Welcome to Day + 19…

It is hard to believe that counts and recounts are continuing almost twenty days after the election. One thing that is especially annoying is the conflation of the words “recount,” “canvass,” and “audit.” In simple terms, a canvass means aggregating or confirming every valid ballot cast is counted—including absentee, early voting, Election Day, provisional, challenged, and ballots from uniformed and overseas citizens. An election audit is a specialized review conducted after-the-fact to determine whether the votes were counted accurately and proper procedures were followed. Ballot batches may be examined using sampling techniques, and problematical procedures may be examined to determine how they affected the election.

What the hell is going on with electronic voting systems?

For at least two decades, electronic election systems have been used in some form by the local and state governments within the United States. The same basic voting functions and security considerations that applied then still apply to modern-day systems. The three major constants are that the vendors of electronic voting systems change their names and ownership periodically, especially after exposure of flaws in their systems, and to avoid massive liabilities; they hide their code behind a veil of secrecy and contractually protect their systems from a forensic examination; and since there are no uniform certification standards, there are few methods to fully examine a voting system and reliably report the results in a meaningful manner.

Can it happen?

Black Box Voting

In 2003, Bev Harris, an American writer, activist, and founder of Black Box Voting, a national, nonpartisan elections watchdog group wrote a book, Black Box Voting based on her investigations into electronic voting systems used in U.S. Elections. During the course of her research, she discovered the source code, documentation, and proprietary communications from an improperly secured voting company website. The company acknowledged the authenticity of the information, and suggested she illegally obtained the data even though it was freely presented for download without warning of its proprietary nature. Bev’s book, Black Box Voting, is freely available at Black Box Voting.

Hacking Democracy is a 2006 Emmy nominated documentary film broadcast on HBO.

Filmed over three years it documents American citizens investigating anomalies and irregularities with 'e-voting' (electronic voting) systems that occurred during the 2000 and 2004 elections in the United States, especially in Volusia County, Florida. The film investigates the flawed integrity of electronic voting machines, particularly those made by Diebold Election Systems, exposing previously unknown backdoors in the Diebold trade secret computer software. The film culminates dramatically in the on-camera hacking of the in-use / working Diebold election system in Leon County, Florida - the same computer voting system which has been used in actual American elections across thirty-three states, and which still counts tens of millions of America's votes today. The feature is freely available at Hacking Democracy.

Did it happen?

Most certainly, there are well-document cases of election “glitches,” “anomalies,” and errors that affected individual races and sometimes entire elections. Did it happen in the 2020 presidential election is yet to be determined? What is certain is that the conditions of the past, especially concerning vendor information, secrecy, security, and certification, exist as if nothing has changed.

Can such a black box system be audited?

Of course, given the right incentives, including the possibility of investigations, prosecutions, fines, and jail time for executives, private companies can be forced to reveal their dark secrets and be held accountable for their work. One need only consider the recent case of the software that was used to control the Boeing 737MAX. The system was dissected, examined, and monitored by federal officials at the FAA before it was recertified for flight use in an aircraft. Unlike the dramatic catastrophic aircraft crashes that killed hundreds of passengers, there does not seem to be a single egregious incident brought to light to spur such an intensive effort regarding election equipment. In fact, given the involvement of political parties and politicians, it is probable that the American public will never learn the details of the 2020 election until long after the results matter. All the while, promises of improvement are being made.

However, the question of the veracity of a voting system’s use in the upcoming January Senate race in Georgia is problematical.

Can we trust our election officials?

The short answer is no, They are partisan politicians, and in some cases, their campaigns for the position were funded by individuals and organizations that seek to bring about a particular election result or inject chaos into the system. For those who might be skeptical, I suggest you research information on the "Secretary of State Project."

“The Secretary of State Project was launched in 2006 to support Democratic candidates for secretary of state. Its formation was motivated by what its founders viewed as partisan activity by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (R) in 2000 and Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) in 2004. "We were tired of Republican manipulation of elections," said cofounder Michael Kieschnick. "It seemed like lots of decisions were made by people who were pretty clearly political operatives." <Source> [OCS: A classic case of progressive socialist democrat projection where they accuse the opposition of the activities and tactics that they themselves employ.]

