President Trump signs EO to crack down on mail-in ballots

You claim I do not have what I and thousands of other Americans have in spades.
You have never shared any evidence except that you don't get that belief and opinions are not evidence and that a court administers and adjudicates the law and does not investigate, which is for the LEO agencies.
 
Dominion machines were rejecting high percentages of ballots which were then 'adjudicated' by Trump-hating democrat election workers who then cast the ballots for the candidate they assumed the voter intended to vote for.
Unsupport allegation.
 
Those are only allegations with proof. Remember that this is Patel's FBI following Trump's DOJ.

The guide is "Don't trust but do verify."
Boxes of pristine ballots that seemed preprinted and mimeographed were ordered stored in an unsecure warehouse after the 2020 election, with vague promises that were never kept of having the ballots examined later. Thankfully, Trump DOJ officials ended up taking possession of the suspicious ballots so the questionable votes will now be examined like election officials had promised 5 years ago.
 
Unsupport allegation.
Can election workers cast ballots as they judge best when machine-rejected?


Copilot Search Branding


Like
Dislike

What Happens to Voting Machine Rejected Ballots​

When a voting machine rejects a ballot, it means the machine could not read or process the vote due to a defect, damage, or other issue. The ballot is not counted electronically, but it is not automatically discarded — instead, election officials follow specific procedures to handle it.

1. Classification and Review
Rejection reasons can vary: non‑matching signatures, stray marks, improper marking, damaged paper, or other defects National Conference of State Legislatures. Once rejected, the ballot is separated from the rest and reviewed by election staff.
 
That is more than five months ago with no action by DOJ.

The actual figures are in the range of .0003 to .0006 over the last twenty years, as been posted many times on the board.
If some cases of voting fraud are uncovered and prosecuted, then how can you prove there are not significant numbers of voting fraud that is not uncovered or prosecuted?
 
What are you talking about? Trump did not lie? What about all those Republicans from the post I commented to you that you completely ignored? Trump was telling his supporters conspiracy theories that had already been debunked by his own people?

At least pretend not to be bad faith.

What do you think of this following quote by Mike Pence (don't hang him, now)?
Mike Pence: "I want the American People to know that I had no right to overturn the election. And that on that day, President Trump asked me to put him over the constitution, but I chose the constitution, and I always will. Anyone who puts themself over the constitution should never be President of the United States, and anyone who asks someone else to put themselves over the constitution should never be President of the United States again. But what the president maintained that day, and frankly has said over and over again over the last 2.5 years, is completely false."

What do you think of the following regarding Chris Krebs, a lifelong Republican, and yet another person that was appointed to his position by Trump, and then was later fired by Trump because he would not go along with Trump's plan to steal an election.

Chris Krebs was tje director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security AGency (CISA).
As CISA's director, Krebs was the "administration's most senior cybersecurity official responsible for securing the presidential election", held on November 3, 2020. Sidney Powell, an attorney for Trump and Michael Flynn, asserted on the Lou Dobbs and Maria Bartiromo Fox News programs that a secret government supercomputer program had switched votes from Trump to Biden in the election, a claim Krebs dismissed as "nonsense" and a "hoax." CISA created a website to debunk election-related disinformation, much of which was being promoted by President Donald Trump and his allies. On November 12, it was reported that Krebs expected to be fired from his position.
On November 17, 2020, Krebs said in a tweet that "59 election security experts all agree, "in every case of which we are aware, these claims (of fraud) either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent." Trump fired Krebs via Twitter the same day

What are all of these Republicans going against Trump if there was mass fraud? Why are they all telling him it doesn't exist? And why did Trump ignore all of them, fire anyone who didn't fall in line and then plot to steal the election?
Voting fraud has been denied, not debunked.
 
You have made it clear that you can cite no instances of fraudulent votes impacting any elections.

They are exceedingly rare, despite all the baseless hysteria from those who with to suppress voting.
Refusing to believe massive amounts of voting fraud are quite possibly going undetected shows a lack of proper intelligence.
 
Fail to disprove? How can you fail to disprove something that was never proven in the first place? Didn't the legal challenges fail? And didn't Trump's lawyers take a much less aggressive stance when they were actually in front of the courts than what they told their voter base, because they didn't want to commit perjury?

What those Republicans were doing was not claiming that there was no vote fraud in all cases, they were saying that the cases they investigated were nothingbugers. It went like this: Trump raised cliams he had seen or had been bought to him, of supposed voter fraud > his team would investigate it and debunk the claim > They would tell Trump their findings > Trump would ignore their findings and continue to tell his voterbase those claims were evidence of mass voter fraud > Trump would in some cases fire or publically attack the person that informed him the claims were not true.

In your opinion, what were the best pieces of proven evidence of mass voter fraud from before January 6th, 2021? Please share them.
Are you saying undetected voter fraud must be detected for it to have occurred? That is illogical.
 
Voter ID is suppressing voting, you mindlessly parrot leftist slogans.
Former President Carter suggested the nation needs to have voter ID requirements to secure our elections against obvious voter fraud. Was he wrong?
 
The convicted felon who casts his votes by mail exploits the paranoid xenophobia of his toadies.

There has never been any credible evidence of a conspiracy to overthrow a democratic election by a cabal of coordinated bogus voters.

Our laws are based upon facts, not fantasies.
Immigration laws, for example, are Constitutional. Advocating violating immigration laws is criminal.
 
But in this case it wans't Democrats....it was Republicans (Trump's own team, even) that did investigate it and told the President that there was no proof? Did you even read the comment that you responded to here? Your reply makes zero sense.

I'll ask again, in your opinion, what were the best pieces of proven evidence of mass voter fraud from before January 6th, 2021? Please share them.
No team of investigators examined every corruptible voting machine, every bloated voting registry, every questionable signature validation, every illegal immigrant registering and voting, etc., so nobody proved significant amounts of voter fraud did not occur.
 
What is your basis for saying that no serious investigations were done by Republicans? Are you retarded?

The DOJ, when it was still led by Trump's own appointee, and who is a Republican, Bill Barr, said that it found no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the election's outcome. So Trump's own people investigated it, and told him there was no evidence.

Georgia conducted arguably the most thorough state-level investigation. Raffensperger, a Republican, said his office had more than 250 investigations underway, but had yet to find evidence supporting "systemic fraud" that would change the outcome. "We've never found systemic fraud -- not enough to overturn the election," he told ABC News

Nevada's Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske announced that her office had found zero "evidentiary support" for claims of fraud or bias following a rigorous review.

I'll ask again, in your opinion, what were the best pieces of proven evidence of mass voter fraud from before January 6th, 2021? Please share them. You seem to be very confident that there is evidence that proofs it, so show the evidence.
Did any investigators find the missing voting machine tabulators, the missing voting machine images, the missing chain of custody records, or dozens of other data that was mysteriously deleted? If not, then their investigations did not prove significant amounts of voter fraud did not occur.
 
Yes, the stats by the very conservative Heritage Foundation are quite clear.
How about this damaging report? (Randomly cropped to shorten)
1.
Antrim County, MI Findings | Election Crime Bureau
A. Network Connectivity and Foreign IP Communications
Forensic examination of a Dominion ImageCast X (ICX) voting device revealed evidence of internet communications to foreign IP addresses, contrary to assertions that voting systems were air-gapped. Benjamin Cotton, founder of CyFIR LLC and a certified forensic examiner with 25+ years of experience, documented these findings in sworn affidavits dated April 8, 2021 and June 8, 2021.
Specific findings:
· Taiwan IP Address: 120.125.201.101, resolving to the Ministry of Education Computer Center in Taipei, Taiwan, was discovered in unallocated space on the ICX device’s 10th partition (physical sector 958273, cluster 106264)
·
German IP Address: 62.146.7.79, resolving to a cloud provider in Germany, was found in close proximity to the Taiwan IP address in device memory
·
Network Configuration Evidence: The ICX system was actively configured to communicate on private network 10.114.192.x with FTP settings to connect to 10.114.192.12 and 10.114.192.25, and had previously used IP address 192.168.1.50
Cotton concluded these artifacts “definitively identify two things: 1) the device has been actively used for network communications and 2) that this device has communicated to public IP addresses not located in the United States”.

Wireless modem capabilities in ES&S DS200 tabulators were also documented. Each DS200 device contained an active Verizon cellular wireless communications card (Telit LE910-SV1 modem) that powered on automatically with the device. Printed summary tapes confirmed wireless transmission of vote totals via secure file transfer to IP address 10.48.51.1. Testing demonstrated that the SIM card could be removed and used in generic wireless devices to access the same Access Point Name (APN), creating what analysts described as “substantial risk” from unauthorized access.
Dominion Voting Systems itself acknowledged wireless transmission issues in an August 25, 2020 email to Michigan counties: “Modem transmission this election were terrible in some areas! Failures and timing out due to the weaker 3G signal and cellular network issues meant that some of your precincts weren’t able to transmit”. The email also revealed that Dominion “turned off image saving” without authorization from the Secretary of State.

B. Anonymous Remote Administrative Access
The most alarming security breach documented was the discovery of two anonymous remote logins with administrator privileges to the Antrim County Election Management System (EMS) server occurring after the election:
Login Event 1: November 5, 2020 at 5:55:56 PM EST
Login Event 2: November 17, 2020 at 5:16:49 PM EST
Both logins showed escalated privileges at the time of connection. Cotton stated: “Given that this computer was supposed to be on a private network, this is very alarming. One would expect that any network logon, if authorized by the accreditation authority, would require specific usernames and passwords to be utilized, not anonymous users”.

A. Plaintext Storage of Master Encryption Keys
A critical finding by multiple expert teams was the storage of master cryptographic keys in plaintext within the SQL database. Cyber Ninjas, a cybersecurity firm that conducted application security analysis, documented this in their April 9, 2021 report:
“The master cryptographic key utilized to encrypt all voting results and configuration from the tabulators is stored in plain text in a table within the database for this election. With this key and knowledge about the file formats utilized; it would be possible to alter election results prior to those result files being loaded into the EMS Server, or to alter configurations for the tabulators to make them behave in a certain way”.
The implications extended beyond Antrim County itself. Because ElectionSource (the vendor that created the election project files) was the originator of the database, “any employee at Election Source who had access to the county’s database file, or any nation state that compromised one of their computers; would have the encryption key needed to adjust files on the compact flash cards”.

B. Hard-Coded and Weak Passwords
System analysis revealed pervasive password security failures documented across multiple reports:
Hard-coded credentials compiled into the application itself included the password “dvscorp08!” – unchanged since 2008 and present in multiple program binaries. The Election Assistance Commission had identified this same hard-coded password in a 2010 deficiency report, indicating the problem had persisted for over a decade.
A. Error Handling Manipulation in EMS/RTR System
Perhaps the most technically significant finding was evidence of what analysts characterized as deliberate software subversion designed to suppress critical error messages. Jeffrey Lenberg conducted controlled testing comparing the behavior of ImageCast Precinct (ICP) tabulators versus the Election Management System/Results Tallying and Reporting (EMS/RTR) application when processing manipulated vote data.
Test methodology: Lenberg created a scenario where Biden votes (internalMachineID 3016) were swapped with Natural Law Party straight-ticket votes (internalMachineID 3015), causing vote indexes to cross contest boundaries – a condition that should trigger critical errors.
Results:

System Component
Response to Vote Index Manipulation
ICP Tabulator– Reported critical error
– Refused to process vote file
– Did not print paper tape
– Wrote error to log file
– Forced mandatory shutdown
EMS/RTR ApplicationNo errors reported
– Successfully loaded same file
– Converted Biden votes to “undervotes” (blank ballots)
– Processed and published results normally
Lenberg stated: “The EMS/RTR has been subverted in a fashion to purposefully ignore vote manipulation. This technical behavior is consistent with a subversion being deployed in the Antrim County EMS/RTR and is designed to mute such error reporting”.
The analysis revealed that the EMS contained “logical bumpers” that prevented vote shifts from crossing contest boundaries, instead silently converting them to undervotes. Without this subversion, shifted Biden votes should have been assigned to Natural Law Party presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente, creating an obvious artifact of fraud.

B. Barry County Corroboration
Evidence from Barry County, Michigan provided real-world corroboration of the EMS subversion theory. Jada Chadwick, a Barry County resident, submitted a notarized affidavit with photographic evidence showing that at 11:17 PM on November 3, 2020, election night reporting displayed:
· Rocky De La Fuente: 8,883 votes (39.4%)
· Trump: 8,744 votes (38.8%)
· Biden: 4,675 votes (20.7%)
· 41% of precincts reporting
De La Fuente’s official final count in Barry County was 16 votes.
Lenberg concluded: “This type of aberration occurring during a live election is consistent with a subversion being employed operationally by a malicious actor in a misconfigured mode… In Barry County during election night November 3, 2020 it is apparent that the subversion was misconfigured resulting in the shifting of votes and consequently causing votes to accrue to the Natural Law Party Candidate, Rocky De La Fuente”.
The analyst assessed that “a rapid deployment of a pre-planned software fix or an updated configuration” would have been required to correct this visible error, potentially deployed “across the State of Michigan on all Dominion Voting Systems EMS/RTR systems where the incomplete subversion had a similar malfunction”.

C. Unexplained Vote Discrepancies
Direct forensic analysis of compact flash cards revealed vote count discrepancies that could not be explained by the official narrative of human error. In Helena Township, Lenberg’s decryption and decoding of the actual results file from the compact flash card showed:
Straight Party ticket votes: Biden 136, Trump 254
Direct Presidential votes: Biden 217, Trump 306
Total votes recorded: Biden 353, Trump 560
Total votes in official November 21 EMS report: Biden 306, Trump 431

Discrepancy: 176 presidential votes (19.3% of votes cast) unaccounted for in the official report, with Biden reduced by 47 votes and Trump reduced by 129 votes.
IV. Ballot Handling and Tabulation Irregularities
A. Absence of Serial Numbers and Ballot Security

Forensic examination revealed that official ballots used in Antrim County contained no serial numbers, enabling unlimited re-scanning without detection. Lenberg stated: “This means that the same ballots can be fed multiple times into the tabulators without any detection or warnings that they have already been processed once before and that they are duplicate”.
The lack of serial numbers combined with other security deficiencies meant:

· No detection capability for duplicate ballots
· No tracking of individual ballot chain of custody
· Easy fabrication of counterfeit ballots using consumer equipment

Ballot fabrication feasibility: Testing confirmed that ballots could be replicated for approximately $280 (large format printer) plus $50 (500 sheets of 11×17 heavyweight paper). Lenberg calculated: “In a night could make 12 ballots per minute (double sided) * 60 minutes * 12 hours > 8600 ballots”. With commercial printing equipment, “tens of thousands” could be produced overnight.
An ElectionSource whistleblower publicly stated in a video transcript that ElectionSource technicians carried thumb drives containing all ballot PDF images for the counties they serviced, and “there is no chain of custody when it comes to them… You know, back before we did mass mail in voting, nobody thought twice about shipping those digital ballots to the appropriate sources”.

B. Extreme Ballot Reversal Rates
Analysis of tabulator log files (slog.txt) from compact flash cards revealed abnormally high ballot reversal rates – instances where ballots were rejected by tabulators and returned to poll workers for reprocessing.

Township/Event
Reversal Rate
Context
Central Lake (Nov 6, 2020 reprocessing)82%1,222 reversals out of 1,491 total votes
Warner Township Logic & Accuracy Testing (Oct 20, 2020)110%283 reversals during processing of 256 test ballots
Helena Township (Nov 3, 2020)21%Disproportionately impacted Republicans 20% more than Democrats
Mancelona Township Precinct 1 (Nov 3, 2020)28.9%Continuous feeding pattern after polls closed
The Warner Township pre-election Logic and Accuracy Testing (LAT) – designed to identify system problems before the election – showed a reversal rate exceeding 100%, yet “there are no records that indicate any measures were taken to fix the tabulator nor were appropriate steps taken to avoid the same problem reoccurring during the November 6, 2020 reprocessing of the votes from Central Lake Township”.

Physical evidence of ballot tampering: Forensic analysis of error logs showed specific outer marker blocks (15, 18, 28, 41, 44) on ballots were modified, causing reversals. Sample error messages from both Warner and Central Lake Townships showed identical patterns:
text

"error, left marker#18, rectangle height, detected 35, expected 24"
"failed correction, left edge marker#18, pattern match"
"error, left edge marker#18 on top side not found"
"Ballot format or id is unrecognizable"


Laboratory testing confirmed these errors could be replicated by manually adding marks to ballot outer markers with a pen, changing their shape.

Late-night ballot processing in Mancelona: Log analysis revealed that after individual in-person voting ceased at 8:33 PM on November 3, 2020, ballot processing continued with a methodical pattern – one ballot approximately every 11 seconds for nearly 4 hours, ending at 12:21 AM on November 4. This represented 313 ballots “processed in a methodologic fashion one right after another,” inconsistent with normal voter behavior.
C. Ballot PDF Design Flaws
Technical analysis of the official ballot PDF files stored on the EMS revealed design defects that would increase error rates:
·
Asymmetric margins: Top of ballot had 15mm whitespace; bottom had only 5mm
·
Vote target misalignment: Internal contest blocks shifted 1mm right; external markers shifted 1mm left
·
Total offset: 2mm shift in a 4mm vote bullet area = 50% offset from proper target location
Testing demonstrated that ballots fed top-first had less than 1% reversal rate, while the same ballots fed bottom-first (as would occur with ballot box stuffing) had approximately 20% reversal rate. These flaws “are present in the PDFs themselves on the EMS, they are not an error of the printing company or whoever was responsible for making the ballot”.

V. ElectionSource Vendor Control and Access
A. Centralized Configuration Authority

ElectionSource, a third-party contractor, maintained supreme technical control over Michigan election systems. James Penrose documented that “ElectionSource technicians responsible for the creation and deployment of project files have supreme power in creating configurations that can be used to modify the votes in the EMS and the output of the tabulator paper tapes”.
The vendor’s access included:

· Creation of all election project files for Antrim County
· Setting of default passwords for all precincts statewide
· Access to master encryption keys via original database files
· Authority to make configuration changes affecting vote processing
· Physical possession of ballot PDF images for multiple counties

Version control failures: ElectionSource set the “DCF File Version Number” to the same value (“50401”) for both the September 29, 2020 and October 23, 2020 project file deployments, despite substantive changes between them. This lack of version control resulted in incompatible configurations being deployed across Antrim County.
Ignored warning prompts: EMS logs showed that on multiple occasions (September 18, September 23, October 5, 2020), ElectionSource technicians acknowledged prompts stating “All previously created and deployed election files will be unusable” but failed to conduct wholesale redeployment of compact flash cards countywide. From October 24 through November 2, 2020 – the crucial final days before the election – there were “no entries in the UserInfo log file, indicating that there were no attempts made by either ElectionSource to complete this compact flash card update process”.
B. Threats Against Independent Forensic Analysis
On January 4, 2021, ElectionSource sent a letter to Michigan county clerks warning that “any transfer of equipment or software to a third party would be in direct violation of the State of Michigan software license terms” and that “Election Source, the State or Dominion may take immediate legal action for such breach of contract”. This threatened legal action against clerks seeking to fulfill their statutory oath to “hold fair and accurate elections”.
VI. Missing Evidence and Audit Trail Gaps
A. Equipment Not Produced for Forensic Analysis

Despite court-ordered discovery, multiple critical system components listed in Antrim County’s purchase documents were never produced for examination:
· ImageCast Listener Express Server
· ImageCast Express Firewall
· EMS Express Managed Switch
· ICP Wireless Modems (17 units)
· ImageCast Communications Manager Server
· ImageCast Listener Express RAS (Remote Access Server)
· ImageCast USB Modems (5 units)
· Network flow data, router configurations, and logs
Cotton stated: “Without these additional items and system components it will be impossible to determine the extent of public/private communications and the extent to which the proven anonymous remote access to the voting system components may have impacted the Antrim EMS databases and election results”.

B. Absent Ballot Images and Log Files
Ballot images
: None of the 38 compact flash cards examined contained ballot images, and no images were imported into the EMS. Cyber Ninjas noted: “Ballot images are a critical artifact and are essential for any type of system audit to determine how an electronic voting machine interpreted results and where it might be malfunctioning”. Vendor training materials clearly stated ballot images should be imported immediately after the election, but this was never done.
Windows security logs: The EMS failed to maintain Windows security event logs before November 4, 2020 due to retention policy settings. This prevented analysis of pre-election system access and activities during the critical period when election files were being prepared and deployed.
Auto-deleting telemetry: Analysts discovered that the Customer Experience Improvement Program (CEIP) was enabled on the EMS with logs set to automatically delete every 5 minutes. The CEIP appeared to be enabled by unknown third-party software rather than through routine Microsoft use, and the rapid log deletion prevented security analysis.
Michigan Secretary of State destruction order: A December 1, 2020 memorandum from the Michigan Bureau of Elections authorized release of voting equipment security, which would allow destruction of removable media. This occurred before comprehensive forensic analysis could be conducted in multiple counties.
C. Lack of User Accountability
Generic shared accounts made it “near impossible to determine who performed an action even if proper logging was in place”. The EMS database contained only six account names (Ben Smythe, John Smith, Ryan Smoth, MRO M01, Return Office Admin, MRESuper Admin) to account for all administrative activities, regardless of which actual human was using the system.
Lenberg documented that “the true identity of Ben Smythe is not attainable through forensics alone and in fact appears to be a strawman user shared by all with access to the EMS, not a real human”. Any user logging in with the EMSADMIN username and password would appear as “Ben Smythe” in log files, making individual accountability impossible.

