On Monday, March 7, Garland Favorito and David Cross from VoterGA held a press conference at which they released the group’s latest findings. The presentation was entitled “Conclusive Evidence Showing Fulton 2020 Election Results Were Electronically Manipulated” and featured a 15 point analysis conducted by VoterGA’s volunteer research team over the past year.
One of the researchers, Ron C, was on hand to explain the technical aspects of the findings. The 15 points presented:
In the interest of full disclosure, please note this author was honored to humbly participate in the research and analysis for the VoterGA presentation.
Among the most shocking of the finds presented was the evidence of electronic manipulation. For example, tabulator closing tapes for two different poll locations which were closed and printed on the same tabulator, with the same serial number, at the same time:
This was not an isolated instance, as can be seen below:
Note that the tabulator tape on the left shows that the closing and printing process began at 9:55:30 pm and lasted about 7 minutes. The one on the right began the closing and printing process at 9:58:27 pm, or 3 minutes behind the left’s, and finished 26 seconds after left. Both tabulator tapes were closed on the same tabulator (AAFAJJZ0088) simultaneously. This was reported previously by UncoverDC in an article titled, Tabulator Time Machine.
Also presented was Absentee by Mail ballot image files that were modified up to 8 days after the ballots were scanned:
The modifications of the Absentee by Mail ballot images seemed to coincide with the end of early in-person voting on October 30. This suggests that the image files and data may have been manipulated according to the results of early voting. In other words, they may have waited to see what was necessary in order to win before making “adjustments” to the files.
Also supporting the same theory of the case is that those file modifications were made in an instant as if a large number of files were copied and pasted or swapped all at once.
It’s important to know that ballot image files should not be modified for any reason other than adjudication.
Strangely, the adjudication timestamp for a large number of files was later than the modification timestamp, which without manipulation, would reflect the last changes to a particular file.
This, too, suggests a file swap or “remove and replace.”
Consistent with what one would expect with intentional manipulation, the team found that the majority of the ballot image authentication files (SHA files) had conveniently been deleted. Only 16,034 of the 148,318 ballot images have SHA files. UncoverDC previously reported on this finding, which can be found here.
Every ballot image file should have a corresponding SHA file which is produced when the ballot is processed. SHA, which stands for Security Hash Algorithm, is a file that contains a code unique to only one ballot image.
The way it works is the ballot image file is run through an algorithm that produces a code called a hash. The ballot image file can be authenticated by running it through the algorithm and comparing it with the hash code for that image. If the hash codes match, then the image is authentic. If any changes were made to the ballot image, the hash code won’t match, thereby revealing that the image has either been altered or replaced. This is an important security measure which is specifically defined and included in the contract between the state of Georgia and Dominion Voting Systems.
Although most of the SHA files were indeed missing from the election night count, for the machine recount, they exist for every ballot image. That is, except for the 17,724 missing ballot images:
Unfortunately, those were not the only ballot images missing, as shown below:
Evidence was also presented consistent with ballot image files being modified or replaced in systematic fashion:
VoterGA also showed how nearly all (except for two) tabulator closing tapes—representing 311,458 ballots—were unsigned by the poll manager and two witnesses as required by Georgia law.
Another interesting finding showed that tabulators were opened and used to scan 315,000 ballots during the course of early voting. Then, the cards were removed at the end of early voting, and the results finalized and closed on election night using different tabulators—an unacceptable practice by any metric.
Before voting begins, a memory card is inserted into the tabulator, the machine is powered on and told to start the election or “open the poll.” Then voting can begin. When voting is over, the poll manager tells the tabulator by selecting to “close the poll.” But at the end of early voting, the machines were not told to close the polls. Instead, tabulator memory cards (flashcards) were removed from the tabulators and held until the night of November 3. The flashcards were then inserted into different tabulators (at the English Street warehouse), where the polls were closed and closing tapes printed. There are several reasons why this practice is unacceptable.
First, removal of the flashcard before closing the polls breaks the chain of custody because the act of closing the poll directs the machine to calculate and saves the election results, along with the Cast Vote Record (CVR) in an encrypted file to the flashcard. If the card is removed before the poll is closed, the flashcard remains open, and the data/votes it holds can easily be manipulated. For example, the flashcard could be inserted into another tabulator and ballots scanned, leaving no trace. This is the reason there is a seal over the flashcard slot while the poll is open and removal of the card before the poll is closed on the tabulator breaks the chain of custody.
Lastly, the closing tape prints only the serial number of the tabulator printing the tape and provides no identification of the machine which actually scanned the ballots. This is how there are 12 tapes from different locations closed on the same tabulator as VoterGA displays here:
During the presentation, Favorito, Cross, and Ron C went through and explained all 15 points, and the entire video presentation can be found here. It clarifies that the potential problems with the voting machines are not the only issue that plagued the 2020 general election in Georgia. The complete lack of the most basic election accounting protocols was systemic and widespread, and the absence of any standards defied both logic and law. Without these gaping holes that allowed checks and balances to be circumvented, the election manipulation wouldn’t have been possible.
On its own, one of these anomalies could be considered a mishap and accepted as such. Likewise, one or two of the bad practices shown could be rationalized as “sloppy.” But when all of the anomalies and all of the shortcomings are considered together, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than the two worked hand-in-glove to deliver the suspect results—VoterGA continues to probe.
I can say with absolute certainty there is more to come soon.