Banana oil.

Ramsland, a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate, mistook voting jurisdictions in Minnesota for Michigan towns in one recent flawed analysis of voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. In another, filed in support of a federal lawsuit filed in Michigan,  he made wildly inaccurate claims about voter turnout  in various Michigan municipalities claiming that Detroit, where turnout was 51%, had turnout of 139%, and that North Muskegon, which had turnout of 78%, had voter turnout of 782%.

freep

Michigan, Minnesota WTF close enough for the expert and former Republican congressional candidate. Maps are hard and I can see that he needs a new abacas. 

And this dipweed is a cybersecurity analyst....LMAO

And this dipweed is a cybersecurity analyst....LMAO

My name is Russell James Ramsland, Jr., and I am a resident of Dallas County,Texas. I hold an MBA from Harvard University, and a political science degreefrom Duke University. I have worked with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),among other organizations, and have run businesses all over the world, many ofwhich are highly technical in nature. I have served on technical governmentpanels.2. I am part of the management team of Allied Security Operations Group, LLC,(ASOG). ASOG is a group of globally engaged professionals who come fromvarious disciplines to include Department of Defense, Secret Service,Department of Homeland Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Itprovides a range of security services, but has a particular emphasis oncybersecurity, open source investigation and penetration testing of networks. Weemploy a wide variety of cyber and cyber forensic analysts. We have patentspending in a variety of applications from novel network security applications toSCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) protection and safe browsingsolutions for the dark and deep web. For this report, I have rel

Their credentials seem impressive.  

Worked for NASA in what capacity? Dishwasher?

Worked for MIT in what capacity? Custodian? Bookkeeper?

A Poli Sci degree..... ?? 

An MBA from Harvard is the closest thing to any real background, but I do not see anything in his background that looks special. 

You do know that the voting machines are not online so no one can hack into them, right? So working for a cyber security firm (in what capacity?) is of little help. 

Their credentials seem impressive.  

But their claims are outrageous.   Voting machine companies take extraordinary efforts to ensure they are beyond reproach because lack of trust in their market is a company killer.  

Something is very wrong here.   Either Dominion engaged in strategic suicide as a company and, with all the due diligence by the states, nobody except Russell and friends caught it.   Or we have yet another outrageous claim by an über-partisan trying desperately to change the results of this election.

I predict that Dominion machines will be found to be functionally sound (within specs) and incapable of changing a vote from Trump to Biden.

These accusations are equivalent to an auto manufacturer intentionally designing cars that will crash when operated.   Let's get beyond the wild accusations and see the hard evidence.

Seems they are using facts not false claims to come to their conclusion.

You can disagree with the conclusion but the facts remain the same....

6. The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commissionguidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.

8. The tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim Countyfrom December 6, 2020 consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication. This high error rates proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws.

9. These errors occurred after The Antrim County Clerk provided a re-provisioned CF card with uploaded software for the Central Lake Precinct on November 6,2020. This means the statement by Secretary Benson was false. The Dominion Voting System produced systemic errors and high error rates both prior to the update and after the update; meaning the update (or lack of update) is not the cause of errors.

8.  The  tabulation  log for  the forensic  examination of the server for Antrim County from December 6, 2020 consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors. These errors resulted in overall tabulation errors or ballots being sent to adjudication. This high error rates proves the Dominion Voting System is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws.

Or (from michigan.gov)

The error in reporting unofficial results in Antrim County Michigan was the result of a user error that was quickly identified and corrected, did not affect the way ballots were actually tabulated, and would have been identified in the county canvass before official results were reported even if it had not been identified earlier.   A more detailed explanation is available here .

Which explains why the election count after the audit was certified.

Seems they are using facts not false claims to come to their conclusion.

Those are claims.   This is a claim:

The allowable election error rate established by the Federal Election Commission guidelines is of 1 in 250,000 ballots (.0008%). We observed an error rate of 68.05%. This demonstrated a significant and fatal error in security and election integrity.

Just because someone makes a claim with metrics does not mean that it is true.   An error rate of 68.05% is flat out absurd.   No software company would release a product so errant.   No customer would be so stupid as to roll out a machine with such flaws.   Much less 28 states.

The outrageousness of the claim, especially in consideration that voting machine companies live or die on their credibility, requires we have more than mere claims.   We need third party verification of these claims.

For me to believe these claims I need some serious corroboration.  

8. The tabulation log for the forensic examination of the server for Antrim Countyfrom December 6, 2020 consists of 15,676 individual events, of which 10,667 or 68.05% of the events were recorded errors.

Are you stating the tabulation log from ther server is wrong?  Did you skip this?

That is not a false claim, it is a fact unless the server is lying.

 We need third party verification of these claims.

That will be up to the court.  

Are you stating the tabulation log from ther server is wrong?  Did you skip this?

No, Sunshine, I am stating that the claims are outrageous and I have explained why.

Because these claims fly so plainly in the face of logic, they need to be corroborated.

If someone told you that they were abducted by aliens and drew you a picture of the room in which they were held captive along with precise measurements of the room dimensions, would you believe them because they offered details with metrics?

That will be up to the court.  

Indeed.   Let's see how this plays out.   I predict that these claims will be shown to be nonsense.

An error rate of 68.05% is flat out absurd.   No software company would release a product so errant.   No customer would be so stupid as to roll out a machine with such flaws.   Much less 28 states.

When a Microsoft Windows Update creates an error on less than .01% of machines the IT community goes nuts.

Unfortunately... the article goes on to state that Antrim Co. did not update software and hardware prior to the election like they were supposed to.

If you choose to not trust data from the server logs themselves then I don't see how you could come to any logical conclusion. A third party would use the same data in the logs.   

9. These errors occurred after The Antrim County Clerk provided a re-provisioned CF card with uploaded software for the Central Lake Precinct on November 6,2020. This means the statement by Secretary Benson was false. The Dominion Voting System produced systemic errors and high error rates both prior to the update and after the update; meaning the update (or lack of update) is not the cause of errors.

From the same article in the report.

It begs the question how many other "machines" didn't get updated? or if they did, was the result the same? There are a lot more machines  that were used in Michigan.

But...........I wonder if any others had the forensic testing?

Again, all ballots were properly tabulated. The user error affected only how the results from the
tabulators communicated with the election management system for unofficial reporting. Even if
the error had not been noticed and quickly fixed, it would have been caught and identified 
during the county canvass when printed totals tapes are reviewed. 

When the software was reprogrammed, the County also had to update the software on all of
the media drives that are placed in tabulators to ensure tabulators communicate properly with
the election management system. The county did update the media drives that went into the
tabulators with the corrected local races, but did not update the media drives on the tabulators
for the rest of the county. Because the Clerk correctly updated the media drives for the
tabulators with changes to races, and because the other tabulators did not have changes to
races, all tabulators counted ballots correctly.

However, because the county did not update the media drives for the tabulators that did not
have changes to races, those tabulators did not communicate properly with the County’s
central election management system software when the county combined and reported
unofficial results. Every tabulator recorded ballots correctly but the unofficial reports were
erroneous. 

But...........I wonder if any others had the forensic testing?

Would be a good thing for a few to get it.  

If you choose to not trust data from the server logs themselves then I don't see how you could come to any logical conclusion. A third party would use the same data in the logs.   

You are not paying attention.   I have not seen the data from the server logs and neither have you.   You are trusting the claims of a single study that has not been subjected to the scrutiny of even peer review.

Worse, you believe this in spite of the fact that their claims are outrageous.   Not just hard to believe, but flat out crazy.   

Outrageous claims should not be 'believed' unless they have been subjected to formal scrutiny via peer review, repeat of experiment and/or litigation and shown to be true.

The Antrim County Clerk provided a re-provisioned CF card with uploaded software for the Central Lake Precinct on November 6,2020.

So the county was checking for errors in the county's counts? 

That would be considered unethical. There should always be an unbiased entity checking / auditing without interference from biased parties.

My personal opinion is, considering ASPICE and ISO / IATF require a separate, unbiased entity perform checks / audits on all facets of the automotive world... similar should be common practice for all important things. But you can take that for whatever it's worth to you. 

Okay... so I was partially incorrect. The tabulators weren't updated.

I'd be curious to know too; however, that's not what the article was about. I was responding based on the article's content.

I have not seen the data from the server logs and neither have you.   

So you are stating the investigators are lying about direct data from the logs. Well that is ridiculous when they know that they could easily be proven wrong or discredited and the report is to be used in a court of law.  Why would they lie about the data logs?

Again you can disagree with the conclusions but not the facts.

Apparently you cannot read what I have written.

I am saying that their claims are outrageous.   

I am saying that outrageous claims need to be verified and done so in a formal fashion.

All we have at this point are claims.    We do not have the facts.   The facts are not in the report, only claims are in the report.

Well that is ridiculous when they know that they could easily be proven wrong or discredited and the report is to be used in a court of law.  Why would they lie about the data logs?

Take that reasoning and apply it to what I have been arguing.    Tell me why a voting machine company would intentionally destroy its own reputation by doing the exact thing that they work to prevent?    Why would they do that when that would kill their product, likely kill the company and subject themselves to lawsuits for fraud?

There should always be an unbiased entity checking / auditing without interference from biased parties.

All counties were audited by a bi-partisan canvasing board as per state law prior to certification. 

I am saying that their claims are outrageous.   

Well like I said you can disagree with their conclusions.

All we have at this point are claims.    We do not have the facts.

Do you know what an investigation is?   Facts are gathered and if requested conclusions are presented based on the facts. 

The facts are not in the report, only claims are in the report.

Yes there are facts in the report, you choose to ignore the server data because you don't believe the investigators.  Well that is your problem not the investigators. The court picked them.

I was replying to the comment that the Antrim Co. Clerk provided an updated version of the software AFTER the election. I didn't say they weren't audited later by a bi-partisan board.

Do you know what an investigation is?   Facts are gathered and if requested conclusions are presented based on the facts. 

Claims of facts are not facts.

Look Sunshine, outrageous claims need third party corroboration.  

Do you understand why these claims are outrageous?

Claims of facts are not facts.

Well now your just being ridiculous.  The court picked them to do an investigation and they did.  You can disagree with their conclusions but the facts are in the report.   Look TG, the data doesn't lie and a third party will see the same data.

So the investigators are lying about their entire report. 

They do.  I bet many had the same high error rate.

Do you not comprehend the meaning of third party corroboration?

The claims are outrageous.   Outrageous claims should not be accepted without independent verification.

You are the only one needing third party corroboration.

The investigation was ordered by a judge not by the plaintiff nor the defendant in the suit.  The investigators have no dog in this fight and no reason to lie.  Has the judge taken issue with the report?

You are the one confused here.  Has anyone asked for a third party besides you?

You are the one confused here. 

Do you comprehend why these claims are outrageous?   If so, prove it because your comments suggest you do not.   If in fact you do not see these as outrageous claims, then you clearly do not understand the voting machine business (or software in general).

Stubborn refusal to recognize the obvious is not much of an argument.

Well I suggest you call up these people with very high credentials and the judge and tell them just how outrageous the report it.

Plenty of people will challenge this report and rightly so.   You are tacitly implying that you do not see why these claims are outrageous.   Really?   You find nothing extraordinary about a voting machine company intentionally designing its machines to engage in election fraud??  

If some analytical firm claimed that GM produced a vehicle that was intentionally designed to crash, would you not find that company-killing allegation to be outrageous and hold off on believing the allegation until it had been at least reviewed by a credible third party based on examination of the evidence?  

If some analytical firm claimed that GM produced a vehicle that was intentionally designed to crash, would you not find that company-killing allegation to be outrageous and hold off on believing the allegation until it had been at least reviewed by a credible third party based on examination of the evidence?  

Why are you comparing this report to GM?  One has nothing to do with other.  There is no comparison.  

The investigators are a third party.  Again, they where hired by the judge...good fricking grief.  Neither party in the suit commissioned them to investigate.  

For some reason you think they have some underlying reason to lie about the data and then you compare it to GM. 

Pretty ridiculous.

Have a nice evening TG.

Why are you comparing this report to GM? 

To illustrate how outrageous the claim is.    Given you offer no rebuttal I suspect you see the point.

The investigators are a third party. 

They made outrageous claims that need to be corroborated.   They cannot corroborate their own report.    Hello?

For some reason you think they have some underlying reason to lie about the data and then you compare it to GM. 

Faux obtuseness is a crappy argument.

From the Department of Attorney General in an article entitled

AG, SOS: Plaintiff's Report in Antrim County Election Lawsuit Demonstrates Lack of Credible Evidence in Widespread Fraud or Wrongdoing

......

There are several legal concerns with the report and testimony submitted in   Bailey v Antrim County , including the portions provided by Russell Ramsland, one of the “expert” witnesses in the case.

A   Detroit Free Press story from Nov. 21   quotes Rudy Giuliani as saying Michigan has “over-votes in numerous precincts of 150%, 200% and 300%.” Giuliani’s source was an affidavit from Ramsland, who is a former Republican congressional candidate.  All 19 of the precincts cited in his affidavit are in Minnesota, not Michigan. Ramsland has also   inaccurately stated the voter turnout rate in Detroit , saying it was nearly three times higher than it actually was.

The qualifications of those who authored the report are suspect, with no evidence or credentials provided to back up their “expertise.” Authors in the report also make unverified and unsupported claims that “fraud,” “intentional errors” and “bad faith” decisions made by election officials led them to their conclusions in the report. Moreover, many of their assertions are unsupported by evidence, with some even constituting hearsay and clearly show that the authors lack first-hand knowledge of events.

Michigan Rule of Evidence 702 states that if the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. That has not happened in this case yet......

What report is she referring too?  The report I have been discussing was ordered by the Judge concerning a lawsuit filed by a local resident.  Has nothing to do with Giuliani.

Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant commissioned the report.  If the AG is referring to the same report I have been discussing, the Attorney General starts off with bullshit and continues the bullshit throughout the statement...shocking!  

Plaintiff's Report In Antrim County Election..

Wrong, she doesn't even know who ordered the report...what a dumbass.

I could be wrong, But I think you are misinformed or misunderstand the rudiments of the case. 

In order to be considered an expert witness, it is necessary to show expertise in the area for which expertise is claimed. Since the expertise claimed is in election law and computer forensics, all previous cases by the so-called expert witness can be assayed to make a determination of the credibility and expertise of the witness.  Hence the quoting of a case brought by Giuliani is relevant because the affidavit that he submitted in that case was on election law and computer forensics and would show whether Russell Ramsland was credible or not. In the process of this analysis, he was discovered to be neither reliable nor factually correct on numerous occasions, thus placing his credibility and expertise into serious doubt. 

The judge picked them, so I guess he considers them credible.  Are you now saying the judge is incompetent too?

Again, the AG and you are misinformed.  Quite obviously noted from her statement.  When you can prove that the report is false, let me know.

The judge picked them

Show me where the Judge picked them? I'm not saying he didn't, but I can't find anywhere where it states that. Since we're talking about uber-partisian asshat Ramsland here - show me.

In my experience as an ''Expert Witness'' of over 25 years I have yet to see a judge pick an expert witness. Not saying it hasn't been done it's just that I've never seen it done. (there is such a thing as a court-appointed expert witness)

In my experience, one side has an expert witness and that person's expertise/experience has to be given to the opposing side. If there is a deposition beforehand the expert witness will be questioned by the opposing side and if they find that indeed the person is an expert in the field being tried they are accepted as such. Unlike other witnesses, an expert witness can draw conclusions and give opinions on the case.

Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th Circuit Court had ordered "forensic imaging" of the Dominion Voting Systems voting tabulators and related software after Antrim County resident William Bailey filed a lawsuit that challenged the integrity of the election equipment, citing errors in how the county initially reported its unofficial results. Elsenheimer, a former Republican lawmaker, did not base  his order on unofficial results that showed Democrat Joe Biden got more votes than Republican President Donald Trump in the solidly GOP county — a mistake both  county and state officials have attributed to an error the Republican clerk made  when updating ballot information. Instead, the judge cited a closely decided village proposal to allow a marijuana dispensary.

Judge orders release of report examining Antrim Co. vote tabulators (indystar.com)

Circuit Judge Kevin Elsenheimer ordered an investigation into Dominion voting machines in the state Friday after a voter alleged ballots were destroyed while recounting, according to  Detroit Free Press

Giuliani claims win over Antrim judge's order related to pot proposal (freep.com)

You could have easily found the information.  Next time do your own work.

You could have easily found the information.

From your own link - 

On Dec. 6, a team from Allied Security Operations Group, a Dallas-area firm that has worked with lawyers for Trump and his allies on cases challenging election results in battleground states, inspected the voting equipment at county offices.

So, the judge ordered and investigation, but this report we are talking about here was from the plaintiff's "expert"- a known highly biased source. 

Next time do your own work.

Next time read your links before you comment.

So, the judge ordered and investigation, but this report we are talking about here was from the plaintiff's "expert"- a known highly biased source. 

First of all the plaintiff is not Trump.  So you are saying the plaintiff picked the investigators for the Judge? Too funny.

Second, show me where the plaintiff picked them for the Judge and any bias the investigators have shown towards Antrim County who are the defendents.

Next time you read the links I provide, apparently you didn't.

And in this case we can see from the link Sunshine posted in 4.2.43 that the judge did not pick the expert, but was supplied by the plaintiff as I expected. 

but was supplied by the plaintiff as I expected. 

Which is generally the case.

First of all the plaintiff is not Trump. 

Don't be obtuse. They were Trump sycophant's. 

So you are saying the plaintiff picked the investigators for the Judge?

I didn't say it. It was in YOUR supplied link.

Second, show me where the plaintiff picked them for the Judge and any bias the investigators have shown towards Antrim County who are the defendents.

Russ Ramsland is a failed 2016 Texas Republican candidate for 32 Congressional District who tried to oust Republican incumbent Pete Sessions. It's no secret he's a Trump supporter. Ramsland found a disgruntled Trump supporter in Atrium County to get standing on a marijuana referendum that won by one vote SO HE COULD get his "report" entered into a legal record. 

Ramsland found a disgruntled Trump supporter in Atrium County to get standing on a marijuana referendum that won by one vote SO HE COULD get his "report" entered into a legal record. 

How do you know that?  So Ramsland controls the whole county, the residence, and the courts/judges.  Wow, what a guy.

Do we have another wild conspiracy theory in the making?

I didn't say it. It was in YOUR supplied link.

Yeah, where?

No bias has be shown by the investigators towards the parties in the case or in their report. When you have some proof let me know.

Yeah, where?

This is where we end the discussion because you won't admit you were wrong. 

I was correct. You don't understand what is going on and your reading comprehension needs work..

Or you are just trolling. 

bye

Seems you can only come up with personal attacks instead of any evidence.  

Like I said when you have some proof of your claims, let me know.

I made an accurate conclusion based on data gained in observation of your interactions with myself and others. If you wish to receive a better assessment, post something that is factual. 

According to the article you linked it is not clear who provided Ramsland, but  one of the linked articles  contained within it did. The judge allowed the Trump campaign lawyers to review in an order :

President Donald Trump's legal team is examining and taking images from 22 vote tabulators in Antrim County Sunday morning after a judge issued an order later Friday, a Trump attorney said.

"A judge actually granted our team access … for us to conduct a forensic audit ," Trump attorney Jenna Ellis told Fox News on Sunday.