VII. System Maintenance Failures
A. Outdated Security Patches

Analysis revealed that voting systems operated with years-old software and security definitions, leaving them “extremely vulnerable to unauthorized remote access and manipulation”:
Operating system patches:
· Antrim EMS last updated: April 10, 2019
· Patches applied were already 15 versions behind at time of installation
· 97+ critical Windows 10 security updates issued since 2016 installation – none applied

Antivirus definitions:
· Windows Defender last updated: July 16, 2016 (the OS installation date)
· Antivirus definitions NEVER updated after system installation
· Weekly antivirus updates available since 2016 – none applied
Cotton concluded: “This lack of security updating and basic cyber security practices has left these systems in an extremely vulnerable state to remote manipulation and hacking… The fact that these systems are in such a state of vulnerability, coupled with the obvious public and private internet access, calls the integrity of the voting systems into question and should have negated the system accreditation”.

B. Unencrypted Hard Drives
Contrary to published guidelines for sensitive systems, hard disks on the Antrim EMS were not encrypted. This failure “increases the vulnerability of the voter data and facilitates the ease of access to sensitive data for unauthorized users and should invalidate any accreditation of the system”.
VIII. Source Code Review and Networked Automation
A. Dominion Patent Capabilities

Analysis of Dominion Voting Systems Patent US 8,876,002B2 (dated November 4, 2014) revealed that Dominion machines support networked Pre-LAT (Logic and Accuracy Testing) mode with extensive automation:
· Remote poll opening via network
· Vote simulation scripts that can “simulate voting patterns on the machine even to the level of providing pre-canned scanned ballot images or PDF images of ballots with machine generated marks”
· Remote instruction of Pre-LAT activities including “interpreting vote simulation scripts and images, performing image calibration procedures”
· Ability to program election ballots from over the network
Penrose noted: “If any of the automated configuration and testing functionality implemented by Dominion were to be abused in a systematic fashion, modification of election outcomes would be trivial for an attacker”.
Significantly, no evidence of Pre-LAT test results was found on the Antrim County EMS, despite the system’s capability to perform and log such tests.

B. Escrow Source Code Never Reviewed
Michigan Election Code Section 168.797c requires vendors to place source code in third-party escrow accounts, with the Secretary of State authorized to access it “solely for the purpose of analyzing and testing the software”. Despite the documented security concerns, the escrowed source code for the Dominion system was never retrieved and reviewed to determine:
· The precise implementation of error handling routines
· Whether Pre-LAT scripts or related functionality was used
· The full extent of networked capabilities
· Whether hard-coded credentials or encryption weaknesses exist throughout the codebase
Penrose concluded: “The evidence of a subversion in the EMS/RTR is sufficient that an expert review of the source code for the EMS/RTR is warranted to determine the extent of the subversion and breadth of the configuration options available to the malicious actors that would employ it”.

IX Court Outcomes
In the final analysis, the case brought forward by Attorney Matt DePerno on behalf of his client, Bill Bailey, was dismissed not on the basis of the evidence presented, but rather on the basis that all of the remedies sought by the plaintiff had been satisfied by the defense including their request for a statewide audit.
·
May 25, 2021: Circuit court dismissed claims as moot, ruling “there is no right” under Michigan law for the audit sought
·
April 21, 2022: Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, stating plaintiff “failed to allege any ‘clear and positive’ factual allegations” and “merely raised a series of questions about the election without making any specific factual allegations as required”
·
December 9, 2022: Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear the case, with Justice David Viviano stating “there’s nothing in state law that says every voter has the right to conduct their own independent audit of election results”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel characterized the decision as “the final word in this case on the legitimacy and accuracy of our elections” and called the claims “fraudulent” and designed to “undermine the electorate’s faith in our system”.
In contrast to the assertions made by the MI AG, Judge Kevin Elsenheimer was very clear in asserting that there were indeed issues with the conduct of the 2020 election in Antrim County.

""By deciding this motion, the Court is not saying that there were no problems in the way that Antrim County conducted its November 2020 elections."

