2. Michigan elections happening today. Do you think putting your intent on a ballot matters? Machines convert data and data can be manipulated.

— Matthew S. DePerno, Esq. (@mdeperno) May 4, 2021

4. And I can support the flip with tabulator tapes at the precinct that are different than the paper ballots.

Do you think our representatives will wake up?

EVERYONE needs to call Sen McBoom and Sen Bizon today. pic.twitter.com/DEl28CZvVu

— Matthew S. DePerno, Esq. (@mdeperno) May 4, 2021

Poulos interview: Axios

Quote:

---

DP: Can you, for the layperson, just explain a little bit: Are all Dominion Systems the same? In other words, if I vote in Georgia, am I using the same sort of system as if I'm, say, in Michigan in a county where you guys work, or are they really county-specific kind of customized hardware and software?

JP: There are different flavors of variations of how different states choose to deploy our systems, but the fundamental tabulation technology is the same across states. So if you look at the case of Georgia, it's a good example. So we have two pieces of technology. One is all based around helping voters create a paper ballot. There's a lot of reasons why they do this. Some states do it by just a traditional pen and hand marked. Other states want a universal paper ballot that can be created regardless of a voter's ability, both language ability or physical ability. But the end of that process is a paper ballot that the voter is holding and touching and can look at the candidates that are written on that piece of paper.
The second piece of technology that we provide is all around the tabulation of those paper ballots. So it's a scanning technology that tabulates all of the contests and candidates that the voters vote for.

---

Poulos in WSJ

Quote:

---

When it comes to counting ballots, officials have established a distributed, multilayered system with checks and balances, in which robust safeguards ensure that no one needs to trust blindly any person, company or technology. Here are some of the safeguards in place in Georgia, where the Trump campaign has contested the result:

Tabulation machines are tested publicly, before bipartisan witnesses, before and right after Election Day.
On Election Day, poll workersnot Dominion systemsverify voters' identities, including a signature check.
Voters mark a paper ballot to vote. Absentee voters use pens, while in-person voters use "ballot marking devices," which display a digital ballot for voters to make a selection and then print a paper record. In both cases, voters verify the marked paper ballot before casting it in a secure ballot box through an air-gapped scanning tabulator.
After polls close, results are tallied by local officials. Paper ballots are safeguarded by thousands of poll workers distributed across 2,656 precincts.
The Georgia Secretary of State's Office certified election results after hand-auditing five million ballots, which showed that the paper-ballot voting system counted and reported results accurately. The small change to the final tally was due entirely to the addition of ballots that had been uncounted due to human process errors.
The state also enlisted Pro V&V, a certified third-party testing laboratory, to audit a random sample of Dominion machines. No tampering was found.

---

WSJ

I think Hofft is confused here.

Quote:

---

On Monday New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner chose the second investigator for the Windham audit.

Despite calls and emails from New Hampshire residents to choose Jovan Pulitzer, Gardner chose Harri Hursti, who has years of experience investigating voting machines.

According to Western Journal, Hursti famously demonstrated to Florida election officials just how easy it was to overwrite voting machine software to change results for his 2006 documentary film, "Hacking Democracy."
Eagle Tribune reported:

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner and Attorney General John Fornella announced in a joint statement Monday that the state chose Harri Hursti to be its audit representative.

Hursti, is a founding partner for Nordic Innovation Labs and is well known for data security knowledge and election security. He and Lindeman and their teams will be joined by a third designee to handle the audit.

Harri Hursti was or is an Advisory Board member for Verified Voting which is also very concerning.

---

Link

First, he's not listed as a current Advisory Board Member. If he ever were he's no longer.

Second, Hursti was very instrumental in the Curling v. Raffensperger case and is no friend to Dominion.

Hursti on Diebold in 2014.

Circling back?

You have to get ahead of something before you can circle back to it. Preemptive strike.

She is going to want to circle back with somebody about whether the challenges were "fully heard". Twitter should be slapping a "false claim about the election" tag on that statement.

Yes, the real meat of any preemptive strike by the dems is lies and half truths. What else do they have?

Back to Arizona.

Quote:

---

But Bennett suggested there are people "afraid of something" given that Maricopa County has not turned over everything included on the subpoenas which a judge ordered the board of supervisors to comply with in February.

