina, in a September 10, 2014, email, wrote to Karen Wirth, an EPA team leader in the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, urging the covert use of the Thunderclap technology. “I don’t want it to look like EPA used our own social media accounts to reach our support goal,” Orquina wrote to Wirth.
The Clean Water Rule, now in the process of being repealed by the Trump administration, was a significant and legally controversial increase in federal authority over streams and other small bodies of water.
A December 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded the EPA’s use of Thunderclap to promote the Clean Water Rule “constitutes covert propaganda” and violated federal law.
The records were obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the EPA failed to respond to a May 3 FOIA request (Judicial Watch vs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 1:17-cv-01218)). Judicial Watch seeks:
All internal emails or other records concerning project administration, management, or assignment of tasks related to the EPA’s use of the Thunderclap social media platform.
On September 9, 2014, Travis Loop, the EPA’s director of communications for water, initiated the lobbying effort in an email to Gary Belan, senior director for the organization American Rivers, under the subject line “RE: IMPORTANT: Join a Thunderclap for Clean Water” that read:
EPA is planning to use a new social media application called Thunderclap to provide a way for people to show their support for clean water and the agency’s proposal to protect it. Here’s how it works: you agree to let Thunderclap post a one-time message on your social networks (Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr) on Monday, September 29 at 2:00 pm EDT. If 500 or more people sign up to participate, the message will be posted on everyone’s walls and feeds at the same time. But if fewer than 500 sign up, nothing happens. So, it is important to both sign up and encourage others to do so.
In a September 10, 2014, email from Loop to Orquina, Loop asks “What’s the best way to get the other agencies to sign up for the Thunderclap and promote on social media? Interior, USGS, NOAA, etc. I was going to tweet at them to join the Thunderclap, but thought maybe you had thoughts on that and maybe a more direct line.” Orquina responds: “Why don’t I send a message to the interagency social media listserv?”
In a September 15, 2014, email, Loop seeks assistance on the Thunderclap effort from the American Public Health Association (APHA). Loop writes to colleagues Brian Bond and Micah Ragland: “Can you reach out to your contact at the American Public Health Association and see if they can use their Twitter to support our Thunderclap for clean water? Basically we would love if they could sign up for their Twitter account to participate and then tweet to their followers an encouragement to participate? If how to do this is unclear I can talk to someone there. They have more than 440,000 followers so this would be a nice bump.”
In a September 25, 2014, email to Jay Jensen of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Loop noted of the Thunderclap Clean Water effort: “Right now we have 840 people who have signed up and so the message will be seen by 1.7 million people. I’m trying to make this as big as possible, so anyone that can sign up and encourage others to sign up is appreciated. I know you have lots of connections all across the board that could make this even bigger.”
“The Obama EPA knowingly did an end run around federal law to push another Obama environmental power grab,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “These documents show how these Obama-era bureaucrats seem to be more like social activists than public employees. Let’s hope President Trump does some major housecleaning at the EPA.”