Indisputable Facts Showing Bush Stole Election

November 18, 2004

This is long, but has some new infromation and I think it is the best summary

yet!

People-v-Ohio-n-Florida/message/3547

: People-v-Ohio-n-Florida Messages : Message 3547 of 3561

Indisputable Facts Showing Bush Stole Election

I am amazed that the news media has not reported on the probable

electronic voting machines fraud that took place in the presidential

election. I know that there is at this point only " very strong

circumstantial evidence " , but if you look at the history of how

electronic voting machines have become so prevalent in the voting

process then you can " connect the dots " and show that computer fraud

won this election for George Bush.

The following facts point clearly to George Bush, Karl Rove and the

rest of his " dirty political tricksters " stealing this election:

1. Bush's History of Lying

George Bush has lied, denied the truth and has been unwilling to

take responsibility for any mistakes on the part of his

administration on numerous occasions, including weapons of mass

destruction, Medicare prescription drugs, military record and the

war on Iraq.

For 25 years, Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's professors at

Harvard

Business School, was content with his green-card status as a

permanent legal resident of the

United States. But Bush's ascension to the presidency in 2001

prompted the Japanese native

to secure his American citizenship. The reason: to be able to speak

out with the full authority

of citizenship about why he believes Bush lacks the character and

intellect to lead the world's

oldest and most powerful democracy.

" I don't remember all the students in detail unless I'm prompted by

something, " Tsurumi said

in a telephone interview Wednesday. " But I always remember two

types of students. One is the

very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to

be working with. Someone with

strong social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare

person you never forget. And

then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally

the opposite. "

Bush, by contrast, " was totally the opposite of Chris Cox, " Tsurumi

said. " He showed pathological

lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and

biases. He would even deny

saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for

that. Students jumped on him; I

challenged him. " When asked to explain a particular comment, said

Tsurumi, Bush would

respond, " Oh, I never said that. " A White House spokeswoman did not

return a phone call seeking

comment.

In 1973, as the oil and energy crisis raged, Tsurumi led a

discussion on whether government

should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with

heating costs. Bush, he recalled,

" made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he

said, 'The government doesn't

have to help poor people -- because they are

lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain that assumption?' Not only

could he not explain it, he

started backtracking on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'

Bush once sneered at Tsurumi for showing the film " The Grapes of

Wrath, " based on John Steinbeck's

novel of the Depression. " We were in a discussion of the New Deal,

and he called Franklin

Roosevelt's policies 'socialism.' He denounced labor unions, the

Securities and Exchange

Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the

civil rights movement as

socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And

when challenged to explain

his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either

ideologically, polemically or

academically. "

Students who challenged and embarrassed Bush in class would then

become the subject of a

whispering campaign by him, Tsurumi said. " In class, he couldn't

challenge them. But after

class, he sometimes came up to me in the hallway and started bad-

mouthing those students who had

challenged him. He would complain that someone was drinking too

much. It was innuendo and lies.

So that's how I knew, behind his smile and his smirk, that he was a

very insecure, cunning and

vengeful guy. "

Many of Tsurumi's students came from well-connected or wealthy

families, but good

manners prevented them from boasting about it, the professor said.

But Bush seemed unabashed

about the connections that had brought him to Harvard. " The other

children of the rich and

famous were at least well bred to the point of realizing universal

values and standards of

behavior, " Tsurumi said. But Bush sometimes came late to class and

often sat in the back row of

the theater-like classroom, wearing a bomber jacket from the Texas

Air National Guard and

spitting chewing tobacco into a cup.

The Vietnam War was still roiling campuses and Harvard was no

exception. Bush expressed strong

support for the war but admitted to Tsurumi that he'd gotten a

coveted spot in the Texas Air

National Guard through his father's connections.

" I used to chat up a number of students when we were walking back to

class, " Tsurumi said. " Here

was Bush, wearing a Texas Guard bomber jacket, and the draft was the

No. 1 topic in those days.

And I said, 'George, what did you do with the draft?' He

said, 'Well, I got into the Texas Air

National Guard.' And I said, 'Lucky you. I understand there is a

long waiting list for it.

