Friday, January 27, 2017

Video: Howard Dean hacks a central vote tabulating computer

This video was scrubbed from the internet when Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee. But we just came across someone with a VHS tape of it.

Special thanks to "balconycollapse" for recording the original broadcast on his VCR and holding on to the recording all these years.

What Happened To Howard Dean's Voting Machine Interview With Bev Harris Exposing Election Fraud?

It was Bev Harris who in 2000 discovered the evidence that Al Gore lost 16,022 votes in machine-voting Volusia County, Florida due to "error". This was enough to cost him the presidency. The full story here:

November 2016: Once a Liberal Darling, Bev Harris Still Thinks the Elections Are Rigged

Election watchdog group says fraud cost Sanders 184 delegates
“Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates,” the newly released report states.

Brief summary:

Full 99 page report here

Non-citizens voting
In 2014, a study released by a team of professors from Old Dominion University and George Mason University estimated that approximately 6.4 percent of noncitizens voted In the 2008 presidential election. They also surmised that 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm election. In addition, the study estimated that 80 percent of noncitizens who appeared to have voted cast their ballots in favor of one party. Noncitizens are believed to have voted in these elections in numbers great enough to have affected the outcome.
Read more:


Undercover video: Brooklyn Poll Worker Caught Committing Probable Voter Fraud Felony

From the 2012 Election:

Politico Magazine: Illegal Immigrants Could Elect Hillary
How noncitizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House.


  1. Of course the elections are rigged; how do you think Trump won? It certainly wasn't the will of the people!

  2. But it was okay when Obama won with rigged elections????You didn't see all the whining, crying and protesting by the people who didn't want Obama as President, did you!!!

    1. Obama won the popular vote, TWICE! AND THERE WAS EIGHT YEARS OF CRYING AND WHINING THEREAFTER! You're STILL crying and whining about it, even after he's gone! Face it, you'll NEVER have the legitimacy you so desperately crave; for that you have to win BY A MAJORITY!

  3. chuck gregory1/29/17, 6:01 PM

    9:12, do you have a credible citation for "Obama's rigged elections?"

  4. Anonymous 9:12.....and probably Obama's crowd size at both his inaugurations was rigged, too? Maybe our eyes deceived us?

  5. Your claims of rigged elections in 2012 are dead wrong.

    In Palm Beach County Florida, 605,268 out of 870,182 registered voters cast ballots. That's a voter turnout rate of 69.56%. How did you get 141%? Calculator broken?

    Too bad you can't even name the county in Ohio where Obama supposedly got 108% of the vote. That's because it doesn't exist.

    In Wood County Ohio, turnout was 64,342 out of 108,014. That's less than 60%. If you don't believe me, go check the election results.

    While you are checking the results, look at the precinct votes in Wood County. Obama did not get 100% of the vote in any precinct.

    In St. Lucie county, the ballot was two pages. With 175,574 registered voters, 247,713 pages were turned in. Please explain why it's fraudulent to turn in both pages of your ballot.

    The one true thing you said is that there are precincts in Philadelphia where nobody voted for Romney. That's not a "mathematical impossibility," though. They just didn't like Romney. How would you actually prove fraud? Easy. Find even a single person who claims to have voted for Romney in one of those districts. I bet you can't. See this article:

  6. chuck gregory2/2/17, 10:34 AM

    If you want to keep the population under control, it's important to keep repeating a lie until the public accepts it as a truth.

    That's why it's necessary to see the citations for these claims.

  7. The truth is going to have a very tough swim against Trump's tsunami of lies! That's how they do it; throw so much BS at us that we are overwhelmed! The solution is to hold them accountable EVERY TIME, and let not one lie go unanswered!

  8. Snopes give the widely-circulated list of 2012 voting irregularities a big red FALSE but then goes on to debunk only 8 on the list. It doesn’t even mention the other items on the list. Why?

    In some spots, the list originated by American Freedom Party had been changed, for example “Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID” was there in the original but the addition ”and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.” was not.

    “In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.” Snopes gives no explanation on where these figures came from. 106,258 was the count of eligible voters from September 17th of the same year as published by a Cleveland newspaper, the Plain Dealer. 98,213 was the 2010 Census count of the population over 18 living in the county. This is just somebody not realizing you can register to vote in a county you don't live in if you find that more convenient, which apparently several thousand people there did, plus the population of that county has grown since 2010, too.

    Here Snopes is caught with a typo: “In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.” The original list said “In AN Ohio county…” It referred to the Wood County puzzling figures mentioned above.

    “In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney.” They relied on a liberal newspaper to answer that, “That result was hardly surprising given that, as the Philadelphia Inquirer noted, those wards are "clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia" and "nationally, 93 percent of African Americans voted for Obama." The news article that reported this in the Inquirer says they tried to contact some of the few registered republican voters in one of these 100% districts but couldn't reach any. Sounds like they didn't try very hard.

    What about all the other fraud claims that Snopes never addresses? Here is a partial list of those:

    According to the Election Protection Coalition, voters across the United States reported more than 70,000 voting problems by 5 PM Eastern time on election day.

    Prior to the election, voters in the states of Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and Ohio all reported that voting machines were switching their votes for Romney over to Obama.

    In Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.” He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.

    Republican poll watchers were illegally removed from several districts. (The Washington Examiner was able to list several of them by precinct.)

    In Ohio, two election judges were caught allowing unregistered voters to cast ballots.

    Many Ohio voters that showed up at the polls on election day were surprised when they were informed that they had already voted. In fact, there were reports all over the nation of people being unable to vote because records showed that they had already voted.

    Prior to election day, an Obama-for-America staffer was caught on video trying to help someone register to vote in more than one state.

    Snopes revised the page in question January 2013. They could have expanded their list in that time, but they obviously desire to keep their conclusion about the list as "false" instead of "partly true." I wish they would explain why they thought other items on the list weren't worth looking into.

    1. How many is "many?" Words like "many" or phrases like "people are saying" are typical propeganda tools, designed to give the impression that the numbers are larger than they are. These accusations of voter fraud, and the lack of faith they're intended to cause, benefit one party; the GOP. There have ALWAYS been slightly fewer Republicans than everyone else in America, and the margin grows wider every year. Low voter turnout, whether caused by apathy or suppression, is the ONLY way a Republican can become President. And the GOP knows it.

  9. Philip Caron2/2/17, 6:26 PM

    The only evident election rigging was by hacks, leaks, and fake news reports, in the election just concluded, and they were all against the Democratic candidate, courtesy of WikiLeaks and Vladimir Putin. However, I personally don't believe that invalidated the outcome; the invalidation of both candidates came even before their nominations.

    1. So I guess the rule of thumb is that any claimed voting irregularities that seem to benefit a Democrat party candidate should automatically be discounted as lies immediately. While any that seem to benefit a Republican candidate is obviously truthful enough to be published as is without question or further research.

    2. chuck gregory2/3/17, 10:36 AM


      The two central issues with "voter fraud" are: 1) the probity of the officials and 2) the accountability of electronic voting systems.

      In Wisconsin, the recall of Scott Walker failed because the clerk of the county I grew up in manipulated the count in his favor. She of course was a tool of the Koch brothers. And any time you get over 100% of the registered voters, you're looking at a corrupt elections official buggering the system.

      Unless electronic machines have a paper trail, they cannot be trusted to ever have delivered an honest vote. The classic example was the election of Senator Chuck Hagel, voted into office when Nebraska converted to electronic voting-- and used the machine his company invented!


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic. No profanity

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Video:   Stone Mysteries at Mt. Ephraim, Springfield, Vermont

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here:

Pageviews past week

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts