If they only had services in one county, proving damages is going to be very difficult to do. But, headlines were written, so they got what they wanted.
Also, to win a libel suit, you have to prove the other party knowingly lied and did it to cause harm. Its unlikely the Trump campaign had any real knowledge of the voting system's inner workings. To prove then that it was a lie, they would have to open themselves to scrutiny. If they do that, and there are deficiencies found (almost a given in tech sector), then the lawsuit could back fire. This will be settled or abandoned one the news cycle is done with it.
The Smartmatic lawsuit described in Fox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for Over $2.7 Billion [nytimes.com] "accuses Rupert Murdoch’s network of promoting a false narrative about the 2020 election that damaged the company." and notes on-air commentary from Sidney Powell and Lou Dobbs:
“The Smartmatic software is in the DNA of every vote-tabulating company’s software and systems,” Ms. Powell said later on the show.
Mr. Dobbs added, “We don’t even know who the hell really owns these companies, at least most of them.”
and Smartmatic offers this:
The suit argues that claims made on Fox were demonstrably false, given that Smartmatic’s technology was used only in Los Angeles County and not in any of the contested states during the 2020 election.
Given that Fox News self-identifies as a News Organization, it's pretty clear that they could researched things, if they cared to.
You kidding me? The "security researchers" they brought in were entry level hacks. They wrote long "analysis" which anyone could see is completely illogical. "Votes came in for Biden in large batches. This must be fraud."
Melissa Carone also falsely claimed to be a "cybersecurity expert" based on her credentials as a temporary cybersecurity analysist contracted through a third party for Ford Motor Company. These are hacks who review logs and occasionally annoy real engineers, not experts.
"Votes came in for Biden in large batches. This must be fraud."
I don't know if we are talking about the same report, but ones I read on Dominion states that it was based on Windows boxes that *required* admin access to run voting application and left tab-delimited raw data in a folder for anyone to freely edit. Also, any kind of rejected ballot was left in a folder for manual processing, completely outside of any kind of audit trail (and essentially allowing poll workers to hit delete). I don't have any way to verify if report is true, but if true, that is very damnin
The report titled: Allied Security Operations Group Antrim Michigan Forensics Report. There is a link to it here [dcfpress.com]. However, I noted this is version 2, dated 12/13/2020 and I originally read v1.
Additionally, Dominion failed to certify in Texas, some of the reports from 2019 are also publicly available. See pdf here. [texas.gov] To save you time, here are the findings section:
The examiner reports identified multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining that the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system satisfies each of the voting-system requirements set forth in the Texas Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Dem
This one doesn't make sense to me. In the body it lists the experts that witnessed installation of the software (right?), that they witnessed it, and that the software was an approved update to software that was rejected in 2019? It says the machines were verified etc. then just randomly concludes with a finding that there was enough suspicion of fraud to deny certification. So that's not really Dominion not certifying, that's more an opposed government official denying their certification on no grounds. Or
Additionally, Dominion failed to certify in Texas, some of the reports from 2019 are also publicly available. See pdf here. [texas.gov] To save you time, here are the findings section:
The examiner reports identified multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining that the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system satisfies each of the voting-system requirements set forth in the Texas Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation. Therefore, the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system and corresponding hardware devices do not meet the standards for certification prescribed by Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code.
Not the same machine or the same software. The company had software engineers specializing in security, have the software reworked. The machines were also physically secure
Yes, Texas report from 2019 does not list any level of detail as to why they concluded it was faulty, but it does list what version they tested and who was involved, so you could see it wasn't just political hacks rejecting it for partisan reasons.
You can use exact names and versions listed to further Google and verity that it is indeed a Windows-based implementation, so some of the claims about requiring admin access to run are at least plausible.
From what I have seen, I was not able to find anything to outright dismiss Allied Security Operations Group report and did find weak corroboration in form of Texas report. Does it mean that any of this is verified and proven? Absolutely not, but discovery process during various lawsuits may result in us l
This is essentially a PDF with "report" in the title. There is no evidence presented, no analysis, no rational; just the conclusion, supposedly based on other oral and written stuff that is not presented.
Everything indicates that they just paid someone say what they wanted, but were at a loss to make it credible.
What this means is that you are presenting unsubstantiated bullshit that I wouldn't even describe as specious. I would imagine that any "further discovery" would just result in you dredging up more limp fictitious arguments and documents. Can't wait.
This is authored by a Harvard MBA. It references a globally something something team of cybersecurity experts but I couldn't find any of their information in the report. Strange they would want to leave their names out. The Allied Security Operations Group site https://asog.us/ [asog.us] certainly seems legit and not like the 2020 equivalent of an Angelfire page.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/a... [google.com] I guess he and his crack team were the ones responsible for mixing up precincts from Minnesota and Michigan. We all have
This is symbolic (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The Smartmatic lawsuit described in Fox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for Over $2.7 Billion [nytimes.com] "accuses Rupert Murdoch’s network of promoting a false narrative about the 2020 election that damaged the company." and notes on-air commentary from Sidney Powell and Lou Dobbs:
“The Smartmatic software is in the DNA of every vote-tabulating company’s software and systems,” Ms. Powell said later on the show.
Mr. Dobbs added, “We don’t even know who the hell really owns these companies, at least most of them.”
and Smartmatic offers this:
The suit argues that claims made on Fox were demonstrably false, given that Smartmatic’s technology was used only in Los Angeles County and not in any of the contested states during the 2020 election.
Given that Fox News self-identifies as a News Organization, it's pretty clear that they could researched things, if they cared to.
Re: (Score:1)
They did present a 267 report including plenty of expert analysis of the voting systems by security researchers.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Melissa Carone also falsely claimed to be a "cybersecurity expert" based on her credentials as a temporary cybersecurity analysist contracted through a third party for Ford Motor Company. These are hacks who review logs and occasionally annoy real engineers, not experts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Votes came in for Biden in large batches. This must be fraud."
I don't know if we are talking about the same report, but ones I read on Dominion states that it was based on Windows boxes that *required* admin access to run voting application and left tab-delimited raw data in a folder for anyone to freely edit. Also, any kind of rejected ballot was left in a folder for manual processing, completely outside of any kind of audit trail (and essentially allowing poll workers to hit delete). I don't have any way to verify if report is true, but if true, that is very damnin
Re: (Score:3)
You do go on specifying a lot of details in that said report. The danger is that for some, repetition reinforces belief even when non-factual.
Could you please at least provide a citation or a link for that report?
Re:This is symbolic (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This is symbolic (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, Dominion failed to certify in Texas, some of the reports from 2019 are also publicly available. See pdf here. [texas.gov] To save you time, here are the findings section:
Not the same machine or the same software. The company had software engineers specializing in security, have the software reworked. The machines were also physically secure
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I have seen, I was not able to find anything to outright dismiss Allied Security Operations Group report and did find weak corroboration in form of Texas report. Does it mean that any of this is verified and proven? Absolutely not, but discovery process during various lawsuits may result in us l
Re: (Score:2)
This is essentially a PDF with "report" in the title. There is no evidence presented, no analysis, no rational; just the conclusion, supposedly based on other oral and written stuff that is not presented.
Everything indicates that they just paid someone say what they wanted, but were at a loss to make it credible.
Re: This is symbolic (Score:1)
Re: This is symbolic (Score:1)
Re: This is symbolic (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You should at least be able to dicern that it is not credible, that is unless you are terribly biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean preliminary report?
https://www.lawinsider.com/dic... [lawinsider.com]
Thank you for the links.