How'd you get in?' When he told me, he didn't seem ashamed or

embarrassed. He thought he was

entitled to all kinds of privileges and special deals. He was not

the only one trying to twist

all their connections to avoid Vietnam. But then, he was fanatically

for the war. "

Tsurumi told Bush that someone who avoided a draft while supporting

a war in which others were

dying was a hypocrite. " He realized he was caught, showed his famous

smirk and huffed off. "

He said other professors and students at the business school

from that time share his recollections but are afraid to come

forward, fearing ostracism or

retribution. And why is Tsurumi speaking up now? Because with the

ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and

Osama bin Laden still on the loose -- not to mention a federal

deficit ballooning out of

control -- the stakes are too high to remain silent. " Obviously, I

don't think he is the best

person " to be running the country, he said. " I wanted to explain

why. "

2. Voting Act in 2002-No Paper Trail

The Republicans passed the Voting Act in 2002 authorizing the

use of electronic voting machines in presidential elections. Tom

DeLay and other top Republicans fought very hard not to include in

this bill a requirement that the electronic voting machines be able

to generate " a paper trail " . The Democrats attempted to require

this in that bill but to no avail.

3. Bush Hires Diebolt and DS & S to Make Voting Machines

The Bush administration then contracted with Diebolt and ES & S to

make the lion's share of these machines for the election 2004. Even

though there are several foreign and domestic corporations involved

in the U.S. vote counting business, ES & S and Diebold clearly

dominate

the field. ES & S claims that they have tabulated " 56 percent of the

U.S. national vote for the past four presidential elections " , while

a Diebold

spokesperson told this writer that the company processed about 35

percent of

U.S.electronic vote count in 2002.

The President of one of these companies and the VP of the other are

brothers. Both of them are staunch Republican supporters. Diebolt

has contributed

hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican campaign. The

CEO of Diebolt has been at George's ranch in Texas on numerous

occasions. The CEO of Diebolt within the last year has publicly

promised to deliver the state of Ohio to George Bush in this

election.

On April 22, 2004, Jim Wasserman of the Associated Press (AP)

reported, " By an 8-0 vote, the state's (California) Voting Systems

and

Procedures Panel recommended that [secretary of State] Shelley cease

the use of the

machines, saying that Texas-based Diebold has performed poorly in

California

and its machines malfunctioned in the state's March 2 primary

election,

turning away many voters in San Diego County . . . In addition to

the ban,

panel members recommended that a secretary of state's office report

released

Wednesday,detailing alleged failings of Diebold in California, be

forwarded

to the state attorney general's office to consider civil and

criminal

charges against the company. "

Interestingly, no one in the U.S. federal government seems to be

paying attention . . . as usual. There is no federal agency that has

regulatory authority or oversight of the voting machine industryâ€”not

the

Federal Election Commission (FEC), not the Department of Justice

(DOJ),

and not the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The FEC doesn't

even have a

complete list of all the companies that count votes in U.S.

elections.

Once again we are witness to an " eyes closed, hands off " approach

to protecting America. The 2004 election rests in the private hands

of the Urosevich brothers, who are financed by the far-out right

wing and

top donors to the Republican Party. The Democrats are either sitting

ducks or co-conspirators. I don't know which.

4. No Recounts Possible

Without the capability of generating a " paper trail " , there is

no way of having a recount of the votes which is required by law.

5. Diebolt DES Code Broken in 1997

No agency hired by the federal government ever issued a report

indicating that these electronic voting machines manufactured by

Diebolt and ES & S were secure from manipulation.

On the other hand, Dr. Avi Rubin, currently a Professor of Computer

Science at John Hopkins University " accidently " got his hands on a

copy of the Diebold software program--Diebold's source code--which

runs their e-voting machines.

Dr. Rubin's students pored over 48,609 lines of code that make up

this software. One line in partictular stood out over all the rest:

#defineDESKEY((des_KEY8F2654hd4 "

All commercial programs have provisions to be encrypted so as

to protect them from having their contents read or changed by anyone

not having the key. The line that staggered the Hopkin's team was

that the method used to encrypt the Diebold machines was a method

called Digital Encryption Standard (DES), a code that was broken in

1997 and is NO LONGER USED by anyone to secure prograns.F2654hd4 was

the key to the encryption. Moreover, because the KEY was IN the

source code, all Diebold machines would respond to the same key.

Unlock one, you have then ALL unlocked.

Professor Rubin's Study was published on the Internet in February,

2004. No Bush administration officials or government agencies ever

mentioned this report which clearly states that these electronic

voting machines are not suitable to be used in the upcoming election.

