GA’s SoS Raffensperger Gave Hackers Roadmap To Infiltrate Machines A Year Before Election

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rickymouse

I can grasp that claims are made by one side that the systems are not closed networks. I have yet to see any proof of that. The only thing you've said is "all a hacker needs is information on how to get in." Yes, I'll accept that surely. Is it your claim that this publicly available document does that?

So how do they transfer the data from a closed network, or independent machines to the main hub for collection? It seems they used flash drives? The ones my company doesn't allow ever due to security reasons... pretty f'ed up way if that is what they did. At some point that data from the machines needs to be transferred, so how many steps is that and what was the security at each step?

I'm actually asking for real and not Trolling... Seems we focus on the machines and not the process to get the votes actually counted for real. If they used flash drives would there be away to take one and change votes on the drive before sending the information? Are the flash drives physically delivered or plugged in to send the information on an open network?

Are each machine totals recorded per machine and then verifiable along the whole process? So lets say one machine A00002X3 has a manual count verified by poll watcher 12,000 votes Trump and 9000 votes Biden. Can I go back at from the total vote counts in the end and still see a break down of each machine and verify machine A00002X3 votes are still that same?

It just seems to me there are a number of risk areas in the whole process.

You're right, the process is extremely risky. I remember seeing somewhere (too many hearings to remember which one) that someone talked about collecting flash drives with the recorded votes on them to use in another device. It seems like the scanners, now that I think about it. The information was recorded on flash drives then taken physically from the scanners to put in the tabulators. I think that's right. Anyway, you're absolutely right that the process is seriously flawed, has been for a long time.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Are each machine totals recorded per machine and then verifiable along the whole process? So lets say one machine A00002X3 has a manual count verified by poll watcher 12,000 votes Trump and 9000 votes Biden. Can I go back at from the total vote counts in the end and still see a break down of each machine and verify machine A00002X3 votes are still that same?

It just seems to me there are a number of risk areas in the whole process.

Part of the problem here is that within a week of the election 'concluding', dominion staff went whole hog wiping the machines to ensure there was no record of digital forensics data.

There were reports of mail-in ballots that had never been folded- being scanned in by the stack.
There were reports of mail-in ballots being separated from their signed envelopes during the initial counts, making it impossible to reconcile a signed ballot from one just printed off in the back room.
There were reports of staff "moving" digitally counted votes around, changing total vote counts.

When you put all of this together, there's no digital trail to check, there's no paper trail we can confirm... all we have is what they say the final counts were.
And now they've had months to go back and "correct the record" and modify the paper ballots to match what they said they were.

At every turn, the courts are seemingly trying to prevent an investigation... or at least delay one long enough for the evidence to be covered up. Even the flow charts in this thread show clear evidence of these systems being connected to the "internet", not a closed network... and there's no shortage of ignored and uninvestigated claims of fraud.... followed by a cover-up to hide the evidence.

I want to ask- why are we willing to admit that we know these systems are broken, but not willing to investigate it?
Claiming that these problems aren't "new" isn't an excuse. Just because there was fraud before, we're not going to look into fraud now?

This narrative stinks of systemic fraud, and anyone asking to let it go on is guilty of being involved. Pretty sure that's treason.
Every attempt to stop

originally posted by: lordcomac

There were reports of mail-in ballots that had never been folded- being scanned in by the stack.
There were reports of mail-in ballots being separated from their signed envelopes during the initial counts, making it impossible to reconcile a signed ballot from one just printed off in the back room.
There were reports of staff "moving" digitally counted votes around, changing total vote counts.

The problem is the "not folded ballots" was all brought up early on and we have yet to see any tangible evidence of it. As to separation of signed and postage dated ballots is not good.

At every turn, the courts are seemingly trying to prevent an investigation... or at least delay one long enough for the evidence to be covered up. Even the flow charts in this thread show clear evidence of these systems being connected to the "internet", not a closed network... and there's no shortage of ignored and uninvestigated claims of fraud.... followed by a cover-up to hide the evidence.

The biggest problem is all the evidence has been anecdotal at best.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.

Typically you use this to support the main evidence and not be the main evidence. BIG accusations were made, but I have not seen anything physical in nature to support those big claims, and the court will be the same in bring it big or not at all. In the end I feel like the Right has pulled out a play from the liberal playbook of through a ton of crap on the wall to see if something might stick, and I don't want to play that game.

If you make big claims you better have real stuff to back it up and not just the eyewitness perspective of what they think they saw.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Have you noticed that the folks who believe the election was fair have decided their best strategy is personal attacks on people who want an audit? What’s that tell you?

That plus those who attempt to downplay things like this in the OP also tell us everything we need to know about them personally..

Countering facts with personal attacks is all they've got. It is what the liberal media teaches those who refuse to think for themselves.

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
The information in the contract is marked confidential at the bottom of each page.

I hope some of our experts have time to look at it. It gives away a lot more than the spreadsheet does.

The document you linked is also marked "Exhibit 2" and has "Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 619-8 Filed 10/04/19" in the header. It would be public information in a lawsuit if I'm not mistaken.

It's 113 pages of typical contract information which I'm not going to go through right now. This however is an interesting point:

4.1.2 Contractor System Proposal. If State provides Contractor with Functional Requirements,
Contractor shall, at no additional cost to State, analyze such Functional Requirements to determine the
minimal amount and type of Solution that Contractor believes State needs to purchase in order to meet the
Functional Requirements. Within ten (10) business days of its receipt of the Functional Requirements,
Contractor shall deliver to State a written proposal (each a “Contractor System Proposal”) which shall
thereupon become part of the Guaranteed Functionality and be attached to the applicable Solution Order.

The Contractor System Proposal shall detail at a minimum (as applicable): (a) the Solution components
required to meet the applicable Functional Requirements; (b) the minimal operating system, network, and
third-party software necessary to run the Designated Licensed Programs in conformity with the Functional
Requirements;

and (c) the estimated cost for such Solution determined in accordance with this Agreement.
Nothing contained in the Contractor System Proposal shall obligate State to purchase any Solution or
portion thereof.

Page 5 of the contract. Highlight is mine.

Page 22 contains this:

11.7 Data and Network Security.
11.7.1 Contractor is responsible for providing network security and security for such of its facilities where its servers or other network equipment are located. Contractor shall also comply with its own then current security policies and procedures, and its security policies and procedures shall comply with laws and regulations applicable to Contractor.

Page 23 is even more interesting where Dominion discusses network connections and addresses what who is responsible for in case of a hacker/attack against the system - which cannot happen unless the hacker is either connected directly to the machine or connected to it via an internal or external network connection.

So Dominion's John Poulos' claim that it isn't designed to be networked is simply false. I've been looking for a left-leaning source for this statement for a half hour and only found sources from the right which some of our members will discount immediately so is it even worth posting the source? Take your pick from Epoch Times, Gateway Pundit, FoxNews, etc. The fact is the guy said it and it has been disputed many times.

Eyewitness testimony in at least one location was that the Dominion devices were in fact connected as well as Susan Voyles' testimony that she called Dominion tech support for help when the onsite techs couldn't help her. I heard her say that. She testified the Dominion tech remoted into her poll pad as well as ballot marking devices to repair them.

Ok, back to the topic. Page 111 has this interesting line:

Network Failure during Ballot Generation

regarding how the system handles power failure situations.

So from basic system requirements to data services to backup procedures to power failure incidents, the contract does in fact address network connections to the equipment.

Why would I bother showing that information? Because multiple times in multiple discussions here have comments about how there's no way hackers could access the data. We should know by now that's patently false. DID they? I have no idea but I doubt it. COULD they? Absolutely.

This will probably fall on deaf ears but at least I know for myself that it is possible.

a reply to: HalWesten

Thanks for taking the time to look at and post that.

I saw Susan Voyles' testimony too and thought she was very credible.

This explains why CNN is ignoring everything else today, including Nancy Pelosi being re-elected speaker of the house and covid-19 Hysteria, to focus on the leaked Trump- Raffensperger phone conversation.

mobile.twitter.com...

As part of the criminal election fraud enterprise, CNN knows what happened.. and is petrified.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Those are good questions. If the computers can't connect to an external network, or use a cellular modem, how is the data going to be transferred except in external media (like a flash drive). My guess would be that the system in a given polling place creates some sort of paper certificate for the count? Hopefully the flash drives have proper security?

I haven't done any research on that at all X. Good question.

a reply to: HalWesten

Dominion tabulators are not connected to the Internet. In some jurisdictions, though not in Antrim, cellular modems are used for very brief periods, after the polls are closed, to transmit unofficial results from the precincts to the county headquarters. In Antrim, the tabulator memory cards are sealed and delivered to the county clerk by hand and there is no Internet connectivity, which could pose a potential risk of hacking, he said.

Detroit Free Press

Paraphrase of Poulos testimony.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

Those are good questions. If the computers can't connect to an external network, or use a cellular modem, how is the data going to be transferred except in external media (like a flash drive). My guess would be that the system in a given polling place creates some sort of paper certificate for the count? Hopefully the flash drives have proper security?

I haven't done any research on that at all X. Good question.

ETA: Found it by mistake. According to CEO Poulos testimony in MI,

In Antrim, the tabulator memory cards are sealed and delivered to the county clerk by hand and there is no Internet connectivity, which could pose a potential risk of hacking, he said.

Whether flash drives are "tabulator memory cards" is anyone's guess.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: HalWesten

Dominion tabulators are not connected to the Internet. In some jurisdictions, though not in Antrim, cellular modems are used for very brief periods, after the polls are closed, to transmit unofficial results from the precincts to the county headquarters. In Antrim, the tabulator memory cards are sealed and delivered to the county clerk by hand and there is no Internet connectivity, which could pose a potential risk of hacking, he said.

Detroit Free Press

Paraphrase of Poulos testimony.

Thanks, I saw that article too but it's not a direct statement from Poulos. If I had used the paraphrase you did I would have been chastised for doing so because it wasn't an actual quote. The standards here flip-flop on a daily basis.

Looks like somevone was KNOWINK vat they vere doink!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

Those are good questions. If the computers can't connect to an external network, or use a cellular modem, how is the data going to be transferred except in external media (like a flash drive). My guess would be that the system in a given polling place creates some sort of paper certificate for the count? Hopefully the flash drives have proper security?

I haven't done any research on that at all X. Good question.

I looked up some of the Dominion equipment and watched the operation video for the tabulator. Accessories are connected via USB ports on the side under some doors. Easily connected, AND there is an RJ45 port and a USB port in one area that the modem is connected to to transfer the election results to wherever that call is made. I'm assuming it's a cell phone fob.

Other doors are labeled CF1 and CF2, possibly Compact Flash cards? I haven't watched all the videos to find out.

a reply to: carewemust

Obama sold the free press to the CIA via EOs, CNN was first in line begging for it.

They've been in on it since day one, they just never expected their compliance in 2016 cheating to be insufficient

originally posted by: a325nt
a reply to: carewemust

Obama sold the free press to the CIA via EOs, CNN was first in line begging for it.

They've been in on it since day one, they just never expected their compliance in 2016 cheating to be insufficient

CNN will be speechless in a few days. In the meantime, GA Secretary of State Raffensperger is about to face THE MUSIC.

Espionage Act Violation: twitter.com...

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

Those are good questions. If the computers can't connect to an external network, or use a cellular modem, how is the data going to be transferred except in external media (like a flash drive). My guess would be that the system in a given polling place creates some sort of paper certificate for the count? Hopefully the flash drives have proper security?

I haven't done any research on that at all X. Good question.

I looked up some of the Dominion equipment and watched the operation video for the tabulator. Accessories are connected via USB ports on the side under some doors. Easily connected, AND there is an RJ45 port and a USB port in one area that the modem is connected to to transfer the election results to wherever that call is made. I'm assuming it's a cell phone fob.

Other doors are labeled CF1 and CF2, possibly Compact Flash cards? I haven't watched all the videos to find out.

So except for the cellular transmission of "unofficial results" are you thinking they transmit the results via external storage?

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, they transmit the official counts via cell modem according to their training video. The machine prints a copy of the totals on paper during this step.

Remember, this is the tabulator I'm referring to, not the voting machine.

SOS Raffensperger to hold press conference at 3pm Eastern: twitter.com...

Little crook bout to speak.

Secretary of State Raffensperger does not want voting machines inspected.

mobile.twitter.com...

Then he is complicit. Innocent people want alleged crimes investigated, guilty people want them covered up.