Massive Clinton voter fraud in NY?

a reply to: UKTruth

I think Sen Sanders won New York, here's what mathematician Richard Charmin has to say, more at source.

Probability of 11.8% exit poll discrepancy
……………..Sanders Clinton Margin
Recorded …..42.1%….. 57.9%……15.8%
Exit poll…….48.0%…..52.0%……4.0%

The probability P of the discrepancy is 1 in 236,000.

source

The odd of a loss of 11.6% of votes from the exit poll to the final tally is 1 in 236,000!

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: UKTruth

I think Sen Sanders won New York, here's what mathematician Richard Charmin has to say, more at source.

Probability of 11.8% exit poll discrepancy
……………..Sanders Clinton Margin
Recorded …..42.1%….. 57.9%……15.8%
Exit poll…….48.0%…..52.0%……4.0%

The probability P of the discrepancy is 1 in 236,000.

source

The odd of a loss of 11.6% of votes from the exit poll to the final tally is 1 in 236,000!

I thought this on the night actually - it seemed strange that the networks could not call it from the exit polls because it was too close, and then the actual result was such a big win for Clinton.

Here is an interesting video on the scandals around the Clintons, with first hand witness statements

originally posted by: UKTruth
. . . with first hand witness statements

More accusations.

You know what "they" say about human witnesses.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
. . . with first hand witness statements

More accusations.

You know what "they" say about human witnesses.

Watch the video - attorney generals, police officers, convictions, signed documents...
You can bury your head in the sand (or allegedly coc aine in the Clintons' case) if you like. That's up to you.
I prefer to not dismiss the information provided.

a reply to: UKTruth

Here's a fun list of the Clintons accomplishments, they are such amazing people!

Link

Have fun!

Let me know what you think!

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
. . . with first hand witness statements

More accusations.

You know what "they" say about human witnesses.

Watch the video - attorney generals, police officers, convictions, signed documents...
You can bury your head in the sand (or allegedly coc aine in the Clintons' case) if you like. That's up to you.
I prefer to not dismiss the information provided.

I'm not burying my head in the sand.

The website "Bush Bones" - - 20 years ago was fascinating.

Now we have the Clinton's - - I doubt anything will come of this either.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
. . . with first hand witness statements

More accusations.

You know what "they" say about human witnesses.

Watch the video - attorney generals, police officers, convictions, signed documents...
You can bury your head in the sand (or allegedly coc aine in the Clintons' case) if you like. That's up to you.
I prefer to not dismiss the information provided.

I'm not burying my head in the sand.

The website "Bush Bones" - - 20 years ago was fascinating.

Now we have the Clinton's - - I doubt anything will come of this either.

I agree with you - nothing will come of it.

However its not even a debate that the Clintons are liars who will happily smear people who question them, for example Bill lied about visiting Gennifer Flowers - he was caught on video entering her apartment several times having said he only once called her. This is the same woman Hillary called "trailer trash" and a woman smeared and accused of lying by Clintons press officer. It's a pattern that can not be dismissed, only accepted as OK if you are comfortable to do so.

I do think that the Clinton v Trump election (if that is what it is) has the potential to bring all this information back to the fore (and there is a lot that was shelved with no explanation by the federal courts). It may be that Hillary decides to not attack Trump for fear of the retaliation, or it may be a blood bath!

a reply to: UKTruth

Power political couples have been around for eons. I don't care.

Clinton, most investigated president ever, and the only thing they can get him on is sex?

That's actually kind of amazing.

a reply to: xuenchen

It is highly possible. TPTB are using voter fraud since the beginning of human civilization.

a reply to: Annee

You're talking as if they wanted to get him on something other than sex. Had there been such a thing, witnesses would have conveniently disappeared, prosecutors would have fumbled the case, courts would have decided it wasn't worth their time and shelved it "for later" (code for "never").

Besides, everyone knows that the one with all the dirty laundry is Hillary. Bill might have been complicit, but he wasn't pulling the strings.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Annee

You're talking as if they wanted to get him on something other than sex. Had there been such a thing, witnesses would have conveniently disappeared, prosecutors would have fumbled the case, courts would have decided it wasn't worth their time and shelved it "for later" (code for "never").

Besides, everyone knows that the one with all the dirty laundry is Hillary. Bill might have been complicit, but he wasn't pulling the strings.

Speculation.

You have proof of nothing.

a reply to: Annee

All lies and made-up stories, I'm sure.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But go on ahead, keep your eyes wide shut.

