The Bolivian Coup is an interesting story in and of itself. One that regrettably was missed as it occurred, but one that reveals how the New York Times caused the ongoing conflict, as reported by The Intercept. On November 10th – a day before President-elect Evo’s Morales was forced to flee the country for Mexico – the Organization of American States issued their analysis of the election. Determining data was manipulated, signatures were forged, and there were issues with the chain of custody for the ballots.
The report concluded:
“In the four factors reviewed (technology, chain of custody, integrity of the tally sheets, and statistical projections), irregularities were detected, ranging from very serious to indicative of something wrong. This leads the technical audit team to question the integrity of the results of the election on October 20, 2019.”
Their final report issued in December determined beyond a shadow of a doubt the socialist President was guilty of voter fraud. Here is a sampling of some of their determinations.
Intentional and arbitrary freezing, with no technical basis, of the Preliminary Results Transmission System (TREP) when 83.76% of the tally sheets had been verified and disseminated, out of 89.34% of tally sheets that had been transmitted and were in the TREP system. The TSE deliberately hid from citizens 5.58% of the tally sheets that were already in the TREP system but not published.
Untruths were told regarding the actual configuration of the hidden BO1 server (implemented on a NEOTEC Amazon network and detected by the audit company). In addition to being a gateway between the user and the server, as stated by NEOTEC, it also handled other web requests—as can be viewed in its logs—and stores elections databases and applications. The databases were accessible during the OAS audit, something that was confirmed with the audit company hired by the TSE (in special consultation prior to wrapping up this report). The existence of the databases on a hidden server described (only after being detected) as a gateway is extremely grave and merits a special investigation during a subsequent judicial process.
The audit company’s controls were deliberately evaded and traffic was re-directed to a network outside the domain, administration, control, and monitoring of TSE staff.
In the TREP system, the “Approve Tally Sheets” function offered the option of approving tally sheets even in the event of conflicting values between Pass 1 and Pass 2. This function made it possible to continue processing tally sheets in spite of differences.
At least 37 tally sheets from overseas voting were found with inconsistencies as to the number of citizens who voted. That is, the number of votes on the tally sheets was different than the total number of voters on the voter rolls.
An analysis of the use of the space for comments in the tally sheets of the official count found that 12,925 tally sheets (37%) included comments providing some clarification or noting a situation that took place during the vote or vote counting. Fifty-six percent of the tally sheets that were entered directly into the official count and were never published through the TREP had comments. Analysis of the type of comments found in the 12,925 tally sheets indicates that 18% corresponded to changes/corrections to the number of votes recorded for the presidential election. The audit also found that of these 12,925 tally sheets, 846 were entered only in the final count (final 4.4%), of which, 328 (39%) referred to changes in the number of votes for president.
The statistical analysis concluded that the first-round victory of Evo Morales was statistically improbable and the result of a massive and inexplicable increase in the number of votes for MAS in the final 5% of the votes counted. Without this increase, although the MAS would have obtained the majority of votes, it would not have had the 10% difference needed to avoid the second round. This increase came with noticeable breaks in the trendlines of votes for the ruling party and for Comunidad Ciudadana (CC), at both the national and departmental levels. The size of the breaks is extremely unusual and calls into question the credibility of the process.
That sound round of counting is what is important. In some countries, if a candidate doesn’t secure a significant margin of votes, a second count is held with people voting between 2-3 of the top candidates for who they want to be the next President of the country. This means a lot of minority candidates who sucked up a significant percentage of the votes would not be on the ballot, so their votes will go to one of the other candidates.
Thus people can go, “well, my candidate didn’t win, but I sure as hell don’t want another term under socialism,” and vote the opposition party.
After the election, the New York Times ran an article debunking both claims citing that their results could be explained away as artifacts in their process. To prove this, they cited a study by far-leftist academics whose study’s abstract reads as follows.