6. Democrats Knew That Machines Were Not Secure From Hacking

Bev Harris, of Black Box Voting, was videotaped with Democratic

presidential contender Howard Dean in March, 2004. On this

videotape entitled Votergate she and Howard Dean are able to hack

into the Diebold voting software and change the vote in 90 seconds.

Why weren't eyebrows raised by anyone in the government at this

point?

7. The Fix Was Implemented When George Knew He Was Going To Lose

Exit polls showed that John Kerry was going to win the

election.George Bush was being forewarned that he was going to lose

in the early evening of November 2. Election night, Thom Hartmann,

Common Dreams been doing live election coverage for WDEV, one of the

radio stations that carries his syndicated show, and, just after

midnight, during the 12:20 a.m. Associated Press Radio News feed, he

was startled to hear the reporter detail how Karen Hughes had

earlier sat George W. Bush down to inform him that he'd lost the

election. The exit polls were clear: Kerry was winning in a

landslide. " Bush took the news stoically, " noted the AP report.

Then, the word was put out for the " fix " . As Beverly Harris has

described in detail, all of the

numerous polling places e-mailed their results to a central PC. It

is this PC that she and Howard Dean were able to hack into and

change the vote in 90 seconds.

8. Why Votes Do Not Match Exit Polls

There are numerous examples in Florida and Ohio where the votes

do not match the exit polls but only in those precincts where

electronic voting machines with no paper trail were being used. All

of these discrepancies are in favor of George Bush by five to 15%

despite many of the precincts having a strong Democratic majority.

In those precincts where there was a machine with a " paper trail " ,

the exit polls matched almost exactly the actual vote.

9. The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy --by Steven F. Freeman,

Ph.D.

" As much as we can say in social science that something is

impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between

predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground

states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could

have been due to chance or random error... The likelihood of any two

of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of

one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are

250 million to one. As much as we can say in social science that

something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies

between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical

battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to

chance or random error. "

10. Conservatives see a conspiracy here: They think the exit

polls were rigged.

Dick Morris, the infamous political consultant to the first Clinton

campaign who became a Republican consultant and Fox News regular,

wrote an article for The Hill, the publication read by every

political junkie in Washington, DC, in which he made a couple of

brilliant points.

" Exit Polls are almost never wrong, " Morris wrote. " They eliminate

the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly

separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast

ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for

guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the

state. "

He added: " So, according to ABC-TVs exit polls, for example, Kerry

was slated to carry Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and

Iowa, all of which Bush carried. The only swing state the network

had going to Bush was West Virginia, which the president won by 10

points. "

Yet a few hours after the exit polls were showing a clear Kerry

sweep, as the computerized vote numbers began to come in from the

various states the election was called for Bush.

11. None or Criminally Negligent Government Oversight of Voting

Machines

Your local elections officials trusted a group called NASED â€“ the

National Association of State Election Directors -- to certify that

your voting system is safe.

This trust was breached.NASED certified the systems based on the

recommendation of an

" Independent Testing Authority " (ITA). " Whuuut? "

What no one told local officials was that the ITA did not test for

security (and NASED didn't seem to mind).

The ITA reports are considered so secret that even the California

Secretary of State's office had trouble getting its hands on one. The

ITA refused to answer any questions about what it does. Imagine our

surprise when, due to Freedom of Information requests, a couple of

them

showed up in our mailbox.

The most important test on the ITA report is called the " penetration

analysis. " This test is supposed to tell us whether anyone can break

into the system to tamper with the votes.

" Not applicable, " wrote Shawn Southworth, of Ciber Labs, the ITA that

tested the Diebold GEMS central tabulator software. " Did not test. "

This is Shawn Southworth, in his office in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is the man who carefully examines our voting software.

Shawn Southworth " tested " whether every candidate on the ballot has a

name. But we were shocked to find out that, when asked the most

important question -- about vulnerable entry points -- Southworth's

report says " not reviewed. "

Ciber " tested " whether ballots comply with local regulations, but

when

Bev Harris asked Shawn Southworth what he thinks about Diebold

tabulators accepting large numbers of " minus " votes, he said he

didn't

mention that in his report because " the vendors don't like him to put

anything negative " in his report. After all, he said, he is paid by

the

vendors.

Shawn Southworth didn't do the penetration analysis, but check out

what

he wrote:

" Ciber recommends to the NASED committee that GEMS software version

1.18.15 be certified and assigned NASED certification number

N03060011815. "

Maybe another ITA did the penetration analysis?

