Trump is correct that the US Election is "Rigged" according to Hacking Democracy

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:
Trump brought up that the election voting is "rigged" and the media tries to roast him on a cold fire!
I believe that he has legitimate claims to the election being "rigged".
The voting machines can be tampered with and have been proven that they can change votes to the other person (party) without anyone knowing.
chancy

Hacking Democracy the documentary goes into this in great detail.
trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx1vxPFXIiw

Full version of the documentary:
Please search it out online. Most places don't have it anymore. The main website has it for rent or to purchase. Sorry for the inconvience. It was on Project Avalon and that version has also been taken down.


The Last HOPE: Hacking Democracy - An In Depth Analysis of the ES&S Voting Systems (Complete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE5REYsnsXE
Link:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/analysis-trump-rigged-vote-claim-170148145.html




Article: Analysis - Trump 'rigged' vote claim may leave lasting damage

The Canadian Press October 16, 2016

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump keeps peddling the notion the vote may be rigged. It's unclear whether he understands the potential damage of his words, or simply doesn't care.

Trump's claim, made without evidence, undercuts the essence of American democracy, the idea that U.S. elections are free and fair, with the vanquished peacefully stepping aside for the victor. His repeated assertions are sowing suspicion among his most ardent supporters, raising the possibility that millions of people may not accept the results on Nov. 8 if Trump loses.

The responsibilities for the New York billionaire in such a scenario are minimal. Trump holds no public office and has said he'll simply go back to his "very good way of life" if Democrat Hillary Clinton wins.

Instead, Clinton and congressional Republicans, should they retain control, would be left trying to govern in a country divided not just by ideology, but also the legitimacy of the presidency.

As Trump's campaign careens from crisis to crisis, he's broadened his unfounded allegations that Clinton, her backers and the media are conspiring to steal the election. He's accused Clinton of meeting with global financial powers to "plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty" and argued his opponent shouldn't have even been allowed to seek the White House.

"Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted and should be in jail," Trump tweeted on Saturday. "Instead she is running for president in what looks like a rigged election."

Trump is referring to Clinton's use of a private email system while serving as secretary of state. Republicans, and some Democrats, have harshly criticized her decision to do so, but the FBI did not recommend anyone face criminal charges for her use of a private email address run on a personal server.

Trump has offered only broad assertions about the potential for voter fraud and the complaints that the several women who have recently alleged he sexually accosted them are part of an effort to smear his campaign.

"It's one big ugly lie, it's one big fix," Trump told a rally in North Carolina on Friday, adding later: "And the only thing I say is hopefully, hopefully, our patriotic movement will overcome this terrible deception."

Trump's supporters appear to be taking his grievances seriously. Only about one-third of Republicans said they have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence that votes on Election Day will be counted fairly, according to poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

During a campaign event Tuesday with Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, a voter said she was deeply concerned about voter fraud and pledged to be "ready for a revolution" if Clinton wins.

Pence waved away the woman's rallying cry, saying, "Don't say that." And on Sunday, in an interview with NBC's "Meet The Press," he said the campaign will "accept the will of the American people, you bet."

There is no evidence voter fraud is a widespread problem in the United States. A study by a Loyola Law School professor found that out of 1 billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 known cases of impersonation fraud.

Trump's motivations for stoking these sentiments seem clear.

One of his last hopes of winning the election is to suppress turnout by making these final weeks so repulsive to voters that some just stay home. Trump advisers privately say they hope to turn off young people in particular. This group leans Democratic but doesn't have a long history of voting and is already skeptical of Clinton.

Trump is also likely considering how he would spin a loss to Clinton, given that he's spent decades cultivating a brand based on success and winning. His years in public life offer few examples where he's owned up to his own failings and plenty where he's tried to pass the blame on to others, as he's now suggesting he would do if he's defeated.

Clinton appears increasingly aware that if she wins, she'd arrive at the White House facing more than the usual political divides. "Damage is being done that we're going to have to repair," she said during a recent campaign stop.

But that task wouldn't be Clinton's alone.

The majority of Trump's supporters are Republicans. If he loses, party leaders will have to reckon with how much credence they give to claims the election was rigged and how closely they can work with a president whom at least some GOP backers will likely view as illegitimate.

[Carmody]

They'd be right about rigged voting.

The record has the post vote polling at the voting stations being at approx 2 percent error, maximum.... historically.... for a solid 100 years.

In the places where electronic voting came on line, the exit polls (post vote polling at the voting stations) were starting to come in at 5%, 7%, 10%, 15% and more error. which is impossible in fact and in over 100 years of exit polling history.

How are they getting round that?

The traditional exit polling company has decided to do NO EXIT POLLS for this 2016 federal election.

In this way the electronic vote fraud will not be found, like it has been found out... in all the other electronic voting scenarios, where exit polling has taken place.

The article is misinformed, biased, wrongheaded -it is as far off the mark as you can possibly imagine.

There are actually cases before the US courts regarding this particular matter of actual evidence of rigged electronic voting, as the evidence lies in the historical record of the exit polls. The evidence is circumstantial, but extreme in validity, correctness, and history. Perfectly repeated accurate history--a century's worth.

It's enough to convict in a murder trial. A federal election is far more important than any murder charge you can imagine. Election fraud should rate a treason charge (death by hanging, etc), for the damage done due to the given country's investment in illegitimate leadership....can and probably does far exceed most people's imagination.

Trump is correct.

[T Smith]

Anyone who doesn't understand that the election is (and will be) rigged is in denial or completely naive.

The question should be, what good reason is there to indicate the election won't be rigged? Not whether it might be rigged.

But I'll suspend disbelief for a moment and ask the question. Is there any reason at all to think electronic voting is honest and an accurate representation of the electorate? Is there even one good reason? (BTW, "blind faith" doesn't count as a good reason, in case one is temped to go there).

Here is the reality: there is no way to audit the vote. There is no way to audit the algorithms that spit out the vote. There is no way to determine if the software program that spits out the vote is malleable, accessible, or simply a written function to produce a desired result.

This seems like a very, very simply puzzle to me. And one very easy to figure out.

[ThePythonicCow]

This Hacking Democracy article states that "There is no evidence voter fraud is a widespread problem in the United States." and that Trump is claiming there is fraud in order to damage an election process that he can't win otherwise."

===

The article is misinformed, biased, wrongheaded -it is as far off the mark as you can possibly imagine.
...Trump is correct.
===

Carmody is correct :).

[onawah]

Jon Rappaport agrees--Fakery: major media preparing to steal election-night outcome?
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/fakery-major-media-preparing-to-steal-election-night-outcome/


by Jon Rappoport
October 17, 2016

Note: this article is about the early projections media outlets make on election night—when they call the winner.

Here it is in a nutshell: major media consider the election a media event.

Therefore, they control it.

Therefore, when they project the election-outcome the night of the vote, even though that call is unofficial, they want compliance from the candidates. THEY WANT A FAST CONCESSION SPEECH from the loser. Well, a concession from Trump, because the networks and their allies in print newspapers are already painting a picture of a Hillary victory (for example, see this WaPo article). The picture is: Trump’s campaign is falling apart, Hillary is leading in battleground states, and she may even expand her reach into states Trump was previously thought to have wrapped up.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Mike Pence was asked point blank: if you lose on election night, will you and Donald concede? And Pence said yes.

The media-concocted story line: if Trump loses and he refuses to concede, because he believes the count was rigged, he’ll be inciting violence and endangering the country.

Of course, the networks calling the election victory is unofficial. It’s all happening in a bubble.

The networks are terrified that Trump will refuse to concede if they say he lost. Instead, he will say: “My team and I have definite knowledge of widespread vote fraud in many states. As I speak, we are filing suits. We not only want an accurate recount, we want criminal charges brought against the vote riggers. We know who they are. Some of the culprits are media networks. You can say I’m a sore loser but I’m not. I’m for fairness, and we don’t have that. We’re going all the way with our accusations and our facts. All along I’ve been saying the system is corrupt. Now we’re going to prove that…”

The media could then be accused of direct complicity in stealing the election.

So…how do the networks decide who wins an election? Buckle up. Here is a concise description from Wikipedia. Notice that the media are basically getting their vote-info from…themselves:

“The National Election Pool (NEP) is a consortium of American news organizations formed in 2003 to provide ‘information on Election Night about the vote count, election analysis and election projections.’ Member companies consist of ABC News, the Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News. The organization relies on the Associated Press to perform vote tabulations and contracted with Edison Research and Mitofsky International to ‘make projections and provide exit poll analysis.’ Edison Research has provided this data since 2004.

“The precursor was Voter News Service, which was disbanded in 2003, after controversies over the 2000 and 2002 election results. The NEP plan is largely the suggestion of CNN, which used Edison/Mitofsky as consultants in the past. Mitofsky headed the original pool that preceded VNS.

“The organizers of the pool insist that the purpose of their quick collection of exit poll data is not to determine if an election is flawed, but rather to project winners of races. Despite past problems, they note that none of their members has incorrectly called a winner since the current system was put in place. However, to avoid the premature leaking of data, collection is now done in a ‘Quarantine Room’ at an undisclosed location in New York. All participants are stripped of outside communications devices until it is time for information to be released officially.”

Doesn’t that warm the cockles of your heart and give you great confidence?

Back in 2012, I wrote this about Edison Research and Mitofsky:

“Both Edison Research and Mitofsky were involved in the 2004 election scandal (Kerry-Bush), in which their exit polls confounded network news anchors, because the poll results were so far off from the incoming vote-counts.

“Edison and Mitofsky issued a later report explaining how the disparity could have occurred; they tried to validate their own exit-poll data and the vote-count, which was like explaining a sudden shift in ocean tides by saying clouds covered the moon. It made no sense.”

But wait. Even though media giants are getting their election-night info from themselves, they must be basing that info on actual vote counts in the 50 states, as reported by the secretaries of states. Right? Read the last two paragraphs again. The exit polls differed greatly from the vote counts.

And remember, if widespread electronic vote fraud occurs on election night (read my previous piece on the crooked GEMS vote-tabulating system used across the US in 25% of the vote), the early media projections of a Presidential winner will serve to cut off any doubt about, or investigation into, the veracity of the GEMS system.


“Well, there it is, America. All networks are now projecting the winner. We are waiting for a concession speech from the loser…”

Between now and election night, expect pressure to build on Trump to concede if/when he loses…

“In our American democracy, a peaceful transition from one President to the next is the hallmark of our stability. If Mr. Trump refuses to play by the rules, he is a clear and present danger…”

Trump goes on national television and refuses to concede. Instead, he calls the vote-count a criminal act and has his lawyers file numerous suits.

Then, precisely timed, George Soros-funded riots break out in key cities. Amid the destruction, the media blame Trump for the violence. It’s all his fault. He’s the great divider.

Lifted by strong arms from her wheelchair, pumped up on God knows what drugs, Hillary walks out on stage in a large hall, before screaming adoring fans, and with eyes glowing and a huge smile pasted on her face, gives a speech about a new era in America, and how she will heal wounds and help restore unity and opportunity for all…

Jon Rappoport

[Sueanne47]

Undercover operation exposes unethical practises of the DNC:

JvAVV0cCVUk

[Hervé]

Rigged, double-rigged and re-rigged:

Russian Artificial Intelligence Expert: US media hyped Trump to help Hillary (http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/russian-artificial-intelligence-expert.html)

Eugene Chernyh Fort Russ (http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/10/russian-artificial-intelligence-expert.html) Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:50 UTC



https://www.sott.net/image/s17/351490/large/wx1080_2B_25281_2529.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s17/351490/full/wx1080_2B_25281_2529.jpg)
© The Economist



Clinton supporters wanted to knock out her arch-rival Jeb Bush from the presidential race


The eccentric billionaire popped up last year into the presidential elections like a jack-in-the-box, and messed up all Republican plans for the White House, having crept into their ranks. Trump became a headache for the Democrat Hillary Clinton and her entire party.

Donkey Ears

Analysts, political scientists, and other experts have been scratching their heads for several months over his phenomenon. Many on both sides of the ocean call Trump "the shame of America", awarding other bad adjectives, constantly predicting his demise. But he is still trying to force his way into the White house. And where did he come from?

Where - where from? You know, from the camel [Russian idiom -FR]. Sorry, from the donkey. This animal is the symbol of the Democratic party of the United States. The experts might point the journalist mixed up the animals. Say, the symbol of his native Republican party is the elephant.

The fact of the matter is, dear citizens, that donkey ears actually are sticking out behind the extravagant hairstyle of the Republican Donald, says Russian scientist Vladimir Shalack, although Trump had nothing to do with it.

I met the doctor of philosophic sciences Shalack in September of last year. Then the main global event was the sudden pouring of a flood of hundreds of thousands of migrants to Germany. Vladimir Ivanovich conducted his own research and convincingly, with specific addresses, names, proved:
"The invasion of refugees into Europe was organized through Twitter by United States and Britain". This article (http://www.kp.ru/daily/26434.4/3305391/) in Komsomolskaya Pravda made a lot of noise. As a source of information the scientist had selected a network of Twitter accounts, choosing those quickest to respond to all global events. In his research he adopted a strictly scientific method of content analysis based on the frequency of occurrence of words or phrases in the texts, headlines, etc. He got interested in this 20 years ago, working in the Research Center for Artificial Intelligence in Pereslavl-Zalessky. Later he created special computer programs for this purpose.

Then Shalack told me he conducted a similar investigation of the US presidential campaign. [He] subjected to content analysis the Twitter headlines with names of candidates of 17 of the most popular American mass media accounts. And also received unexpected results.

From the start Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Clinton led by cash inflows. It would seem that the press over the ocean should write about them more often. After all, money talks.

Not so!

By the frequency of mention in 16 of 17 accounts by a considerable margin at the beginning of September 2015 Donald Trump was in the lead! Only Fox News mentioned Clinton more. In all 17, despite all the large cash flows, Jeb Bush was in last place. In total 4.7 times more articles were devoted to Trump than Bush, and 2.2 times more than Hillary, despite the fact that on the money he trailed behind, ranking 19th out of 23 candidates. That, in the opinion of the scientist, was devoid of any logic.

"No country in the world, and especially in democracies, has free media", said Shalack.

"This is one of the most effective levers of power, allowing to drive required thoughts into the heads of the masses and to control them. How to neutralize an undesirable political figure, especially a presidential candidate? Just stop writing about him, and if it is impossible, mention his name from time to time to give people the impression of marginality of this character.

"The biggest marginal of the three turned out to be Jeb Bush, and the undisputed leader of the headlines - the bizarre Donald Trump! At the current stage of the presidential race his name is hammered into the heads of voters."

But by whom?

Shalack made a deep conspiralogical conclusion. "The real masters of the USA are tired of the Bush and Clinton clans. Experiment with Obama has been a failure and threatens to turn into a disaster. They made a bid for Trump."

Investigation "Forecasts - thankless and risky, but still..." Shalack published this conclusion on his website back on September 6, 2015.

A few days later he conducted a content analysis of the headlines of leading UK media. "The election of the President of the United States. What do the Rothschilds think?"

The results were even more paradoxical. In total the foggy Albion devoted 9.8 times more articles to Trump than Jeb Bush, and 2.9 times more than Hillary Clinton. The popular magazine [I]The Economist, which is considered a mouthpiece of the Rothschilds, mentions Trump in the headlines ahead of Bush by 72 times! Moreover! The header of the account of the magazine featured a puzzling picture: a helicopter flying in the sky with the words "TRUMP" carrying on the cable carries... Trump's wig.

Which further strengthened the scientist in the thought that someone is behind Trump! Britain and the United States, after all, are the Anglo-Saxons who consider themselves rulers of the world.

But even I, the master conspiracy theorist of Komsomolskaya Pravda considered Shalack's insights too ambitious and fantastic a year ago. And did not publish the investigation in my native newspaper. I, as many analysts believed, then, that boisterous Trump was unleashed by the Republicans specifically at the start of the campaign to identify the weaknesses of Clinton, to make her tick. And closer to the primaries the respectable Jeb Bush will be released on the political scene in a white coat. A trusted comrade from a respected family. Father and brother were already presidents. Behind him - all the party leaders, the financiers, lobbyists, industrialists... Not the scandalous billionaire upstart. And Trump will give him the votes so Jeb can ascend to the White house. And Donald would score with favors in business.

But Bush was the first to expire, despite the political influence of the family, money, position in the party, as predicted by Shalack. And Trump became the leader in the primaries of his own party, although the leadership was dissatisfied with him. And [he] continues the battle with Clinton.

Operation "Pied Piper"
The other day I called the scientist with an apology, that I didn't believe him a year ago.

[I]"Everything is going according to you, Vladimir! Your conspiracy theory was correct. Look at Trump today!"

"There is only one hitch in my conspiratorial conclusions", said Shalack."Trump was hyped ... by the Democratic party itself."

"Impossible?!"

"May be. But I could not even imagine this. Therefore concluded about the owners of the United States. It turns out that the Democrats back in April 2015 contemplated about how to win elections. Some of them came up with the "brilliant" idea to assist in the media promotion of marginal candidates from the "enemy party" so those at the stage of the primaries [it] pushed the real contenders out of the race."

"The main real candidate of the Republican party, behind whom were concentrated enormous financial resources, was considered to be Jeb Bush. So with the help of the Democrats, the media, America and the UK hyped the Republican Trump."

[I]"Is this your guess?"

"A few days ago Wikileaks posted another batch of DNC emails. There is a very interesting document from April 7, 2015


https://www.sott.net/image/s17/351492/large/wx1080.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s17/351492/full/wx1080.jpg)
© Wikileaks


"So at the start the media promoted Pied Piper candidates from the "enemy party". Because Cruz and Carson were quite respectable people, the emphasis was on the eccentric Trump, whom many then considered a buffoon."

"The medieval legend of the Pied Piper of Hamelin is widely known. Playing the flute, he stole all the children from the German city where they never returned."

"This role by the intention of the Democrats, was allotted to Donald Trump. So he took away the votes from Jeb Bush. Which is what I discovered in September of last year."

"Primaries started in February. Bush was out with a big bang from the start, and Trump was winning one state after another. Then was the turn of Carson and Cruz, hyped up by the Democrats."

"Do not dig a hole for somebody else"

"And then the unexpected happened", continued the doctor of philosophical sciences Vladimir Shalack, "If in 2015 Democrats made efforts to promote Trump, now began a chain reaction. The person who was given the role of a puppet, thief of votes, has suddenly become so popular among Republicans that they had no choice but to write about him. He became media-self-sufficient. The whole year according to my content analysis he was the leader by frequency of mentions in the leading American mass media."

"It continues today, when the acute phase of the election campaign has begun and buckets of dirt are pouring from one and the other side."

"I made a chart which shows for the last month and a half Trump leading on the frequency of mentions in the media headlines. Press, TV would love to stop, but they can't live without Trump. The amazing thing is that in each of the analyzed media, he is also ahead of Hillary."


https://www.sott.net/image/s17/351494/large/wx1080.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s17/351494/full/wx1080.jpg)
© vaal.ru,The frequency of mention of candidates in the media in the fall of 2016.



