Thread by @Chop0Matic, Here's the promised thread on the forensic report out of Antrim County, [...]

Here's the promised thread on the forensic report out of Antrim County, Michigan. The entire report can be found at this link:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772/antrim-county-forensics-report.pdf

Declaration of intent on something like this is going way, way out on a limb if you don't have strong digital evidence to support it. Maybe they do. I don't know. I do know any good attorney preparing to cross-exam would be licking his chops when he read the highlighted sentence.

This is a massive problem for Dominion and anyone involved in administering this election. Obviously.

As with my first comment on intent, this statement puts the expert out on a limb about a mile long and, as written, presents an entirely different theory on the flipping than the overall one presented in the report. This will make more sense later in the thread.

I'll mention this just once. This is the first of *many* such statements about certification, national security, etc. If I mentioned this at all in a digital forensic report, it would be brief because this is a legal argument, not a discussion of evidence.

This is a HUGE point that needs *much* illumination. What were the natures of the errors? Did they *all* result in the associated ballot being sent for adjudication?

Another massive problem for both Dominion and the election officials:

1. Why on EARTH was this equipment being touched, much less *updated* three days after the election?

2. Some election official(s) manually voted 81.96% of people's ballots after the fact? GOOD. GRIEF.

True. It is a complete travesty that an election system designed this way, with no ironclad audit trail, is used in any jurisdiction in any nation.

Two paragraphs here, the first as found in the report, and the second one (with some red text) how I would have constructed defensible paragraph that would have still communicated the huge problem with the system.

Presented without comment, because I don't want to keep repeating myself.

I would have struck the red text and included the rest, because the rest is absolutely damning for both the system and the people involved. *This* is what a smoking gun looks like in the digital forensic world.

Another damning set of facts. The green text confirms the smoking-gun nature of the yellow text. Here they're talking about the Windows event logs (.evtx), and to have this particular time frame of events missing from the SECURITY log is stunning.

Another monster fact. While I again wouldn't be including a bunch of legal talk in my report, I strongly suspect this was a federal felony.

Same color code I used before. The yellow text is damning. I might have very briefly mentioned the red issue but would have primarily left that to the lawyers.

Remember that cross-examining lawyer mentioned earlier? He's licking his chops again as he circles the yellow text and prepares to use it to destroy the expert on the stand.

Jumping ahead in the report to the issue that's been in the news, where a marijuana prop ended up winning by one vote. The findings here are amazing, the ramifications obvious. Differences like these between a count and a recount should be impossible.

The count and recount figures on the marijuana prop. Three ballots were supposedly destroyed by the machine during the recount. How destroyed were they? Unreadable? And most obviously, where are the records of votes cast from the voting stations?

YELLOW should show the # of voters who checked in to vote, GREEN should show the same # of voters plus (when totaled across all voting stations) # of votes cast for each candidate in each race. PURPLE should match the GREEN TOTALS. There's no discussion of this?

I'm really curious about the above analysis being missing, since it should quickly show if there were an excess of voters compared to those checked in, and quickly show any excess of votes in the purple phase vs. the green phase.

There's a lot more legal argument in the report.

There's also more talk about how badly out of date the computer (the central management PC, or "server") was wrt Windows updates, etc.

All in all, serious problems were found, but the baseline analysis I would have done immediately is completely missing. Why?

I continue to have no doubt the election was stolen. I hope lawyers are able to keep judges focused on the serious problems shown here and keep them from letting this report's weaknesses overshadow that.

I won't say more at the moment, though there's a ton more I could say.

Latest Threads Unrolled: