How can i skip ahead in the broadcast so I can get to the section, the only seciton, I am interested-- your rant on the topic of whether elections have been stolen or not? I have a macbook and using chrome. In otherwords, it seems I am forced to listen to the whole broadcast, which is very frustrating.

Are you unable to slide the little player forward? My rant on all of that begins about 13 mins in, I believe.

Well, Brad, you said yourself:

...the places with no "paper trail" are the places that use 100% unverifiable touch-screen systems. The places that use such systems happen to be the larger and/or more urban jurisdictions. Larger and/or more urban jurisdictions have more minority voters.

That's convenient. Why would that be?

Like you say, and I do too, it's impossible to know for sure what happens when we use these awful corporate voting machines, but one of my favorite Mark Crispin Miller quotes is something like:

'it would be easier to prove the election was stolen then to prove it wasn't'

Mr. Miller has written more then one book on the subject. There are very respectable people out there, making a few assumptions, but it's probably because of how much they've seen in all these years.

This primary election on the democratic side just has this classic American "official story" feel to it that usually happens with Republican contests against Democrats.

One thing for sure. I've never seen this much scrutiny of a primary election before, and I think that's a good thing. Let the people wonder.

Oh, and keep up the great work, Brad!

Larry Bergan said @3 & 4:

Well, Brad, you said yourself:

...the places with no "paper trail" are the places that use 100% unverifiable touch-screen systems. The places that use such systems happen to be the larger and/or more urban jurisdictions. Larger and/or more urban jurisdictions have more minority voters.

That's convenient. Why would that be?

There are several different ways to answer that question. But the Occam's Razor version would be that larger jurisdictions have more votes to count and the 2000s myth that e-voting systems speed up vote counting was in play when many of those systems were introduced. Those jurisdictions also are often short of money, so replacing systems (without help from a HAVA type federal bill) is difficult.

You could add nefarious reasons, if you like. But that would be speculation, which, as you know, I try to avoid without hard, independently verifiable evidence to support such things.

Mr. Miller has written more then one book on the subject. There are very respectable people out there, making a few assumptions, but it's probably because of how much they've seen in all these years.

Well, for what it's worth, you may recall I wrote a chapter for one of Mark's books, and he is not one of those "respectable people out there" that I complain about in the show above. But I too have seen "much...in all these years", but know better than to make charges I can't back up and that mislead the electorate. That's just irresponsible and those who have seen "much" should actually be the ones to know better than to do it.

This primary election on the democratic side just has this classic American "official story" feel to it that usually happens with Republican contests against Democrats.

Fair enough. But short of strong evidence to assert that someone has "stolen an election", that's a very serious charge that should not be made with casual suspicions. And, IMO, this year's election has been no worse than previous recent elections. And, as I hope you know, I pay very close attention.

One thing for sure. I've never seen this much scrutiny of a primary election before, and I think that's a good thing. Let the people wonder.

Agree that it's a very good thing that folks are starting to notice how horrible our election system is. I understand that they are coming to conclusions about that, even if the conclusions are incorrect or unsupported. But folks who know about Election Integrity, who have reported on it for years, should know better than to offer irresponsible assertions. That does not help our case in the long run.

Oh, and keep up the great work, Brad!

And thank you, brother!

I see I'm going to have to waterboard you, Brad.

But, seriously, thanks dad!

Important update:

via email from http://trustvote.org

An update on the lawsuit…

Hello,
Thanks for the connection. Cliff Arnebeck is still filing the lawsuit, so while the delay is understandably of concern to all of us, do remain hopeful! We will be releasing breaking news including timely evidence from poll analyst, John Rice, who will give millions of people the assurance they need to know that Bernie has, in fact, won the Presidential Primary, at our event (details below), this coming Thursday.

We would love to meet you, but if you can’t attend in person, please view the live stream at the following web address: www.Facebook.com/BERN4Revolution or live.trustvote.tv

EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT: The 2016 California Primary: A Disturbing Situation
Come join us at the Corte Madera Best Western: 56 Madera Blvd, Corte Madera, CA 94925 for an update on the condition of the California Primary.

Event begins at 6:30 pm, Thursday, June 30th with attorneys at law Bill Simpich and Ida Martinac, San Diego election confusion witness, Marie Johnson, poll analyst, John Rice and election integrity activists, Lori Grace and Emily Levy.

Please check Sunrisecenter.org for a complete description of the event and register on the Sunrise Center site so we can be sure to save you a seat. Please also sign up to our Sunrise Center mailing list so that you can be sure to receive future announcements regarding the issue of election integrity.

Thank you,
Lori
TrustVote.org