portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

election fraud

TRUMP LOST BY OVER A QUARTER MILLION VOTES

only half of eligible voters even bothered voting.
with less than 25% of eligible voters support it is hardly a resounding "victory".

Donald Trump's Unique Human Decency On Iraq 12.Nov.2016 12:04

John V. Walsh

From a humanitarian standpoint, the content of Trump's condemnation of the war is outstanding. In fact, to grieve over the lives of Americans but not the people of Iraq is a form of racism. Trump is virtually unique among major politicians in taking this stand on the lives of innocents the US has attacked. He should be praised for it.

As election day approaches, it is time to ignore the noise of the moment and think clearly about the crucial issues facing us, none of which is more important than war or peace. The War on Iraq has been a touchstone for these issues over the last 14 years.

On Iraq, Clinton and her operatives have sought to avoid at all costs an accurate comparison of her position over the last 14 years to Trump's. "What did Trump say?" has been buried by the Clintonites and company. "When did he say it?" has been slyly substituted for it. The time line has been used to equate the positions of Hillary the most notorious of hawks with that of Trump.

Let us have a look at Trump's words as well as the dates they were uttered. And compare them to Hillary's:

 http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/donald-trumps-unique-human-decency-on-iraq/

Donald Trump's Unique Human Decency on Iraq

"What did he say?" not merely "When did he say it?"

by John V. Walsh / October 15th, 2016

What was the purpose of this whole thing (the war on Iraq)? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing. (Emphasis, JW)

— Donald Trump on Iraq War, August, 2004  http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37230/donald-trump-esquire-cover-story-august-2004/ , reiterated verbatim, August, 2016  http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37230/donald-trump-esquire-cover-story-august-2004/ , reiterated verbatim, August, 2016  link to www.esquire.com , reiterated verbatim, August, 2016 link to heavy.com .

Obviously I have thought about that a lot in the months since (her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution). No, I don't regret giving the President authority.

— Hillary Clinton on Iraq War, April, 2004  http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/ .

As election day approaches, it is time to ignore the noise of the moment and think clearly about the crucial issues facing us, none of which is more important than war or peace. The War on Iraq has been a touchstone for these issues over the last 14 years.

On Iraq, Clinton and her operatives link to www.buzzfeed.com have sought to avoid at all costs an accurate comparison of her position over the last 14 years to Trump's. "What did Trump say?" has been buried by the Clintonites and company. "When did he say it?" has been slyly substituted for it. The time line has been used to equate the positions of Hillary the most notorious of hawks with that of Trump.1

Let us have a look at Trump's words as well as the dates they were uttered. And compare them to Hillary's:

2002.

Trump utters four words of wavering assent in September but no animated support.

Hillary votes for war "with conviction" in long speech in October.

First come Trump's famous four words "Yeah, I guess so." These are the four words that Trump uttered link to soundcloud.com on September 11, 2002, a month before the Senate vote on the War, when Howard Stern asked out of the blue whether Trump favored invading Iraq2 These four words can be regarded as a half-hearted, off the cuff assent to the war, but they hardly amount to a well-considered position let alone a policy statement.3

The next month in October, 2002, then Senator Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the War on Iraq "with conviction" and emerged as an enthusiastic proponent of the war. She retained that "conviction" without wavering until January, 2008, at least, when Obama threatened her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination by presenting himself, falsely, as a peace candidate.4

2004.

Trump makes a passionate, humane denunciation of the war, now unchanged for 12 years.

Clinton sticks to her vote for war.

Now we come to 2004 and Trump's first clearly articulated position on the war to appear in print. This was the inspiring statement and it has been buried in the timeline. It was published in Esquire in August of 2004, and, though not long, it is rarely quoted in full. Here it is:

Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.

What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing.(Emphasis, JW)

Trump calls attention to the death and injuries inflicted on Americans, as have other politicians who have criticized the war. But then he goes on to lament the deaths of innocent Iraqis as well. No other major political figure, so far as this writer knows, has expressed such sentiments. They stand in stark contrast, for example, to those of Madeleine Albright, who famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 children, due to Clinton era sanctions of the 1990s, were "worth it."

Thus, from a humanitarian standpoint, the content of Trump's condemnation of the war is outstanding. In fact, to grieve over the lives of Americans but not the people of Iraq is a form of racism. Trump is virtually unique among major politicians in taking this stand on the lives of innocents the US has attacked. He should be praised for it.

