Two events of 10 August 2021 regarding voting machines

By Robert Willmann

As a coincidence theorist, I noticed two events that happened today. One is the beginning of a Cyber Symposium sponsored by Mike Lindell on the 2020 general election. The other is the filing of lawsuits by the Dominion voting machine company (as three corporations) against One America News Network and two of its reporters, and against Newsmax, and against Patrick Byrne.

Lindell is an entrepreneur and owns a company that makes pillows and other products, primarily related to beds. He has asserted his position on the 2020 general election, which is that there was massive voting fraud, including that voting machines were accessed or hacked into. He has organized and is presenting a symposium on the election that started Tuesday morning, 10 August, and is to continue to Thursday the 12th, during which he is to present more information. After inviting politicians, media, and others, and telling them to bring their own qualified computer and networking people, Lindell has offered a $5 million dollar prize to any attendee who can prove that the cyber data to be presented is not valid data from the November 2020 general election.

Both One America News Network and Newsmax have reported on criticism of the 2020 election and on the issue of voting fraud. Patrick Byrne, a wealthy person in his own right, has written that he was a witness to some of the events and discussions with and around Donald Trump in the fall of 2020 after the election when Trump was still president [1].

Previously, Dominion sued Lindell and his company, but Lindell, not being easily intimidated, filed a separate lawsuit against Dominion, and put together the Cyber Symposium. The CNN and MSNBC television networks have attacked the Arizona election audit, and have criticized Lindell. The FoxNews network has chosen to remain completely silent on the issues, and when it refused to run an ad from Lindell that the event on the election and voting machines was coming up, he cancelled his multi-million dollar ad buy underway this year with FoxNews. Lindell said that he spent $50 million dollars on ads on the FoxNews television network in 2020.

There is enough standard statistical evidence, data analysis, and individual affidavits about voting fraud and the 2020 general election to continue to study and think seriously about the issues and problems. The event on the election is in South Dakota and is being broadcast on the Internet through two websites Lindell has—

[1] The website of Patrick Byrne.

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government, Media, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Two events of 10 August 2021 regarding voting machines

  1. Babeltuap says:

    BBC. Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs (2016 article)

    BBC. No vote rigging articles. (2020)

    FRAGO: Maybe update the 2016 article with legacy media manipulation tactics on voting integrity and Democratic senators warning of potential ‘vote switching’ by Dominion voting machines prior to 2020 election

  2. Deap says:

    Any relation to stories today about Nancy Pelosi soon to be stepping down? Does she want to get ahead of the curve.

  3. Sam says:

    We should move to paper ballots with each ballot certified to its authenticity with verification that the actual registered voter did indeed cast that ballot. In addition the voter roll should be certified that it accurately represents eligible voters. There should also be a transparent process for candidates to verify and challenge both voter rolls and ballots. Counting should all be done under camera with a public video stream.

    What technical issues prevent that? If we can have vaccine passports why not voter passports?

    • Barbara Ann says:

      It was a good presentation, in a geeky kind of way. Not a case that election was stolen but “big if true” hardly covers it if indeed voter registration and participation numbers are entirely manufactured. Initial thoughts:

      Points in favor:
      – This guy is smart, credentialed and has a reputation (and job) to lose
      – Sheer enormity of the claim ought to be easy to debunk if it is make believe
      – A cursory look at a couple of ‘debunks’ looked like nit picking arguments
      – Using projected 2010 census data & a simple Excel algorithm for each state is credible: Sophisticated enough to have the desired result and simultaneously comically banal enough for a set of perps who never expected to get caught. This is a strong one for me.

      Points against:
      – Endorsements by Sidney Powell & Patrick Byrne?
      – Sheer enormity of the claim makes a good Big Lie (more hopium chaff?)
      – If this is country wide, where are the red state AG’s declaring it happened in their state?
      – Concluding statement “our legal system isn’t going to save us” (which may be true) nevertheless conveniently avoids the danger of having to provide legal standard of proof

      Sagan standard applies here; extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Where does he publish his data? Peer reviews? Does the $5M prize apply here?

      This all said, the most intriguing part for me was not the stats, it was this: “By the way, if someone found out that we had the data and it was going to expose a bunch of officials, what do you think might happen”. BS, bluff, or should we maybe expect an even bigger denouement later today or tomorrow?

      • Eric Newhill says:

        Barbara Ann,
        The background data is available here (US Census Bureau).

        I watched the video and then fished around at the Census site. No in depth look or analysis; just a sniff test.

        I think the guy in the video is merely making a big deal out of the long known and expected correlation between age group and tendency to register to vote.

        As for his “evidence” about voting machines being connected to the internet and having data pushed to them during the election, I’d love to see that. Somehow, I don’t think the guy is going to produce it, though.

    • English Outsider says:

      I’ve googled around but can find no paper containing a fuller account of the data used, the derivation of the key, or how the conclusions are arrived at. Nor any indication of how the alleged fraud operation actually worked in practice. Wouldn’t it have needed quite a few people to carry out?

      I don’t like the use of postal voting simply because it lends itself to good old fashioned vote harvesting. Nothing to be done about that because there’s no way of proving it however many checks and audits of the vote counting process are performed.

      I also believe the emergency conditions under which your recent Presidential and other elections were held left various loopholes. But with the number of people now engaged in checking for fraud one would by now have expected some solid written studies to have emerged. Preferably fully documented studies that other observers and statisticians could be let loose on.

      Maybe they will emerge in due course. But unless Dr Frank’s study emerges he can’t expect to be given credibility on the basis of a fairly short video that jumps so many steps in the exposition of his thesis.

      So might I ask if there’s anything published to back up this presentation?

  4. Thanks for the lucid summary of the situation.
    Putting aside politics, do you have an opinion (a guess 🙂 on how all those lawsuits will be resolved by the courts?

    BTW, I notice that Fox News seems to have been quite intimidated by the lawsuits against it.
    I guess its lawyers told it that the suits against it had a high probability of success.

  5. scott s. says:

    Years ago, after reading some books by historian/political science authors on antebellum US elections, and that made me interested in the actual mechanics of voting. I tried to scour the interwebs and libraries, even doing “random walks” through the book stacks but never found any scholarly work surveying this. You can find mention of specific elections as part of other analysis (such as of political parties) but nothing focusing on the mechanics themselves. Even major changes, such as the adoption of the “Australian ballot” in the early 1890s. Found papers analyzing how the changes affected parties, but nothing on the adoption history itself. I have found some speeches/writing from political types making the argument for change. For example in (IIRC) Indiana the law required uniform ballots, but parties figured out how to use different fonts so they could determine which ballot was being submitted by the voter. The “Australian ballot” was to remove this perceived defect by having ballots controlled by the state with secret voting. But again, it is hard to place in context with no overview available to compare against.

  6. Barbara Ann says:

    To a coincidence theorist something else that happened today (or late yesterday) may be of interest: The Vox Popoli blog was taken down by Google. Being a hangout for Alt Right folk & latterly “anti-vaxxers”, I’d have expected any bombshells out of the Cyber Symposium to have got top billing there.

  7. Razumov says:

    We have been arguing about this issue for 20 years and there is a very simple solution to the whole problem. Mandate that every voting machine prints out two paper copies of the vote. One goes home with the voter, the other stays as a physical archive of the vote.

  8. Leith says:

    Someone at Mike Lindell’s “cyber-symposium” just broke the news to him that Dominion’s lawsuit is going forward. The event is being streamed, so we’re seeing him get irate in real time. He’s ranting, calling it “the worst decision a judge has made in the history of this country.”

    The judge that ruled on it, Judge Carl Nichols, was appointed to the court by Trump.

  9. Any thoughts on Judge Nichols ruling in the Powell/Giuliani/Lindell defamation lawsuit?

    Lawyers for former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and My Pillow founder Mike Lindell
    argued that the suits were legally deficient,
    but U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled on Wednesday that the suits could proceed.

    The three defendants’ arguments found little resonance with Nichols, a Trump appointee
    who seemed disdainful of their conduct
    and of suggestions that their statements were within the bounds of freewheeling political debate.

Comments are closed.