All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
36:54
Will the US Elections be Rigged？ #IfTheMediaRiggedTheElection
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Also interesting, because remember, it's illegal to possess these stolen documents.
It's different for the media.
So everything you learn about this, you're learning from us.
And in full disclosure, let's take a look at what is in there and what it means.
Joining us now, CNN.
There's a lot of concern that U.S. presidential elections can be rigged.
You're probably aware that Hillary Clinton has suggested that Russia is working to interfere with the US presidential elections by trying to help get Trump elected.
She said, I'm really concerned about the credible reports about Russian government interference in our elections.
The fact that our intelligence professionals are now studying this and taking it seriously raises some grave questions about potential Russian interference with our electoral process.
I'm sure this is a perfectly valid concern and I'm sure that there are intelligence professionals who are taking it seriously and studying it.
Interestingly though, Obama doesn't seem to think there is any danger of the US presidential elections being rigged, well, at all, I guess.
Can you promise the American people that this election will be conducted in a fair way?
It is, I don't even really know where to start on answering this question.
Of course the elections will not be rigged.
What does that mean?
Obviously, that means that the votes will be manipulated to come to a preordained conclusion, presumably via a conspiracy.
Not that I think Obama would be implicated in such a conspiracy.
I mean, he makes a valid point saying that the federal government isn't in charge of doing this.
The federal government doesn't run the election process.
States and cities and communities all across the country, they're the ones who set up the voting systems and the voting booths.
So let's not speculate on who might be part of some shadowy conspiracy and look at who actually is a part of some shadowy conspiracy, using the evidence that we actually have available.
We'll start with the DNC conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, which I have heard from some Hillary supporters is apparently not a conspiracy at all and they didn't do nothing.
Unfortunately for these people, we know from the WikiLeaks releases that these people were actively trying to sabotage Bernie's campaign.
For example, one email from me shows Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggesting that they use religion against a certain possible atheist with a Jewish heritage.
Obviously Bernie.
He says, it may make no difference, but for KY and WVA, we can get someone to ask his belief.
Does he believe in a god?
He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.
I think I read he is an atheist.
This could make several points of difference with my peeps.
My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.
That's just one example of one person proposing ways of sinking Bernie Sanders' campaign.
And I'll go into the real meat of how we know all of this has happened in a minute.
But what I find really interesting is they even have a Bernie narrative planned to explain exactly why his popular campaign failed.
Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess.
Specifically, DWS had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they'd either ignored or forgotten to do something critical.
She had to call Bernie after the data breach to make his staff respond to our concerns.
Even then, they didn't get back to us, which is why we had to shut off their access in order to get them to finally let us know exactly how they snooped around HFA's data.
The same was true of the standing committee appointments.
They never got back to us with their names for the committees.
So again, the chair had to call Bernie personally for his staff to finally get us critical information.
So they just gave us an awful list just a few days before we had to make the announcements.
It's not a DNC conspiracy, it's because they never had their act together.
Which is precisely how they've been planning to cover up their conspiracy.
And this has been going on since the Wikileaks releases after Hillary Clinton won the nomination.
This is from The Observer.
Democrats keep party rigged with Wassaman Schultz's victory.
Party leaders flocked to South Florida to assist her corrupt re-election campaign.
Former DNC chair Debbie Wassaman Schultz faced calls to resign as early as September 2015 due to her divisive leadership during the Democratic presidential primaries.
Congresswoman Wassaman Schultz, who served as co-chair to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, was blatantly tipping the scales for Clinton throughout the campaign season.
A rigged debate schedule, defending Clinton in the face of an FBI investigation, shutting off voter database access to the Sanders campaign, and ridiculing young women who are disproportionately supporting Senator Sanders are just a few examples of overt favouritism for Clinton exercised by Wassam and Schultz before the primaries even began.
Documents released by Wikileaks and hacker Guchifer 2.0 toward the end of the Democratic primaries reveal without a doubt that Wassaman Schultz violated the DNC charter.
By creating an environment in which its staff worked on behalf of the Clinton campaign, Wassam and Schultz strategised with Clinton in mind as the Democratic presidential nominee.
The Democratic primaries were Democratic in name only, and the DNC and the mainstream media and the Democratic Party anointed Clinton before a single vote was cast.
And here is Wasserman Schultz telling you exactly that.
I was a key part of helping President Obama get re-elected in 2012, and the work we did to prepare for Hillary Clinton to be our nominee and then make sure that we could get her elected president is absolutely critical to advancing the issues that are important.
There is simply no getting around the fact that the DNC primaries were rigged.
They were rigged in favour of Hillary and we know who did it.
I found this post by a page called Real Progressives where they say that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run where she lost the nomination to Obama.
So in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary would have to have put Schultz in charge of the DNC to manipulate the party from within.
In order for this corruption scheme to work, the Clintons would have needed first to not only get the current DNC chair at the time to step down, but also to get them to recommend Schultz for the position.
A big request, and the Clintons would have likely needed to promise a powerful favour to that DNC chair, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic Party.
So who was that person and what did they get in return?
The previous chair of the DNC prior to Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Tim Kane, who did resign his position in 2011 to be replaced after an interim of Donna Brazil with Debbie Wassaman Schultz.
And we also have one of the pedestrian emails that was from before the end of the Democratic presidential primaries where Hillary had personally told Tim Kane he's the VP.
And they say it's a little unseemly.
There is currently in progress a class action lawsuit against Debbie Wassaman Schultz specifically for rigging the Democratic primaries.
The suit includes six claims.
Fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, monetary restitution for donors of Sanders, the DNC breaking its own fiduciary duties, and negligence for failing to protect sensitive donor information that was hacked.
Schultz is trying to weasel her way out of taking responsibility for this by saying that there is no liability, neutrality is merely a political promise, similar to policy proposals made in campaign platforms that aren't fulfilled when in office.
This of course leaves voters susceptible to the deception that the DNC would treat Clinton and Sanders equally.
Their lawyers argue liability only applies to consumer-merchant relationships.
So they are trying to get out of this with a legalistic reading of their own rules.
These DNC lawyers are the same counsel Hillary Clinton used throughout her presidential campaign.
In a Wikileaks release from Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta's emails, attorney Mark Elias provides the Clinton campaign with an outline on how to legally coordinate with super PACs, which is something that we will discuss a bit later.
The argument made by DNC's lawyers were proven invalid after the WikiLeaks dump of emails resulted in the resignation of Wasson and Schultz and three other top staff members who were exposed to be working against the Sanders campaign in favor of Clinton.
Despite Wasson and Schultz's disgrace, Clinton immediately hired her and establishment Democrats supported her re-election bid to Congress.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Beneath the surface lurks the huge problem of what genuinely appears to be the worst case scenario.
This week we have had many behind-the-scenes revelations brought to us by a journalist called James O'Keefe and Project Veritas Action.
O'Keefe and his journalists managed to record private conversations with key insiders in this process and managed to catch them on tape revealing exactly the things that they are doing in order to manipulate the election.
I am contracted to him.
I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of the special events on political for the campaign.
The campaign pays DNC.
DNC pays democracy partners.
Democracy Partners pays the foble group.
The foble group goes and executes the shit on the ground.
Democracy Partners is a private political consulting company with deep ties to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama's White House, and the Democratic National Committee.
We are the primary mechanism as a team.
Democracy Partners is the tip of the spear offense.
Wherever Trump and Pence are going to be, we have events.
Okay.
And we have a whole team across the country that does that.
Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party Advis and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign.
And my role for the campaign is to manage all that.
So that's who Scott Foval and Bob Creamer are.
And these are the sorts of things that they do.
No, I'm saying, we have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit.
Make no mistake.
Over the last 20 years, I've paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff.
And I've also taken them for dinner and I've also made sure they had a hotel and a shower and I put them in a program.
Like, I've done that.
But the reality is a lot of, especially in our union guys.
A lot of pre-union guys?
They'll do that.
Oh, yeah.
You want.
They're rocking motor.
So I suppose we'd better have a look at what some of these union guys are doing then.
So here, you have a schedule of events.
We update this on an ongoing rolling basis every morning.
Those are all the Trump appearances.
These are all the Trump and Pence appearances.
Tomorrow, for instance, we are turning out 500 people in front of the Trump International in DC.
We have to have people prepared to go wherever these events are, which means we have to have a central kind of agitator training.
Now, we have a built-in group of people in New York who do this.
We have a built-in group of people in D.C. who do this.
I was going to say, are they localized?
We have a group of people in Vegas.
We have a group of people in Colorado.
We have a group of people in Minneapolis.
They have a network of agitators whose job and appears sole job is to go to Trump and Pence rallies and cause trouble.
And this is how they do it.
What I call it is conflict engagement.