Surprising trends in late-counted votes can spark conflict. In Bolivia, electoral observers recently sounded alarms about trends in late-counted votes — with dramatic political consequences. We revisit the quantitative evidence, finding that (a) an apparent jump in the incumbent’s vote share was actually an artifact of the analysts’ error; (b) analysis of within-precinct variation mistakenly ignored a strong secular trend; and (c) nearly identical patterns appear in data from the previous election, which was not contested. In short, we examine the patterns that the observers deemed “inexplicable,” finding that we can explain them without invoking fraud.
Now, based on what you’ve seen from both studies – which has been provided to you so that you at this point can refute the above accusation – and the nature of how a second vote would be conducted, their explanation is absurd and boils down to “Nah ah!”
Most importantly, artifacts in the process do not nor can they explain away foreign meddling in the election, data handling issues, data destruction issues, fraudulent counts, and the other technical and observed instances in the voter fraud. Only by intentionally omitting what the findings said, can the American study be considered any sort of rebuttal to the exhaustive analysis provided by the organization that conducted both reviews.
Now, why are the findings contentious? Because it allowed the white, right-leaning, Christian party to assume power, and their first act was to immediately crush communist terrorists. Who, as should be no surprise, were being called “peaceful protesters” by the media. What is even more pathetic is the media claims these whites are oppressing the indigenous people. Due to interbreeding over the last several hundred years, when it comes to the native populations -outside isolated tribes – it is a question of how much European ancestry a person has, not if they have it.
As the New York Times was attempting to cast doubt on these results, nearly everyone from the State Department to Obama era foreign officials and even progressive outlets were hailing the results as accurate and a win for democracy.
I called Morales departure excellent, in line with OAS criticism of election. But then deleted the tweet after not wanting to come to judgement about the causes of his departure. Getting out of this Bolivia debate now; there’s no space for rational discourse in it.
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) November 11, 2019
If you want to see more examples, the editorial from The Intercept does a good job naming several as they attempt to portray them as evil. All because the outlet strongly favored the overthrown autocratic dictator who ran after being forbidden from doing so again.
If one has any pondry as to what is likely to happen in the United States following Trump’s re-election, one only has to look to what is going on with Bolivia. After all, Michigan and Wisconsin during the last election held recounts that discovered massive voter fraud on the part of the Clinton campaign. Michigan alone stripped Clinton of half her votes. Meaning Trump won after the recounts, both the popular and electoral college vote. If you ever noticed the media seemingly abandoned the popular vote talking point, there is your reason.
In that action, we have the same as the Organization of American States report, demonstrating the leftist candidate, in fact, either lost the election in Clinton’s case or did not secure the votes necessary for a decisive victory in Evo Morales’s case.
Already you have election fraud going on in regional elections, such as in Illinois, where they kept the state blue. In 2008 an estimated 2.8 million illegals voted, and then in 2010, the same result happened. The 2014 study on Science Direct that found these results reached the following conclusion.
“We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”
Google has already been exposed attempting to skew election results before. Recently Dr. Robert Epstein highlighted Google’s intention and actions towards ensuring the President is not reelected.
“People don’t understand how big this threat is, you mentioned that leak, that video that you exposed which was quite astonishing. One of the things that was said there by one of their top executives is ‘we’re going to use every means at our disposal, all of Google’s power to make sure Trump isn’t re-elected’ so if they’re using every single means at their disposal, then they’re using all of the techniques that I’ve discovered and probably more that I haven’t discovered yet. That’s enough to shift roughly ten percent of the voting population of the United States with no one knowing they’re being manipulated and no paper trail for authorities to trace.”
Everything is in place to ensure Donald Trump does not get re-elected, but if he is, the vote will never be considered legitimate. Already we can see how one lying outlet, backed by leftist academics who proved nothing of substance, has brought chaos to Bolivia, and they will do the same to the United States.
They will ignore evidence of voter fraud, and when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, they will proclaim that it has been debunked or that it is controversial. Never do they explain how or why it is controversial, or whether that controversy is significant enough to doubt the findings, just that they don’t like it, so it is controversial.
This is the price of apathy and unwarranted tolerance. We have the media and academic elite that are permitted to throw entire countries into chaos with lies. Especially when they don’t get their way, and if America is not careful, we will be the next Bolivia.