Research Finds Google Responsible for 2.6 – 10.4 Million Votes for Hillary in 2016 Election

By RAZE 2 years ago

At a Senate committee hearing in the summer of 2019, Ted Cruz and Mazie Hirono heard testimony from Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor Psychology Today.

Epstein presented a powerful statement claiming that he has proof that google influenced at least 2.6 million and as many as 10.4 million voters in favor of Hillary Clinton. The kicker: he is a Democrat and voted for Hillary. Let me say that again, he is a Hillary supporter and voted for her!

“The search result suggestions that Google presents have very powerful influence over a user’s decision making.” This statement comes from Dr. Epstein who is an authority on this subject.

From YouTube: Liberal Professor Warns: Google Manipulating Voters 'on a Massive Scale'

UPDATE: 2 months after Ted Cruz heard testimony from Robert Epstein about Google’s manipulation of the 2016 election, Fox News and Mark Levin report on the biggest threat to our Constitutional Republic in the 2020 election. FOXNEWS

There was a media blackout on the revelation that Google, NOT RUSSIA, not only influenced, but is responsible for 2.6-10.4 million votes for Hillary in the 2016 presidential election.

The first two hours of this Senate committee hearing earlier this year can be summarized this way: Google rep, Karan Bhatia, dodged questions and was highly deceptive several times while under oath with regard to Google’s censoring of Conservative content across its platforms, namely YouTube.

Dr. Robert Epstein: How Google Manipulates Elections - On Glenn Beck

From YouTube: Dr. Robert Epstein: How Google Manipulates Elections

Sen. Hawley gave some pretty intense scrutiny to Bhatia’s testimony in the spirit of Trey Gowdy. That video is available here. The entire video is 2 hours and is mostly very boring. It is very refreshing to hear somebody like Hawley or Lindsey Graham actually get mad once in awhile, but it is all an act. The Republican party is basically useless these days. It is all for show. Nothing ever comes out of any of their outrage.

As far as the Google rep, Karan Bhatia goes; when you cannot answer a simple yes or no question that many times, and instead constantly re-frame the question or statement to exclude inculpatory elements present in the original intent of the question, you are not cooperating or being truthful.

Only about 2000 people watched it live via the Fox Business feed on YouTube.

Dennis Prager made a statement at the hearing in addition to a man who had trouble getting YouTube to remove a video of his daughter being murdered. There were two individuals holding PhDs who presented research. They are both Liberals.

From YouTube: Dennis Prager and Google VP Testify Before the U.S. Senate on Tech Censorship

On a side note, I couldn’t wrap my head around YouTube censoring a Prager U video that simply mentions murder ( a video about the 10 commandments) vs. allowing a video of an actual murder.

I have personally witnessed people (more than one) google something and then conclude their search based on the suggestions that appear. I said, you have to finish the search and find that info on a website so you can cite the source properly. You cannot base your conclusion on a search suggestion.

If you go back to Twitter in 2016, you can find many people citing Google as their source of incorrect information. I figured that they either lied because they are Leftists or they could not actually remember or locate the source because they are lazy. I am now starting to think that they considered what they were doing to be a valid search for information.

This is dangerous because 1 – you can lie in a search result suggestion and not really be lying and 2 – the google rep, Bhatia, and one other woman in the committee hearing both suggested that differences in syntax produce different results, but the confusing part is that sometimes the majority of what people search for, the majority of the phrasing typed into google by Liberals is going to dictate what makes up those search result suggestions.

In other words, it seems that if a lot of people google a derogatory phrase, then google’s algorithm thinks that phase is what most people are looking for, and by extension what most people want because that is already what they think. So when they suggest it, it can become kind of a chicken and egg type scenario. They could also slip a phrase in there and say, “Well, a lot of people searched for that phase. The argument then becomes, based on your suggestion, or before you suggested it? Dr. Epstein says that he can prove this.

But isn’t it amazing that something of this severity is still not given the attention it deserves? It seems especially negligent because I think we all know that the Dems are trying their best to coordinate making this headline appear, ‘Trump Loses 2020 Election, Blames It On Cyber Attack of Voting Machines.’

Robert Epstein: ‘Power of AI’ Is ‘Too Dangerous’ to Be Controlled by China or Google

Download the Robert Epstein paper here (this has been deleted)


Trump camp fumes over Google’s new political ads policy: ‘It is a removal of free speech’


link to my original post of this article:


Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website or its members.

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Wow. This is news to me!

Unnerving because I suspected it already, and found validation. Which shivers me more because I keep being right about issues I’m concerned about..


And yet Hillery lost. So much for the Influence.