Antrim County is solidly Republican but its unofficial results initially showed Democrat Joe Biden winning more votes on Nov. 3 than Trump did. The results were soon corrected and county and state officials have said   the initial reporting inaccuracies were due to programming errors by the Republican clerk   and not due to errors by the Dominion Voting Systems election equipment or related software.

"That was an unexplained and so-called glitch," said Ellis, an attorney who has been prominent in the Trump campaign's efforts to overturn election results that show Biden won the presidency.

"So our team is going to be able to go in there this morning and we'll be there for about eight hours to conduct that forensic examination and we'll have the results in about 48 hours and that will tell us a lot about these machines."

So now we know that the Trump campaign did in fact look at the Antrim county voting machines, despite your protestations to the contrary. Some more little tid-bits of information happened to be gleaned from your link ...

• On Dec. 6, a team from Allied Security Operations Group, a Dallas-area firm that has worked with lawyers for Trump and his allies on cases challenging election results in battleground states, inspected the voting equipment at county offices.

• Based on concerns related to election security and proprietary information, Elsenheimer had placed a protective order over the findings, "restricting use, distribution or manipulation of the forensic images and/or other information gleaned " without first getting his approval.

• "Bailey's attorney, Matthew DePerno, has already given media interviews in which he has said Benson lied and Antrim County's official election results are wrong. Any attempt to suppress the report now would only incorrectly be seen as an attempted coverup," (Assistant Attorney General Erik Grill) said.

LOL, the attorney is under orders not to release the information and he runs straight out to Newsmax and does just what he is not supposed to. Nice. I would say that you can read the rest of the story online, but your performance so far lets me know that you need it spelled out for you.

A discredited "expert" witness puts out a misleading and unsupported analysis of the voting machines in which he doesn't even seem to realize that there is a canvassing board to check the results.The piece of trash article that is the seed for this whole mess has an actual (?) copy of the report in which Ramsland doesn't even seem to be able to do basic math and/or fundamentally does not understand how the machines tabulate and does not understand how the mistakes that were made during the election happened or were fixed. That is why I call bullshit on this whole article and the ensuing defense of the same. 

Shame on the original poster and shame on anyone who comes to the defense of this lame excuse of an article. It is a further attempt to lie by people claiming to want to defend the Constitution but really wanting only to deny reality, destroy democracy and Destroy the Constitution in the name of their master, Donald, my name is Lucifer, Trump. 

So now we know that the Trump campaign did in fact look at the Antrim county voting machines, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I am sure you can post where I claimed this.  You shouldn't tell fibs.

A lot of nothing in your post....still no evidence of any wrong doing by the investigators pertaining to the case and the report.

You are the little engine though.

First of all the plaintiff is not Trump.  So you are saying the plaintiff picked the investigators for the Judge? Too funny.

First of all the plaintiff is not Trump.  So you are saying the plaintiff picked the investigators for the Judge? Too funny.

What does this have to do with Trump looking at machines?  Do you have a suit with Trump's name on it in Antrim County?  Please post.

So now we know that the Trump campaign did in fact look at the Antrim county voting machines, despite your protestations to the contrary. Some more little tid-bits of information happened to be gleaned from your link ...

• On Dec. 6, a team from Allied Security Operations Group, a Dallas-area firm that has worked with lawyers for Trump and his allies on cases challenging election results in battleground states, inspected the voting equipment at county offices.

Do you see the word "has" and not "is"?  And you say I have a reading problem...take a look at yourself. But good job trying to mislead the article.

Since you don't understand what a plaintiff is...here is an explanation for you.

You obviously have no interest in conversation and are merely trolling. I am not going to waste my time with you. Be a good little minion and go make no sense somewhere else. Welcome to ignore.

Attacking the investigators without providing any proof of wrong doing is definately idiotic.

No. The purpose of a forensic investigation is to find out what actually occurred, not to suppose the worst of any person or company involved in the election. That report is an example of why the Trump legal team is 0 for 60.