"Here we are several weeks into the audit, and we still do not have some of the information that was subpoenaed," Bennett said. "They told me personally weeks ago that they had taken all the routers and the internet connections and the hubs and everything out of the building so they could send it to us."

Bennett told Harris that Maricopa County's elections officials said the auditors would have access to logs needed to confirm the electronic equipment had never been hooked up to the internet.
"And lo and behold, they don't show up in the equipment that they said would be delivered to us," Bennett said.

"What is ludicrous is not having an audit, what is ludicrous is the county and others won't even give you the information that the judge said they should give you," Bennett said.

---

Link

Quote:

---

Maricopa County officials have not fully complied with the State Senate's election audit subpoenas, a decision made to avoid causing a "significant security risk" to data utilized by numerous law enforcement agencies, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office said Monday.

"We had previously believed that the risk would be eliminated by redacting the law enforcement data on the routers and not producing it. But we were informed that redaction did not eliminate the risk," Deputy County Attorney Joseph LaRue wrote in a letter to Senate Audit Liaison Ken Bennett. "We also learned that if criminal elements or others gained access to this data, it might compromise county and federal law enforcement efforts and put the lives of law enforcement personnel at risk."

The letter from LaRue was prompted by Bennett's comments to KFYI's James T. Harris on Monday that Maricopa County officials are not in compliance with subpoenas signed by Senate President Karen Fann and Senate Judiciary Chair Warren Petersen. A judge ruled in February the legislative subpoenas are valid.

The subpoenas resulted in several trucks full of Maricopa County's elections equipment, records, and nearly 2.1 million original ballots being delivered to Bennett at Veterans Memorial Coliseum for the audit which started April 23.

LaRue's letter explains that county officials had planned to provide the Senate's audit team with virtual images of the requested routers, but are not yet sure it is possible to "safely produce router information related to the November 3, 2020 election" without compromising security for criminal justice agencies.

And according to LaRue, providing those images at this time could also put citizens' confidential data at risk, including social security numbers and protected health information.

"As a result, the County cannot at this time provide the virtual images of routers," LaRue wrote, without estimating when the requested routers may be handed over. "I will follow up with you about this when I know more."

---

Link

I am confused about the other criminal justice agencies. I'm missing something, obviously.

The routers would show the IP addresses that were connected, correct?

Routers would show what Vlan(network), ip address, mac address(physical hardware address, unique to each network card).

There are also logs of what mac address connected to which port at what time. Etc.

It would be very useful to find out if a device had access to the internet or not.

I don't know why law enforcement information would be on it, except if the router was used at a police precinct, or if LEO connected to the router/switch or wifi if the wifi access point was connected to the router.

ETA: routers hold a lot of information as they are the gatekeepers to the network(s).

Thanks.

But why would the routers be held by the Board of Supervisors if they are part of a larger network including law enforcement? The way the article is written, it appears they were part of all of the election equipment being housed by the Board of Supervisors and thus subject to the subpoena.

Maybe they are saying that if any crimes found on devices will not be admissible evidence if the chain of custody does not meet legal standards.

If we let cyber ninjas borrow these devices then the devices are worthless as evidence. Like letting a zoo borrow inventory of rape kits so a cage of monkeys can play with the rape kits. Don't think any judicial proceeding would occur with what the monkeys gave back

Quote:

---

Maybe they are saying that if any crimes found on devices will not be admissible evidence if the chain of custody does not meet legal standards.

---

If it is pursuant to a court order, the chain is not broken.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe they are saying that if any crimes found on devices will not be admissible evidence if the chain of custody does not meet legal standards.

---

If it is pursuant to a court order, the chain is not broken.

---

Democrats trying to obfuscate and misdirect?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe they are saying that if any crimes found on devices will not be admissible evidence if the chain of custody does not meet legal standards.

---

If it is pursuant to a court order, the chain is not broken.

---

Sorry, you are not correct here cause the Democrats say so...technically the courts can not order to give the evidence to a cage of monkeys is what they say...Catch up, clown rules govern now.

will25u said:

---

Routers would show what Vlan(network), ip address, mac address(physical hardware address, unique to each network card).

