ActivismEconomyGovernmentMilitarySocial IssuesUS PoliticsWorld Politics

Yes, Hillary Did Steal the Democratic Primary and Bernie Would Have Beaten Trump

Updated on March 20, 2017

Let's get one thing straight. No matter how much the media says Hillary Clinton did not steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, she did. Anyone who was paying more than passing attention to the 2016 Democratic primary knows that the willingness of the Clinton forces to cheat was obvious from the start, as far back as the Massachusetts primary when Bill Clinton himself illegally campaigned inside polling stations during voting hours.

Yet in schoolmarmish overtones the New York Times lectures: "Exit Polls, and Why the Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders"

Old Bill was glad-handing and back-slapping inside polling stations as Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin gave him a pass when people called to complain. Galvin said Clinton was allowed to hang out inside polling stations as long as he did not utter the words "vote for my wife."

And this was just one part of the cheating we could easily see.

Bill Clinton campaigning illegally inside Boston polling station.
Bill Clinton campaigning illegally inside Boston polling station.

In the New York primary, officials apologized for zapping hundreds of thousands of voters from the voter rolls, 125,000 in Brooklyn alone, who strongly tilted toward Sanders. Brooklyn just happened to be Sanders' hometown and a stronghold. One voter observed that if there were anyplace to take out blocks and blocks of young urban hipsters, overwhelmingly for Bernie, it would be Brooklyn.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman pleaded after the fiasco:

"if any New Yorker was illegally prevented from voting, I will do everything in my power to make their vote count..."

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer said:

“The next president of the United States could very easily be decided tonight and yet the incompetence of the [New York City] Board of Elections puts a cloud over these results.”

Why were they apologizing if there was nothing to apologize for? How can anyone say there was no cheating?

In California, Hillary ally and Secretary of State Alex Padilla sent out conflicting instructions on how to vote in the primary if you were an independent. Weeks before the primary, a poll worker in Orange County, the third most populous county in the state behind Los Angeles and San Diego, reported that she and her co-workers were told to give out the wrong kind of ballot to independent voters. Padilla had hosted a Clinton fundraiser the previous year, and was kissing cousins with Hillary. The poll worker said: "I was told that all NPP voters are to be given provisional ballots."

NPP - No Party Preference - is California's designation for independents who can vote in either party's primary. Independents in California broke for Bernie by a large margin, about two-thirds.

No one knows how many more people would have come out and voted for Sanders in the California primary had the Associated Press not announced, in a stunning breach of ethics, that Hillary had already clinched the nomination on the day before. At 5pm on Monday, a full 12 hours before the polls opened, CNN was blaring that Hillary was already the winner of the Democratic nomination, by adding anonymous super-delegates who had declared for her that day to the pledged delegate totals. Even though super-delegates were tradition-bound to follow the pledged delegate outcome, which had not yet been determined.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla

The Sanders campaign blasted the AP with the statement:

"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer,"

That night only Lester Holt of MSNBC had the journalistic integrity to note that the contest was "still open.”

A strong showing in California would bring Hillary's momentum, marred by lawsuits in a dozen important states, including New York, Arizona, Illinois, and Massachusetts, to a screeching halt.

In San Diego, California's second largest county, a shredding truck was seen out back of a central vote-counting station, and, inside, citizens captured video of ballots with Sanders votes covered with white-out.

Clinton supposedly won California 52% - 45%. Intriguingly, in the one county, Humboldt County, where the ballots are counted by a fraud proof, open source software system, Sanders prevailed by his highest margin of all California counties, 70% - 30%.

Checkbox next to Bernie Sanders' name, third choice down from top, covered over with white-out, along with first part of word "Bernie."
Checkbox next to Bernie Sanders' name, third choice down from top, covered over with white-out, along with first part of word "Bernie." | Source
Shredding machine truck seen parked in lot of San Diego vote-counting center.
Shredding machine truck seen parked in lot of San Diego vote-counting center. | Source

In the Democratic caucus in Las Vegas, people wearing “I'm with her” t-shirts trooped past the check-in table without registering, with an official being heard shushing a woman who was telling them to just walk through, hissing “Don't yell it!”

At the state convention in Nevada, Democratic state party chairman Roberta Lange gaveled down the convention before all procedural motions had been heard, after she imperiously declared Hillary the winner.

In Arizona people lined up in the hot sun for up to 5 hours to vote, and many dropped out of line, in the most populous county, Maricopa, which includes Phoenix. Polling stations were slashed in the county from previous levels, to one polling station per 21,000 voters, in contrast to the normal number across the US of one per a few thousand at most. As in California, thousands of people in Arizona found themselves dropped from the rolls, or registered incorrectly, so that they could not vote in the primary. These voters were handed provisional ballots, which were, as in California, the last to be counted. The media announced an Arizona victory for Clinton while thousands of people were still standing in line to vote.

If anyone thought Bill Clinton getting caught openly violating campaign laws in Massachusetts would be a deterrent to further misbehavior, they were wrong. Democratic establishment forces gleefully cheated away.

