Trump Is Dooming His Own Campaign by Accepting Secret Computer Counts

Update 4-05-16:  Donald Trump’s failure to follow the advice of this website and object to the easily-rigged, secret computer counts – has as of now doomed the Trump presidential bid to computer-generated “defeat”. (See video below)

Trump was 10 points ahead in Wisconsin ten days ago, but now has “lost” 50% to 30% according to the published computer “results.”

Same pattern as Ohio.

Right away FOX, CNN, and MSNBC announced that the Trump campaign is dead. And they are right – as long as Trump himself remains silent on this computer-votefraud issue and continues to allow his candidacy to be killed by grotesque computer election theft.

Going forward, Big Media attacks will keep up non-stop to prepare the public for Trump “defeats” in New York, Pennsylvania, and California.

Trump’s only hope remains to object to the illegal, secret computer counts and demand an open count of paper ballots. (See “Election Nite Gatekeepers” menu tab at OpenLettertoDonaldTrump.com.)

Unfortunately, at this point such a stance will be attacked as “sour grapes”, which would NOT have been the case had Trump taken such a stance before New Hampshire, as recommended by this website.

Still, it is never too late for any candidate to demand an open count of paper ballots for his supporters, himself, and all the citizens of the USA. In fact, it is EVERY candidate’s responsibility to do so.

11 comments

  • George Kocan

    What is the direct evidence, as opposed to the inferred evidence, that computer fraud happened?

    • John Weiskittel

      There is none, but in a sense that’s the whole point, because there is no direct evidence that there was NOT fraud either. Computers totally lack the sort of transparency required for the electorate to know what’s going on inside of them.

      The danger is VERY REAL. For example, in this video Clint Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida. testifies on his direct knowledge on the subject:

      • George Kocan

        Can we therefore conclude that Trump won his elections through computer fraud. because. let’s face it, how could anyone so unpopular with the chattering class be elected to anything?

    • John Weiskittel

      There is none, but in a sense that’s the whole point, because there is no direct evidence that there was NOT fraud either. Computers totally lack the sort of transparency required for the electorate to know what’s going on inside of them.

      The danger is VERY REAL. For example, in this video Clint Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida. testifies on his direct knowledge on the subject:

    • John Weiskittel

      There is none, but in a sense that’s the whole point, because there is no direct evidence that there was NOT fraud either. Computers totally lack the sort of transparency required for the electorate to know what’s going on inside of them.

      The danger is VERY REAL. For example, in this video Clint Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida. testifies on his direct knowledge on the subject:

    • John Weiskittel

      There is none, but in a sense that’s the whole point, because there is no direct evidence that there was NOT fraud either. Computers totally lack the sort of transparency required for the electorate to know what’s going on inside of them.

      The danger is VERY REAL. For example, in this video Clint Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida. testifies on his direct knowledge on the subject:

    • John Weiskittel

      There is none, but in a sense that’s the whole point, because there is no direct evidence that there was NOT fraud either. Computers totally lack the sort of transparency required for the electorate to know what’s going on inside of them.

      The danger is VERY REAL. For example, in this video Clint Curtis, a computer programmer from Florida. testifies on his direct knowledge on the subject:

  • Charles Stegiel

    Begging the question of does Trump want to win.

  • Man, what a crazy story. I’ll probably share this with some of my friends. Thanks again for posting it.

  • Activist Angel

    Thank you! Following this issue for years, saw you on Jim Fetzer’s show.
    My working theory is that their Clint Curtis style program is not currently capable of stealing two elections at once. They have to choose between stealing from Bernie or Trump in states where both primaries are happening at the same time.
    So they are being choosy, let Bernie have Wisconsin and give Trump New York.
    Also we have to look at polling. Obviously there are shenanigans, but what about the candidates internal polling? They must be seeing the discrepancies….

    • John Weiskittel

      Though I claim no expertise on the subject, I’d be inclined to think just the opposite on the question of whether “Clint Curtis style program” is capable of “stealing two elections at once” and for two reasons:

      1) In primaries there are separate ballots for Democrats & Republicans, so rigging both wouldn’t present any great challenge

      and

      2) Even if a dishonest programmer had a single ballot for both parties, he’d be using something far more advanced than what Curtis had back in 2005.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *