↓
 
Home » Election fraud articles of the day

Election fraud articles of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

I was planning to write a big rumination on the election fraud question and publish it today. But other things intervened, and so it probably won’t happen until tomorrow or perhaps in the next few days.

In the meantime, I’m drawing your attention to this article and especially this one.

Comments

Election fraud articles of the day — 33 Comments

  2. 19 States now: TX, AZ, AL, AR, FL, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, OK, IN, KS, LA, SC, SD, TN, UT & WV.

  3. The second article you linked to was interesting; but, the author made one glaring mistake in my opinion. He said that legal modifications were made to the voting systems.
    I think most informed people would agree that the modifications were not legal.

    Now, that question will be adjudicated. We will see what the Supreme Court has to say about it; that is if their august selves deign to consider something so mundane as the sanctity of elections. Sarcasm alert. It would be mind boggling if they didn’t, as the suit has now grown to 17 states. But, who can guess?

    I believe that they owed the country an explanation as to why they rejected Trump’s appeal. I suspect that they are loathe to sit in judgement of the decision of another of the clan of the black robe. Even though that is their job description. They, of course, feel that they owe us nothing.

    I don’t want to strain myself while patting myself on the back; but, I have said all along the thrust of the Texas suit was the logical path forward. I hope that some day we will get an explanation for the delay. I assume that it was a strategic decision for some reason.

  4. I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that the Supreme Court will not be deciding the election. If I understand correctly, they would decide whether the vote is sufficiently tainted to fall short of the ‘free & fair, legally conducted’ election definition. The remedy in the US Constitution, should the vote be declared ‘in doubt’, is that the House of Representatives would take over and vote. I would be happy to learn more or be corrected.

    It seems it’s a purely Constitutional remedy, even if it’s an unfamiliar one – and I have a feeling there is going to be a crash course coming over the next few days. COVID Experts will give way to the Army of Constitutional Scholars, Internet Division.

    Interesting times.

  5. Aggie:

    Yes, I believe that is technically the case. But it is so rare a remedy and so extraordinary – and, because the vote would end up in the House with each state getting one vote, and would therefore probably mean a GOP victory – that that would be seen as the Court making a decision that overturned the election and the “will of the people.”

    It a very weird situation indeed.

  6. If a somebody objects, then maybe it should be pointed out that they should think of it as a Popular Vote, except for states!

  7. Overturned the will of Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Phoenix. Other that that it was the “will of the people?” 😉

  8. Pennsylvania has filed its brief (requested by Justice Alito) to the Supreme Court.

    They basically urge the court to NOT open Pandora’s box EVEN IF Federal Laws of the US Constitution have been violated!!!

    You can’t make this up.

    (They are wrong—see Bush v. Gore( different issue, relevant to SCOTUS involvement.)

    ‘Yeah, we CLEARLY broke the law, but give us a pass and IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION, please?’

    THE ENTIRE FILING IS HERE:

    https://www.scribd.com/…/4873…/12-8-20-PA-20A98-Response

    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

    This is ridiculous.

    I would counter and say that once the door is opened to massive voter fraud and unconstitutional maneuvers and rulings by partisan judges to help with the voter fraud, it’s going to be awful had to close that door again. The loss of public trust in the rule of law and adhering to the Constitution will be incalculable. But that’s exactly what the Stalinist democrats want.

  9. Andrew McCarthy at National Review says there is no way the SCOTUS is going to entertain the Texas lawsuit. I realize he’s out of favor at the moment in some conservative circles but he’s fairly smart and a good writer. The link is behind their paywall.

  11. Montage:

    here is the specific Tweet from Robert Barnes:

    Robert Barnes
    @Barnes_Law
    ·
    2h
    Just in case you had any doubt what team
    @AndrewCMcCarthy
    was really on the entire time, when he was covering for Comey before he was covering for Durham.
    Quote Tweet
    Andy McCarthy
    @AndrewCMcCarthy
    · 4h
    Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States – my @NRO column … https://nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/

    Time to toss Twitter and go to Parler BTW

  12. Still missing Ohio which in my mind is a critical state at this time.

    McCarthy is one of those “old line” attorneys that can’t wrap their head around the politicization of the DOJ. Not his DOJ, that is impossible. He is an institutionalist.