It soon became apparent that likely Bernie voters were getting targeted, as complaints flooded in from the primaries. According to a sampling by Anonymous, in Arizona, the vast majority of complaints regarding incorrect, or missing, voter registrations affected Sanders voters. Anonymous concluded that in Arizona, voter registration systems were easy to hack into. Moreover, It was realized that the principle campaign database used by Democratic candidates such as Sanders and Clinton, called the NGP VAN, allowed hackers to see who any likely Democratic primary voter had donated money to.

The extraordinary lines in the hot sun in Arizona served a purpose. The early mail-in vote was weighted heavily toward Hillary. The long lines were weighted toward young voters capable of standing such punishment. The Sanders demographic was nothing if not young. By suppressing the younger slice of the demographic, it was almost guaranteed that it was the Sanders vote that would suffer.

Voters waiting to vote in Arizona late into the night due to five-hour lines.
Voters waiting to vote in Arizona late into the night due to five-hour lines.

Nevada State Convention video

All this was overseen by the DNC, which "Wikileaked" emails made clear was committed to the victory of Hillary Clinton. The determination to see Clinton the winner was abundantly shown in the emails, which Wikileaks denied were hacked by the Russians. Wikileaks strongly indicated the emails were leaked by a DNC insider, data guru, and idealist, 27-year-old Seth Rich. Rich was murdered in what was called a "robbery" in DC soon after the leaks were published by Wikileaks, but strangely, Rich's wallet, phone, and watch were not taken, and kill shots to Rich's back smacked of an execution. When a robber shoots a victim in a botched robbery, it is his hope that the victim survive, not die, since a murder charge is far worse than a robbery charge.

Wikileaks posted a $20,000 reward for information leading to Rich's killers, an unprecedented action for Wikileaks.

Once the primary shenanigans are acknowledged, as they must be, the fall-back position of defenders of the primary becomes: but the cheating was not enough to change the outcome. This supposedly comforting rebuttal to Sanders “conspiracy theorists” neglects that California and New York are crucial, and some of the biggest hijinks occurred in those states. Not to mention Illinois, where clean election activists caught officials literally erasing the hand count from a white board at an audit and filling the numbers in to match the machine count of the paper ballots, which favored Hillary.

Yet no Democrats are calling for an investigation of the primary, except to repeat already debunked stories of Russian hackers, backed by zero evidence, except the words of thoroughly politicized CIA henchmen.

If this was the cheating we could see, what was the cheating we couldn't see? Here we come across the dirty little secret of US elections: they are notoriously easy to hack. The vast majority of counties in the US now use paper ballots counted by optical scan machines, which register totals according to internal software instructions. That software can add votes to candidates - or subtract them - and change the result away from the true vote. The vulnerability of most US vote-counting machines was best demonstrated in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" in 2006, and remains to this day.

The hacking of the vote counting software, which is in the hands of corporations using propriety software, can only be uncovered by the actual hand-counting of the paper ballots. Election authorities in numerous lawsuits have shown they will fight this tooth and nail. It is reasonable to assume that if election authorities fight the viewing of the paper ballots, there is something they don't want us to see.

After examining the evidence of skewed, abnormal voting patterns in state after state, Professor Fritz Scheuren, the 100th president of the American Statistical Association, called Democratic primary results "unexpected and possibly even suspicious." Professor Beth Clarkson, statistician at Wichita State University, wrote in an Open Letter to Bernie Sanders that the vote patterns she examined were "consistent with election rigging." Clarkson wrote:

"There is no reason to believe that machine generated vote counts are accurate when they are not checked for accuracy. This is particularly difficult in places like South Carolina and parts of Kansas, where no paper trail exists to even attempt a public recount."

There is even a term among election experts for the combination of voter suppression and machine vote-count hacking: strip and flip. Strip your opponent's likely voters from the rolls, flip votes to your column by hacking the machines.

Vote-Counting Machine Hacking Demonstration from Documentary "Hacking Democracy"

What is the solution?

Machine hacking is the fast way to change a lot of votes easily. That's because it's just as easy to key in a 100 as a 10, or a 1,000, or a 10,000. What this means is there is only one solution to the problem of machine hacking: get rid of the machines. The rest of the advanced, industrialized world has returned to the old fashioned hand counting of paper ballots as the most secure system of voting. This includes large cities like Berlin, Rome, and Paris.

The visible cheating tells us that the motivation and desire are present to engage in the invisible cheating. As Dr. Clarkson wrote to Sanders:

"If you want to win the presidency and elect a revolutionary congress, you must find a way to force accurate counts of votes across the country."

Soviet dictator Josef Stalin famously said: "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Would Sanders have won against Trump? Here there is little doubt. Every poll indicated that Sanders led Trump in head-to-head matches by double digits, as much as 15%. Sanders did not suffer the sky high negative ratings that Hillary suffered. Apparently, Americans were indeed ready to elect a socialist, as long as they believed he was honest.

Real Clear Politics average of multiple polls matching Trump with Sanders, prior to general election.  Sanders is blue line, Trump is red line.
Real Clear Politics average of multiple polls matching Trump with Sanders, prior to general election. Sanders is blue line, Trump is red line. | Source

Not only presidential general elections and primaries are in doubt. In Florida this year, election experts found reason to question the results of the Democratic primary won by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the former chair of the DNC who was forced to resign after her attempts to sabotage Bernie Sanders were revealed by Wikileaks. Her defeated challenger was progressive firebrand Tim Canova. A frightening question presents itself: how many of the incumbents sitting in Congress did we really elect?

Some may ask: why bring this up now? Why dwell on the past? Simple. If the thwarted will of the people in the 2016 Democratic primary is swept under the rug, it will happen again and again. This is why election reform is not a pie-in-the-sky debate among wonks and academics. Were it not for the cheating, America might look very different right now. The object lesson of 2016 might be: Democracy Works. When we have it.

RELATED: Massachusetts Citizens Launch Drive to Require Hand-Count of Ballots in Elections

Seth Rich, 1989 - 2016
Seth Rich, 1989 - 2016

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      AdrienneHB 3 months ago

      RUSSIA & THE CLINTONS ~ WHY AREN'T THEY BEING INVESTIGATED?

      DEAR CONGRESS: WHY IS THE CLINTON RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA NOT BEING INVESTIGATED TOO? THEY AND OTHER CRONIES RECEIVED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THEIR URANIUM DEAL ~ THE CLINTONS AGAIN SELLING OUT OUR COUNTRY.

      ..."The Sberbank-Podesta relationship goes back many years. Sberbank was the lead financial institution in the Russian deal to purchase Uranium One, owned by one of Bill Clinton’s closest friends, Frank Giustra.

      "Giustra and Bill Clinton lead the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership, an integral part of the Clinton Foundation. Giustra has additionally donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

      "Giustra sought to sell his stake in uranium reserves that included ore deposits in the Western United States, and Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state, approved the sale. And in one felled swoop, 20 percent of America’s uranium ore was sold to the Russian state atomic agency.

      "Giustra sought to sell his stake in uranium reserves that included ore deposits in the Western United States, and Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state, approved the sale. And in one felled swoop, 20 percent of America’s uranium ore was sold to the Russian state atomic agency.

      "During the pending sale, the Podesta Group represented Giustra’s company and tried to advance the transaction."

      Read: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/06/exclusive-dem-su...

      CONTACT CONGRESS WITH WSTP QUIK LINKS http://www.wespeaktruthtopower.com

    • profile image

      And there's this. 3 months ago

      The first Democratic debate wasn't held until after the deadline to register to vote in NY. If I recall correctly, that includes changing party preference.

    • profile image

      Maggie 3 months ago

      ha! Ha!! 2 funny comments!!

    • profile image

      George Ripley 3 months ago

      Thank you very much for this excellent article Ralph. I have enjoyed other articles of yours as well. Please put me on your list.

    • profile image

      Dale Pautzke 3 months ago

      The pattern of cheating is clear, yet nothing changes, and the guilty go free to cheat again and again.

    • profile image

      circe801 3 months ago

      this is, i think, the most comprehensive article on this that i have seen. kudos to ralph lopez!!

      the only thing i didn't see addressed here was iowa--the 'coin tosses' and the blatant backward use of the DNC's own "rule 28"...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 3 months ago from Orange County California

      I hope that you get some good comments on this hub. Although, I have sensed a real drop in commenters.

      The collusion of the super delegates began before the campaigns even started. It was like giving a runner a very big head start. But even with that start Bernie had a slow start but he was winning most of them towards the end.

      The least he would have had if he made it to the convention was a contested one. but more likely he would have been the nominee.

      What I thought was odd, when he threw in the towel. That was not the action of a winner.

      Jill Stein who had no chance in the world of winning the election. Challenged the votes from a few states. It seems that Bernie should not have dropped out, and challenged the primary, and the super delegates lead.

      I seems like your comment on no democrats asking for an investigation on cheating Bernie, also applies to why Bernie didn't ask for an investigation. Or at least force a contested convention.

      An investigation of why Bernie dropped out would be one of great interest. Especially, to Bernie supporters.

    • JayeWisdom profile image

      Jaye Denman 3 months ago from Deep South, USA

      You are so right, and every day I get angrier about the corrupt DNC and Hillary's gang of thugs getting away with primary election fraud. We could have had an ethical president--Senator Sanders--instead of the American Hitler, Trump.

    • profile image

      Jill 3 months ago

      Of course Humboldt supported Bernie, half the county is pot growers lol.

    • profile image

      Micro 3 months ago

      This article is exactly why Trump will have an 8 year term because progressives want to divide themselves from us liberals.

    • profile image

      Sanxuary 3 months ago

      There is a reason why Obama is staying out of this whole argument. Its clear that it doesnt matter at this time. Getting all foreighn money out of our election system is huge but the integrity of our election system is in quetion until we know if Trump was elected while using the Russians to don it. If he took money and planned to pull off a foreighn Water Gate he needs to be more then impeached. He should be the first prison put in prison with no presidential pardon.

    Click to Rate This Article