As the news background and introduction to my own reflections:
ELECTION JUSTICE ON CALIFORNIA PRIMARY: 'EARLY VOTER EXIT POLL YIELDS 23% DISCREPANCY WITH L.A. VOTE-BY-MAIL TOTALS'
From DAWN PAPPLE's excellent article in the Inquisitor June 14:
Election Justice USA affirmed that a Capitol Weekly early-voter exit poll conducted across the state of California yielded a 23 percent discrepancy in Los Angeles vote-by-mail ballots compared to the actual results.
During the polling of the early round of mail-in voters, Hillary Clinton had a lead over Bernie Sanders in the Los Angeles area that was less than 10 percent.
Election Justice USA, a voter advocacy non-profit organization, says that the discrepancy is enough to demand a hand audit of the early mail-in ballots.
"The discrepancy cannot be easily explained by demographic factors: the results of the Capitol Weekly exit poll were weighted by age and race. Moreover, the exit poll had 21,000 respondents and was praised by mainstream elections journalists.
While no exit poll can prove fraud, a significant exit polling discrepancy such as this constitutes cause for alarm, and certainly one of this magnitude. It's also sufficient cause for immediate action: voters should bring pressure to bear on officials and demand an expanded hand audit."
"The results of the online exit poll show Hillary leading in absentee votes by 10 points. This does not predict that she is going to win by that margin, but it gives us a sense of the current state of the race based on ballots already cast, and the starting point for each campaign as polls open at 7 a.m. on Tuesday morning."
The exit poll did not account for mail-in ballots that were sent in during the week preceding the election, nor the vote-by-mail ballots that were hand-delivered to polling locations. The results were screened to include non-partisan voters who obtained a Democratic presidential ballot, according to Capitol Weekly. California voters who were registered as "No Party Preference" were required to obtain Democratic cross-over ballots in order to vote in the Democratic primary.
The cross-over ballot requirement is also at the heart of an upcoming lawsuit, according to an earlier report by the Inquisitr, which says that civil rights attorney Bill Simpich claims that incomplete and incorrect instructions were sent to No Party Preference voters. According to Simpich, instructions on obtaining cross-over ballots were not "made clear in the instructions sent.
According to Trust Vote, an election integrity lawsuit has been delayed, because of the organization officials' "desire to include election data from California."
"In other eleven states besides California, there has been noted a significant difference between the Edison Research exit polls and the electronic vote totals presented on the morning after the primaries. These differences show votes appear to be shifted from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton. The chances of this kind of shift happening are considered to be statistically impossible between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning in these eleven states."
From Stephen Fox: I have been politically active since I was 12. The first election I participated in saw me hanging literature for JFK on doors in a University town in semi-rural Illinois, so my political memories as a participant go back 58 years, and even further, to 1953, when I met Eleanor Roosevelt as a 5 year old.
I worked on Capitol Hill as a volunteer Gandhian Lobbyist in the mid 70's, and then had a snowball-in-hell campaign for the US Senate here in New Mexico in 1977-8. I lost at the state convention to the NM Attorney General, who then lost to the Republican incumbent, but I gained so much in knowledge, in self-confidence, and in political connections.
But now, I have to sadly put into words what we have all come to recognize, that 2016 saw by far the crookedest elections I have ever witnessed or even imagined. What discourages me most is that the #1 victim of these dirty tricks, Bernie Sanders, and his top staff, are not thus far screaming indignantly about all of this daily.
Those hanging chads were a form of manipulation and cheating. We turned the other cheek, we looked the other way, and we ignored Mr. Diebold with his voting machine company being the head of Ohio for Bush, as if that somehow were acceptable. However, with the Bush Daddy I's appointees on the Supreme Court, Bush II's cheating was in the long run accepted by most Americans as "fair and square."
But 2016? This one tears my heart out, because no matter what we seem to do, it falls short, unable to challenge that one lie here, that one manipulation there, all of which adds up to a grotesque perversion of the final spasms of American Democracy.
The hijacked primary in NY, the guilty ladies at the BoE not even yet indicted for those voter purges, not even questioned once by anyone from the once venerable Associated Press, and, further, absolute silence from the officials, like the Attorney General of New York and the United States Attorney from the Southern District of New York, both of whom should have started demanding days after the hijacked primary that it be done over again, even before we started asking them to do so by petition and by letter; even with the evidence going right up to causal circumstances by Hillary's friend, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, and we can only quietly wonder whether the Congresswoman and her realtor daughter have been questioned by the FBI or any law enforcement officials as to the rat-infested brownstone the realtor daughter sold in 2014 at jacked up prices for the prime purger at the NYC Board of Elections, which was so weird that even the Wall Street Journal ran an article about it!
(please read Netra Halperin's OEN article and her interview on this; she is a Bernie Delegate from Hawaii. Also, Florida's Alison Landes superb letter to United States Attorney Preet Bharara, and her article about the 2016 Election being a deja vu of the 2000 Election, all 4 articles here at OEN)
All of this election mayhem and lots lots more were all topped off by the crowning insult to Democracy, in the form of the Associated Press coronation of Bernie's flawed opponent two days before California: those are the two most egregious fatal blows to Democracy. (Did you know that both Reuters and Associated Press are owned by the Rothschild's?)
We are not even beginning here to start any discussion of the DNC and its top officials have done to impede Bernie.
It would take an army of forensic experts to catch all of the vote flipping that went on in this election, and we don't have another army to help Bernie.
We ARE the army, and we have access to all of the courts (courts of law, courts of Wall Street stock prices, and courts of public opinion), but without the candidate himself calling "FOUL," what good is our army of volunteers, even with the courts? The best voices and most insightful contributors are in the Facebook jail half the time, more in my case (2/3 of the time since I became into this campaign 4 months ago!)
I am indeed a die hard, and not giving up at all, but, damn, it gets discouraging sometimes. I put out the word to write to this precisely appropriate official or that, because of their statutory responsibilities; thousands read it, dozens write and ask for "talking points," "bullets," or a "template" letter, which I always declined to provide, instead, telling them to reread what they were sent; and maybe twenty actually write, and then the official answers none of the correspondents. So it goes....
Will Bernie and his tribe have the guts to file complaints in every appropriate court about the unprecedented fraud, flipping, purging, and God knows what other new dirty tricks of election rigging will become clear? Watch his live online video message Thursday night (tomorrow) at 8:30 EST. You have to RSVP.
A very wise 89 year old friend of mine, Maurice Webster, author of one great article at OEN on Trump's Demagoguery and of the forthcoming book, Machiavelli for the 21st Century, reminded me this morning of Norman Thomas, the perennial Socialist candidate for President. Thomas' goal was the implementation of his platform, and when FDR adopted his platform and turned it into what accept as normal government, Norman Thomas declared that therefore, he was done, and that his purpose had been fulfilled.
That is a new way of looking at Bernie's views and precepts, whereas before I had always considered platform discussions just another kind of consolation prize, a booby prize for the candidate who is told "We stole your White House from you, and now you can feel better about us stealing your ideas, so your supporters will support us."
I certainly do not imply that Bernie could and should keep running, but that of course would be an excellent idea, if either other candidates gets the White House. He might decide to do so, if he does have to return to the Senate as the most powerful and most respected US Senator, which I am not willing to yet concede as something that has to happen.
Several private citizens' group have taken on the exhausting job of cataloging and documenting ALL of the fraud. Election Justice USA's suits are there and intact, and now, they should step it up and ask for the relief to be granted: the courts ordering at least ten primaries to be done over. That might shake loose a few super delegates if it took place soon....
As I recall, there has been at least one occasion in American History when there have been two conventions, for a variety of reasons. This could happen and would just about have to happen in 2016, for reasons that may be yet revealed by the FBI, to start with.
From an article by Drew DeSilver, published by the Pew Charitable Trust:
"We looked at all 60 Democratic and Republican nominating conventions from 1868 to 1984, the last time a convention presented even a glimmer of uncertainty. Over that time, 18 candidates (eight Republicans and 10 Democrats) were nominated on multiple ballots; of those, only seven were elected president (and four of them were running against another multiple-ballot nominee, so one of them had to win).
All told, of the 22 presidential elections held between 1868 and 1952 -- the last multiple-ballot nomination to date, of Adlai Stevenson as the Democratic standard-bearer -- 14 featured at least one major-party nominee who'd won on multiple ballots. These often were referred to as 'brokered conventions,' a term we're avoiding here because of its connotations of shady backroom deals."
One extraordinarily dirty and complex election was 1824, from History.com, and this may sound familiar. Remember that military hero and hawk Andrew Jackson went on to win the election, then commit all kinds of atrocities, the worst of which I believe to be the forced evacuation of the Cherokees, making them march to Oklahoma in the winter, the Trail of Tears, the only time in American History that a President has defied his own Supreme Court....
John Quincy Adams vs. Henry Clay vs. Andrew Jackson vs. William Crawford
"The Republican party broke apart in the 1824 election. A large majority of the states now chose electors by popular vote, and the people's vote was considered sufficiently important to record. The nomination of candidates by congressional caucus was discredited. Groups in each state nominated candidates for the presidency, resulting in a multiplicity of favorite-son candidacies.
By the fall of 1824 four candidates remained in the running. William Crawford of Georgia, the secretary of the treasury, had been the early front-runner, but severe illness hampered his candidacy. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts had a brilliant record of government service, but his Federalist background, his cosmopolitanism, and his cold New England manner cost him support outside his own region. Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, who owed his popularity to his 1815 victory over the British at the Battle ofNew Orleans, were the other candidates.
With four candidates, none received a majority. Jackson received 99 electoral votes with 152,901 popular votes (42.34 percent); Adams, 84 electoral votes with 114,023 popular votes (31.57 percent); Crawford, 41 electoral votes and 47,217 popular votes (13.08 percent); and Clay, 37 electoral votes and 46,979 popular votes (13.01 percent). The choice of president therefore fell to the House of Representatives. Many politicians assumed that House Speaker Henry Clay had the power to choose the next president but not to elect himself. Clay threw his support to Adams, who was then elected. When Adams subsequently named Clay secretary of state, the Jacksonians charged that the two men had made a "corrupt bargain."
What does all of this imply and what is it leading to? Since we are not privy to what Bernie and his opponent discussed Tuesday night, and the campaign staff doesn't communicate back to most of his strongest supporters, as far as I can see, we will just have to wait and see.
For sure, the convention will be astonishing. Rather than crack heads in the street, there should be an alternate convention, or at least some kind of other venue, for the protesters locked out of the big convention, to get in off the streets and talk with each other. Let's call it RESHAPING THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
Make no mistake on this last point: by supporting Bernie Sanders and his ideals, you are part of history and part of the long overdue solutions, not part of the Neocon problems and the corporate manipulations. Wall Street may be happy with both front running candidates who have or almost have secured the nominations, but the people are not happy. That cannot last, with so many angry people who have been lied to so many times.
Thanks so much to every one of you who read my recent article here at OEN on the uncounted votes in the California Primary. I have never before had 16,000 readers in 56 hours for one of my articles, and that largely derived from Facebook users posting it all over the Bernie Groups, something I can't do, because of posting that article about how to avoid violence at the Philadelphia Convention, I am still in Facebook Jail and thus restricted from posting to any groups, not even the one I started with about 1900 members now, called Bernie Sanders: Advice and Strategies to Win! which I welcome the reader to join.