Finding fake news -- 3 million fraudulent Hillary voters (part 1)

Media are a wreck. In this day of opinion everything and cherry-picked facts, people are searching for ways to find their own information. We need to know how to source our own news, as most outlets aren't doing a good enough job for the nation. This will be a series.

I'm starting with the 3 million fraudulent votes claim, as brought to me by a random twitter user.

.@parentwin DNC-paid contractors were caught on camera admitting to it and three million votes of illegals have already been found ages ago.

— LyleRuderburg (@BetterGemsToday) November 29, 2016

I asked Lyle for citation, and he provided me with several links. We'll take them one by one.

http://sgtreport.com/2016/11/analysis-more-than-3-million-illegal-immigrants-voted-in-the-presidential-election-and-hillary-still-lost/

This is a link from the Sgt. Report, which proclaims itself "The Corporate Propaganda Antidote." The piece is titled: "ANALYSIS: MORE THAN 3 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS VOTED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION… AND HILLARY STILL LOST"

Most liberals stop right here. Because we immediately see made-up news and don't want to waste any time on it. But I want to go all the way through this, from top to bottom, so bear with me.

The piece cites a Tweet from @jumpvote, Gregg Phillips, the founder of the app VoteStand.

Completed analysis of database of 180 million voter registrations.

Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million.

Consulting legal team.

— Gregg Phillips (@JumpVote) November 11, 2016

It refers to VoteStand as a non-partisan group monitoring voter registrations. It continues by stating that illegal immigrants tend to vote Democrat (uncited). Then it refers vaguely to an interview given by Obama, just before the election, where he apparently told illegal immigrants that there would be no legal repercussions for voting, by saying "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself."

It then asks readers to get more information from The Daily Sheeple.



Let's start with VoteStand.

According to its own website, VoteStand is not a non-partisan group monitoring voter registrations. It is actually an app that allows users to report perceived voter fraud. As per the site: "The process is as easy as taking a picture and filling out specific identifying information about the incident."

It allows citizens using the app to report, via their own observations, voter registration fraud, dead people voting, felon vote fraud, absentee ballot vote fraud, voter intimidation/suppression, electronic voting fraud, voter impersonation, ballot stuffing (multiple voting), electioneering and misinformation.

It states that it "uses a high-level encryption inside the app, allowing information to get to the right people and make reporting voter fraud easier."

Nowhere on the site does it say who those people are, and what they do with the information, or how they investigate the claims.

That said, there is a group behind the app. True the Vote. It was founded in 2009.

It describes itself like this on its site: "As the nation’s largest nonpartisan, voters’ rights and election integrity organization, True the Vote exists to inspire and equip volunteers for involvement at every stage of America’s electoral process. We provide training, technology, and support to fellow citizens so that they can ensure election integrity in their own communities."

True the Vote founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, told ABC Nightline in an interview that the group was non-partisan, but admitted to heading a Tea Party group in Houston and to making a $5,000 donation to a Republican organization.

This is not "the skewed news media." If you watch the video on the link I provided, you will hear Engelbrecht say these things herself. That is a primary source.

So, the nonpartisan organization's founder is partisan. While the organization may perhaps be partisan (which could be proven through staff and volunteer listings which currently do not exist), there is a conflict of interest at the very top.

All of this leads us back to the question of how a small grassroots organization made of citizen volunteers, and an app to help them photograph people they assume are fraudulently voting, allow Gregg Phillips to state that they'd analyzed 180 million voter registrations and found 3 million fraudulent ones.

Let's start with Gregg Phillips. His @jumpvote Twitter account has this pinned at the top:

So, he's not non-partisan.

He didn't answer my request to clarify how he got his numbers, but did answer another user who asked him to show his evidence by saying this:

"I have been consistent from the outset. I will publish all methods, data and analysis to the public and the DOJ."

The thing is, he hasn't. And when you go with news before you present your findings in a publicly accessible or verifiable way, that is fake news. Others may say they trust him, but in that case, they are using a system of belief over a reliance on facts.

So, there is no verification from Gregg Phillips about that 3 million voter fraud number. Only a vague promise of some later, followed immediately by several professions of him being "just a regular guy."


Randi Kaye, an anchor for CNN's 360, asked Phillips for an interview to review his numbers and make his case to the public, presenting his proof. His reply was that she had already decided, and so he wouldn't go on the air.

So, he's not going to show his proof for these numbers. Now, he says it's because CNN has already decided. Fair enough. And yet, no one has any proof of this claim. Again, people can choose to believe him. But that's a belief without facts backing it up.

But who is Gregg Phillips?

In his Twitter profile, he says he's "Founder: @VoteStand, The Cause, Time for a Hero, Voters Trust & Winning Our Future PAC. Board Member."

The Cause seems to be a curated list of voting related news, everything from The Washington Post to Breitbart. From where I sit, it's not slanted, providing stories of all kinds about voting news from all types of publications.

It also has only one issue (August, 2016) and the forward to that issue is written by a John David Phillips.

Voters Trust is said to be a nonprofit organization, but no trace of it exists other than citations from Gregg and Engelbrecht in conservative news sites like The Blaze. This linked piece describes Phillips' role in the organization that cannot be found, but its intent is to highlight a bounty reward that True the Vote was hosting for someone who could find IRS or Obamacare fraud. That bounty went untaken.

A link to another interview with Phillips was provided and it led to The 405; The Talk Alternative, a talk radio show website, which states it is a "independent and growing talk outlet covering the broadest spectrum of politics as well as pop culture and sports, including written and visual media," but also appears to be linked to the Common Sense Conversations podcasts and radio, which is based out of California according to its mailing address. A phone number and email is listed for the creator, but no last name. She goes by Beth Ann. The show with Phillips in it is two hours long, called Sacks Radio. I listened to it for you.

Within that written piece on the 405 site, there was a link to Phillips' Voters Trust PAC, which is also listed on his Twitter profile, if you recall. The link led to a defunct website.

Infowars' Alex Jones linked Phillips to Vote Fraud, a website that stems from 1996 and looks like it. That page, however, is linked to an up-to-date site, Election Night Gatekeepers. There is no information about who runs this site, although it is a pro-Trump site, which quotes Stalin right up top. There is a call-in option for Thursday, for those inclined: "Dial-in Number: (712) 775-7035, Participant Access Code: 938190#." You can contact them at Action@ElectionNightGatekeepers.com, Phone: 513-741-2095. Again, there is no transparency here. Who are we talking to and what are their qualifications?

Election Night Gatekeepers talks  in-depth about Watch the Vote. The first thing on Watch the Vote USA is a paragraph about how they forced the Iowa GOP to change the winner of that caucus in 2012 from Romney to Santorum. We have now reached the first part of this entire post that can be verified. I don't know if Watch the Vote USA had anything to do with it; but Santorum beat Romney by 34 votes two weeks after the state had been called for Romney by eight votes only. The New York Times has this cached.

There is no link that leads from Phillips to Election Night Gatekeepers aka Vote Watch.

Phillips also lists Winning our Future PAC in his Twitter. This is a super-PAC that supported Newt Gingrich in 2012. It's not been updated since, but the Public Integrity Project (Pulitzer Prize winner) shows top donors gave up to $7.5 million in funds; it had a Full Disclosure rating. That's a good thing. It means we can see all donations. It was created by former Gingrich aide, Becky Burkett.

None of this tells us anything about Gregg Phillips other than he's a staunch, active Tea Party Republican.

If you check his LinkedIn, you see he's the founder of AutoGov, and that years ago, in 1995, he was the Executive Director of Mississippi's Republican Party. In 1989, he was the Finance Director for the Alabama Republican Party. So he's not non-partisan. AutoGov is a company that analyzes data, and its star invention is CaseVue, a program that filters multiple patient data to determine whether that patient is eligible for Medicaid, ranking them as if they were getting a credit check.

CaseVue uses "applicant case information together with hundreds of additional bits of publicly and privately sourced data, then uses predictive analytics to assess the presence of risk, quickly defines the likelihood of eligibility – and delivers answers to desktops of caseworkers – all in real time."

It doesn't mention what the privately sourced data are nor how they are found.

AutoGov's other main innovation is GovBox. It looks to be the same program, tweaked for large government program eligibility--mainly social services. It was said to be used in Mississippi after the State extended Medicaid under the ACA to help hospitals there combat the expense of that program (ignoring that the state got a credit for that).

I said said to be because the press release does not name any hospitals in particular, nor does it state any start date for the programs they say are falling into place there. It's published on a site called Presumptive Eligibility, which is run by AutoGov, as another way to sell CaseVue. It was written by a Taylor Phillips.

Now, if you look carefully at GovBox, you will see that Gregg Phillips is looking for information on residents in states that might use it (I couldn't find any currently using it), specifically: Identity (Social Security Numbers), proof of residency, proof of citizenship, income, and assets.

So, it turns out Gregg Phillips is at least working on collecting data about residents of the U.S. for his day-job.

Since CaseVue is said to be in practice in at least four states already, the information on those patients has, at the very least, passed through Phillips' hands. I say said to be because I can find no news from any health related site or organization actually talking about CaseVue other than AutoGov itself.

Autogov has a Dallas, TX address on the site, and a Birmingham, AL address there. News briefs about the company refer to it as an Austin-based company.

Googling him brings up Give Time to a Hero, a failed crowdfunding attempt to buy a watch for every special op in America. This is touching and kind. He only raised $490 out of his $10,000 goal. He's found, much like everyone else, America gives money to conspiracy theories a lot more easily than they give to other people who do good service for our country.

So, that's Gregg Phillips. A guy collecting massive amounts of data through his private company, an outspoken advocate for the far right, and the self-appointed gatekeeper of voter fraud.

Nowhere do we see how he could have gotten the 180 million voter registration information he claims he has. Nowhere do we see how his app and watch groups found 3 million fraudulent voters.

Because it's not real. If you choose to believe it is real, you are believing, not relaying facts. I could not find any facts that backed up his claim, and I went about as deep as one could go.




Okay, let's just QUICKLY look at the rest of the piece he linked me.

"Illegals tend to vote Democrat" it said.

That would be true, as the Pew Research Center found that 31 percent of undocumented immigrants aligned with the Democratic party where as only 4 percent aligned with the Republican party.

So why isn't it true? Because undocumented immigrants don't vote. They're not allowed to by law, and as we just exhaustively went over, there is no evidence suggesting that undocumented immigrants vote.


How about when Obama told Gina Rodriguez illegal immigrants should vote?

I can see how this is being put across. Check out the interview.

Rodriguez wrongly referred to undocumented immigrants as citizens, then she framed the question around herself, a true citizen (in the conservative sense of the word.)

She asks: "If I vote, will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?"

Obama is answering her personally. When he said, "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself, and there is not a situation where the voting rolls are transferred over and people start investigating," he is using the you are a citizen yourself as the disclaimer, as the clarification that he is talking about citizens who may have undocumented family members that they are afraid for.

I can absolutely see, however, how it could be taken as an if/then cause/effect statement when only part of the question and answer is given.

When a person hears, "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself" as the article quoted, that has an entirely different meaning than the full quote. However, I would also posture that those who do not like Obama would also hear the second meaning given the entire interview. But that's not what he said.

So IN CONCLUSION:

I spent hours looking for the proof of voter fraud given to me by this link by a random Twitter user. And it wasn't there.

As of right now, no proven voter fraud.

I'll be back with the rest of the links tomorrow or something.

Hillary Clinton helps give life to cancer patient

Cold. Calculating. Ambitious. Dishonest. Self-serving. Hawkish. If a situation has no way to serve her purposes, she turns her back and walks away. She doesn’t love America or its people. She doesn’t care about their struggles. She cares about Hillary Clinton. The presidential candidate is known for putting herself above everyone and everything else, and people hate her for it.

But is it actually actually true?

Her friends and family and campaign continue to show instances of Hillary caring for others on a personal level, but those can’t be trusted. She could be doing it for the positive press. After all, every caring gesture she makes is covered relentlessly, so clearly she has ulterior motives. Hillary Clinton does only exactly what she must do to look good to the public.

Or does she?

Meet Janelle Turner, a mother in Winter Park, Iowa, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in May of 2015. You probably haven’t heard of her before. She is a private person, not given to much political speak, and certainly without time or money to campaign for or support any political causes. She’s just an average citizen, facing crippling medical costs while fighting the sickness that comes with her treatment, and trying to be there for her nine-year-old daughter, Nora. Every day, she battles fear on top of the aggressive cancer.

“I’d like to tell you that dying is not something I ever think about, but when you have a daughter who needs you, you can’t help but worry about the future,” said Turner. “I was nine when my dad died, and it was hard on my family, and I don’t want my daughter to have the childhood I had.”

You may not know Janelle Turner. But Hillary Clinton does.

Back in October of last year, Turner decided to take Nora to a rally for Hillary Clinton. The girl was excited, and hand-made a sign for her mom that said, “Thirteenth chemo yesterday, three more, hear me roar!” The family had to bring lawn chairs to the event because Turner can’t stand for very long without feeling ill, and so they ended up near the area where the speakers walked to and from the stage.

Bill Clinton spoke, and on his way back, he noticed the sign, and stopped to talk with Turner and her daughter.

“He was so incredibly kind,” she said. “He thanked us for coming, and we took pictures, and it was really nice. I just thought it was the greatest thing ever. But I thought that would be it.”

She was wrong.

Soon after, a police officer found the family and invited them backstage where they met Hillary Clinton and Katy Perry. Hillary had just finished giving 11 hours of testimony about Benghazi the day before.

“I told her keep fighting, and she said, ‘me? What about you?’” Turner recalled. “We decided we’d both keep fighting, and would celebrate at her inauguration. But I was mostly kidding; I didn’t expect to keep in touch.”

The incident touched Turner so deeply that she sent an email to Matt Paul, Clinton’s former Iowa State Director, thanking the campaign for its kindness in the face of her struggles.

“I wanted to take a minute to let you know how grateful we were to have the opportunity to meet Hillary at her rally with Katy Perry and Bill,” she wrote. “We were so overwhelmed by the entire experience. The past several months have been difficult on my family. For thirty minutes on October 24th, it was amazing be to me! It was the best day ever for me and my family. I know you are busy, and it seems strange to ask, but please pass on our sincere thanks to each of them. I can't tell you what that did for our spirits.”

From that moment on, Turner became part of the Clinton family.

She was sent tickets to the debate, and then to the rallies before the Iowa caucus. At every single event, Hillary Clinton sent for her and her daughter, talked to them about their journey, and gave them encouragement. She introduced Turner to her good friend, and fellow cancer survivor, Betsy Ebeling, with whom Turner also keeps in touch. Every couple of months, Turner receives word from Clinton, checking in on her, making sure she is okay.

“The last time I saw her was just days before the caucuses,” Turner wrote in a Facebook post during the Democratic National Convention. It was the first time she’d gone public with the attention the campaign had paid her. “I had just been told that my cancer had spread, metastasized. We were in shock. I needed a diversion, so I went to her rally. I told Hillary of the news. She hugged me. She asked what she could do, how could she help? She offered to help me get a second opinion. I thanked her, telling her ‘I’m a political nobody, you have been so kind.’ She told me, ‘we all matter.’ She made sure that I had a way to contact her and follow up with her. Much to my surprise, she still checks in on me every few weeks. She made a difference. She cared.”

Soon after, Turner’s biopsies showed that the metastasized cancer prognosis was wrong. She still has cancer in her lungs, but says her pet scans are starting to clear up. The road to recovery is long and hard. She now suffers from arthritis as well, at only 47. She can’t take long trips, stand or walk for too long, or do anything that requires much physical effort. She is struggling, but she has hope. Hope that Clinton has helped foster.

“I’m not saying someone should vote for her. I’m just remembering the day after my 13^th chemo session that Hillary Clinton took the time to talk with us. And followed up, and followed up, and followed up some more. It’s not political. It’s personal.”

So, who REALLY won the #DemDebate? -- Guest Post

Who won the first #DemDebate? Well, it sort of depends on who you ask, and I think that is the most interesting thing to come out of last night. If you look at almost any mainstream media channel or webpage (CNN, MSNBC, ect.) then you’ll come away with a pretty clear indication that Clinton won and that it wasn’t particularly close. Sanders, most news outlets agree, had a nice showing but fell far short of Clinton’s “dominance”. And in any previous election that would be the end of the story. Clinton won running away, and barring some kind of major scandal this primary is over. The problem for Clinton is that this isn’t any previous election, and there is something of an unknown factor that overwhelmingly believes that Sanders won this debate. Sanders was the most Googled name during the debate, almost from start to finish. He gained 35k new Twitter followers, while the rest of the nominees combined gained just over 20k. The closest online poll has Sanders only winning with 68% of the vote, with that total reaching up to 85% in some polls. The real question is…does that actually matter?

It’s easy to dismiss “The Internet” out of hand, partially because it’s never really mattered before. There’s an argument to be made that The Internet is partially the reason that Obama got nominated over Clinton eight years ago, and I do think there is some merit to that, but for the most part Obama won through conventional, grass roots support. While The Internet was generally in favor of Obama, I don’t think it actually swung the election in any meaningful way. With Sanders, it’s different, but it’s easy to miss the distinction. Sanders has been garnering huge turnouts to his speeches, a lot like Obama did eight years ago. The difference is that when Obama was doing it his staffers were on the street, getting the word out. With Sanders, they have spent very little money on getting the word out, relying mostly on word of mouth. And by “word of mouth”, I really mean “The Internet”. And it’s clearly been working, gaining him audiences as large as 25k at a time.

Does having your name Googled and gaining Twitter followers translate to the polls? Recent events suggest that it might. After Carly Fiorina’s performance in the first Republican Kids Table Debate, she was the most Googled name of the night, and gained the most Twitter followers. Her poll numbers increased enough to get her moved to the real debate a few months later, although they had to change the rules to get her there. In this case, I think the power of The Internet had little to actually do with the change, but the correlation is interesting enough to note. If Sanders sees a five to ten percent increase in poll numbers we might have to pay closer attention to Google and Twitter trends, but I think his numbers are unlikely to change any more than three percent. And that’s because I believe traditional polls are becoming increasingly inaccurate.

In my opinion, the most important thing that any candidate said last night was when Sanders claimed that in order for any Democratic nominee to enact any of their policy changes, it would take a political revolution. Considering the number of Republicans in the House and Senate, he’s absolutely correct. That revolution needs to come from younger voters, a demographic that has, historically, very low voter turnout. But if you look at the crowds Sanders has been drawing, it’s been mostly younger voters. If you look at where he’s most popular, The Internet, you can start to understand why his polling numbers don’t match up to his seemingly fervent support. The most astounding thing I’ve learned all year is that traditional pollsters only call landline phones, never cell phones. In a day and age where more and more people, specifically younger people, are never even setting up a landline, this practice seems woefully outdated. If the people who are likely to say they’re willing to vote for Sanders are never being asked the question, it’s no surprise Sanders isn’t polling in a way that matches his apparent support.

There is one other major reason I believe the fact that Sanders name was Googled more than anyone else last night matters. If you look at the traditional polls, Sanders “Unfamiliarity” rating was around 40% prior to last night. Despite the crowds he’s been drawing, and despite The Internet being on his side, he’s almost never talked about on traditional news outlets, and he doesn’t spend much money on advertising. After last night, I fully expect that number to drop significantly. That may or may not translate to increased poll numbers for him, but it’s very unlikely to make them drop in any meaningful way. While I think that traditional polls are becoming less accurate, that doesn’t make them irrelevant or even unimportant, especially considering the impact of younger voters is a huge mystery.

Which brings me back to the question of who won the debate last night. Clinton had a good showing, and did everything her supporters wanted her to do, including the traditional media. She didn’t commit any major gaffe, and she attacked her opponents in areas where she had a clear advantage over them. She was smart, poised, and articulate in her points. It was clear that she had practiced and was ready for everything that came at her. Sanders, on the other hand, was passionate, genuine, and, in what most people are calling the moment of the night, willing to throw politics aside to defend a fellow candidate against what he perceives as an absurd assault. This defense of Clinton and her email scandal seems to generally be perceived as a sign of his integrity and interest in what’s right over what’s political. In a climate where people seem to be tired of “politics as usual” and are increasingly interested in a candidate who’s willing to speak from the heart, even if what they have to say isn’t popular, this is important.

Clinton did exactly what she walked onto that stage to do, but did she convince anyone who’s on the fence to vote for her over Sanders? I don’t believe she did. To be honest, I don’t believe there are a lot of people on the fence when it comes to Clinton, although I do believe that she may have convinced people that don’t like her that, if she does win the nomination, things won’t be as bleak as they thought it would be a week ago. In other words, I don’t think she helped herself in the primary, but I do think she helped herself in the general election, and that seems to be the reason the traditional news outlets believe she won the debate.

The problem is that Sanders also did exactly what he walked onto that stage to do. His two biggest limitations were people not knowing who he was and his problem with non-white voters, particularly black voters. Gaining almost twice as many Twitter followers as the other four candidates on stage combined as well as being the most Googled name of the night may have taken care of the first problem. And the fact that he was only one of two candidates to actually say the words #BlackLivesMatter (the other being O’Malley), and was the only candidate to not only bring up the example of Sandra Bland, but to actually #SayHerName, will likely help with the second problem. No matter what the traditional polls and media outlets say, Sanders seems to have likely helped himself both in the primary AND in the general election, and for that reason I give the edge to him over Clinton.



...

Mike Provencher is a writer and father living in Connecticut.