"Vladimir Ivanovich, did the Democrats realize that by promoting Trump, they let the genie out of the bottle?"

"In early May. I analyzed the Twitter accounts of 42 members of Clinton's campaign staff from January 1, 2015 to October 15, 2016. Collected 64 893 tweets. Until May 2016 Hillary was mentioned in tweets more often than Trump. But that all changed the first week of May 2016. After Trump's resounding victories during the primaries the Democrats realized that with their own hands they have created a serious rival for the fall elections. In October 2016 Trump is mentioned in the campaign staff tweets already three more times than Hillary. Democrats are freaked out, but don't know how to stop him. Hence the hysteria around the alleged Russian hackers, Trump's alleged support by the Kremlin and other nonsense."

"A year ago, Jeremy Corbin was elected the new leader of the Labour party in England. He was also smeared in dirt by all the British media, I conducted a content analysis of the press. But in the end he was on people's minds, as now Trump, and won by a large margin. Then there was a lot of moaning about this, but there was no turning back. This could happen with Trump."

The Democrats themselves raised their gravedigger. The suspense remains.

Vladimir Ivanovich Shalack, 61. Doctor of philosophical sciences. Leading researcher of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Philosophy. Creator and manager of VAAL project. Has been involved in content-analytical studies on various issues for 20 years.

Via Komsomolskaya Pravda (http://www.kp.ru/daily/26595/3610912/) - Translated from Russian by Kristina Kharlova

=============================================

Reminds me of [Trump] some Derren [Trump] Brown video about [Trump] induced [Trump] outcomes...

[ThePythonicCow]

Rigged, double-rigged and re-rigged:
Fascinating ... thanks, Hervé.

[onawah]

Makes perfect sense, though completely insane. :facepalm:

[ThePythonicCow]

I just posted a related post (combining the topics of the US Presidential election and Julian Assange) over at Julian Assange dead?? [largely exaggerated rumors] [Update: Post #2 and others - Assange Internet cut] -- Post #34 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?93937-Julian-Assange-dead-largely-exaggerated-rumors-Update-Post-2-and-others-Assange-Internet-cut&p=1106458&viewfull=1#post1106458).

[Hervé]

Rigged, double-rigged and re-rigged:

[...]
... and triple re-rigged:


http://scoooops.com/images/8be32-76506-george-soros-threatens-russia-china-with-original.jpg
Rots and cRoks

[T]he Rockefeller family and Rothschild family have merged (http://wearechange.org/the-rockefellers-and-rothschilds-fused-while-no-one-was-looking/) as part of a secretive 2012 deal.


There probably are a lot of messages within that picture... for their fans...

[Flash]

Therefore, the DNC and Clintons felt for it, thinking they had a fringe candidate on the opposing party who would not win the elections by was pushing aside the more able to win candidates in the Republican party, while in fact they were the ones push aside by those 2 guys in the pic below.

Interesting, but I would not be surprised for it being the truth at all. Very refine knowledge of human mass behavior and how to manipulate it.

If Trump has no reprisal on his financial empire, no money problems later on, it is because he was backed by the two R of this world (Rotchilds and Rockerfellers).

Those guys must be laughing all the way back to their power coffers.

And yes, the pic is interesting in itself as well. i would like to be able to read the title of all the books and be able to see the pic in the frame on the table. Also, the time 10:05 on the clock, the two birds around it and the chandeliers on each side of the library with two candle each (Djinns portals would be between two towers, two chandeliers, two standing up stuff with stone or crystal properties) and an ornament in the middle I cannot make up. Anyhow.




Rigged, double-rigged and re-rigged:

[...]
... and triple re-rigged:


http://scoooops.com/images/8be32-76506-george-soros-threatens-russia-china-with-original.jpg
Rots and cRoks

[T]he Rockefeller family and Rothschild family have merged (http://wearechange.org/the-rockefellers-and-rothschilds-fused-while-no-one-was-looking/) as part of a secretive 2012 deal.


There probably are a lot of messages within that picture... for their fans...

[Hervé]

A lesson in how to "brainwash" intelligence analysts who then forward their conclusions to all media:

Case 12: The Exorbitant Cost of Cooking Intelligence (http://pauljackson.us/sue_arrigo/US_Corruption_%20Cases_%201-17_UD_with_photos_%204%20Jun%2008.pdf)

Submitted to Waxman’s Congressional Committee on Govt. Oversight and Reform on Monday 26 May 2008.

Shortly before Tenet announced his resignation on June 3, 2004, I submitted evidence to the GAO that the intelligence reports at the CIA were being cooked at ridiculous cost.

[Note: For a brief overview of this topic please see an 8 minute You Tube at http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP18L0PtKS0, including that Chalibi, a convicted bank swindler, was paid $345,000.00 a month to provide intelligence to the CIA.]

What I sent the GAO included evidence that selected people inside the CIA were paying “independent” think tanks and scholars very high fees for articles. The independents had been contracted to have a particular point of view or conclusion. It was one way that the neo-cons used to shift the CIA’s analysts and foreign policy in the direction that they wanted. The corruption case that I sent the GAO had to do with exorbitant fees being paid for these cooked “independent” articles.

I documented that one 5-page article had been written in 2 days to re-iterate a self-serving view; the CIA and thus the US taxpayer had paid over a million dollars for it. It was not a report on a scientific study that had taken time to complete. The author of it was not a scientist. I looked at that article myself. It had not a single reference in it. It faithfully followed the handwritten notes of the author from the call which gave him the assignment.

The person who called him was a staffer at the White House. The author was an academician at an Ivy League college, Harvard, if I remember correctly. The opinion took on a respectable patina after passing through the typewriter of that professor. The CIAs analysts then reference the opinion as if it were fact in their own reports.

The article was on how Middle Eastern countries were financially incompetent to manage their own accounting and banking affairs. No evidence was given for that assertion. It recommended that loans made to and from Middle Eastern banks to US corporations/banks under a certain size should be forced to go through banking structures that the US could control. The staffer calling in that assignment to the Professor had received a call within the hour from David Rockefeller. The staffer’s hand written notes from that call showed that he had faithfully transmitted Rockefeller’s instructions to the Professor. Those instructions included recommending that the World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements in Basel be used to give “the US oversight control”.

But as both of those institutions were controlled, not by the US govt. but by David Rockefeller, it gave the control to him, not the US Govt.. That is, unless one made the mistake of thinking that David Rockefeller was the US Govt.. It was a mistake that perhaps he had made subconsciously.

I guessed that the point of that propaganda stunt by Rockefeller was to set the stage for his taking over many banks in the Middle East later. It also seemed designed to cut out smaller companies from being able to compete with his own enterprises. It later prevented Iraqis and Afghanis from getting the loans they needed to rebuild themselves. It forced them to wait for US reconstruction by large US corporations. It was part of a set of US policies which put a stranglehold on their economies in practice. That often forced them to work for the US occupation of their country or watch their children starve to death.

[...]

Bush was out of the White House during the hour of the transmission of that part of the economic strangle hold proposal and there was no evidence of a call to him. Cheney was in the White House in a meeting. I could find no security camera footage to show that the staffer had sought or received Cheney’s input on the matter. And no extra points were added to the staffers notes that were not covered in the phone call from Rockefeller.

That staffer had a title like White House researcher. But, when I looked into what he actually did by watching his computer screen and emails, he did not research topics. What he did was take the opinions of neo-cons and ‘create the research’ citations to support them. More than half of his inputs were coming from David Rockefeller--about 55%. About 15% were coming from Bush, Jr. and 20% from Cheney. Also disturbing to me from a counter-intelligence point of view was that most of the rest were coming from foreign sources, including the Saudi Ambassador to the US. That meant that even foreign agents were cooking CIA’s Dept. of Intelligence’s reports and thus shaping US foreign policy.

I then looked into who was overseeing that staffer’s work. That was not encouraging. He was being bribed by the Saudis and 2 other foreign agents, one from Libya and one from Egypt. The oversight of him had not been sufficient to detect that. It had not even attempted to ensure that most of his work was being done for those whom the taxpayers had purportedly elected.

Next I went to talk to 3 CIA analysts whom I respected. I showed them the 5-page article and asked them to speculate on how that Professor had come to write the content in it. Two of them said that he likely wrote it as a result of his academic interest in the area.

They considered that what he said was ‘probably right and probably based on a lot of in depth research’. I pointed out that he was in the Political Science dept., not the Business School. That was a fact that any analyst could have by searching on his name on the internet. But it was not a fact that appeared in the citation of his article in the CIA’s reports. They then said, “Well, that makes it less convincing, unless he had the help of a person in business administration.” I then pointed out that unless he had the help of many spies in many Middle Eastern banks that the help of a business person was pointless.

[...]

These analysts turned off their usually excellent analytical skills after reading that a respected expert from Harvard wrote the article. They accepted his writing as truth without further proof because they assumed that he must have done his homework well to stay at Harvard. But his colleagues at Harvard never saw those articles he sent to the CIA.

The 3rd analyst had seen the article before. He said to me, “Oh, that professor writes whatever the US Administration wants us to tell them.” We take our clues as to what to write from his articles and that gets us promoted”. I asked him how many articles of that professor’s he had read. He pulled them out of a file drawer within easy reach of his desk and handed them to me. There were over 20 articles. I copied them and looked them over.

Then I called up the Professor and I asked him to write an article for me. Before I even told him on what topic, he asked me how much I would pay him. I said that I was at the CIA. He said that the CIA paid him different amounts according to who at the CIA called him. He wanted a dollar figure and whether it would go into a tax free Swiss account or a US account. I cited him a figure of $10,000 for a 3 page report and he hung up on me. I called him back and asked him how much he wanted for a 3 page report. He said that with his reputation to protect, he needed $100,000 a page. I said that seemed steep to me.

He said, “Then find someone else.” I agreed to pay $100,000 for a 3-page report and we bargained over price. He agreed to write 3 full pages for $120,000. He had still not asked the topic! Then he asked me what I wanted him to say in the article. I said that I wanted a follow up article on the 5-page one which dealt with a single Middle Eastern Bank. I asked him which bank had been the worst of those he knew about. He could not give the name of a single Middle Eastern Bank, let alone name one that the State Dept. had already listed as suspect and not worthy of US investments. I had that State Dept. list in front of me. I waited assuming that he would rifle through his papers to find his copy of it. It was not classified information. But instead he asked me to name the bank that should be the subject of his report. I gave him a name--I knew that no such bank existed. He agreed and again asked me what the article should say. I told him the I wanted to know what banking practices it used that were substandard and the scandals that had resulted from it.

I said that any scandal probably had forced people are of their homes in a foreclosure and had forced people to be homeless. I told him that I had heard of a case of a 4-year-old Israeli girl dying on the streets in Jerusalem because an Arab bank associated with this one had gone bankrupt. He said to me, “Now you are talking. I can give you what you need but I needed to know what that was.”

He sent me the article the same afternoon. It appeared that he was a faster typer than I was. Given the time it took him to get it to me he had to have over a 90 words a minute typing skill. The article sounded well founded. It included 3 scandals at the bank and ended on the note of the Israeli girl dying on the street after her family was forced out of their home.

I then sent that article and a survey to many of the CIA’s analysts. I tried to send it to every CIA analyst at Headquarters, but a few later complained that they had not gotten ‘the great banking article’ from me. When I looked into how many analysts did not get that survey, it was less than 4%. Since I offered to send them another article if they would send me back a completed survey, I got about an 80% response rate after personally walking the halls of the analysts to remind them. The results of that survey showed that CIA analysts were quick to adopt opinions without investigation. About 10% went on line looking for more about the scandals. Even after finding nothing about them on the internet, 60% still believed that the article had been based on fact. Only 20% of the analysts said that the article was hearsay without supporting references that they could check. And this was in the CIA’s Intelligence Dept.! It was a dreadful performance for intelligence analysts.

The article I passed out was a four page one on how their reports were being cooked by feeding them material like that article. It included who was behind the writing of the articles, including foreign agents, how much it was costing the US taxpayer to launder those neo-con opinions into presumed facts, and the results of the survey showing how successfully they were being duped. It had taken me four days of very hard work and long hours to write those 4 pages.

Tenet demanded that I “stop taking up the time of the analysts.”! I pointed out that the amount of time I had taken up was the amount required to read 7 pages and fill out a 2 page multiple choice questionnaire. He replied that analysts had ‘lost days of work’ trying to find that bogus company and its scandals. I challenged him to find me a single case where an analyst had lost over 4 hours. He sent a bigwig in Intelligence “down to have a talk with me”. I lambasted the man for running a shoddy dept. He had been the person at the CIA calling the professor the most and paying him the highest rates, up to $200,000 a page for a “rush case”. All of the professor’s articles were rushed through as fast as he could type. He expected me to sit by and idly twiddle my thumbs while he destroyed the integrity of US intelligence. About 40% of his time was spent ‘outsourcing’ CIA intelligence analysis assignments--that is finding who to bribe to write up the US Administration’s opinions as academic or well-founded facts. He was the counterpart of the White House Researcher. What they ‘researched’ was how to cook the CIA’s intelligence to make it say what the US Administration wanted to hear. He was the one who had gone to Tenet saying that I had wasted the time of his analysts.

When I looked into who he took assignments from it was not primarily Tenet. The pattern was much the same as for the White House researcher. Most of his assignments, about 60% were coming from David Rockefeller. Only 10% were coming from Tenet. About 15% were coming from Bush and Cheney. Most of the rest were coming from the White House researcher. That piqued my interest. Why was the White House researcher not commissioning the studies directly?

When I looked into the reports that had been written on request of the White House researcher to the CIA’s Intelligence researcher, a pattern emerged. The pattern I detected first was the illegal arms trade. The White House appeared to be unwilling to directly commission articles on the illegal trafficking of drugs, weapons, and human slaves. I called up the White House researcher. He assumed that Tenet had directed me to call as I was seen by many people as Tenet’s go-fer. I asked him for a list of good independent researchers and what they would or would not write about. He sent me over his computer reference file that he used to select writers. I then compared it to a similar list from the computer of the CIA’s Intelligence bigwig. The main difference appeared to be that the underworld figures were left off the White House’s list. The CIA’s Intelligence bigwig was having the Mafia write the articles on the Mafia! And he was paying them big bucks to let them write what they wanted about themselves! That “professional courtesy” was extended also to big drug running outfits, big arms traders, and big slavers. I located 10 articles in each of these categories that had been written by ‘the insiders’, the criminals themselves. Then I ‘wasted my time’ reading them. That was a real eye opener. It was not a waste of my time once I understood that the articles were written by the criminals to help the CIA cover-up their crimes.