Judge Kevin Elsenheimer
Judge Elsenheimer Decision
Of course, the facts surrounding the investigations into the conduct of the 2020 election in Antrim County, MI have not stopped those complicit with the malfeasance observed from asserting that there was no evidence of election fraud.
Expert Analyses
This report is based upon the following analyses that were submitted as court exhibits by forensic experts Benjamin Cotton (Cy Fir), Jeffrey Lenberg, James Penrose, and Doug Logan (Cyber Ninjas):
Defense Analyses
The findings detailed above directly contradicted a March 26, 2021 report by J. Alex Halderman (University of Michigan computer science professor) commissioned by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Penrose and Lenberg filed a joint assessment on June 23, 2021 documenting specific inaccuracies in Halderman’s conclusions:
Halderman’s position: Vote discrepancies were “attributed strictly to human error” with no security breaches involved.
Contradictory evidence identified by analysts:
1.
Halderman stated his explanation “entirely” accounts for the Antrim County discrepancy, predicting Biden votes should have shifted to Natural Law Party. Testing showed Biden votes actually became undervotes – behavior only possible with EMS subversion.
2.
Halderman claimed “the ‘irregularities’ in the Antrim County election were not caused by a security issue or breach of any type.” This ignores documented anonymous remote logins on November 5 and 17, 2020 with administrator privileges.
3.
Halderman’s analysis “entirely omitted the fact that there was an extremely high ballot reversal rate of 111% in Logic and Accuracy Testing in Warner Township on October 20, 2020” and the 82% reversal rate in Central Lake on November 6, 2020.
4.
Halderman made “no mention” of shared passwords, null passwords on administrative accounts, or the 31-day window for potential log alteration between the anonymous logins and forensic acquisition.
Halderman himself had previously documented “multiple severe security flaws” in Dominion systems in sealed testimony for unrelated Georgia litigation (Curling v. Raffensperger), though his Michigan analysis took a contrary position.


 
What an ignorant argument. The machines were certified good by dem and gop inspectors.
Don't blindly believe anyone who claims there could not possibly have been any undetected voting fraud by Dominion voting machines connected to democrat leftists and foreigners like George Soros.

Four election vulnerabilities uncovered by a Michigan Engineer - Michigan Engineering News

October 23, 2024

October 23, 2024

Four election vulnerabilities uncovered by a Michigan Engineer

All have solutions, some are implemented.

By:

Gabe Cherry

Experts

J. Alex Halderman
The work of J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering, has made the United States election system more secure—largely by uncovering vulnerabilities in equipment like voting machines and ballot scanners, and by advocating for best practices and technological advances.

Along the way, he has also run up against the limitations of our elections systems, and even resistance from technology vendors and election officials. Ironically, his work has also been used to prop up false theories about fraud in the 2020 presidential election. (For his thoughts on this, read the Q&A with Michigan News.)

Here are some of the key ways Halderman’s work has helped to strengthen election integrity in the U.S.

Generating a paper voting record

Georgia

Challenge

In 2017, Georgia was one of only a few states that still used paperless electronic voting machines statewide. These don’t give voters a way to ensure that their selections were recorded accurately or provide a physical record, which could be needed to rule out suspected electronic fraud.

Solution

Halderman’s research helped spur a lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Good Governance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization, and a handful of individual Georgia voters. Halderman testified as an expert and demonstrated on the witness stand how the machines could be hacked to steal votes. As a result, Georgia replaced its machines with new ones that produce a paper record. Manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, the machines were installed in time for the 2020 presidential election.

Federal court ruling prohibiting Georgia from continuing to use paperless voting (PDF)

Patching software vulnerabilities

Georgia

Challenge

Rather than using hand-marked ballots like most states, Georgia’s new system uses a machine to print voters’ completed ballots, which encode the selections in a barcode that voters have no way to verify. When Halderman examined these machines after a federal court granted him access in 2020, he found that it was possible for a hacker to change the votes encoded in the barcode, even without physical access to the machines. The risk increased after January 7, 2021, when confidential election machine software and data from Coffey County, Georgia was illicitly copied and disseminated.

Solution

After Halderman’s court testimony and 96-page report, Dominion Voting Systems developed a patch for several of the software vulnerabilities he discovered.

However, Georgia election officials have not implemented the fix. Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, who has announced that the machines will not be updated until after the 2024 presidential election, described the risks Halderman identified as “theoretical and imaginary.” While a report commissioned by Dominion from the national security nonprofit MITRE argued at the time that the attacks were infeasible as long as physical security was sufficient to prevent access to the machines, the Coffee County incident later showed that such access is, in fact, possible.

In-depth explanation on Freedom to Tinker

Making voting machines more reliable

Michigan

Challenge

In November 2020, election officials in northern Michigan’s Antrim County published incorrect vote totals in their initial counts, which were later corrected. Halderman investigated at the request of the Michigan secretary of state and attorney general and found no evidence of fraud. Instead, he discovered that a chain of human errors and insufficient software guardrails led to an incorrect ballot scanner configuration, producing the erroneous results.

Solution

Since the investigation, Halderman’s team has devised a way to bring tests of election election equipment, a process known as logic and accuracy testing, into the 21st century. The ways electronic voting machines can introduce errors are more complex than the obsolete mechanical voting machines for which existing testing methods were designed. Now, software developed by Halderman’s team thoroughly checks the system’s configuration in the smallest possible number of ballots, making the process comprehensive but still manageable for election officials. It has recently been piloted in several Michigan counties and Halderman is hopeful that it will be ready for use statewide before the upcoming election.

Paper on investigation for USENIX Security Symposium, 2022 (PDF)

Logic and accuracy testing for 21st century Michigan (PDF) (to appear in Operations Research, 2024)

 A sign next to two voting machines reads Vote now! with a checked box for Michigan and an empty box for Ohio State. The screen of one machine is visible but unreadable, while a voter blocks the view of the other.
Halderman’s group held a demonstration election at the University of Michigan in March, 2018, to show how susceptible voting machines are to hacking, and how paper ballots are much more reliable. Photo: Levi Hutmacher/Michigan Engineering

Securing voters’ privacy

21 states

Challenge

Many municipalities publish ballot-level voting results online—either as ballot scans or lists of votes cast—to promote transparency. The data is randomly shuffled to protect voters’ identities. However, Halderman’s team found a vulnerability in certain Dominion Voting Systems ballot scanners that could un-shuffle the ballot information and reveal who cast what votes, which they detailed in a study published in August 2024.

Solution

Halderman’s team reported the flaw to federal authorities and Dominion, which developed a software patch in response. His team also developed an open-source software tool and detailed instructions to help municipalities sanitize the data so that it is safe to make public.

Paper about the flaw for USENIX Security Symposium, 2024 (PDF)
 
Voting machines examinations were conducted....the objections you are speaking off were probably regarding handing them over to unqualified, unaccredited firms.
I only know of one thorough examination of Dominion voting machines, the one conducted in Antrim County over stiff opposition from democrats. Here is what was uncovered:

Four election vulnerabilities uncovered by a Michigan Engineer - Michigan Engineering News

October 23, 2024

October 23, 2024

Four election vulnerabilities uncovered by a Michigan Engineer

All have solutions, some are implemented.

By:

Gabe Cherry

Experts

J. Alex Halderman
The work of J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering, has made the United States election system more secure—largely by uncovering vulnerabilities in equipment like voting machines and ballot scanners, and by advocating for best practices and technological advances.

Along the way, he has also run up against the limitations of our elections systems, and even resistance from technology vendors and election officials. Ironically, his work has also been used to prop up false theories about fraud in the 2020 presidential election. (For his thoughts on this, read the Q&A with Michigan News.)

Here are some of the key ways Halderman’s work has helped to strengthen election integrity in the U.S.

Generating a paper voting record

Georgia

Challenge

In 2017, Georgia was one of only a few states that still used paperless electronic voting machines statewide. These don’t give voters a way to ensure that their selections were recorded accurately or provide a physical record, which could be needed to rule out suspected electronic fraud.

Solution

Halderman’s research helped spur a lawsuit filed by the Coalition for Good Governance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization, and a handful of individual Georgia voters. Halderman testified as an expert and demonstrated on the witness stand how the machines could be hacked to steal votes. As a result, Georgia replaced its machines with new ones that produce a paper record. Manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems, the machines were installed in time for the 2020 presidential election.

Federal court ruling prohibiting Georgia from continuing to use paperless voting (PDF)

Patching software vulnerabilities

Georgia

Challenge

Rather than using hand-marked ballots like most states, Georgia’s new system uses a machine to print voters’ completed ballots, which encode the selections in a barcode that voters have no way to verify. When Halderman examined these machines after a federal court granted him access in 2020, he found that it was possible for a hacker to change the votes encoded in the barcode, even without physical access to the machines. The risk increased after January 7, 2021, when confidential election machine software and data from Coffey County, Georgia was illicitly copied and disseminated.

Solution

After Halderman’s court testimony and 96-page report, Dominion Voting Systems developed a patch for several of the software vulnerabilities he discovered.

However, Georgia election officials have not implemented the fix. Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, who has announced that the machines will not be updated until after the 2024 presidential election, described the risks Halderman identified as “theoretical and imaginary.” While a report commissioned by Dominion from the national security nonprofit MITRE argued at the time that the attacks were infeasible as long as physical security was sufficient to prevent access to the machines, the Coffee County incident later showed that such access is, in fact, possible.

In-depth explanation on Freedom to Tinker

Making voting machines more reliable

Michigan

Challenge

In November 2020, election officials in northern Michigan’s Antrim County published incorrect vote totals in their initial counts, which were later corrected. Halderman investigated at the request of the Michigan secretary of state and attorney general and found no evidence of fraud. Instead, he discovered that a chain of human errors and insufficient software guardrails led to an incorrect ballot scanner configuration, producing the erroneous results.

Solution

Since the investigation, Halderman’s team has devised a way to bring tests of election election equipment, a process known as logic and accuracy testing, into the 21st century. The ways electronic voting machines can introduce errors are more complex than the obsolete mechanical voting machines for which existing testing methods were designed. Now, software developed by Halderman’s team thoroughly checks the system’s configuration in the smallest possible number of ballots, making the process comprehensive but still manageable for election officials. It has recently been piloted in several Michigan counties and Halderman is hopeful that it will be ready for use statewide before the upcoming election.

Paper on investigation for USENIX Security Symposium, 2022 (PDF)

Logic and accuracy testing for 21st century Michigan (PDF) (to appear in Operations Research, 2024)

 A sign next to two voting machines reads Vote now! with a checked box for Michigan and an empty box for Ohio State. The screen of one machine is visible but unreadable, while a voter blocks the view of the other.
Halderman’s group held a demonstration election at the University of Michigan in March, 2018, to show how susceptible voting machines are to hacking, and how paper ballots are much more reliable. Photo: Levi Hutmacher/Michigan Engineering

Securing voters’ privacy

21 states

Challenge

Many municipalities publish ballot-level voting results online—either as ballot scans or lists of votes cast—to promote transparency. The data is randomly shuffled to protect voters’ identities. However, Halderman’s team found a vulnerability in certain Dominion Voting Systems ballot scanners that could un-shuffle the ballot information and reveal who cast what votes, which they detailed in a study published in August 2024.

Solution

Halderman’s team reported the flaw to federal authorities and Dominion, which developed a software patch in response. His team also developed an open-source software tool and detailed instructions to help municipalities sanitize the data so that it is safe to make public.

Paper about the flaw for USENIX Security Symposium, 2024 (PDF)
 
15th post
Despite Dornan's claims in 1996, Sanchez's election was upheld.

No one has ever been convicted of conspiring to pervert a democratic elections by coordinating a cabal of bogus voters.
Yes, Sanchez's election was upheld by the democrat majority who bent rules in their favor and refused to consider evidence of serious election fraud so they could rid themselves of Dornan.
 
No, they did not.


(10) Court Documents Show Dominion Executive Admitted International Access to Voting System Code—Contradicting Company's Public Claims
Court Documents Show Dominion Executive Admitted International Access to Voting System Code—Contradicting Company's Public Claims


Judge denied Coomer's attempt to block questions about foreign contacts

Melissa Hallman

Jan 29, 2026






Former Dominion Voting Systems executive Eric Coomer has acknowledged under oath that he discussed election system code and programming with employees from foreign countries—admissions that contradict Dominion’s repeated public assurances that its U.S. election systems operate without foreign involvement.

The admissions came on January 22, 2026, in sworn responses to requests for admissions in the ongoing defamation case Coomer v. Byrne (Case No. 8:24-cv-00008, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida). Defendant Patrick Byrne’s attorney filed the responses with the court on January 23 to oppose Coomer’s “time-sensitive” motion seeking to limit his deposition questioning.

According to the court filing, Coomer acknowledged that as part of his job responsibilities, he met with individuals from foreign countries to discuss Dominion equipment. He further admitted to discussing vote adjudication software with Dominion employees from foreign countries, as well as discussing election system code and programming at a code-based level with internal Dominion employees he understood to be from foreign countries. Additionally, Coomer acknowledged that Serbian employees had remote access capability to Dominion equipment in the Denver office for troubleshooting, though he clarified this was office equipment rather than voting machines deployed in the field.

These admissions are significant because Dominion has consistently maintained that its U.S. election systems are developed and operated domestically without foreign access—a key talking point in the company’s $787.5 million defamation settlement with Fox News and ongoing litigation against other outlets. The company has repeatedly emphasized in public statements that its American election infrastructure is developed and maintained entirely in the United States.

Just six days before providing these responses, on January 16, Coomer had filed a motion for protective order seeking to prevent deposition questions about his “contacts with foreign nationals, including those from Serbia, China, and Venezuela.” His attorneys argued such topics were “irrelevant” to the defamation case. But in arguing against relevance, Coomer’s motion inadvertently acknowledged his “professional discussions with foreign nationals regarding Dominion Voting Systems’ equipment, vote adjudication software, election system coding, and source code programming at a technical level.”

The judge denied the protective order without prejudice on January 26, citing Coomer’s failure to show “good cause” for limiting the deposition scope. The deposition proceeded as scheduled on January 27. In the January 23 filing opposing the protective order, Byrne’s attorneys stated the admissions support their “defense of Truth,” writing that they “intend to present evidence to prove that Dr. Coomer conspired with other Dominion employees to rig the 2020 Presidential Election.” The filing doesn’t claim the admissions themselves prove conspiracy, but argues they demonstrate Coomer’s “significant role in the operation, oversight, and discussions regarding Dominion’s voting systems, including interactions with foreign individuals and employees.”

Dominion is an international company with operations in multiple countries, including a software development office in Serbia. What Coomer admitted could be characterized as standard business practices for a multinational corporation—international sales meetings, working with global staff on technical systems, and allowing IT support. However, the admissions do appear to contradict Dominion’s blanket public statements about U.S. election systems operating without any foreign involvement or access.

The distinction Coomer made—that Serbian employees could access Denver office systems but not voting equipment deployed in election jurisdictions—may prove crucial as the case proceeds.

Since Byrne discussed the deposition on Mike Lindell’s LindellTV, claims have spread across X and conservative media characterizing the admissions as proof of foreign election interference. Some posts specifically cite Serbia and Venezuela as being involved in election rigging, though the actual court filing references Serbia only in connection with IT support for office equipment. The case remains in active discovery, with no trial date set. Neither Coomer’s attorneys nor representatives for Dominion Voting Systems responded to requests for comment.


Sources: Docket 278 - Patrick Byrne’s January 23, 2026 addendum filing.
 
Your hyper-partisan whining is noted.

Nevertheless, no one has ever been convicted of conspiring to pervert a democratic elections by coordinating a cabal of bogus voters, no matter which party was in power.

Concocting bureaucratic barriers to impede an American's right to vote is an assault upon democracy.
The lack of criminal convictions for crimes is not proof the criminals committed no crimes.
 
You've done nothing to counter my comment, and you ignore 95% of it. You're an idiot. The only thing you have proven with your comment is that you are an idiot. Come on man, you don't think I can google why Tina Peters was sent to prison? Or do you just do no research yourself and just believe everything your fringe right wing sources tell you? You need to do better. You've ignored most of the things I've asked you in my comments.

I will once again ask you what were the best pieces of proven evidence of mass voter fraud from before January 6th, 2021? Please share them.
The evidence of 2020 voting fraud includes illegals registering and voting, voting machines flipping ballots, voting machines rejecting ballots which are then cast in favor of the election worker's favorite candidate, tens of thousands of mimeographed ballots showing up at polling stations late at night after the election and without required chain-of-custody documentation, lost tabulators, destroyed voting machine images, data being illegally erased from voting machines, stuffed ballot boxes, tens of thousands of illegitimate mail-in ballots sent out and returned without proper verifications, ballot harvesting, vote buying, voter intimidation, double voting, out of state voting, blocking observers, and much more.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom