P
Petra202
Guest
I been seeing msm hide the truth for MONTHS!!! So it CAN be done!!!
Good point Petra22!I been seeing msm hide the truth for MONTHS!!! So it CAN be done!!!
AG Paxton: Texas Rejected Dominion Software Due to ‘Vulnerability to Fraud and Unauthorized Manipulation’
9,883
Joshua Caplan
16 Nov 2020469
1:43
Appearing Friday on AM news/talk radio station WBAP 820 , Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Lone Star State officials rejected the use of Dominion voting systems — a ballot-counting software used in multiple states for 2020 presidential election — due to its “vulnerability to fraud and unauthorized manipulation.”
Texas rejected using Dominion voting systems in 2019 after finding “multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining that the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system satisfies each of the voting-system requirements set forth in the Texas Election Code.” . . . .
So, Lou Dobbs lied on air when he retracted his (and his guest’s) claims about Dominion on air?I am glad Texas rejected the Dominion machines
The conspiracy grows even deeper . . .
That something was Lou Dobbs and Fox News publicly admixing to making false claims (the very same ones you believe to be true) about Dominion.something concerning “Lou Dobbs”.
For example, his " accomplishment" in setting a Presidential record for time wasted tweeting.Did you get tired of his true accomplishments??? He had plenty that were downplayed!
Go ahead and think whatever you want.So yes, it seems that you think Lou Dobbs and Fox News are now a part of the conspiracy as well.
I think the big time waster was a leftist phony Russian Collusion Investigation.For example, his " accomplishnent" in setting a Presidential record for time wasted tweeting.
ELECTION NIGHT ERRORS - HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
ElectionNightFacts Published December 12, 2020 1,001,033 Views
Rumble — Data scientists uncover and call into question the many errors from election night 2020. What are the questions we should be asking? Did your vote count? How many times or at all? How many errors are too many? When do votes ever go negative? Who is responsible for all of these mistakes? Don’t we have a right to know?
Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe discusses election fraud evidence
One America News Network Published December 24, 2020
Rumble — Claims of voter fraud continue to cast doubt on the integrity of the election. One America’s Jack Posobiec spoke with James O’Keefe of ‘Project Veritas’ about these claims and the mainstream media’s effort to sweep it under the rug.
‘Every Legal Vote’ co-founder speaks to OAN
One America News Network Published December 24, 2020
Rumble — An organization called ‘Every Legal Vote’ launched a website aiming to spread awareness of voter fraud and irregularities. One America’s John Hines spoke with the group’s co-founder to learn more about their efforts. Take a look.
Philadelphia is in a swing state. I am saying these swing states (in a very limited number of counties) have spikes for Biden after the counting officially stopped (but didn’t), which is extreme and different in general to non swing states to a degree which indicates fraud.In Philadelphia, Trump went from 105k votes in 2016 to 132k in 2020, 30% increase. Biden received 604k votes compared to Hillary’s 560k. Isn’t that what you were trying to say did not happen?
Judges have refused to hear evidence and judge the evidence on its merits. That is not the same as rejecting claims of fraud. Secondly there are many people bringing law suits challenging the integrity of the election, many with no legal background and many going before Democratic judges or anti Trump establishment Republican judges. The fact that there is not an actual hearing into alleged fraud at the judicial level, unlike the state legislature level, is what is bad for America. The fact that the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case brought by Texas and supported by approximately 20 other states is bad for America.Distrust of Institutions passes easily into anti-American sentiment, which is the danger for Trump’s supporters now. There should always be skepticism for any individual result, but questioning the decisions of 86 judges unanimously rejecting the claims of fraud is an overreach that demands caution.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...w-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144When Princeton professor Andrew Appel decided to hack into a voting machine, he didn’t try to mimic the … attackers who hacked into the Democratic National Committee’s database last month. He didn’t write malicious code, or linger near a polling place where the machines can go unguarded for days.
… he bought one online.
With a few cursory clicks of a mouse, Appel parted with $82 and became the owner of an ungainly metallic giant called the Sequoia AVC Advantage, one of the oldest and vulnerable, electronic voting machines in the United States (among other places it’s deployed in Louisiana, New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania). No sooner did … deliverymen roll the 250-pound device into a conference room near Appel’s cramped, third-floor office than the professor set to work. He summoned a graduate student named Alex Halderman, who could pick the machine’s lock in seven seconds. Clutching a screwdriver, he deftly wedged out the four ROM chips—they weren’t soldered into the circuit board, as sense might dictate—making it simple to replace them with one of his own: A version of modified firmware that could throw off the machine’s results, subtly altering the tally of votes, never to betray a hint to the voter. The attack was concluded in minutes. To mark the achievement, his student snapped a photo of Appel—oblong features, messy black locks and a salt-and-pepper beard—grinning for the camera, fists still on the circuit board, as if to look directly into the eyes of the American taxpayer: Don’t look at me—you’re the one who paid for this thing.