    He wrote a book “Ball of Collusion” when the whole Russia probe fell apart and he tried to shift blame to Brennan and the CIA. But he failed.

  13. Andrew McCarthy may well be correct as to the law.

    But when he states that, “All of these matters should be addressed by Congress, and by state lawmakers” he has to know that neither Congress nor the state legislatures in which the fraud was most egregious will do anything to prevent this from happening again.

    Thus he reveals that he does indeed believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact. And that, his argument signs his own death warrant. For no constitutional lawyer has a place in the Left’s new world.

    If SCOTUS’ authority does not extend to declaring that a blatantly fraudulent election is invalid… if SCOTUS doesn’t recognize that allowing such a fundamental rupturing of the social contract to stand, invalidates the Constitution itself… then that court will have dealt the final death blow to the rule of law.

  14. It sure seems like Civil War, judicial version.

    Wonder what will come of it. (Dershowitz calls it “creative”—or should that be, “imaginative”—but does not seem terribly impressed. Well, that might change. Perhaps….)

    Meanwhile, it looks like Dominion also has dominion over the urinals in Atlanta:
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/reported-burst-pipe-in-atlanta-ballot-counting-area-was-overflowing-urinal-investigator_3607741.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-07-1

    …or someone…or something…

  15. This case is going to get thrown out.

    The ballots are already counted. They should have reported fraud as it was taking place. They dropped the ball. Too little too late.

  16. I think the “Kraken” angle is a dead end, and I’m glad to see the focus pivoting to old-fashioned ballot- and electoral-fraud methods. That said, when you really dig into it, there is a 20-year history of cyber security experts and left-of-center publications like Mother Jones, NYT, HuffPo, and The Guardian screaming from the rooftops about the sorry state of cyber security in our election systems. The same ones are now gaslighting us with “move along, nothing to see here.”

    To see a live demo of how a county- or state-level vote tabulator can be compromised by an unscrupulous operator to rig an election, see https://blackboxvoting.org and watch the 30-minute video titled “Fraction Magic”

    This website long predates the 2020 election. It’s a decades long project by a Washington state woman named Bev Harris.

    Here is the direct link to the video on YouTube. Amazingly, the censoring class hasn’t yanked this yet: https://youtu.be/Fob-AGgZn44

    The strategy here is to rig target percentages each candidate gets on a precinct by precinct basis. In the video example, you see candidate Herenton will get 86.5% of the EA votes (I think that means Elections Administrator, and AB means absentee ballots).

    Notice that the “TotalVotes” field in the database is a double-precision floating-point number. That means it’s a real number. That means it has digits to the right of the decimal point. Why wouldn’t this just be a whole number (positive integer or zero)?

    The answer is that the unscrupulous operator doesn’t know ahead of time exactly how many people will actually vote. The unscrupulous operator only knows the target percentages s/he wants each candidate to get in the end. So, during the counting process, the algorithm has to do fractional accounting in order to converge on the target percentages. So “candidate X get 1.25 votes and Y gets 0.75 votes”

    Look at the the final elections report. You can see the target percentages and vote totals. Notice the vote totals are real numbers that have digits to the right of the decimal point. The programmer who is demoing modified the report to show those digits. The default configuration of the report suppresses the digits so the consumer of the election report doesn’t see them.

    The database in this system is Microsoft Access. That is a desktop database intended for use in a trusted office environment. It doesn’t have a tamper-proof audit log, so the unscrupulous operator leaves no trail. Very convenient!

    This video upload date is 2016 (but I think the video itself is older). At the time, the password system wasn’t secure. For example, in some very common configurations the password was stored in plaintext (!) deep in the system. A casual office worker would not know how to find it, but a hacker or security pro would. In other words, “security by obscurity” is easily defeated.

    The system demoed in this video is an older Diebold GEMS system. That technology was eventually acquired by … Dominion software.

    It’s unclear to me if this same feature lives in in Dominion today, but all reports I’ve seen indicate that it does.

  17. neo:
    Aggie:

    Yes, I believe that is technically the case. But it is so rare a remedy and so extraordinary – and, because the vote would end up in the House with each state getting one vote, and would therefore probably mean a GOP victory – that that would be seen as the Court making a decision that overturned the election and the “will of the people.”

    It a very weird situation indeed.
    ___________

    I honestly don’t understand the “rare and extraordinary” argument. At least, not beyond the level of “the left would scream bloody murder” (which they do anyway.)

    The remedy (a) is explicitly in the Constitution, and (b) is intended for rare and extraordinary cases, and (c) has already been used. Granted, there are many who do not know this (including most of the media, I suspect), but I don’t see that makes a difference. After all, one way or another millions will think they were robbed. Look at 2000 and 2016.

    The only difference is they expect us to remain actually, rather than “mostly” peaceful.

  18. ROPWA on December 10, 2020 at 10:52 am said:
    I think the “Kraken” angle is a dead end, and I’m glad to see the focus pivoting to old-fashioned ballot- and electoral-fraud methods.
    ________

    From the rest of your comment, I read that is meaning “dead end” for winning the Presidency now. I don’t see how it’s a dead end from the standpoint of future prosecutions.

    BTW, I don’t know the law, but would it not be possible, even under a Biden administration, for such investigations and prosecutions to proceed on the state level? They’ve certain been willing to try that against Trump, e.g., in NY.

  19. In 2007, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner released a devastating “Project Everest” report that showed innumerable deep security flaws in the Diebold system. This eventually became Dominion.

    The Project Everest report is here

    https://www.eac.gov/documents/2017/03/21/everest-report-state-voting-systems-voting-technology

    “This report was prepared by teams from Pennsylvania State University, the University of Pennsylvania, and WebWise Security, Inc. as part of the EVEREST voting systems analysis project initiated by the Secretary of State of Ohio in the Winter of 2007. Unless otherwise indicated, all analyses detailed in this report were carried out at the home institutions between October 1, 2007 and December 7, 2007.”

    Keep in mind that Dominion has had 13 years to fix things, so this is not necessarily where the products are today. However, it does show the entire foundation was critically broken in 2007. It’s telling that the 2019 DEFCON “Voter Village” complained that many of the flaws found in 2007 still exist.

    Read the executive summary for “Premier” on page 103. Diebold became Premier and was eventually acquired by Dominion.

    “Our analysis suggests that the Premier system lacks the technical protections necessary to guarantee a trustworthy election under operational conditions. Flaws in the system’s design, development, and processes lead to a broad spectrum of issues that undermine the voting system’s security and reliability. The resulting vulnerabilities are exploitable by an attacker, often easily so, under election conditions.”

    They go on to summarize findings. Devastating.

    And here’s the reason the “Kraken” team is unlikely to find any incriminating evidence even if they get their hands on the machines. From p.120-121.

    “The audit logs created by Premier voting equipment are therefore not sufficiently protected to provide trustworthy information for forensic analysis.”

    A similar analysis was carried out in the 2007 time frame by California. I haven’t read it.

  20. I doubt the Roberts Court will have the stones to turn this back to state legislatures. Also the left has already begun their campaign to pressure and intimidate state legislators. One state Senator in PA is under police protection. I just don’t see standard Republicans manning barricades.

  21. 2012 – When the Left worried about election cyber security

    “Roadmap to Karl Rove’s Empire of Election Fraud.”

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwnI6PcRU44raGdJQzBZVGJndGc/edit

    Lots of the same shady companies mentioned (Dominion, Scytl, …)

    Pierre “Mittens” Delecto makes an appearance. These e-voting companies are incestuously tangled up going back to the 1970s. Many appear to be owned by private equity groups. “Overseas attack group” makes a cameo, too!

  23. (At the very least it might go a ways to explainin’ why SO FEW “mail-in” ballots were rejected this election…. That is if anyone’s still wonderin’….)

  25. Merrkkatt, you are mixing apples and oranges. Is that intentional? Don’t know. I haven’t seen any posts from you, so I can’t evaluate your motives.

    Any thinking person knows that this suit is not about fraud in the ordinary sense of manipulating the vote. This is about unlawfully changing the very nature of the election in the guilty states. There is no question that under existing law the elections were invalid. It only requires that the responsible agency make the formal declaration. The vote totals are irrelevant. The constitution contains a remedy.

    I believe that the Trump team went to SCOTUS in advance about the unlawful changes in Pennsylvania, and SCOTUS kicked the can.

    I have little confidence in SCOTUS, but it does boggle the mind to think that they would neglect to take up a matter of fundamental national importance that is presented to them in concert by nearly half of the states in the union.

  26. Oldflyer:
    will it not require a full-court vote on whether to hear the TX case?? Not just another BS ruling by Roberts the Craven.
    If the vote fraud is not constitutionally rectified, this country will go to hell. And stay there.

  27. Insurrection looms as the alternative. Even good Republicans can take only so much.
    We have a constitutional right to form militias!

  29. eeyore:

    The remedy has not been used. By “the remedy” I do NOT mean taking a presidential election case to SCOTUS. I mean the specific grounds of this case and the relief sought.

  30. Cicero, yes I believe it would take a full vote of the Court either way. Unfortunately, the vote was 0-9 with respect to the Trump team’s law suit.

    I did not understand why Trump’s people didn’t use the same rationale as the Texas case. But, then again I don’t make big bucks developing legal strategies. I would like to believe that knowing they could not get 18 or 20 states on board with them if they went at it, they brilliantly orchestrated the strategy of having a major state initiate the suit. This also bypassed all of the “little courts”. Now the pressure is really on SCOTUS in my opinion. Which, I hasten to add, doesn’t mean they won’t cave.
    Everyone knows that all hell will break loose if they rule for Trump, whereas the Trump supporters will pout and grumble–and vow to get better organized next time, if there is a next time— if they go they other way.

  31. The thing about “all hell” breaking loose, is that it’s illegal. And done by Dems TO “Dems” — tho likely many Black small business folk who got, literally, shafted by BLM are among those who voted Trump.

    Without an election to worry about so much, Trump could more easily send in the national guard to restore order.

    Why am I the only one giving a percentage chance that Trump wins (now 5%)? For those who study decision analysis, probabilities are treated as measures of information. They’re not “right” or “wrong” — tho 5 out of 6 times the “5%” comes up makes others think that the one giving that estimate should not hired. Sort of like 538 being wrong on polls.

    Another thing I like about probabilities of events in the future is that it can become more clear what the argument is about. “If Trump is elected, he will do X”. I don’t believe it – I call it a probability of only 10%. You say 90%? Will you bet $10 on it happening or not in the next year, with 9:1 odds? I pay you $10, almost for sure if you’re right; you’re sure you’re right so you agree to pay $90 if you’re wrong, but since you’re sure you’re right it’s OK…

    But yes, when I try to get Dems to bet on actual events, they don’t. But I think about the future in probabilities, all the time. When I’m awake. And thinking about the future. Maybe 30% of my waking time….

  32. Tom Grey,

    I naturally tend to think of most things as probabilities and act accordingly. I’m not sure how common that approach is, but it seems to be how I am wired.

    Because almost nothing has a 0% probability (if I pick a fork up off the table in front of me and release it there is some, small probability it will “fall” up and strike the ceiling) and tend to be lease shocked when unexpected things happen. I suppose, the way I see the world, everything is “expected” it’s more a factor of how many times the experiment is run.

    I suppose this makes me a bit cynical, or, perhaps, not vary altruistic, but I find it handy. Also, I’m not sure I can change. I’ve looked at things like this for as long as I can remember.

  33. neo on December 10, 2020 at 2:55 pm said:
    eeyore:

    The remedy has not been used. By “the remedy” I do NOT mean taking a presidential election case to SCOTUS. I mean the specific grounds of this case and the relief sought.
    ________

    That’s a matter of definition. Actually, Texas offers several remedies. One, throwing it to Congress, has happened twice. Of course, circumstances do not repeat exactly; they never do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