It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Evidence of Detroit Voter Fraud, Too Many Votes in 37% of Precincts

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Report: Evidence of Detroit Voter Fraud, Too Many Votes in 37% of Precincts


Voting machines in 37 per cent of Detroit precincts recorded more votes than mathematically possible during November’s presidential election, according to records obtained by The Detroit News.

Reports obtained by the newspaper from Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett found that in 248 of the city’s 662 precincts, more votes had been counted than the number of people who had been marked as having voted, which might serve as evidence of voter fraud across the city.

Following the report, Michigan’s Secretary of State Ruth Johnson announced plans to conduct a full investigation into the irregularities. Detroit was one of the areas in which Hillary Clinton’s support was particuarly strong.


Click link for article...

Well this is becoming embarrassing for the party in question. I guess it certainly explains why support for her was so high in these precincts as well. Even accounting for human error the numbers are not normal so a full investigation is going to be conducted.

We need to get laws in place that help protect the vote people make, including identification of voters among other things.




posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I believe this was Jill's plan all along, she has been outspoken about Clinton through the election, I haven't heard her say she ever thinks Trump was the one doing the voter fraud I think she was just letting people put words in her mouth. She knows the dodgyness of the Dems and the best way for her to get away with exposing it was letting people think she was doing it to get rid of donald but instead showing it was actually Hillarys camp doing the dodgy business. And pocketing some "donations" in the process.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

voter fraud never happens. Unless it's the Russians. Please, try to keep up.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Xcathdra

voter fraud never happens. Unless it's the Russians. Please, try to keep up.


im sorry my bad........



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: justneo

that sounds noble and all, but where did that sudden influx of cash come from? Way to convenient and way to fishy.
Everything points to Stein being a proxy for Clinton. Possibly just in it for the benjamins.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's nothing, just the software doing what it's designed to do.

I wonder what the multiplier was set at?



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

MI uses only paper ballots and does not use electronic voting.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Like I said, she made people believe she was doing it against Trump or people assumed she was doing against Trump that includes the person who was donating massive amounts every so many minute's or hours can't remember off the top of my head how often it was.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

But are those paper ballots counted by machine?



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: justneo
I believe this was Jill's plan all along, she has been outspoken about Clinton through the election, I haven't heard her say she ever thinks Trump was the one doing the voter fraud I think she was just letting people put words in her mouth. She knows the dodgyness of the Dems and the best way for her to get away with exposing it was letting people think she was doing it to get rid of donald but instead showing it was actually Hillarys camp doing the dodgy business. And pocketing some "donations" in the process.


I agree 200%! The only way anyone could believe that Jill was doing it for Clinton is if one believes that Hillary's hands aren't dirty as sin... I never believed that for a minute. And I don't believe Jill did either.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


voter id laws would not prevent corrupt election workers from scanning the same ballot more than once



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

optical scan



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

You know, with all of these being paper ballots, and the myriad ways that human error could cause slight discrepancies here and there, the reality that nearly 60% of the precincts show errors is very concerning, no matter for whom the discrepancies may positively affect in the vote total.

Particularly disturbing is what's noted in the Detroit News article about the difference in one of the precincts in Wayne County (where Detroit is):

Republican state senators last week called for an investigation in Wayne County, including one precinct where a Detroit ballot box contained only 50 of the 306 ballots listed in a poll book, according to an observer for Trump.

City officials have told state officials that ballots in that precinct were never taken out of a locked bin below the voting machine tabulator on Election Day, said Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams.

“That’s what we’ve been told, and we’ll be wanting to verify it,” Woodhams said. “At any rate, this should not have happened.”

Obviously, all of this needs to be verified, but if it's accurate, there is no excuse for a 512% difference between actual ballots versus the amount listed in the poll book. That's inexcusable, and it truly stinks of purposeful voter election fraud.

But, like I said, we'll have to wait and have all of this verified.

ETA: Be wary of using Breitbart as your main source--it's quite the biased website and they often spin an issue to meet an ideological end. Plus, it makes some people automatically disregard your information out of a bias of their own.


edit on 15-12-2016 by SlapMonkey because: corrected which type of fraud it potentially is

edit on 15-12-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




ETA: Be wary of using Breitbart as your main source--it's quite the biased website and they often spin an issue to meet an ideological end. Plus, it makes some people automatically disregard your information out of a bias of their own.

You are correct.
But....
We have seen the Podesta emails and are aware that basically all of the MSM outlets are biased also.

Who is there to believe out there?



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

ETA: Be wary of using Breitbart as your main source--it's quite the biased website and they often spin an issue to meet an ideological end. Plus, it makes some people automatically disregard your information out of a bias of their own.



If you are looking for a news site that isn't biased, it's next to the Unicorns that crap gold.

It's become so bad that any news article might be true, might be slanted a bit, or might be complete bull#. But it's up to us, the readers to vet the articles, discuss them, and decide where the truth lies. It's what makes this site what it is.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

My point was that the source to the original article was contained in the Breitbart story--that is the story that should have been cited to avoid automatic discrediting by people unwilling to actually research what is being said rather than just being triggered by a source.

I've had that happen to me numerous times, so I'm sensitive to that topic and try to help others avoid the stupidity.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agreed that you have a valid point.
I was just pointing out that we have to careful about every source since we know the truth about the MSM now.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

For one, I have three unicorns, and they currently crap gold, frankincense and myrrh in honor of the holiday season. Don't knock the unicorns that crap good things--have you even seen the Squatty Potty commercial?

Secondly, I'm only noting that it's in the best interest of an OP to cite non-triggering websites, or better yet, multiple websites that tell differing parts of the story to get a better picture. I in no way harbor the whimsical fantasy that any news source is 100% accurate or unbiased.




posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I understand. It's just the whole "I don't like your source, therefore, you argument is invalid" bull# has run it's course.

And you can keep your unicorns. I prefer giant tacos that crap ice cream.




posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I don't trust YouTube videos...have another source?





top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join