That's your version of re-enfranchisement.
Conflict engagement in the lines at Trump rallies.
We're starting anarchy here.
If you're there and you're protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies.
That's what we are.
Oh, so that's part of the process.
Let's get over sitting the reaction.
The whole point of it is we know that Trump's people will freak the fuck out.
His security team will freak out.
And his supporters will lose their ship.
There's a script.
Oh, there is a script.
There's a script.
Okay.
There's a script of engagement.
Sometimes the crazies bite, and sometimes the crazies don't bite.
They're starting confrontations in the line.
Right?
They're not starting confrontations in the rally because once they're inside the rally, they're under Secret Service's control.
When they're outside the rally, they're harder to get in.
The media will cover it no matter where it happens.
I assume it's always in the rally.
They're initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic.
Okay, I mean, honestly, it is not hard to get some of these assholes to pop off.
It's a matter of showing up to want to get into the rally in a Planned Parenthood t-shirt.
Or, you know, Trump is a Nazi.
You know, you can message to draw them out and draw them to punch you.
This provocation is, of course, done with the intention of provoking Trump supporters into violence so that can be reported on by the media.
And here are some examples of where that's been successful.
Remember this woman?
Her name is Shirley Teeter.
She is a 69-year-old sufferer of COPD.
According to numerous news stories at the time, she was assaulted at a Trump rally in North Carolina by Trump supporter Richard Campbell.
The media played her story across the country for days.
She was one of our activists.
She's one of your activists.
Who had been trained up to bird dogs.
Yes.
So the term bird dogging, you put people in the line at the front, which means they have to get there at 6 o'clock in the morning so that they're getting the front of the rally so that when Trump comes down the rope line, they're the ones asking him the question in front of the reporters because they're pre-placed there.
To funnel that kind of operation, you have to start back with people two weeks ahead of time and train them how to ask questions.
You have to train them to bird dog.
Nobody's really supposed to know about me.
So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us.
It was more him than me.
But none of this is supposed to come back to us because we want it coming from people.
We don't want it to come from the party.
So if we do a protest and it's a DNC protest, it's right away the press is going to say partisan.
But if I'm in there coordinating with all the groups on the ground and sort of playing field general, but they're the ones talking to the cameras, then it's actually people.
But if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign, it just doesn't have the same effect.
And they do all of this.
also the media can't immediately tie them back to clinton we have to be really careful um because because what we don't need is for it show up on cnn that the dnc paid for x people to that's not going to happen But don't worry, they take really good care of their agent provocateurs.
Because the one thing I'm never going to do is have some kid get punched out at a rally and then not have his doctor bill and his legal bill if he gets arrested and paid for it.
So you might be thinking to yourself that this is just an extreme version of the more standard political maneuvering that parties do whenever they're trying to win elections.
And I agree with you, this probably is.
It's quite dirty and underhanded, but probably not in and of itself illegal.
Instead, it would probably just be rather impolitic for the general public to know about this.
But of course, that is not the limit of the things that they are prepared to do in service of their cause.
They will, of course, commit voter fraud.
I think there's a lot of voter fraud.
Right.
But like I say, people don't realize certain neighborhoods in particular.
They bust people around to vote.
They do what?
They bust them around.
They put them in a bus and they vote the poll site, the poll site.
We did the exact same thing.
Only we manipulated the vote with money and action, not with law.
It's a very easy thing for Republicans to say, well, they're busting people in.
Well, you know what?
We've been busting people in to deep fucking asshole for 50 years, and we're not going to stop now.
They're just going to find a different way to do it.
So, I mean, I grew up with that idea.
You know, they used to bust people out to Iowa.
Well, okay, let's just say, in theory, if a major investigation came up of major vote fraud that way, how would they prove it and who would they charge?
Are they going to charge each individual?
Oh, sorry.
Charge each individual with voter fraud?
See, that's the fair thing.
Are they going to go after the facilitator for conspiracy, which they can prove?
Fine, I'm having it, and I'm the head person that I've used the school.
It's one thing if all these people drive up in their personal cars, if there's a bus involved, that changes the dynamics.
So it's the legality.
Well, yeah, you can prove each Pharisee if there's a bus.
Yeah.
If there are cars, it's much harder to prove.
And there's enough money.
If there's enough money, you don't have people drive their POV.
Absolutely.
Or if you have them drive rentals.
Yeah, with Wisconsin license plates.
Absolutely.