Apparently not. We discovered an even more bizarre Wyle Laboratories

report. In it, the lab admits the Sequoia voting system has problems,

but says that since they were not corrected earlier, Sequoia could

continue with the same flaws. You've gotta ask yourself: Are they

nuts? Some of them are computer

experts. Well, it seems that several of these people suddenly want to

retire, and the whole NASED voting systems board is becoming somewhat

defunct, but these are the people responsible for today's shoddy

voting

systems.

If the security of the U.S. electoral system depends on you to

certify a

voting system, and you get a report that plainly states that security

was " not tested " and " not applicable " -- what would you do?

12. Purposeful Under Utilization Of Machines in Democratic

Strongholds in Ohio

Cliff Arnebeck, a Common Cause attorney, introduced into the record

the Franklin County Board of Elections spreadsheet detailing the

allocation of e-voting computer machines for the 2004 election. The

Board of Elections' own document records that, while voters waited

in lines ranging from 2-7 hours at polling places, 68 electronic

voting machines remained in storage and were never used on Election

Day. In the Democratic stronghold of Columbus, 139 of the 472

precincts had at least one and up to five fewer machine than in the

2000 presidential election. In the 2004 presidential election, 29

percent of Columbus' precincts, despite a massive increase in voter

registration and turnout, had fewer machines than in 2000.

13. Media Blackout

There is a bumper sticker I saw months ago that sums up the current

state of affairs in our country regarding what is the biggest news

story you'll never see on the General Media reported. It said " IF

YOUR NOT OUTRAGED, YOUR NOT PAYING ATTENTION " .

On Friday I received a phone call from a good friend who works at

CBS--I've known her for years and she is a Producer for some of the

news programs, one well known one in particular. She tipped me off

that the news media is in a " lock-down " and that there is to be no

TV coverage of the real problems with voting on Nov. 2nd. She said

similar " lock-down orders " had come down last year after the

invasion of Iraq, but this is far worse--far scarier. She said the

majority of their journalists at CBS and elsewhere in NYC are pretty

horrified--every one is worried about their jobs and retribution Dan

Rather style or worse. My source said they've also been forbidden to

talk about it even on their own time but she was pissed and her

journalistic and moral integrity as what she considers to be a gov't

watchdog requires her to speak out, while be it covert and she

therefore asked me to " spread " the word... She said that journalism

and the truth is at stake.

14. To believe that Bush won the election, you must also believe:

1- That the exit polls were WRONG...(remember--they have been used

for over a decade and considered reliable)

2- That Zogby's 5pm election day calls for Kerry winning OH, FL were

WRONG. He was within a less than 1/2 % point margin of error in his

2000 final poll and previous polls for other elections.

3- That Harris Poll last minute polling for Kerry was WRONG. They

were also within a 1/2% point margin of error in their 2000 final

poll.

4- The Incumbent Rule I (that undecideds primarily break at the end

for the challenger)was WRONG.

5- The 50% Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent doesn't do better than

his final polling)

6- The Approval Rating Rule was WRONG (that an incumbent with less

than 50% approval will most likely lose the election)

7- That Journalist Greg Palast was WRONG when he said that even

before the election, 1 million votes were stolen from Kerry. He was

the ONLY reporter to break the fact that 90,000 Florida blacks were

disnfranchised in 2000.

8- That it was just a COINCIDENCE that the exit polls were CORRECT

where there WAS a PAPER TRAIL and INCORRECT (+5% for Bush) where

there was NO PAPER TRAIL.

9- That the surge in new young voters had NO positive effect for

Kerry, even though it was the largest number of youth voters 18-29

ever and a huge jump from 2000 and they were over 55% in favor of

Kerry. >>

10- That Bush BEAT 99 to 1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

11- That Kerry did WORSE than Gore against an opponent who LOST the

support of SCORES of Republican newspapers who were for Bush in 2000.

12- That Bush did better than an 18 national poll average which

showed him tied with Kerry at 47. In other words, Bush got 80% of

the undecided vote to end up with a 51-48 majority--when ALL

professional pollsters agree that the undecided vote ALWAYS goes to

the challenger.

13- That Voting machines made by Republicans with no paper trail and

with no software publication, which have been proven by thousands of

computer scientists to be vulnerable in scores of ways, were NOT

tampered with in this election.

Some Examples: (There are many more, but I won't list them all here--

this is to give you an idea)

The City of Gahanna in Ohio discovered a discrepancy that gave

4,000 votes to George Bush. After media scrutiny, city officials

have admitted to an electronic " glitch " that caused the problem.

In Broward County, FL, errors in software code caused a

referendum on gambling to be completely overturned. The error caused

totals to count backwards after reaching a ceiling of 32,500 votes.

The problem existed in the 2002 election as well however the issue

was never resolved by the manufacturer of the electronic voting

machine.

In North Carolina, a Craven County district logged 11,283 more

votes than voters and actually overturned

15. Some Hard Cold Facts

80% of all votes in America are counted by only

two companies: Diebold and ES & S.

â€¢ There is no federal agency with

regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine

industry.

â€¢ The vice-president of Diebold and

the president of ES & S are brothers.

â€¢ The chairman and CEO of Diebold is

a

major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he

was

" committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the

president

next year. "

â€¢ 35% of ES & S is owned by Republican

Senator Chuck Hagel, who became Senator based on votes counted by

ES & S machines.

â€¢ Diebold's new touch screen voting

machines have no paper trail of any votes. In other words, there is

no way to verify that the data coming out of the machine is the same

as what was legitimately put in by voters.

â€¢ Diebold also makes ATMs, checkout

scanners, and ticket machines, all of which log each transaction and

can

generate a paper trail.

â€¢ Diebold is based in Ohio and

supplies

almost all the voting machines there.

â€¢ None of the international election

observers were allowed in the polls in Ohio.

â€¢ 30% of all U.S. votes are carried

out

on unverifiable touch screen voting machines.

â€¢ Bush's Help America Vote Act of

2002

has as its goal to replace all machines with the new electronic

touch

screen systems.

â€¢ Republican Senator Chuck Hagel owns

35% of ES & S and was caught lying about it.

â€¢ ES & S is the largest voting machine

manufacturer in the U.S. and counts almost 60% of all U.S. votes.

â€¢ Exit polls for the 2004 elections

were accurate within 1% or less in areas where ballot machines were

used.

â€¢ Major exit poll data discrepancies

were noted in counties where touch screen machines were used,

especially in Ohio and Florida.

16. Senator Chuck Hagel-Used Same Voting Machines to Win Upset in

Nebraska

Once upon a time there were two brothers: Bob and Todd Urosevich.

In

the 1980's, with the financial backing of the right-wing extremist

Christian billionaire Howard Ahmanson, Bob and Todd founded a

company

called American Information Systems (AIS) that built voting

machines. They

were also certified to count votes.

It is interesting to note that back then there was no federal agency

with regulatory authority or oversight of the U.S. voting machine

industry. Even more interesting is the fact that this is still true

today.

Not even the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has a complete list

of

all the companies that count votes in U.S. elections.

But let us get back to our story....

In 1992 a conservative Nebraskan fellow called Chuck Hagel became

chairman of AIS as well as chairman of the McCarthy Group, a private

investment bank. This all happened shortly after he stopped working

for Bush

Sr.'s administration as Head of the Private Sector Council.

In 1995 Hagel resigned from AIS and a year later ran for Senate,

with

the founder of the McCarthy Group as his campaign manager.

In 1996 Chuck Hagel became the first Republican to ever win a

Nebraska senatorial campaign in 24 years, carrying virtually every

demographic group, including African American precincts that had

never voted Republican. The only company certified to count votes

in Nebraska at the

time was AIS.

In 2003 the Senate Ethics Committee forced Chuck Hagel to reveal the

fact that he had $1 million to $5 million in investment in the

McCarthy

Group, a fact he'd previously neglected to mention. The McCarthy

Group

also happens to be a major owner of ES & S.

17. Criminal Record of Voting Machine Companies

Diebolt

During the 2000 presidential elections, Diebold made 16,000

presidential votes " vanish " in several Florida county.

Back in 2002 Diebold supplied the state of Georgia with brand new

electronic voting machines. That was when incumbent Democratic

Governor Ray

Barnes was defeated and the Republicans won for the first time in

134

years. The poll results showed an amazing 12-point shift that took

place

in the last 48 hours.

Diebold was subsequently sued for applying a last-minute code patch

to

the machines that was never reviewed. In another strange turn of

events, that code was also deleted right after the election and the

suit

fell through.

Earlier this year California sued Diebold for fraud and decertified

its

voting machines.

Sequoia

America's second largest voting corporation is Sequoia Voting

Systems.

This company is owned by the British company De La Rue, who also

owns

20% of the British National Lottery. In 1995 the SEC filed suit

against

Sequoia for inflating revenue and pre-tax profits.

In 1999 charges were filed by the Justice Department against Sequoia

in

a massive corruption case that sent top Louisiana state officials to

jail for bribery, most of it funneled through the Mob. Sequoia's

executives were given immunity in exchange for testimony against

state

officials.

18. Those Who Were Paying Attention Knew About Voting Machine Problem

Years before the election, perhaps it was with the quiet passage of

the 2002

Help America Vote Act which mandated the use of Diebold and ES & S

machines

notorious for their " tamperability " --concerned citizens from various

walks of

life--professors, computer scientists, systems analysts, even

grandmothers and

literary publicists from Seattle--had been attempting to sound the

alarm: the

Diebold voting machines are not secure; the democratic process

itself is in

jeopardy, seriously so. Bev Harris, Executive Director of the

consumer protection

organization Blackboxvoting.org, first published her groundbreaking

book Black

Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century in 2003. Avi Rubin,

professor

of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical of the

Hopkins Security Information Security Institute, authored that

study. Rubin

is a qualified expert with years of practical experience in the

fields of

cryptography, network security, Web security and secure Internet

services who was

employed by such companies as AT & T and Bellcore prior to accepting

his

appointment at Johns Hopkins. On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, one

week before the

election, CBS's 60 Minutes broadcast an alarming segment covering

electronic

voting, featuring not only Rubin, but David Jefferson of the Center

for Applied

Scientific Computing at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Jefferson

described the system currently in place as the " electoral weapon of

mass destruction "

which could easily be manipulated by a " rogue programmer. " Mark

Crispin

Miller, professor of media studies at New York University and author

of several

" legitimate " books on American government published by Norton &

Company, also

pointed out the potential for problems with the machine-voting

systems, and these

are but a few of the " minority report-esque " voices who attempted to

sound

the alarm before the most recent election scandal broke loose on the

internet.

Are we to discredit these experts as " internet conspiracy

theorists? "

19. Professional White-Hat Hacker

I am, by trade, a professional White-Hat Hacker, so I know how

easily " secure " systems can be breached, especially by insiders.

Roughly 80% of all computer crimes are perpetrated by insiders, so

that's always the best place to look first. When the insiders also

write the code and roll the machines out, there is no question that

they have too much power and can not be trusted, whether they

support my party or not. It's called " Segregation of Duties " in the

professional world, and it is vital for system integrity.

So I went to BlackBoxVoting.org

following a link off of some website, I don't remember which, and

saw Bev's plea - " Computer Guys - Test it yourself! " . I thought, all

right, I will. After all, this IS what I do for a living. It's like

asking an accountant to balance debits and credits - nothing

special, and besides, I was curious. Surely if our states are

rolling this out to Hundreds of Millions of voters, somebody checked

it. It can't be as bad as these liberal whiners are making it out to

be - they're just pissed off that our folks turned out in mass.

What I found truly shocked me, and made me physically ill. That's

what is documented on the other page. It IS that bad. I personally

don't have conclusive evidence that voter fraud was perpetrated, but

I can tell you as an Information Security professional that it would

have been very, very easy to do. If I had to choose between someone

conspiring with exit poll workers nationwide or someone changing

values in an Access Database as the cause of the difference between

the poll numbers and the " actual " results, I'll go with the easier,

more effective option every time. Why choose the hard way when it's

more trouble and you're less likely to succeed? Again, I'm staying

clear of making specific allegations - I'll leave that to the

activists who are gathering data - but I would be much more

surprised if the election weren't hacked than to find out that it

was.

It was too easy, the companies were too partisan and unethical, and

there was too much at stake for them NOT to hack it. It looked like

Bush was going to lose, and they had this tool available to pull out

a victory.

Why do I call Diebold partisan and unethical, you ask? How's this:

" I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the

president. " - Walden O'Dell, Diebold's CEO in a fundraising letter

to Republicans, Fall 2003. O'Dell and other Diebold Senior

Executives are Republican " Pioneers " , which is the designation you

get when you raise over $100,000. His brother is President of ES & S,

the #2 vote machine maker, and is also a " Pioneer " . Is that

partisan enough for you? Well, what about calling them unethical?

