By Guest Author David Robb
Part I of this article described three major presentations from Mike Lindell’s Cyber symposium held last week in Sioux Falls South Dakota. Dr. Douglass Frank showed how a simple computer algorithm could create and insert phantom votes into state totals in a way that would be almost impossible to detect. Mr. Seth Keshel examined at a county level across the country new voter registrations and evaluated the likelihood that vote totals were altered in each county. Ms. Draza Smith showed how a simple engineering method could be used to adjust vote totals automatically, and how that method could break down.
Now we get to find out if there is actual evidence that the methods they described were really used. Is there proof the election was stolen? Would it hold up in court?
All of these independent analyses came to the same conclusion that the 2020 election was likely determined by computer manipulation of results rather than by the actual intentions of the voters. The manipulations applied across all 50 states, and not in just the so-called swing states.
In some cases, the presenters showed that the algorithms broke down because they ran out of phantom voters to use to adjust the votes to obtain the desired results. This appears to be what happened in Florida and Texas – two states that were intended to go to Biden. In other cases, it appears that the trend to a Trump win was too strong for the algorithms to keep up by making small, unnoticeable adjustments, so the vote counting had to be stopped until larger adjustments could be made, including provisions for backfill. Most of the swing states fell into this category. We saw adjustments from time to time as some of the televised totals even showed vote subtractions – something that should never happen.
What would it take?
In every case, a hostile actor would have to be able to access voter registration data, be able to generate fraudulent votes, inject those votes into vote totals throughout the country and be able to backfill paper ballots to match the votes that had been generated to thwart attempts to detect fraud through simple recounts. Were these conditions met?
In every state, voter databases were online and accessible, with in most cases only minimal security for access. This is not to fault the states, as it was important that election officials be able to consult the databases to identify eligible voters and ensure election integrity at a local level. That these databases might be used for nefarious purposes in a massive scale fraud program was generally not contemplated. Even if it were, protection of the databases from misuse would have been difficult and would have hindered legitimate use.
Generating fraudulent votes is now a trivial exercise. Once the database formats are known, any moderately competent programmer can produce electronic vote records, even serialized records or records with security features by the millions in a few minutes time. Image data can be generated and passed on to commercial printers and others who can then generate paper ballots that are virtually indistinguishable from genuine ballots. In most cases, only a careful forensic examination of paper, ink, marking artifacts, and other aspects can tell the difference between real and fraudulent ballots. Modern printing systems can generate thousands to millions of fake ballots complete with custom markings in a few hours.
Regarding the vote totals, most of the vote databases were maintained by outside vendors. In some cases these databases were even kept in storage systems in countries outside the US. Despite claims to the contrary, many of the critical machines used to collect and transfer vote data were networked in ways that were vulnerable to outside attack and intrusion. As we have seen recently, even some fairly high security networks have been hacked with data altered or ransom ware installed. By all accounts, and by demonstration at the symposium and elsewhere, the voter systems are at best only moderately secure and can be penetrated in a matter of minutes by relatively low sophistication approaches. Once penetrated, vote modification or injection could be easily performed.
A changing lawscape
Changes to voter laws and procedures greatly reduced or even eliminated safeguards against fraud, especially in regards to physical ballots, but also in electronic voting. Mail-in ballots and unmonitored ballot collection points provided ample opportunity for introduction of manufactured ballots. Allowing late ballots to be counted, often for several days after the election enabled introduction of manufactured ballots into the system to backfill electronic totals with matching paper ballots to avoid counting discrepancies. Relaxation of signature verification requirements and chain of custody requirements permitted fraudulent mail-in ballots to be introduced in potentially massive quantities, while appearing to be legitimate ballots. Many other changes served to reduce or eliminate the controls that would ensure a fair and honest election.
A preponderance of evidence
So far, all we have discussed is the possibility of massive fraud. We have shown that there are reasonable mechanisms that could be used, and that there are many openings for fraud in our systems. We see that even well intentioned people can be deceived or unaware of how fraud might be perpetrated, while still believing that adequate measures have been taken to ensure a good election.
The question now remains, is there evidence that these mechanisms were used to subvert our 2020 election?
Dr Frank’s analysis methods can show how many “phantom” votes might have been added to the legitimate votes in each state. Addition of these votes not only explains the overall totals, but also addresses the large numbers of dead voters, moved voters, people who reported that someone else had voted in their stead, and other discrepancies. Computer generation of votes would suffice to explain all these.
Once the number of phantom votes are known, they can be subtracted from the vote totals to obtain a good estimate of the legitimate totals. Dr. Frank and his team have done this for all 50 states and the results were presented at the symposium. In every state, the estimated actual totals are significantly different from the “official” totals, in some cases sufficient to “flip” the outcome.
The analysis by Mr. Keshel corroborates the results from Dr. Frank and provides strong evidence that down ballot races were also affected, to the point that the makeup of the US Senate and House of Representative does not currently reflect the correct composition.
Ms. Smith’s analysis supports the work of both Dr. Frank and Mr. Keshel and identifies likely points where votes could have been injected and in what quantities.
Hundreds of affidavits provided under penalty of perjury attest to midnight deliveries of boxes and even pallets of ballots to be included in vote totals. Evidence of huge quantities of ballots printed late in the election and flown, trucked, and otherwise shipped to processing centers has been provided.
Videos of ballots being rescanned, and trucks delivering late ballots have been widely distributed and viewed. Hundreds of thousands of pristine mail-in ballots that were never folded to go into a return envelope, and more thousands of clearly duplicated ballots have been found so far, with likely more to come.
Some vendors of electronic election systems, as well as some state authorities have asserted that their systems could not be connected to the internet or other network because they were “air gapped”. This is a smokescreen term used to convey a false impression. A cellphone is “air gapped” yet it manages to connect quite easily to a network, including the internet.
As has been demonstrated in previous audits, many election systems contain radio modems, which is just another name for the technology used to make wireless connections to networks. Anyone with a home or business wireless network has lots of radio modems operating between computers, printers, routers, and even thermostats and doorbells.
Vendor manuals and training videos have even shown how to configure various voting systems for internet access. Startup configurations provide IP addresses and enabling functions. For those who don’t know, IP stands for Internet Protocol. Why would it be configured if it wasn’t available?
Instructions to the jury
If this were a murder investigation, we would have the dead body, the smoking gun, and would be collecting fingerprints and forensic evidence. For the 2020 election, we have the dead body of the “official” results, the smoking gun(s) of how the election was likely altered, and are now looking for the fingerprints and forensic evidence to identify the perpetrators.
The way we get the fingerprints is by conducting a thorough forensic audit.
The audit being conducted in Arizona provides an excellent model for a solid forensic examination of election results. Detractors have attempted to discredit the audit as being conducted by amateurs who don’t know what they are doing, who have corrupted the chains of custody, and who don’t know how “real” elections are run. Does any of that sound like guilty parties trying to discredit an investigation? Would a murder suspect be cooperative in providing evidence of their guilt?
A consistent theme at the symposium was that the suspected fraud would have to be conducted by a state level actor. There may likely have been local participation in more “traditional” ways, and to support such activities as ballot backfills, but the election altering scale would require substantial computational and connectivity resources as well as human resources for programming, data processing, and implementation. Perpetration of such an activity would be tantamount to an act of war.
If you were an enemy wouldn’t you love to be able to attack us in a way that we might not even know about until it was too late? Wouldn’t you like to have a method that most people who were in charge would even deny had taken place?
At this point, it appears that our 2020 election does not reflect the true choices of the voters. If proven, it means that all of our votes were stolen, regardless of party. It would mean that any idea of election integrity was an illusion. It would also mean that no future election would be secure so long as the same systems were used and the same election laws and processes were in place.
Where is our media? Why are they not investigating what could be the greatest news story in history? Why are they focused on trying to discredit audits and condemn those who question the 2020 results? Where are the DoJ investigations of fraud? Why are they more interested in investigating the investigators? Why has our DHS stated that one of the top threats for domestic terrorism is questioning the 2020 election results?
We are all in this together
Democrat, Republican, Independent, female, male, black, brown, yellow, red, white, rich, poor, there is no-one in the country who is unaffected if we have no election integrity – all our votes are just for show – an illusion to keep the masses complacent while thinking that what they do means something. Yes, we are right to question the election, and right to keep asking until we get real answers, and right to seek to fix whatever we find that is wrong. This is for all of us.
All’s Well That Ends Well
Representatives from the legislatures of all 50 states attended the symposium. While some had to leave early, most stayed to the end., At the close of the symposium, nearly every remaining representative pledged to get an Arizona style full forensic audit of the 2020 election in their state. This is how we get to the truth and ensure our elections are fair and honest. These people need and deserve our support. Don’t let them or us all down. The truth shall set you free.
By David Robb
David Robb is regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative and a practicing scientist who has been working in industry for over 50 years. One of his specialties is asking awkward questions. A large part of his work over the years has involved making complex scientific issues clear and understandable to non-specialists. Sometimes he even succeeds.