Well, you can't have them with Wisconsin license plates because Renaissance here, most of them don't have Wisconsin licenses.
But there's this thing called used car auction.
Ah.
Ah.
Use car auction.
If the titles belong to some unknown company, their company cars.
And you know, these are multiple employers.
These are not all one employer.
Yeah.
Use shell companies.
Yeah.
Cars come from one company and some cars come from another.
There's no bus involved, so you can't prove that it's en masse.
There you go.
It doesn't tip people off.
If the car has a Wisconsin license plate and is owned by a third entity, then it's much harder to prove that these people throw in or out of state.
There's no bus involved, so you can't prove conspiracy.
Fauville's right.
It is hard to prove conspiracy.
It's always a lot easier when you have video or emails of the conspirators admitting to the conspiracy.
So the question is, why are they doing this?
Well, the answer is obvious.
Brad and Bob and Lux and myself are all part of the old school method where it doesn't matter what the freaking legal and ethics people say.
We need to win this motherfucker.
The answer is that they're doing this to get Hillary elected.
So now the question becomes, does Hillary know about this?
Of course she does.
Hillary is aware of all the work that you guys do.
I hope.
And then they tell Hillary what's going on.
Well I mean Hillary knows shit.
I mean.
So at the top of the pyramid we have Hillary Clinton, who has beneath her and working for her deeply corrupt people who are willing to break the law in service of getting Hillary elected.
And I think that this has become the greater good because if they get Hillary elected, they are not going to be investigated for what they've done or prosecuted.
If they fail to get Hillary elected, then there is every chance that this sort of thing might be leaked.
It might come out and they might find themselves on the receiving end of some kind of investigation in the same way as Debbie Wassum and Schultz.
And her conspiracy was successful.
We can also verify that at least three of the people in the Project Veritas videos had previous employment exactly where they say they were, but have also been let go or stepped down.
Zulima Rodriguez is one of these agitators and she's in the video bragging about what she did.
She has been confirmed to have been on the payroll of the Clinton campaign.
However, they do say that Rodriguez's claims that she played a key role in the protest could have been an empty boast, but then they did pay her $1,600, so maybe they weren't.
More importantly though, the Project Veritas video claimed two scalps in the form of Scott Foville, the man doing most of the talking in the clips I've showed you, who was fired, and Bob Creamer, the one who said that this was all escalated to Hillary, who stepped down, citing how he didn't want to be the focus of Hillary's campaign.
Yes, I can quite imagine that you wouldn't want to be, Bob.
You might think that with all of this being a matter of the public record now, the media would be having a field day, shredding the Clinton campaign.
But they are of course not.
They are of course insanely biased in favour of Hillary Clinton.
Here are a few examples of this media bias in action.
Dark talk of rigged election signals new emphasis for Trump campaign.
What could have been an objective sentence has been completely changed by the use of the word dark at the beginning, to give it a sinister tone to make people think that what will be revealed within is obviously wrong.
Not just factually, but morally wrong, as if talking about this is the sort of thing good people don't do.
They start with mockery.
Traditionally candidates do not complain about an election being rigged until they have actually lost.
That may normally be true, but usually we don't have so much evidence of voter fraud and vote rigging before an election is finished.
Pay attention to the way this is worded.
Allegations of media conspiracy, partisan collusion, and election day shenanigans have become a staple of Trump's rally speeches and Twitter blasts.
They have taken the things that have actually happened and made them only a staple of his speeches.
They're not commenting on whether these things really happened, Because that doesn't matter.
What matters is that Trump regularly says these things, and you know how vile the things that Donald Trump says are.
Suggestions of dark doings at the ballot box, hinted at in earlier phases of the campaign, have become a central theme for Trump in October.
Again, another factually accurate statement, but decontextualized from the fact that these things have actually happened.
Instead of talking about that, and instead talking about how these are things Trump is talking about in his campaigns, they're uncoupling it from the reality of why he's doing it and allowing the reader to inform it with their own bias against Trump, which they then lead on with when they say, especially since accusations of sexual assault threaten to overwhelm his campaign.
How exactly do accusations of sexual assault lead to suggestions of dark doings at the ballot box?
These things don't follow.
This is a non-sequitur, and it was written this way to be deliberately misleading.
If you can believe it, it actually becomes even more mendacious.
They say the villains in this speculative narrative usually include the media.
Ironically, we are looking at a primary example of the media being complicit in all of this by attempting to cover it up and obfuscate it.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and compliant local officials who might allow skull duggery at actual election sites, which we of course have already seen evidence of, and how Trump has added global financial interests to his list of shadowy conspirators against you, the American people.
If this was being written by a journalist, this person might have gone and found whatever it was that Trump was using to support these allegations and linked them there, so the people can see exactly what they're trying to say and make a decision for themselves.
For example, this person would have gone to the Wikileaks releases.
They would have looked at Hillary's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, where she says, My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.
This is to a room packed with top executives of global corporations.
It is entirely likely that Hillary is a globalist, but of course our author was simply trying to make this all sound ridiculous, even though it actually appears to be the literal truth.
So I do find it rather amusing when they say, that message resonates in some quarters.
The message being reality.
Reality resonates in some quarters.
The things that have actually happened, knowledge of this resonates in some quarters.
And again, I love the uncoupling of the conversation about things that have happened with the fact that these things have happened.
They say, the notion that something is rigged is finding an audience.
Yeah, it's not that there are these people who care about the things that the Democratic Party have done, it's that there is an idea that that's happened.
Yeah, okay, it may be informed by reality, but that idea is finding an audience.
A poll by Polisco and Morning Consults done on October 13th-15th found only 28% of registered voters feeling very confident their votes would be counted accurately.
Among Trump's supporters, only 15% felt that way.
It appears then that, after several weeks of negative stories and adverse developments, the Trump team has decided to change the subject to something the voters respond to.
It's not that there is validity to all of this, which is why people are interested in it, and is a perfectly valid thing for Trump himself to be interested in.
No!
This must be a cynical method of trying to prey on the voters' fears, even though we know all of this has happened.
Trump has also raised the issue of voter fraud being conducted by people who are obviously still alive, using the names of people who are dead to go and cast their vote.
Meaning, of course, this person will be voting twice.
So how have, say, the Guardian decided to take on this story?
Donald Trump's dark warning that dead will rise to rig the election as if Donald Trump is a necromancer and this is not actually some kind of legitimate issue.
And I'm sure you've already noticed the use of the word dark as in creating a media narrative of immorality around the very fact that these questions are even being asked.
They say that on Monday, just three weeks before the election day, the Republican nominee repeated his unsupported claim that voter fraud was rampant and specifically stated at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin that ballots cast by undocumented immigrants led to Obama's victory in the North Carolina in 2008, saying people who died 10 years ago are still voting.
Previously, Trump had only spoken in dog whistles about voter fraud in certain communities.
On Monday, he specifically said that 1.8 million dead people would vote, and for somebody else.
The statement was apparently a reference to the fact that one 2012 study found that up to 1.8 million active voter registrations from deceased voters existed.
In reality, the study said it found no evidence of fraud or any illegitimate ballots were cast.
It simply meant that the voter databases were out of date.
And I'm sure that's true.
The study was just to find out how many active voter registrations there were from dead people.
That turns out that it's 1.8 million.
Now, if you were, say, a journalist, you might then go out and try and find evidence to suggest that these dead voters are actually voting.
You could, of course, go down the route The Guardian has gone down and just say, well, there are unsupported allegations of sexual assault, and that's going to be the end of my journalism on the subject.
Alternatively, you could just do what I did and Google the term voter fraud in the United States and find, for example, articles from the Washington Times.
No, voter fraud isn't a myth.
Here's 10 cases where it's all too real.
Number 1.
Dead people voting in Colorado.
2. Illegals found voting in Virginia, only discovered after they self-reported.
3. Some Pennsylvania citizens voting twice.
4. Illegal voters uncovered in Philadelphia.
Half had previously voted.
5. Vote rigging triggers probe in Texas.
6. Indiana voter fraud investigation grows to 56 counties.
7. 3 under investigation in Oklahoma for voting twice in the presidential primary.
8. Election fraud in Kentucky.
9. Underage voters found voting in Wisconsin's presidential primary.
And 10. Voter registration cards sent to illegals in Pennsylvania.
These are all small-scale individual acts, but what you are seeing is something that obviously happens quite a lot all around the country and probably on both sides of the aisle.
I'm not saying the Republicans don't do this, although I am going to say that in this case, I really don't think that the Republicans rigged their own primaries in favour of Donald Trump.
And so I guess the question now is: well, how easy is it to hack a voting booth?
How easy is it to manipulate these results?
The professor told us it is possible because he did it.
Professor Andrew LaPelle conducted a demonstration where he actually changed the votes in the machine by swapping out the machine's computer chip for one that he programmed.
Election officials tell us that this cannot happen in real life.
They cite multiple security safeguards.
But the professor told us he exposed a loophole.
I figured out how to make a slightly different computer program that just before the close of the polls, it shifts some votes around from one candidate to another.
And I wrote that computer program onto a memory chip like this.
And now to hack a voting machine, you have to get seven minutes alone with it with a screwdriver.
Yeah, yeah.
And the knowledge of how to do this isn't exactly new.
Mr. Curtis, would you please state your full name for the record?
My name is Clinton Eugene Curtis.
And where do you reside?
LAC, Florida.
And what is your profession?
I'm a computer programmer.
Would you please speak into the microphone so the audience can hear your testimony?
I'm a computer programmer.
Mr. Curtis, are there programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?
Yes.
How do you know that to be the case?
Because in October of 2000, I wrote a prototype for President Congressman Tom Feeney at the company I work for in Obito, Florida, that did just that.
And when you say did just that, it would rig an election?
It would flip the vote 5149 to whoever you wanted it go to and whichever race you wanted to win.
And would that program that you designed be something that elections officials that might be on county boards of elections could detect?
They'd never see it.
Mr. Would you answer that question once again?
They would never see it.
So how would such a program, a secret program that fixes the election, how could it be detected?
You would have to view it either in the source code or you'd have to have a receipt and then count the hard paper against the actual vote total.
Other than that, you won't see it.
All right, Mr. Curtis, if you had been asked, you or others with your professional expertise, had been asked to design a protective program that would protect the Ohio elections from against such software to fix the election, could you have done so?
If we've been asked to make a program that could fix the elections?
Sure, anybody could do it.
No, could you have designed a program or a procedure or a protocol that would have protected Ohio against this kind of rigging?
No, you have to look at the source code.
You have to get probably programmers from both or all parties to look at the source code and determine if there's anything in there that shouldn't be there.
I mean, it's a simple program.
You're adding one to a person's total.
It's 100 lines of code topic.
All right.
Let's see.
Are you aware of whether there was any protective action in Ohio against this kind of vote rigging through software?
I don't know.
You don't know?
I don't know.
You were not asked to assist in the development of any protective system, is that correct?
No, I was not.
Have you reviewed at all the election results in Ohio?
No, I haven't.
Okay.
Given the availability of such vote-rigging software and the testimony that has been given under oath of substantial statistical anomalies and gross differences between exit polling data and the actual tabulated results, do you have an opinion whether or not the Ohio election, presidential election, was hacked?
Yes, I would say it was.
I mean, if you're if you have exit polling data that is significantly off from the vote, then it's probably hacked.
And your testimony is under oath.
Yes, sir.
And the testimony you've given is true.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
So what am I saying with all this?
We know the Democratic Party is very corrupt.
Now this doesn't mean that everyone in the party is corrupt.
This conspiracy was among a select group of people and not everyone will have known about it.
So you can't just go on a witch hunt and say this person knew this person knew.
We actually do know exactly who knew and you've seen them in the video, but beyond that we would be speculating unless we have evidence to suggest that this person was involved as well.
I am not saying that I know the presidential elections will be rigged, but personally, I would not be inclined to give these people the benefit of the doubt.
Their histories would preclude me from ever trusting them with anything.
Hillary appears to be the architect of a conspiracy to make herself the president of the United States.
I don't know how far that conspiracy goes, and I wouldn't put it past her if that conspiracy went as far as rigging the election itself.
But to be clear, I am not saying that Hillary is going to rig the election.
I have no idea whether she will or won't.
And if there's no evidence to suggest that she actually has, then we have to assume that she actually didn't if she wins.
If she wins and there's no strong evidence to suggest that the votes were tampered with, then more people must have voted for her.
However, I do think people should be vigilant on both sides of the political spectrum, because we're not talking really about a single party's corruption, and I, as I said, have not touched on anything the Republicans may or may not have done.
I'm sure their hands aren't clean either.
My concern here is the blatant disregard and undermining of American democracy, which is what this is.
We are talking about the integrity of the democratic process itself, and when a party subverts this and breaks it and gets away with it, it sets a dangerous precedent.
So it's important for people on both sides to condemn these actions, to not make excuses for them, to make sure that these people are held to account, and there are ways of you holding them to account.
▲
Export Selection