Appel’s mischief might be…an occupational asset: He is part of a diligent corps of so-called cyber-academics—professors who have spent the past decade serving their country by relentlessly hacking it. Electronic voting machines—particularly a design called Direct Recording Electronic, or DRE’s—took off in 2002, in the wake of Bush v. Gore. For the ensuing 15 years, Appel and his colleagues have deployed every manner of stunt to convince the public that the system is pervasively unsecure and vulnerable.
Beginning in the late '90s, Appel and his colleague, Ed Felten, a pioneer in computer engineering now serving in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, marsha led their Princeton students together at the Center for Information Technology Policy (where Felten is still director). There, they relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another, transforming the center into a kind of Hall of Fame for tech mediocrity: reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay. Eventually, the work of the professors and Ph.D. students grew into a singular conviction: It was only a matter of time, they feared, before a national election—an irresistible target—would invite an attempt at a coordinated cyberattack…
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...w-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144…“Look, we could see 15 years ago that this would be perfectly possible,” Appel tells me, speaking in subdued, clipped tones. “It’s well within the capabilities of a country as sophisticated as Russia.” He pauses for a moment, as if to consider this. “Actually, it’s well within the capabilities of much less well-funded and sophisticated attackers.”…
. . . The Princeton group has a simple message: That the machines that Americans use at the polls are less secure than the iPhones they use to navigate their way there. They’ve seen the skeletons of code inside electronic voting’s digital closet, and they’ve mastered the equipment’s vulnerabilities perhaps better than anyone (a contention the voting machine companies contest, of course)… . . .
. . . Since 1990, a voluntary federal accreditation process has certified voting technology, a system that has come under fire for its lack of transparency. The laboratories (“Independent Testing Authorities”) which conduct the certification reviews are typically paid by the manufacturers. . .
. . . . In 2003, an employee at Diebold mistakenly left 40,000 files containing code for the Diebold AccuVote TS, one of the most widely used machines on the market, on a publically viewable website. The computer scientists moved in, and one of the early and formative papers was published on the subject, co-authored by Wallach and led by Johns Hopkins’ Avi Rubin. Its findings were devastating: The machine’s smartcards could be jerry-rigged to vote more than once; poor cryptography left the voting records file easy to manipulate; and poor safeguards meant that a “malevolent developer”—an employee inside the company, perhaps—could reorder the ballot definition files, changing which candidates received votes. The encryption key, F2654hD4, could be found in the code essentially in plain view; all Diebold machines responded to it. (Rubin later remarked that he would flunk any undergrad who wrote such poor code.) . . .
How to Have (Almost) Fraud-Proof Elections
Rod D. Martin
. . . . So to recap, to accomplish the twin purposes of secure elections and voter confidence in the results, our (almost) fool-proof system will have:
This is not complicated. We’ve done this in war zones, both here and abroad, both centuries ago and in modern times. Everyone can understand it, everyone can participate in it. It produces a highly trustworthy result nearly all the time. And it encourages civic responsibility, because everyone is responsible for the security of every election, as opposed to just trusting some “expert” or some software package somewhere.
- Paper ballots
- That are hand counted
- Voter registration at least a month early
- One election day
- Indelibly inked-thumbs
- And of course, photo IDs
This is the system we need.
Democrats in Georgia objected to getting the system from Dominion primarily because of hacking vulnerabilities. However this was the system chosen. Maybe it should be reconsidered.I am glad Texas rejected the Dominion machines (knowing their obvious risk for fraud)
otherwise Biden would have “won” Texas too!
#PresidentTrump #Prolife #Future
President Trump “Never Give Up!” MOTIVATIONAL VIDEO (ORIGINAL)
2,970,896 views
•Jun 23, 2017
111K3.3KShare
Save
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
America First America Forever
34.6K subscribers
President Trump “Never Give Up!” ORIGINAL VIDEO - Address To The Class of 2017. President Trump Addresses The Nation, Encouraging American Citizens To Never Stop Doing