There are also logs of what mac address connected to which port at what time. Etc.

It would be very useful to find out if a device had access to the internet or not.

I don't know why law enforcement information would be on it, except if the router was used at a police precinct, or if LEO connected to the router/switch or wifi if the wifi access point was connected to the router.

ETA: routers hold a lot of information as they are the gatekeepers to the network(s).

---

Routers aren't exactly storage devices, are they? They would show which IP addresses were connected but not the information that was exchanged?

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

Routers would show what Vlan(network), ip address, mac address(physical hardware address, unique to each network card).

There are also logs of what mac address connected to which port at what time. Etc.

It would be very useful to find out if a device had access to the internet or not.

I don't know why law enforcement information would be on it, except if the router was used at a police precinct, or if LEO connected to the router/switch or wifi if the wifi access point was connected to the router.

ETA: routers hold a lot of information as they are the gatekeepers to the network(s).

---

Routers aren't exactly storage devices, are they? They would show which IP addresses were connected but not the information that was exchanged?

---

Correct

captkirk said:

---

Preemptive tweet?

---

I've never hit a woman but I wouldn't mind peeing on this one.

I won't kink shame you.

Reload8098 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

Preemptive tweet?

---

I've never hit a woman but I wouldn't mind peeing on this one.

---

What if she was on fire?

Might improve the smell.

As humorous as the comments are and as much as I might agree with the sentiment, this line of discussion is the type of thing that is going to attract negative attention from the moderators.

BREAKING "Either do it right, or don’t do it at all." @SecretaryHobbs warns @ArizonaAudit of 13 concerns identified by her observers. Just-filed settlement agreement gives Bennett/Senate GOP 48 hours to correct or be hauled back into court. HOBBS' LETTER: https://t.co/q4LTp3jJjs pic.twitter.com/7M85k6cmV6

— Brahm Resnik (@brahmresnik) May 5, 2021

The @azdemparty, Cyber Ninjas, @AZSenateGOP and @SecretaryHobbs reached a settlement. Among the agreements: Cyber Ninjas won't compare ballot envelope signatures, Hobbs gets observers and no blue ink allowed.https://t.co/YSs6BS2FA1

— Julia Shumway (@JMShumway) May 5, 2021

will25u said:

---

BREAKING "Either do it right, or don’t do it at all." @SecretaryHobbs warns @ArizonaAudit of 13 concerns identified by her observers. Just-filed settlement agreement gives Bennett/Senate GOP 48 hours to correct or be hauled back into court. HOBBS' LETTER: https://t.co/q4LTp3jJjs pic.twitter.com/7M85k6cmV6

— Brahm Resnik (@brahmresnik) May 5, 2021

---

Soros controlled *****.

captkirk said:

---

Preemptive tweet?

---

This is pretty hilarious since the whole Dem party would say exactly the opposite about 2016.

Notice how her tone is, also. Passive. She doesn't say "81 million people voted for Biden". She says, basically, "The votes were counted, and the votes were certified and we won."

Who cares if they were legitimate votes. Just like the Dems screaming to "count all the votes (legitimate or not)" during the election.

It's just so annoying.

If she had done her job right in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation. She F'd up the election and then refused to do a proper audit when it was clear that she had f'd it up. I would love to see them just respond with a simple letter saying "We are forced to do this audit specifically because you failed to do your job. Before you tell us how to do our work properly, please work on doing your own job correctly first."

13 turds flung at the wall to see if any stick

txags92 said:

---

If she had done her job right in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation. She F'd up the election and then refused to do a proper audit when it was clear that she had f'd it up. I would love to see them just respond with a simple letter saying "We are forced to do this audit specifically because you failed to do your job. Before you tell us how to do our work properly, please work on doing your own job correctly first."

---

She did her job for dems, but ignored her responsibilities to the citizens of AZ.

txags92 said:

---

If she had done her job right in the first place we wouldn't be in this situation. She F'd up the election and then refused to do a proper audit when it was clear that she had f'd it up. I would love to see them just respond with a simple letter saying "We are forced to do this audit specifically because you failed to do your job. Before you tell us how to do our work properly, please work on doing your own job correctly first."

---

She did her job exactly as she was selected to do; ensure the Democrats win by any means necessary.