Are you willing, unlike your friend, to admit that someone is tipping the 2016 Democratic Primary in Hillary's favor, she may not be involved herself, directly or indirectly, but it. Is. Happening.
The DNC and the Media are obviously giving her helping hands, but there's something more, too.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: UKTruth

I think Sen Sanders won New York, here's what mathematician Richard Charmin has to say, more at source.

Probability of 11.8% exit poll discrepancy
……………..Sanders Clinton Margin
Recorded …..42.1%….. 57.9%……15.8%
Exit poll…….48.0%…..52.0%……4.0%

The probability P of the discrepancy is 1 in 236,000.

source

The odd of a loss of 11.6% of votes from the exit poll to the final tally is 1 in 236,000!

The more important note is that they exit poll numbers were CHANGED!!!!

from your link:

At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-622 (52.0-47.6%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton’s lead increased to 802-589 (57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and Sanders had 33 fewer.

How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders’ total drop? They can’t. It is mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. . The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments

9:03pm 1307 repondednts, 680 Clinton 622 Snaders
Final: 1391 respondents 802 Hillary 589 Sanders.

At 9:03 Sanders had 622 Votes, at close he had 589. 33 Votes were deleted!!!

Sanders LOST votes in the poll.... forget 11.8% discrepancy. There is a 100% Chance of election rigging.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Annee

All lies and made-up stories, I'm sure.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. But go on ahead, keep your eyes wide shut.

Are you willing, unlike your friend, to admit that someone is tipping the 2016 Democratic Primary in Hillary's favor, she may not be involved herself, directly or indirectly, but it. Is. Happening.
The DNC and the Media are obviously giving her helping hands, but there's something more, too.

Not interested.

I don't think we have a clue what goes on at this level.

a reply to: Annee

So you're not even going to acknowledge all the shady stuff in the Clinton history. -siiigh-
Talk about willfully blind.

We do have a clue. We may not be able to observe the action itself but we can see its results. Someone's putting a lot of weight on the scales to favor Hillary, we can see that all over the place. Ridiculous media bias, superdelegates, electoral issues that just "coincidentally" happen to give her a helping hand (whether that be purged/altered votes or awful polling practices.)

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Annee

So you're not even going to acknowledge all the shady stuff in the Clinton history. -siiigh-
Talk about willfully blind.

NO.

Let me know when there's an arrest warrant.

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: UKTruth

I think Sen Sanders won New York, here's what mathematician Richard Charmin has to say, more at source.

Probability of 11.8% exit poll discrepancy
……………..Sanders Clinton Margin
Recorded …..42.1%….. 57.9%……15.8%
Exit poll…….48.0%…..52.0%……4.0%

The probability P of the discrepancy is 1 in 236,000.

source

The odd of a loss of 11.6% of votes from the exit poll to the final tally is 1 in 236,000!

The more important note is that they exit poll numbers were CHANGED!!!!

from your link:

At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-622 (52.0-47.6%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton’s lead increased to 802-589 (57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and Sanders had 33 fewer.

How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders’ total drop? They can’t. It is mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. . The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments

9:03pm 1307 repondednts, 680 Clinton 622 Snaders
Final: 1391 respondents 802 Hillary 589 Sanders.

At 9:03 Sanders had 622 Votes, at close he had 589. 33 Votes were deleted!!!

Sanders LOST votes in the poll.... forget 11.8% discrepancy. There is a 100% Chance of election rigging.

It is actually standard practice to adjust the exit polls based on the make up of the voters who actually voted. That is why you have two different numbers. The raw exit polls are generally released a couple of months after the vote.

Aside from the fact that our current voting system is outdated and allows "opportunities" for fraud...it's a big waste of money too. Why not just give people a "pin" number when they register to vote, similar to a bank account. With that pin # you can either vote by phone or internet, you could also manage your party affiliation, if you want to switch it and address changes...It just can't be that hard with today's technology !

originally posted by: MountainLaurel
Aside from the fact that our current voting system is outdated and allows "opportunities" for fraud...it's a big waste of money too. Why not just give people a "pin" number when they register to vote, similar to a bank account. With that pin # you can either vote by phone or internet, you could also manage your party affiliation, if you want to switch it and address changes...It just can't be that hard with today's technology !

Would that be easier to rig though? Who issues the pin numbers and how could you check 10's of millions of 'votes' were not actually from made up people issued pins?

Better to go to a booth, enter in your social security number, get confirmation the system recognizes you and then you vote. After an email is sent immediately to you confirming your vote.

Then an election committee deal with any instance where votes look to have been flipped - they have access to the full list of social security numbers and vote selection so they can cross reference any issues. After each election a random sample of people are also contacted to confirm their vote matches the email they received.