I went to the bigwig in Intelligence and showed him my 30 articles and asked him who in his dept. had ‘commissioned them from the criminals’. I already knew the answer. He had been responsible for every one of those articles being written and submitted to the CIA’s analysts. Usually they were inserted as from ‘an anonymous CIA informant whom we trust”. I wondered who had decided to ‘trust’ those criminals enough to pay them big bucks to mislead CIA analysts. In the face of the evidence, that man confessed that he had been cooking the intelligence.

Then I took his confession up to Tenet expecting him to be fired. Tenet did not fire him. Not even after I explained that Libya and other countries on the list of terrorist states were feeding the CIA analysts lies through this man. 3 of the men on his list were also on a list of Al-Queada terrorists. He had them listed as experts in illegal weapons and had used two of them to feed information into the CIA’s analysts.

It is not wrong to ask criminals to write articles, if something they knew could not be learned another way that was important for the CIA to know. It is not necessary to identify them by name, a consistent alias will do, if they are a covert source. But their background needed to be listed honestly, so that the analysts could properly evaluate it. Everyone should be paid fairly and in an amount that the taxpayer would approve. It is completely unreasonable to list someone as a professor of a University, if their colleagues are not peer reviewing that article and ensuring it meets the standards of that institution. It was that bigwig Intelligence Analyst’s job to ensure that the articles his analysts wrote were true and based on reliable sources. What he had done was as bad as a bank manager embezzling funds. In the civilian world, had he embezzled the amount of money he wasted, he would have ended up in prison. But what he had done was much worse. US soldier’s lives and the fate of the nation, not just tax dollars hung in the balance.

It deeply concerned me that Tenet did not fire that man. I copied the calls between Tenet, Cheney, and Bush discussing whether to fire him based on my evidence. There were two such calls made in the hour after I spoke to Tenet. Cheney recommended ‘holding tight’ and ‘letting the storm pass by’. Bush said, “this doesn’t look good”... “we could replace him and keep going”. Tenet did not offer much of his own opinion. Cheney apparently won out in Tenet’s thinking, because the man was not fired.

Then I sent out a one page article to the analysts explaining my findings on how their opinions were being shaped by criminals in the underworld. I offered to give anyone who showed up at my office the 30 articles and the proof of what I said if they promised in writing to read it ‘on their own time’. That was a bit of a joke as many analysts worked long hours without overtime. The CIA did not pay overtime. Anything they did after 40 hours a week was automatically on their own time and they already knew it.

My office was overrun by requests and I had to station a secretary outside my door to pass out the articles after analysts signed the promise. The analysts did want the truth of how they were being fed lies. Many of them asked me to keep exposing the corruption. Others shook their heads sadly and said, “We have to cook the intelligence so as not to lose our jobs, or worse.” (see Cases 8 and 9). One man asked me who was behind the cooking of the intelligence. When I explained what I knew already, he said to me; “There has to be more to it than that. Feeding us lies doesn’t require much effort, but keeping us from reading the truth must take a lot of work and people. Look into that next.”

I sent all of that information over to the GAO along with many records from the CIA’s accounting office showing what the bogus ‘independents’ had been paid for what they wrote. The costs were staggering. The Dept of Intelligence was spending more to pay for bogus reports to cook the intelligence than they were spending on the salaries of CIA analysts!

==================================================

From there, the world is propagandized via tweeter... howling "Russia did it! It's all Putin's Fault!"

[Satori]

Herve's post also describes the process used to obtain reports from NIST and others to cover up the lies regarding 9/11 and the causes of the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 (and others), as well as the Pentagon. Those reports are unreliable hogwash.

[gord]

I doubt these two families have ever really been opposed to each other. Who do you suppose financed the rottenf_ckers rise in the first place?

Weird personal trivia: I used to play in William Avery Rottenf_cker's abandoned house as a teenager before it was restored and turned into a historical landmark. It was a mile from where I grew up. :focus:



Rigged, double-rigged and re-rigged:

[...]
... and triple re-rigged:


http://scoooops.com/images/8be32-76506-george-soros-threatens-russia-china-with-original.jpg
Rots and cRoks

[T]he Rockefeller family and Rothschild family have merged (http://wearechange.org/the-rockefellers-and-rothschilds-fused-while-no-one-was-looking/) as part of a secretive 2012 deal.


There probably are a lot of messages within that picture... for their fans...