I want to take a moment to respond to a recent hit piece against me by Joshua Holland in Raw Story.
It involves a meme I created that the actor Tim Robbins then retweeted. The meme shows the difference between the exit polls in several states and the results given by the voting machines. I and many others believe the massive difference in the numbers is due to election fraud, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
Let’s start with the end of the article where Josh Holland tries to further indict me by closing with “I asked Lee Camp if he was ‘interested in the fact that this is factually inaccurate and really misleading? I mean, can a meme be retracted? Is that something that would interest you?’ He didn’t respond.”
Josh Holland believes he “asked” me this because he sent an email to an account I don’t check often. As Holland certainly knows, I get hundreds of emails a day. I’m sure he does too. Many of those emails are from very strange people who send meaningless crap. The name “Josh Holland” did not stand out to me. Then when I did read the email, he didn’t introduce himself as anyone of note or a reporter for that matter. Going back through my emails I can see he had a signature at the bottom that says he’s a writer, but how often do people scan through signatures when they receive weird sarcastic angry emails? So this is a guy who couldn’t pass the most basic hurdle of journalistic integrity – Let the person you’re “interviewing” know that you’re interviewing them for an article. And then he implies that because I didn’t respond, I can’t defend the meme I created.
I can, however, and I will. Not just because I want to correct Josh Holland’s journalism fail but because I want people to hear the facts behind the corporate mouthpieces who uphold this fraud for the powers that be.
Josh Holland wants to lead you to believe that exit polls (in my meme and gathered together by Richard Charnin) are just wildly inaccurate and basically don’t mean anything. But it’s quite easy to find screen shots or video that verify the exit poll numbers I used. CNN did indeed report Bernie Sanders was losing by 4% according to exit polls (Watch it here). So if these numbers are incorrect, that begs the question why CNN or other news outlets would report them at all. I mean, shouldn’t Mr. Holland spend most of his time writing headlines like, “CNN Reports Wildly Incorrect Exit Poll Numbers”? That sounds like quite the scandal. Rather than go after CNN or NBC for reporting these numbers (that he believes are false), Holland attacks me.
Holland goes on to quote Joe Lenski (which he spells “Lensky”) who he says is with Edison Research. However, it’s tough to know whether Lenski knew he was being interviewed since Holland prefers to avoid revealing he’s interviewing people for articles. For all we know Lenski was just making stuff up in an online chat with someone he thought was a sexy co-ed.
Lenski apparently told Holland that American exit polls are “just not designed for that type of precision. They’re surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error.” What Holland is very careful to avoid revealing to readers is that there is an exact margin of error. It’s +/-4% according to Edison Research’s website. However, the NY exit polls were off by TWELVE PERCENT. And many states were equally wildly off. Holland does a fine job of avoiding such inconvenient facts.
Furthermore, this entire line of thought is a contradiction for Mr. Holland. At one point he wants you to believe the exit polls Charnin used for his analysis are INCORRECT (different from what was reported) and then a few paragraphs later he wants you to believe they are CORRECT but NOT PRECISE (the same as what was reported but it doesn’t matter). Which is it, Mr. Holland? Are they the correct exit poll numbers but the polls aren’t very good? Or are they incorrect exit poll numbers altogether? You can’t have it both ways. That’s like saying, “I did NOT sleep with that woman. AND I didn’t enjoy it.”
Even IF we go with Mr. Holland’s thesis that exit polls in America are all but meaningless but that they’re REALLY GOOD in other countries, you would think Holland would want to use his masterful reporting skills to find out why the most powerful “democracy” in the world doesn’t want verifiable proof that their voting system is working properly. Mr. Holland would surely then start researching the voting machine audits in places like Chicago where widespread fraud WAS INDEED discovered. Mr. Holland might also want to let his readers know about Diebold – the company that used to run our voting machines until they were indicted by federal prosecutors for “worldwide criminal conduct.” Or he might want to mention how certain voting machines are ripe for hacking according to cyber security experts. But no, facts like that are not good for Mr. Holland’s argument that these elections are pristine.
Finally Holland seems to confuse two kinds of “adjusted” poll numbers. He thinks that “adjusting” for non-response rates is the same as “adjusting” for what the voting machines tell us. When people (like me) say they’re looking at “unadjusted” poll numbers, they mean they’re looking at poll numbers before they were FORCED to fit with the machine tallies. As election fraud expert and NY Times bestselling author Greg Palast told me, “After Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, when exit polls showed Gore and Kerry as winners, US TV networks asked exit polling contractors to ‘conform’ the results to the official results. So, of course, all evidence of hanky-panky disappears.” Holland seems to entirely misunderstand what “adjusted” means. There’s no mention of Lensky carefully explaining this to Holland, but who knows what happened in that conversation that wasn’t reported.
Or perhaps Holland would like to let his readers know that the 2004 election was INDEED stolen for the Republicans as proven by Greg Palast, and that the exit polls showed as much.
But Josh Holland is in a tough spot. He’s trying to defend a system that was recently rated by a Harvard study as the worst in the Western world for fair elections. That’s not an easy job. It’s like being the current publicist for Bill Cosby. Holland has to rely on smoke and mirrors because this system is so clearly corrupt. Over 50% of America already believes the presidential nominating system is rigged.
So I sent an email to Mr. Holland saying, “Are you interested in the fact that your reporting is factually inaccurate and really misleading? I mean, can a column be retracted? Is that something that would interest you?” …I sent it to an email address he doesn’t often check and didn’t identify myself. …I haven’t heard back.
UPDATE: Richard Charnin and Bob Fitrakis (the author of six books on election integrity) have ALSO responded to Josh Holland’s sad attempt at reporting. They tear his argument limb from limb with simple facts. Read their responses HERE.
UPDATE #2: Here is another well-researched article demonstrating election fraud by looking at the exit polls. It brings up an interesting point that I did not know before. If Holland’s assertion that the exit polls are all just WILDLY OFF all the time is true, then they would be WAY off for the GOP primary as well. They AREN’T. According to the article, the GOP primary exit polls have been almost dead on. This further negates Holland’s evidence-free argument.