Scorecard and Hammer - Dominion Voting Systems

// Facebook is actively censoring the word hammer//

Sidney Powell Tom Fitton Lou Dobbs discuss Hammer Scorecard

The program that was responsible for a 6000 vote discrepancy in one Detroit precinct is used throughout the Country. Claims these programs were accessed remotely to change election results. Computer Glitches is cover for intervention.

Michigan Tabulating Software Glitched and Swung 6000 Votes From R to D

47 counties used the same software... Calling for a hand to hand recount in that county.

Awesome Thread - Highlights and Notes

Oct 31, 2016 Linked video

A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context and explanation. (See also: Jordan Robertson of Bloomberg Business analyzes Fraction Magic in its Cyber Security Segment: and Cover Story in Bloomberg Businessweek ) This demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. It can give contract signing authority to whoever the user chooses. All political power can be converted to the hands of a few anonymous subcontractors. It's a product. It's scaleable. It learns its environment and can adjust to any political environment, any demographic. It runs silently, invisibly, and can produce plausible results that really pass for the real thing.

Filed 10/11/20

Whole court document is calling out Dominion Voting systems as being unreliable and susceptible to fraud and manipultaion

pg 4-5

First and foremost, Plaintiffs’ challenge focuses on the Defendants’ implementation of the new statewide BMD system, pursuant to the terms of the State’s 2019 contract with Dominion Voting Systems.5 The software and hardware system purchased provides for each citizen’s BMD ballot vote selections to be printed on a paper ballot generated by a printer connected to the BMD. But the tabulation of the vote is actually based on the ballot’s non-encrypted QR barcode on the ballot – designed to summarize the voter’s ballot selections in code – that by itself is not voter reviewable or verifiable. Thus, Plaintiffs contend that the system precludes direct voter verification of the QR barcode of votes cast on the ballot. The printed ballot is fed into an ImageCast optical scanner that tabulates the ballot votes solely based on the QR code – and not based on the human readable text on the printed ballot. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the State Defendants’ implementation of a barcode-based system for all in-person voting, based on (1) this alleged fundamental vote verification defect; (2) the system’s purported known and demonstrated risk vulnerabilities to access and manipulation identified by national cybersecurity experts; and (3) the inherent problems posed in properly auditing votes tallied based on QR barcodes that cannot be verified by voters.

// I do recommend Epochs Print Edition. Very nice paper//

Anonymous11/07/20 (Sat) 08:08:18a6ba58 (1)No.11519249





©2019 by Q Notables.

Library key available in your welcome email.