Forensic Analysis of Dominion Voting Systems Discovers It Was Designed to Commit Election Fraud

The forensic report prepared by Allied Security Operations Group of the Dominion voting machines used in Antrim Michigan states:

We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud. Based on our study, we conclude that The Dominion Voting System should not be used in Michigan. We further conclude that the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.

One notable finding of the forensic audit was that the Dominion Voting System contained an algorithm that allows for weighted voting. It is called Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Thus, a candidate favored by a programmer could receive more than one vote per vote (e.g.,  1.3 votes per vote) whereas a disfavored candidate could receive less than one voter (.7 votes per vote). Thus, the total votes would remain consistent but the favored candidate would receive an unjustified weighted advantage and the disfavored candidate would receive an unjustified weighted disadvantage. The report revealed:

A high “error rate” in the election software (in this case 68.05%) reflects an algorithm used that will weight one candidate greater than another (for instance, weight a specific candidate at a 2/3 to approximately 1/3 ratio). In the logs we identified that the RCV or Ranked Choice Voting Algorithm was enabled (see image below from the Dominion manual). This allows the user to apply a weighted numerical value to candidates and change the overall result. The declaration of winners can be done on a basis of points, not votes.

Below is a screenshot from the report of the Dominion Voting System manual explaining one of the steps to take in setting up the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).

The Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson and the Michigan Director of Elections, Jonathan Bratar, unsurprisingly contested the report findings. Brater filed his objections on behalf of Benson in a court response under penalty of perjury. What was fascinating about his objections was that he seemed to cherry-pick certain claims but completely ignore the gravamen of the report. The claims he decided to address, he did so only to make general denials, without any specificity. He cleverly avoided making factual assertions. For example, regarding Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), Brater stated:

The report does not explain the basis for its finding that “RCV or
Ranked Choice Voting Algorithm” was enabled in J.3, or how the “enabling” RCV would have caused ballots not designed for or tabulators not programmed for ranked choice voting to be read and tabulated. Ranked Choice Voting is not authorized by the Michigan Election Law for use in federal or state-level elections.

Let’s break down his statement. Brater cleverly does not deny that RCV was used, he simply claims that the report does not sufficiently explain the basis for its finding that it was used. He further states that the report does not explain how enabling RCV would cause ballots to be tabulated on machines that he alleges were not programmed for RCV. He then makes the obvious statement that RCV is illegal. Well, of course it is. The report is alleging illegality. What is the point of stating the obvious? His denial is a smokescreen. He has to say something, so he attacks the report, but in doing so he is careful to make very few factual assertions.

Brater then makes an astounding admission in a footnote. He reveals that RCV was used in the City of Eastpointe in Macomb County, Michigan. He then quickly points out that the voting machines in Eastpointe are not from Dominion, but are from Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is illegal. One vote should be one vote, period. To give a vote a different weight is clear and simple election fraud.

The report alleges that the Michigan Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson lied on several occasions, including, but not limited to her claim on November 6, 2020, that “[t]the correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape .”

Viva Frei, who is a good attorney from Canada, has criticized the forensic report’s strident statement alleging an intentional and purposeful design in the software to commit voter fraud. He thinks that it is going too far to allege that Dominion engaged in intentional fraud.  As good as Frei is, he seems to have missed how the forensic analysts came to that conclusion. They actually read the code on the machines. The code revealed the intentions of the code writers. The code was written to do something in particular, and that was to intentionally commit voter fraud. The code is like a written confession to a crime. For the computer to act it must be given instructions, and those instructions are found in the computer code. It is not unlike written instructions given by a mastermind to commit murder and then handing those written instructions to the triggerman. When the triggerman is arrested at the scene of the murder and the written instructions are found on his person, he would have a hard time convincing the police that he accidentally shot the victim.

Indeed, when efforts have been made to erase computer code, vote adjudication logs, and server security logs after the election, that is the type of conduct that is indicative of guilt. It is very much like a murderer disposing of his gun and the written instructions after the murder to make it harder for the police to prove his guilt. The forensic analysts found that a coverup of voter fraud was committed.

Significantly, the computer system shows vote adjudication logs for prior years; but all adjudication log entries for the 2020 election cycle are missing. The adjudication process is the simplest way to manually manipulate votes. The lack of records prevents any form of audit accountability, and their conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software. Removal of these files violates state law and prevents a meaningful audit, even if the Secretary wanted to conduct an audit. We must conclude that the 2020 election cycle records have been manually removed.

Likewise, all server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on election day, and prior to election day are gone. Security logs are very important to an audit trail, forensics, and for detecting advanced persistent threats and outside attacks, especially on systems with outdated system files. These logs would contain domain controls, authentication failures, error codes, times users logged on and off, network connections to file servers between file accesses, internet connections, times, and data transfers. Other server logs before November 4, 2020 are present; therefore, there is no reasonable explanation for the security logs to be missing.

On November 21, 2020, an unauthorized user unsuccessfully attempted to zero out election results. This demonstrates additional tampering with data.

The Election Event Designer Log shows that Dominion ImageCast Precinct Cards were programmed with new ballot programming on 10/23/2020 and then again after the election on 11/05/2020. These system changes affect how ballots are read and tabulated, and our examination demonstrated a significant change in voter results using the two different programs. In accordance with the Help America Vote Act, this violates the 90-day Safe Harbor Period which prohibits changes to election systems, registries, hardware/software updates without undergoing re-certification. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures – Michigan requires full compliance with federal standards as determined by a federally accredited voting system laboratory.

The only reason to change software after the election would be to obfuscate evidence of fraud and/or to correct program errors that would de-certify the election. Our findings show that the Central Lake Township tabulator tape totals were significantly altered by utilizing two different program versions (10/23/2020 and 11/05/2020), both of which were software changes during an election which violates election law, and not just human error associated with the Dominion Election Management System. This is clear evidence of software generated movement of votes. The claims made on the Office of the Secretary of State website are false.

The report concluded:

Research is ongoing. However, based on the preliminary results, we conclude that the errors are so significant that they call into question the integrity and legitimacy of the results in the Antrim County 2020 election to the point that the results are not certifiable. Because the same machines and software are used in 48 other counties in Michigan, this casts doubt on the integrity of the entire election in the state of Michigan.

10 thoughts on “Forensic Analysis of Dominion Voting Systems Discovers It Was Designed to Commit Election Fraud

Leave a Comment