Check this out - No less than 5 of Diebold's developers are

convicted felons, including Senior Vice President Jeff Dean, and

topping the list are his twenty-three counts of felony Theft in the

First Degree. According to the findings of fact in case no. 89-1-

04034-1:

" Defendant's thefts occurred over a 2 1/2 year period of time, there

were multiple incidents, more than the standard range can account

for, the actual monetary loss was substantially greater than typical

for the offense, the crimes and their cover-up involved a high

degree of sophistication and planning in the use and alteration of

records in the computerized accounting system that defendant

maintained for the victim, and the defendant used his position of

trust and fiduciary responsibility as a computer systems and

accounting consultant for the victim to facilitate the commission of

the offenses. "

To sum up, he was convicted of 23 felony counts of theft from by -

get this - planting back doors in his software and using a " high

degree of sophistication " to evade detection. Do you trust computer

systems designed by this man? Is trust important in electronic

voting systems?

The GEMS software has been available for some

time thanks to a dumb-ass move by Diebold, when they left an FTP

server open to the public. Copies of GEMS software, database files,

user guides, code, and all kinds of " good stuff " have been

circulating around the 'Net ever since.

I thought the problem was the touchscreens, but you're talking

about something different. Why would an attacker target the GEMS

software instead of the TouchScreens? back

A:

Good question. With all of the hype about the touch screen

terminals, you'd think they'd be a likely target. When you look

through Hacker eyes, though, that's the best reason to avoid them.

Here's what I think:

I feel that it is unlikely that these individual touch screen

machines would be targeted. At greater risk than the individual

touch screens are the Central Voting Tabulation computers, which

compile the results from many other systems, such as touch screens

and optically scanned cards. From a hacker's standpoint, there are a

couple of reasons why these central computers are better targets:

a. It is extremely labor intensive to compromise a large number of

systems, and the chance of failure or being detected increases every

time an attack is attempted. Also, the controversy surrounding the

touch screen terminals ensures that their results will be closely

watched, and this theory has been born out in recent days.

b. If one were to compromise the individual terminals, they would

only be able to influence a few hundred to maybe a couple of

thousand votes. These factors create a very poor risk/reward ratio,

which is a key factor in determining which systems it makes sense to

attack.

c. On the other hand, the Central Vote Tabulation systems are a very

inviting target â€“ by simply compromising one Windows desktop, you

could potentially influence tens or hundreds of thousands of votes,

with only one attack to execute and only one attack to erase your

tracks after. This makes for an extremely attractive target,

particularly when one realizes that by compromising these machines

you can affect the votes that people cast not only by the new touch

screen systems, but also voters using traditional methods, such as

optical scanning systems since the tallies from all of these systems

are brought together for Centralized Tabulation. This further helps

an attacker stay under the radar and avoid detection, since scrutiny

will not be as focused on the older systems, even though the vote

data is still very much at risk since it is all brought together at

a few critical points. This also has been born out by early

investigations, where the touch screen results seem to be fairly in

line with expectations, while some very strange results are being

reported in precincts still using some of the older methods.

This is not to say that the touch screens don't have their problems,

which are well documented on the web and the news. My point here is

that if you want to steal an election, targeting the individual

touch screen machines is not the easiest way to do it.

The above are the lines that connect the dots of the Bush

Conspiracy to steal this election. I have attached a number of

articles which support and explain in more detail my above 8 points.

I think the American people deserve to hear reports relative to what

I have said above.

November 19, 2004

I'm amazed that you're amazed that media " have " not reported on the

certainty of electronic voting machine fraud. The only institutions in our

society, that want to see the Bush administration win more political power

as much as does the administration itself, are media. Most complicit

corporate mass TV and radio media, were aching to see Bush win, and a few

others of the less pro-Bush media, were complicit in their silent acceptance

of the media wide determination to shut out any news of the possibility of

fraud. News media are, by and large, extensions of the Bush White House;

and not out of fear, but out of self-aggrandizement and greed.

Media are gambling that the " fraud " argument will lose steam before they're

compelled to bring the news of it to the people; and Democrats are almost as

anxious to give the Republicans another phony victory as are most of the

Republicans. If you're trying to tell the truth about something in our

current political environment, nearly everything and nearly everyone is

fighting you tooth-and-nail. Bush and his buddies, are like a pack of

armed, adolescent bullies, that burst in and demand that their will be done.

Nearly everyone will do as they're told, whatever BS they're hearing from

the bullies.

JP

-

<Fernwoods

Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:31 AM

Indisputable Facts Showing Bush Stole

Election

This is long, but has some new infromation and I think it is the best

summary