Let us now look at one example of how this statement of Trump's has been handled in the "progressive" media, in an article in Mother Jones by Tim Murphy entitled, "What did Donald Trump Say on the Iraq War and When Did He Say it," by Tim Murphy. When Murphy gets to the Esquire article above, he quotes only the first of the two paragraphs and leaves out the second, which refers to the needless loss of life. And therefore it leaves out the impressive section, which I have italicized above, bemoaning the loss of Iraqi lives! Do you think that is honest, dear reader? Or would you call it a lie of omission?

What about Trump's consistency? The statement above remains Trump's position; he quoted every word of it, word for word, in his foreign policy address of August, 2016. Thus he has stood by his position for 12 years.5

In 2004, Clinton stuck to her vote on the Iraq war. She said to Larry King on April 20: "Obviously I have thought about that a lot in the months since (her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution). No, I don't regret giving the President authority."

2007.

Trump adds one new feature to his critique: The war was not a mistake but based on lies by Bush.

Clinton remains solidly committed to her Iraq War vote.

In 2007 Trump added one more component in an interview with Wolf Blitzer. The added component is that the war was based on lies - not mistakes, not faulty intelligence but lies. Again no major political figure has said this, certainly not Hillary Clinton.

In the interview Trump says: "Look, everything in Washington has been a lie. Weapons of mass destruction was a total lie. It was a way of attacking Iraq, which he (George W. Bush) thought was going to be easy and it turned out to be the exact opposite of easy. ... Everything is a lie. It's all a big lie." Here again Trump has remained consistent. In one primary debate he confronted Jeb Bush with the fact that his brother lied us into Iraq.

What was Hillary's position in 2007? She remained committed to her 2002 vote, despite the call of many antiwar Democrats to apologize and admit it was a mistake. To an audience in Dover, New Hampshire, in February, she said defiantly: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from." She could afford to be defiant. She was the front runner for the Democratic nomination at that point. Little did she know that Obama would be a serious contender.

2008.

Trump's position is unchanged.

Hillary lies about the reason for her Iraq War vote.

By 2008 Obama was endangering Hillary's bid for the presidency by presenting himself in the Democratic primary as the antiwar candidate - falsely as we can now see. In the second Democratic presidential debate, Hillary claimed she voted for the war with the understanding that Bush would wait for UN inspectors to finish their job of searching for weapons of mass destruction. But as Carl Bernstein and others have pointed out, she voted against the Levin amendment, which would have imposed precisely that restriction on Bush. In other words, she lied.

We could go on and try to pierce the fog of words in the present election to wriggle out of her strong advocacy for the criminal adventure in Iraq. But her deeds as Secretary of State speak much louder than any words she and her advisors might engineer.

More than anyone else she was responsible for the illegal bombing and regime change operation that overthrew Gaddafi and plunged Libya into a failed state riddled with Islamic extremists. She is still pursuing the same policy of regime change or destruction in countries of the Middle East and North Africa that have defied the US. Her advocacy of a no-fly zone in Syria right now is more of the same - and it assures war with Russia according to General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and possibly nuclear war. She remains virulently hawkish - irredeemably so one might say.

Is the impression conveyed by Clinton and her apologists that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton on the Iraq War correct? It is not. And it tells us that there will be an enormous difference between a Trump and a Clinton presidency. Since that difference involves the very question of human survival, what does that say about our responsibility come November 8?

1. For example, a fund raising appeal from Code Pink recently popped into my inbox with this line: "Both candidates supported the Iraq War at its inception, though both have now walked back that support." Clearly the implication is that the two candidates have the same stance on Iraq. A vague timeline is trotted out but not a word about the content of what the candidates said.

2. To be complete there were actually thirteen words, "Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly."

3. Trump also claims that he had frequent verbal fights with his friend Sean Hannity over the period leading up to the war with Hannity pro and Trump con. Hannity backs him up on that, but in fairness that is not evidence because it is not in the public domain. Memory can be tricky in these situations especially when a friend seeks support. So we simply cannot make a judgment about that.

4. To be complete, there was another Trump statement in 2003, although it is quite ambiguous and directed more at tactics than policy. In January, 2003, Trump in an interview with Neil Cavuto, before the commencement of "Shock and Awe" in March, made some comments on the War. This time there was no endorsement of the War - not even an off the cuff endorsement. Instead there was confusion, and the discussion revolved around tactics of war. Trump said, "Well, he (Bush) has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps (he) shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know." No endorsement, no outspoken opposition. (The brief interview can be found here  http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the?utm_term=.xuynekLV6#.pmoDmgj8L and Trump's summary of it in his August, 2016, foreign policy address  http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the?utm_term=.xuynekLV6#.pmoDmgj8L and Trump's summary of it in his August, 2016, foreign policy address  link to www.buzzfeed.com and Trump's summary of it in his August, 2016, foreign policy address link to heavy.com ).

5. Was Trump's stand on Iraq opportunist? Trump took his position on Iraq long before he was in politics. He entered the presidential race as a candidate for the Republican nomination, not the Democratic one. At the time he entered the race, the GOP was the reliable party of war, dominated by the neocons. His position on Iraq could hardly have helped him with that crowd. So let us not call Trump's position opportunist, designed to get votes. As he became a more serious contender, the neocons left the GOP to join the Democrats and support Hillary.


PDX IMC url for ^^above 12.Nov.2016 12:09

_


The Election was Stolen – Here’s How 12.Nov.2016 12:25

by Greg Palast

The Election was Stolen - Here's How

Before a single vote was cast, the election was fixed by GOP and Trump operatives.

Starting in 2013 - just as the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act - a coterie of Trump operatives, under the direction of Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, created a system to purge 1.1 million Americans of color from the voter rolls of GOP-controlled states.

The system, called Crosscheck, is detailed in my Rolling Stone report,
"The GOP's Stealth War on Voters," 8/24/2016.
Crosscheck in action:
Trump victory margin in Michigan: 13,107
Michigan Crosscheck purge list: 449,922

Trump victory margin in Arizona: 85,257
Arizona Crosscheck purge list: 270,824

Trump victory margin in North Carolina: 177,008
North Carolina Crosscheck purge list: 589,393

On Tuesday, we saw Crosscheck elect a Republican Senate and as President, Donald Trump. The electoral putsch was aided by nine other methods of attacking the right to vote of Black, Latino and Asian-American voters, methods detailed in my book and film, including "Caging," "purging," blocking legitimate registrations, and wrongly shunting millions to "provisional" ballots that will never be counted.

Trump signaled the use of "Crosscheck" when he claimed the election is "rigged" because "people are voting many, many times." His operative Kobach, who also advised Trump on building a wall on the southern border, devised a list of 7.2 million "potential" double voters—1.1 million of which were removed from the voter rolls by Tuesday. The list is loaded overwhelmingly with voters of color and the poor. Here's a sample of the list


Those accused of criminal double voting include, for example, Donald Alexander Webster Jr. of Ohio who is accused of voting a second time in Virginia as Donald EUGENE Webster SR.



Note: Watch the four-minute video summary of Crosscheck. The investigation and explanation of these methods of fixing the vote can be found in my book and film, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: a Tale of Billionaires & Ballot Bandits (2016).
No, not everyone on the list loses their vote. But this was not the only racially poisonous tactic that accounted for this purloined victory by Trump and GOP candidates.

For example, in the swing state of North Carolina, it was reported that 6,700 Black folk lost their registrations because their registrations had been challenged by a group called Voter Integrity Project (VIP). VIP sent letters to households in Black communities "do not forward." If the voter had moved within the same building, or somehow did not get their mail (e.g. if their name was not on a mail box), they were challenged as "ghost" voters. GOP voting officials happily complied with VIP with instant cancellation of registrations.

The 6,700 identified in two counties were returned to the rolls through a lawsuit. However, there was not one mention in the press that VIP was also behind Crosscheck in North Carolina; nor that its leader, Col. Jay Delancy, whom I've tracked for years has previously used this vote thievery, known as "caging," for years. Doubtless the caging game was wider and deeper than reported. And by the way, caging, as my Rolling Stone co-author, attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr., tells me, is "a felony, it's illegal, and punishable by high fines and even jail time."

There is still much investigation to do. For example, there are millions of "provisional" ballots, "spoiled" (invalidated) ballots and ballots rejected from the approximately 30 million mailed in. Unlike reporting in Britain, US media does not report the ballots that are rejected and tossed out—because, after all, as Joe Biden says, "Our elections are the envy of the world." Only in Kazakhstan, Joe.

While there is a great deal of work to do, much documentation still to analyze, we'll have to pry it from partisan voting chiefs who stamp the scrub lists, Crosscheck lists and ballot records, "confidential."

But, the evidence already in our hands makes me sadly confident in saying, Jim Crow, not the voters, elected Mr. Trump.


What about those exit polls?
Exit polls are the standard by which the US State Department measures the honesty of foreign elections. Exit polling is, historically, deadly accurate. The bane of pre-election polling is that pollsters must adjust for the likelihood of a person voting. Exit polls solve the problem.

But three times in US history, pollsters have had to publicly flagellate themselves for their "errors." In 2000, exit polls gave Al Gore the win in Florida; in 2004, exit polls gave Kerry the win in Ohio, and now, in swing states, exit polls gave the presidency to Hillary Clinton.

So how could these multi-million-dollar Ph.d-directed statisticians with decades of experience get exit polls so wrong?

Answer: they didn't. The polls in Florida in 2000 were accurate. That's because exit pollsters can only ask, "How did you vote?" What they don't ask, and can't, is, "Was your vote counted."

In 2000, in Florida, GOP Secretary of State Katherine Harris officially rejected 181,173 ballots, as "spoiled" because their chads were hung and other nonsense excuses. Those ballots overwhelmingly were marked for Al Gore. The exit polls included those 181,173 people who thought they had voted - but their vote didn't count. In other words, the exit polls accurately reflected whom the voters chose, not what Katherine Harris chose.

In 2004, a similar number of votes were invalidated (including an enormous pile of "provisional" ballots) by Ohio's GOP Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. Again, the polls reflected that Kerry was the choice of 51% of the voters. But the exit polls were "wrong" because they didn't reflect the ballots invalidated by Blackwell.

Notably, two weeks after the 2004 US election, the US State Department refused the recognize the Ukraine election results because the official polls contradicted the exit polls.

And here we go again. 2016: Hillary wins among those queried as they exit the polling station—yet Trump is declared winner in GOP-controlled swings states. And, once again, the expert pollsters are forced to apologize—when they should be screaming, "Fraud! Here's the evidence the vote was fixed!"

Now there's a new trope to explain away the exit polls that gave Clinton the win. Supposedly, Trump voters were ashamed to say they voted for Trump. Really? ON WHAT PLANET? For Democracy Now! and Rolling Stone I was out in several swing states. In Ohio, yes, a Black voter may have been reluctant to state support for Trump. But a white voter in the exurbs of Dayton, where the Trump signs grew on lawns like weeds, and the pews of the evangelical mega churches were slathered with Trump and GOP brochures, risked getting spat on if they even whispered, "Hillary."

This country is violently divided, but in the end, there simply aren't enough white guys to elect Trump nor a Republican Senate. The only way they could win was to eliminate the votes of non-white guys—and they did so by tossing Black provisional ballots into the dumpster, ID laws that turn away students—the list goes on. It's a web of complex obstacles to voting by citizens of color topped by that lying spider, Crosscheck.

 link to us4.campaign-archive1.com

Neither campaign tried to win the most votes 12.Nov.2016 14:17

.i.

Neither the Clinton or the Trump campaign tried to win the most votes. they only tried to win the most electoral votes. Thats how the system works.

More people voted against Clinton than for her. (She maintains her husbands unbroken record on that point).

You don't win a ball game by how many home runs you made, you win by the final score.

Crosscheck purge list 12.Nov.2016 14:29

.i.

I hate it when the dead aren't allowed to vote..

LOL

Some things qualify as a no-brainer 12.Nov.2016 15:04

shaker

And the costs of Iraq is one of them. The 1990 war wasn't either.

How we doin' without Saddam?
Dumb shits.

in the hall of the Trumpen 12.Nov.2016 22:48

_

king


TRUMP WAS DEFEATED BY OVER 2 MILLION VOTES 13.Nov.2016 18:21

13 NOV 2016


^ too bad his opponent conceded a week ago 15.Nov.2016 01:08

_

after having lost the electoral college


(still an extremely slim chance fer y'all that some of the Electors could flip / change decision, the Electoral Vote hasn't yet been officially cast....)