LAWSUIT FILED AS BERNIE SANDERS WINS CALIFORNIA BY LANDSLIDE
A HISTORIC LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED IN CALIFORNIA AFTER A WIDESPREAD COVER-UP OF BERNIE SANDERS’ LANDSLIDE VICTORY AT THE PRIMARY ELECTION EARLIER IN THE WEEK. THE LAWSUIT WILL REQUIRE THE COUNTING OF ALL THE PROVISIONAL BALLOTS, WHICH SANDERS SAYS GIVES HIM A LANDSLIDE WIN IN THE STATE.
Justicegazette.org reports:
The theft of California hasn’t deterred Sanders from his course. He has promised to fight on while noting it is a steep uphill climb. Given all the states where vote fraud in favor of Hillary Clinton has been allowed to swing primaries from Sanders to Clinton, it is in fact a steep uphill climb to restore democracy and force the now undemocratic Democratic Party to nominate the man the vast majority of American voters have voted for or tried to vote for. It has been learned from poll workers that 50% to 90% of voters who were supposed to have been eligible to vote in the Democratic primary were told they would have to vote provisional ballots. There were two irregularities leading to the forced use of provisional ballots instead of regular ballots. The first was that previously registered voters’ names had been removed from the rolls. The second was that someone (in most cases, not the voter) had marked them as vote by mail voters but they had received no ballot in the mail. Oddly, virtually all of those not allowed to vote and forced to vote provisional ballots were Bernie Sanders supporters. The next oddity is even more curious. Poll workers in Los Angeles and Orange County report that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin, the opposite of the result of the vote count. The contrast between this and the outcome is indicative of vote-flipping. Also the outcome.. outcome does not match what anyone who has conducted polling in this state knows: Below the election night video is a video about black box voting (Hacking Democracy) , The Democratic Party has essentially endorsed this video, showing it at various conventions and another video of a computer programmer confessing to creating a vote-flipping program.
If you add the lower figure of 50% of voters who were not allowed to vote regular ballots for Bernie to the votes he received, you wind up with a substantial Sanders landslide victory in California. The primary beneficiary of the fraud is Hillary Clinton.
As for provisional ballots, acclaimed BBC reporter, author and election fraud expert Greg Palast calls them “placebo ballots.” Greg is the reporter who exposed the voter fraud in Florida in 2000. Nightline used his footage in covering the story. Here is from Greg’s article, “How California is being stolen from Sanders right now.”
“As I’ve previously reported, provisional ballots are “placebo” ballots that let you feel like you’ve voted, but you haven’t. Provisional ballots are generally discarded.”
The Justice Gazette has conducted considerable polling and the official results reflect the opposite of how people said they were going to vote. At the California Democratic Convention most of the elected delegates were “Bernie or Bust.” Ask yourself, when Sanders gets enthusiastic crowds of thousands in California (sixty thousand according to police in Oakland alone) compared to laid- back crowds of hundreds for Clinton, who voted for Clinton? Ask your neighbors, co-workers and fellow students if they voted for her and then start asking how she supposedly won the election without the support of the voters. Or just look at Alameda County (Berkeley, Oakland), where Sanders was greeted by a hundred thousand active supporters, where Clinton is very unpopular and where Clinton’s percentage and Sanders percentage appear to be the exact reversal of what the residents of that county know to be the case. If you walked into any store or group setting, other than a Clinton gathering, and asked who was going to vote for Clinton, you would find that nobody or maybe one or two people would be considering voting for her. Almost all the rest would be planning to vote for Bernie Sanders. We know. At the Justice Gazette, reporters did just that.
Poll workers in Orange and Los Angeles County have reported that Bernie won the electronic votes in their precincts by well over a 2 to 1 margin. So how does this translate into a victory for Clinton? Ask yourself why an excited crowd of thousands came to the election night event of a loser when this kind of crowd has never come to the event of a primary loser in California’s history. Perhaps this is because Sanders didn’t lose. Votes can be flipped in less than a minute by someone walking into the Registrars office. Watch Bev Harris’s documentary Hacking Democracy and the video of a confession on the creator of a program designed to do just that below.
Prior to going into the California primary, it was known that Sanders was going to insist that the Democratic National Convention nominate the winner of the California primary. Clinton is very unpopular in California and it would have been impossible for her to acquire the votes to win legitimately. There was only one way for Clinton to win and that was to rig the election. Those running the Democratic Party have made it clear, following the known rigging of elections in other states, that they either consider election fraud and rigging a proper way to win a nomination or don’t care if a candidate wins this way.
Back to forcing the majority of Sanders voters to vote uncounted provisional ballots. You may ask, how Hillary knew who to disenfranchise? There are multiple ways. First, new voters were overwhelmingly planning to vote for Bernie. Second, of the NPP (no party preference) voters, the vast majority were Sanders supporters. But it may also be the Sanders campaign that owes the voters an apology for letting Clinton know which voters to disenfranchise.
Last December the relationship between NGP Van and Clinton and that Van’s apparent willingness to engage in unethical conduct on behalf of the Clinton campaign was widely exposed. Yet, the primary applications the Sanders campaign uses for canvassing were obtained from NGP Van. One of the main application programs the Sanders campaign used for canvassing is called Minivan. It is well known that many many, if not most, manufacturers leave a backdoor allowing them to re-access programs.
In Arizona, Sanders poll workers were told on the last day before the election that it was known that their MiniVan program had been hacked and that on that pre-election day, people would be using paper canvassing sheets. This was just for the last minute stuff. Almost all the canvassing had been done already in Arizona. What did the Sanders volunteers tell MiniVan (and possibly the Clinton campaign) about the voters they canvassed or called? They marked if the person was: “Strong Sanders,” “Leaning Sanders,” “Strong Clinton,””Leaning Clinton,” or “Undecided,” among other things. If you were Clinton and you wanted to disenfranchise millions of voters, wouldn’t it be nice to know who is supporting your opponent? For the record, reporters for the Justice Gazette did bring their concerns about MiniVan to the attention of the Sanders campaign following Arizona. However, the campaign went back to using this in state after state.
WHILE THE PUBLIC IS MOSTLY LOYAL TO SANDERS, SOME QUESTION THE LOYALTY OF SOME OF HIS STAFFERS. CANVASSERS WERE GIVEN WILDLY INACCURATE PRECINCT PHONE AND WALKING LISTS THAT LEFT OFF MOST OF THE VOTERS WHO WERE PLANNING TO SUPPORT SANDERS.
Canvassers were supposed to skip about 20 or more houses for every one they hit. Usually the one selected had the wrong occupant while the new occupants of the selected houses as well as people who were supposed to be passed over in the other 20, often said they were registered and planning to vote for Bernie to canvassers who chose to speak to them anyway. It was pointed out to the campaign that it would have been easier and more productive to go door to door to all the houses than to search around for the one inaccurate address on a street a mile from the last address.
Another key alert as to possible infiltrators was the odd treatment of the press. While Correct the Record and reporters/hackers from other organizations and media groups promoting Clinton were treated like royalty, members of the press who had gone on record supporting Sanders were often treated with contempt by certain members of the team running logistics at the rallies. Correct the Record (the PAC paying a million dollars to hackers who put child pornography on Sanders facebook pages and then got them closed down) was given the best filming location in San Pedro after that same prime filming location had been denied to news teams favorable to Sanders. On election night, several reporters favorable to Sanders commented on how rudely they were being treated. Reginald Hubbard and Jesse Cornett who reportedly threatened some of the mild-mannered, more loyal press with loss of equipment, removal or confiscation of their press credentials (which they had brought with them) and removal of the actual reporters from the event in response to polite questions about the sound arrangements. Most of the pro-Sanders reporters were placed on a riser near distorted speakers and denied access to the event’s sound boxes they had been promised and which were provided for other media. One reporter, a very sweet woman, who had been traveling on a bus following the candidate, seemed to disappear from the event after she reported that she had been rudely treated by these same staff people prior to the speech.
The fix was in before the primary. An instructional video for poll workers told them to give provisional ballots to NPP voters, official conduct that would have been illegal in California. AP joined in the effort to try to fix the election by calling the nomination for Clinton the night before the election when AP knew or should have known that Clinton did not have enough pledged delegates and would not have enough on June 7th to be the nominee. This appears to have been part of the overall attempt to suppress the vote. As Sanders has repeatedly pointed out,
“If there is a large turnout we will win. If there is a very large turnout we will win huge. If there is a low turnout, we will lose.”
In spite of AP’s false call, the actual turnout was very large and, but for the suppression, the evidence supports the theory that Sanders would have won by a very wide margin.
Overall, it was a tough night for Sanders supporters. The average American is not about to support Hillary Clinton. Nobody at the election night event believed there was any accuracy in the results. Despite the officials results (which left off half or more of the voters), the Sanders supporters were optimistic as they knew in their hearts that Sanders had won California. With the election rigging and theft so obvious, the bulk of the public does not believe that Clinton is a legitimate nominee. The bulk of the Democratic voters will never accept Clinton or vote for her in the general election. Some are calling the theft of the nomination a “coup d’ etat,” “treason” and “sedition” on Clinton’s part.
As for the voters who weren’t allowed to vote, the buck stop with two people: California Secretary of State and Clinton supporter Alex Padilla and Hillary Clinton, herself, the candidate who benefited from the voter suppression. Almost everyone in American knows or is related to one of Clinton’s victims. Clinton’s apparent crimes are against the American people and this matters more than whether a clown is running as a nominee the other party. America has survived racist clown Presidents in the past but is not about to endure a President who has committed crimes that have destroyed the right to vote of people they know.
The crowd at the Sanders rally is not going to give up. In fact they are energized and angry and most of them have as their top goal, defeating Hillary Clinton in all elections. If Bernie were to endorse her, his supporters would be saddened and many would feel betrayed, but the Sanders voters have made it clear that they will not follow Bernie to Clinton.
In view of the information from polling place workers about Sanders winning by more than a 2 to 1 margin and in view of the removal of 2/3 or more of his votes from the official results, the Justice Gazette declares Bernie Sanders the landslide winner of the 2016 California Primary Election.
http://usapoliticsnews.com/lawsuit-filed-bernie-sanders-wins-california-landslide/
Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud
A bombshell study released by Stanford University confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016 Democratic Party primaries.
According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state comparison based on the voting procedures used during the election reveals endemic election fraud within the system.
Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance.
Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive.
At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate?
No comments:
Post a Comment