Thread:
1. This is absolutely wild.
Did you know that the most comprehensive, detailed and well articulated expose of the dangers inherent in the widespread implementation of electronic voting systems came from a Democrat, and it happened a decade ago way back in 2010?
2. John C. Bonifaz is an attorney and political activist specializing in constitutional law and voting rights. He also ran for Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2006 as a Democrat. (Just so we can dispense with the “right-wing conspiracy theory” right now)
3. On July 6th 2010 he highlighted to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee and Its UOCAVA Working Group what is, in essence, the exact same concerns that the Trump team including @SidneyPowell1 @RudyGiuliani @LLinWood have repeatedly underscored over the last few weeks.
4. If you didn’t know that this was from 2010, you’d be convinced that this was a document written by the Trump team to make their case for election tampering. Which makes the existence of this decade old document absolutely astonishing.The juiciest excerpts follow.
5. “federal charges against voting systems company Diebold and its former chief executive officer Walden W. O‟Dell during the years in which Diebold made voting systems, and in which O‟Dell wrote a letter in which he said he would deliver Ohio for then-President George Bush”
6. “the swift rise this spring of Dominion, a little-known foreign company engaged in Internet voting and with no reported income, to become the first or second largest voting machine company in the United States, after purchasing, in May 2010, voting systems made by Diebold”
7. “Diebold formerly was the second largest voting systems company in the U.S. and no longer has a U.S. voting systems business), and after purchasing, in June 2010, Sequoia Voting Systems, the voting machines of which rely on.. ”8. “proprietary source code developed and owned by Smartmatic, a company headquartered in Venezuela with ties to the Hugo Chavez government of Venezuela”
9. “The movement of cyber security legislation to the U.S. Senate floor as cyber warfare from foreign nations and persons accelerate”10. “A major challenge of internet voting (and of any form of electronic voting) is that there is no known way to confidently audit electronic voted ballots, including ballots generated by email, fax, or phone voting.” (Isn’t this exactly what we’re saying right now?)
11. While fraudulent transactions occur in commerce, we eventually detect them, because commercial transactions create records that are checked by the people who are allegedly the originators of the transactions.”
12. “Election theft is much harder to detect, because there is only one transaction per person, and that person has no way to later audit his or her vote.”13. “If no reliable post-election audit or recount is conducted, then incorrect software or malicious code could result in the wrong candidate being declared the winner. . . .”
14. I wasn’t prepared for this one. But he actually invokes Robert Mueller. Yep.
“In a March 2010 talk, FBI Director Robert Mueller is quoted as saying that the FBI‟s computer network had been penetrated and that the attackers had “corrupted data.”
It gets wilder.. read on
15. “The implication of Mueller‟s comments and the Google attack is that voting system software could be rigged by outsiders, including attackers from another country. (The Google attack appears to have originated in China)..”
He presciently spoke about China way back in 2010.
16. “Elections are a fundamental component of our national security, and they must be treated as such. Introducing new voting methodologies into real elections demands rigorous risk assessment to ensure the most fundamental election property: integrity.”
17. “Dominion, Now the Largest or Second Largest Voting System Company, Is Foreign Controlled and Depends Upon Secret Source Code Created and Owned by Smartmatic, a Foreign Controlled Company With Ties to The Venezuelan Government Led by Hugo Chavez” (He said this 10 years ago)
18. “Privately-held Canadian voting system company Dominionin the past few weeks has purchased Diebold voting systems from ES&S, and Sequoia Voting Systems. These purchases neportedly make Dominion the largest or second largest voting system company in the United States.”
19. “Dominion is reported by Dun & Bradstreet to be a Toronto-based company with one listed key official, board members and employee, John Poulos, and under $18 million in sales for which the company obtains no income.” (Again, he’s describing this in 2010)
20. “Before the Sequoia acquisition, Dominion had worked with Sequoia in New York State for over three years, and had hired away one or more senior officials from Sequoia, including Edwin Smith, who now is a member of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee.”21. (Recall that Dominion most recently hired Nancy Pelosi’s Chief of Staff Nadeam Elshami as part of a lobbying team representing them. Past predicts future directionally)
22. “Dominion has acquired Sequoia‟s inventory and all intellectual property, including software, firmware and hardware. But Sequoia could only sell to Dominion that which its owns.”
23. “When Smartmatic sold Sequoia to an investment group led by Sequoia‟s management team, during an investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) into the identity of the person(s) who ultimately own Smartmatic…”24. “and its ties to the Chavez government, Smartmatic apparently retained ownership of the software used in Sequoia voting systems to cast and count votes, licensing to Sequoia that software, which Smartmatic develops in Venezuela”
All that was was a great big recommendation to Democrats to utilize the fraud.
I am sure Adam Schiff will be holding basement hearings before 12/14 to get to the bottom of vote fraud electing one of the most demented, unqualified presidents in this nation’s history. I am sure he understands the danger to this republic and America as we know it. We are at the edge of a cliff and the ground is crumbling beneath us.
@Missy: Their effort will be to determine how the fraud was exposed and leaked out so that a better effort at totally undetectable fraud can be made next time.