It's irrelevant anyway. The Schultz controversy is a smokescreen, a distraction.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. mentioned, research shows that exit polls are almost always spot on. When one or two are incorrect, they could be statistical anomalies, but the more incorrect they are, the more it substantiates electoral fraud.

This is shown by the data, which is extremely suspicious: discrepancies in eight of the sixteen primaries favoring Clinton in voting results over exit polling data are outside of the margin of error. That’s half of them outside the margin of error: 2.3% greater in Tennessee, 2.6% in Massachusetts, 4% in Texas, 4.7% in Mississippi, 5.2% in Ohio, 6.2% in New York, 7% in Georgia, and 7.9% in Alabama.

This is extremely, extremely abnormal.

The margin of error is designed to prevent this, accounting for the difference in percentage totals between the first exit polls and actual voting results for both candidates combined (as noted by the table’s third footnote). For instance, if Hillary Clinton outperforms the exit polls by 2.5% and Bernie Sanders underperforms by 2.5%, and the margin of error is 5%, then the exit poll is exactly on the margin of error. When an exit poll or two is outside of the margin, this denotes failure in the polling; when eight defy it — egregiously so — that indicates systemic electoral fraud.

Keep in mind, these are the discrepancies in favor of Clinton between exit polls and voting results, from lowest to highest: -6.1%, -1.9%, 1.1%, 1.7%, 3.4%, 3.9%, 4.1%, 4.3%, 4.6%, 5.2%, 8%, 8.3%, 9.3%, 9.9%, 10%, 11.6%, 12.2%, and a whopping 14%.

(The exit polls from the Republican primaries do not show these types of massive disparities)

https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-fraud-992ad9e080f6#.v2049erjo

"No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered democratic institutions - in this case, electing a U.S. president- can be double checked for fraud, particularly when paperless e-voting systems are used." - Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American

Irregularities are unique to 2016

To show that the pattern of votes may suggest a systematic effort to undercut Senator Sanders, we must show that no such patterns were in place in similar elections. Given that Secretary Clinton lost to President Obama in 2008, their data is a natural control and the best possible point of comparison for the 2016 data. Thus, as we did for 2016, we tabulated the percentage of delegates won in each state by (then Senator) Hillary Clinton. The Qsllil show that, contrary to the 2016 data, there is no evidence that primary states without paper trails favored Senator Clinton in 2008, P = 0.38. As such, the patterns of 2016 are different from their best point of comparison.

Conclusion

Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.

-Axel Geijsel, Tilburg University- The Netherlands; Rodolfo Cortes Barragan, Stanford University- U.S.A. - June 7, 2016

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1

Interestingly, much information has recently come to light about the Clinton candidacy. Notably, the hacker Guccifer 2.0 released documents which he took from the computer network of the Democratic National Committee. Among these files, one tabulated a list of big-money donors to the Clinton Foundation. One fact has gone unreported in the media: Two of the three companies that control the electronic voting market, namely Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. Hart Intercivic), are in this list of big-money donors.

To examine the possibility that the products linked to these companies had been used to commit electoral fraud, we borrowed the methodology of a paper by Francois Choquette and James Johnson (C&J). Their paper is based on one of the basic principles in the biological and social sciences: As the amount of data increases, the measurement of the average approaches the ‘true’ average. In other words, as more data is added, the average fluctuates less and less. [...]

You see, these same voting irregularities had been shown to occur in the 2008 and 2012 elections in favor of McCain and Romney, respectively, by the researchers, Choquette and Johnson. In 2008 and 2012, McCain and Romney" were "financially interconnected with two of the major electronic voting companies." Both the companies who donated to the Clinton Foundation share a history of past election controversies and conviction for white collar crimes.

http://www.caucus99percent.com/content/election-fraud-story-gets-worse-irregularities-tied-e-voting-machine-companies-donated

Interview with Stephen Spoonamore on of the electronic voting issues that have been raised for a while now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRW3Bh8HQic

if you want to jump right to his explanation/comparison to his work with securing credit card transactions against "man in the middle" attacks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BRW3Bh8HQic#t=873

Breakdown of why Electronic voting in general is incredibly insecure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI&feature=youtu.be

Documentary going into Clint Curtis's story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhBtfiRKaVY

(the guy from this video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

Fractional Voting:

http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

HBO documentary Hacking Democracy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7W7rHxTsH0