Further, since the "investigators" were in fact the Trump legal team's, as is shown in 4.2.56 , it is perfectly reasonable to presume that they would carry on in a manner as they had evidenced before, i.e. Lying to cheat the system, hence, doing wrong. 

 Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results

Hahahahahahahaha. 

Antrim Co. also didn't update software nor hardware.

The R's wish.

No wonder they wanted to block the release.

All other counties using Dominion should be done to.

All other counties using Dominion should be done to.

There were Dominion Voting systems used in 24 states during the recent election including those that Trump won. 

Dominion was used in 24 states so let's block all of them, including the one's Trump won.

“We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,” Russell Ramsland Jr., co-founder of Allied Security Operations Group, said in a preliminary report.

Okay, this is an extremely bold claim.   I will be interested to see how this is adjudicated.  

One thing that strikes me right off the bat is the utter insanity of a voting machine company intentionally designing its machines for fraud.

That is like an auto manufacturer intentionally designing its cars to fail in operation and cause crashes.    It is the exact opposite of what is good for the company.

A little common sense might be called for here before jumping to the conclusion that this analyst is being honest.

Dominion has posted its rebuttal (of course) on its website:

Dominion Voting Systems has been the target of election disinformation seeking to undermine confidence in the integrity of the 2020 election.  Here are the facts:

• Dominion is a private American company that provides voting systems in 28 states, including "red" and "blue" jurisdictions.  Since its founding in 2003, Dominion has supported tens of thousands of elections in non-partisan fashion.
• All Dominion systems are capable of producing paper records and are 100% auditable, with testing, reviews, audits, and recounts subject to oversight and verification by all political parties.
• All 2020 election audits and recounts using Dominion technology have validated the accuracy and reliability of results, confirming the integrity of election outcomes.
• Baseless claims about the integrity of the system or the accuracy of the results have been dismissed by election authorities, subject matter experts and third-party fact-checkers.
• Malicious and misleading false claims about Dominion have resulted in dangerous levels of threats and harassment against the company and its employees, as well as election officials.

STATEMENT FROM DOMINION ON SIDNEY POWELL CHARGES (Nov 26, 2020)

How do we know that Dominion Voting Systems are accurate and secure?

All U.S. voting systems must provide assurance that they work accurately and reliably as intended under federal and state certification and testing requirements. In addition to multiple layers of testing and certification, as well as chain of custody controls, all Dominion systems use paper ballots or paper records for auditing. An unsubstantiated claim about the deletion of 2.7 million pro-Trump votes that was posted to the Internet and spread online has been taken down and debunked by fact-checkers .

The U.S. Department of Justice has found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) confirmed the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history," adding, "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised."

Is there any evidence of Dominion systems vote switching or software errors?

No, all baseless claims have been debunked by election officials, subject matter experts and third-party fact checkers. No evidence whatsoever has been offered to support claims that there was a systemic problem with vote-counting machines. A hand recount of all paper ballots in the State of Georgia completed on November 19 verified that machine vote totals were reliable and accurate. Certified results in Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, plus other states all validate the accuracy of official tallies.

Is there an algorithm that can secretly reapportion "fractions" of votes?

No, Dominion systems do not support fractional or "weighted" voting.

Who owns Dominion Voting Systems?

Dominion Voting Systems is a non-partisan American company that makes electronic voting systems. No foreign national directly or indirectly owns or controls the company. As verified by the Associated Press , Dominion began as a Canadian company and was later incorporated in the United States. One of the company's founders, John Poulos, serves as CEO. Dominion and other voting system manufacturers submit extensive company disclosures to federal and state authorities as terms of product testing and system certification. The company has no ownership ties whatsoever to UBS, or the governments of China, Cuba, or Venezuela.

Does Dominion have ties to Smartmatic, or use Smartmatic software?

No. Dominion and Smartmatic are two separate companies that make electronic voting systems. Dominion does not use or license Smartmatic software. Smartmatic has also refuted such claims. Dominion did NOT acquire Smartmatic and/or its software from Sequoia.

Is Dominion affiliated with - or owned by - any political figures or political parties?

No. Dominion has no ties or company ownership relationships with the Pelosi family, Feinstein family, Clinton family, George Soros, or any ties to the governments of China, Venezuela or Cuba.  The company works with all U.S. political parties, and our customer base and government outreach practices support this non-partisan approach. Given the high headline risk and the public visibility of elections, it would be difficult to thrive as a business without maintaining reliable technology and high standards as an industry provider.

Does Dominion have servers in Germany where votes get counted?

No, all votes are counted in the U.S. by local election officials – not by Dominion. Voting systems are, by design, meant to be used as closed systems that are not networked (meaning not connected to the Internet). It is technologically impossible to "see" votes being counted in real-time and/or to "flip" them.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has debunked claims about the existence of a secret CIA program for vote fraud called Hammer and Scorecard, and the U.S. Army has refuted claims of secret military "raids."

What happened with Texas certification of Dominion systems?

Dominion systems are certified in 28 states. While the company disagrees with the decision and rationale offered by the State of Texas for not certifying our system, we recognize there are different standards for different states. The Dominion system has successfully undergone U.S. federal government certification . Importantly, no other review of this system has ever identified concerns about the system being inefficient or insecure.

What happened with Antrim County, Michigan's election results?

The issue with election results reporting in Antrim County was due to user-error. The Michigan Secretary of State's office has provided a technical explanation with the facts about what happened.

Can Dominion employees switch votes during ballot adjudication?

No, the canvass process exists to allow election officials to validate and count ballots that were unable to be counted on Election Day because they needed additional adjudication. Dominion employees do not have access to this adjudication system, nor do they operate it. All states require bipartisan/multi-person teams in order to adjudicate ballots in accordance with the law.

Is it okay to use Sharpie pens for voting?

Yes. Sharpie pens are safe and reliable to use on ballots. Election officials provide writing instruments approved for all in-person voters using hand-marked paper ballots. Dominion machines can read all these instruments, including Sharpies. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors assures that "Sharpies do not invalidate ballots."

Of special interest:

What happened with Antrim County, Michigan's election results?

The issue with election results reporting in Antrim County was due to user-error. The Michigan Secretary of State's office has provided a technical explanation with the facts about what happened.

The explanation from Michigan SoS:

Isolated user error in Antrim County did not affect election results, has no impact on other counties or states The error in reporting unofficial results in Antrim County Michigan was the result of a user error that was quickly identified and corrected, did not affect the way ballots were actually tabulated, and would have been identified in the county canvass before official results were reported even if it had not been identified earlier. A more detailed explanation is available here .

Bottom line, sure let's get to the bottom of this.   But if anyone thinks this report is accurate, I suggest your conspiracy theory hopes are a bit too high.

Gosh, TiG, that sure saved you a lot of typing.

What I think people are forgetting here is that until Wayne County, which includes Detroit, a city in which it's residents are predominantly black and are also largely Biden supporters, turned in their vote counts, Trump had MI. As soon as Wayne Co. turned in their votes, MI went to Biden. Regardless of Antrim Co., even if the entire county voted for Trump, MI would still have gone to Biden. All major cities in MI went to Biden, which is NOT a surprise to me.

Moreover... the large cities I'm referring to are as follows: Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Traverse City. The first four are in the same description I provided about Detroit, predominantly black and largely Biden supporters. The last two on that list are predominantly liberal with a mix of races; Ann Arbor because of U of M and TC because... I don't know why TC. However, I do know that it's quite the mix of people; my best friend lives there. 

The cost of a recount varies from 15 cents to 60 cents per ballot. So if we take an average and round up, let's say 40 cents. Trump's Save America fund could recount over 3 times the total number of people who voted in the 2020 election. It would have been easy to cover a recount in all the battleground states. But this didn't happen because they knew it would be a waste of money. However, feeding nonsense to the base doesn't cost much at all; in most cases it's free. So we get seeds like this one.