“Formed in the fall of 2006 by Becky Bond, Michael Kieschnick and James Rucker, the Secretary of State Project was an American non-profit, progressive or liberal 527 political action committee focused on electing reform-minded progressive Secretaries of State in battleground states, who typically oversee the election process. They hoped to prevent a repeat of Florida 2000, where the projects backers claimed that a Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, took a partisan role in helping to determine the 2000 presidential election results. The Project was funded by George Soros and members of the Democracy Alliance.” <Source> [OCS: There are few people in American politics that have such a negative effect on our Constitution, economy, and culture than George Soros.]

Can we trust our courts?

When one considers some of the rulings of activist judges who are not original textualists or who appear to be highly partisan, there is little or no doubt in my mind that courts cannot always be trusted to render a result that is fair and non-partisan. Even in the case of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, we have seen at least two cases where he tortured the U.S. Constitution and refused to follow the law. In general, courts are reluctant to interfere in elections, especially to order large numbers of votes to be invalidated, resulting in the disenfranchisement of numerous citizens. To invalidate a national election is almost unthinkable. However, state legislatures, who can refuse to certify elections, or Congress who can actually select a candidate under certain circumstances, show the foresight of our Founding Fathers in creating the checks and balances within our Constitutional Republic.

What’s missing from the Trump team?

It appears that the Trump team challenging the election results is a media-savvy high-profile team. Unfortunately, I am not seeing the normal and customary attorneys that specialize in election law and intellectual property rights.

During an interview on Friday with Howie Carr on Newsmax, attorney Sidney Powell dropped several more bombs relating to the ongoing investigation into irregularities that took place in the 2020 election.

Powell made several bold claims during the interview including allegations that millions of dead people voted and that President Trump actually received 7 million more votes than he was given.

She also claimed that there will be witnesses coming forward in the near future who may need witness protection.

“We’re fixin’ to overturn the results of the election in multiple states, and President Trump won by not just hundreds of thousands of votes but by millions of votes that were shifted by this software that was designed expressly for that purpose,” Powell said. “We have sworn witness testimony of why the software was designed. It was designed to rig elections.  He was fully briefed on it.  He saw it happen in other countries. It was exported internationally for profit by the people that are behind Smartmatic and Dominion.”

“They did this on purpose. It was calculated and they’ve done it before,” she continued. “We have evidence from 2016 in California. We have so much evidence I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose.” <Source>

Show me the evidence...

In the Memorandum Opinion (Case No. 4:20-CV-02078; Document 202; Filed 11/21/20)  delivered by United States District Judge Matthew W. Brann in the District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Judge asks the singular most important question everybody is asking...

"In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between.

In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated.

One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,  such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened.

Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more. At bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice."

Powell promises three federal lawsuits coming Thanksgiving week. So an answer to some important questions might be forthcoming.

Please explain to me why not one attorney went to court to seek an emergency order for discovery, the use of a U.S. Marshall to sequester a sample of ballots and a number of machines, the appointment of a special master to seize and examine proprietary code under court seal? Where are the DOJ and FBI because election fraud is a federal crime?

Of course, the algorithm may be self-erasing, overwritten by local or remote code, or simply exists in volatile memory that disappears when the system is powered off. But, the hooks into such code will exist.

Since a number of intellectual property attorneys and companies have experience with the forensic examination of code-related issues, the absence of these experts is a red flag that cuts against the Trump legal team.

Bottom line…

I still believe that it is possible that Trump is using the delaying lawsuits to negotiate a deal that protects him, his family, and his company from prosecution when he leaves office and that such an agreement would also apply to various states run by progressive socialist democrats. If Trump really has overwhelming proof of the allegations this would be a very powerful incentive for the Democrats who want to protect their party.

Life goes on outside of politics, and we are screwed. Hopefully, we will have another election to attempt the halt of progressive socialist democrats and their authoritarian nonsense.

-- steve