Replies

Don’t give me hope.

We, the steadfast patriots, united as one; exponentially.

Initial Post Summary (Emerald Robinson X post – January 2026)
Sworn admissions by former Dominion executive Eric Coomer in federal court filing (Coomer v. Byrne et al., Jan 23, 2026).
He confirmed foreign-based employees (including Serbians) discussed voting equipment, adjudication software, and source code — and could perform remote troubleshooting in Dominion’s Denver office.
Contradicts earlier Dominion statements of no foreign involvement in U.S. election systems.
Links to U.S. Patent No. 9,202,113 (networked adjudication), 2021 Mesa County forensic audit findings (duplicate databases, wireless components, unresolved issues), Tina Peters conviction, and Dominion’s $787.5 million Fox News settlement.
January 27, 2026 deposition has renewed election-integrity scrutiny. No direct proof of 2020 vote tampering established.
Question: Couldn’t the actual voting machines be analyzed to determine if the source code would allow this and/or was specifically designed to enable voting manipulation?
Yes — machines and source code have been analyzed multiple times (court-ordered, forensic audits, lawsuit discovery).
No credible evidence has emerged showing systems were deliberately designed to enable vote manipulation.
● Federal EAC certification includes independent lab source-code reviews, but process has known limitations (vendor-funded labs, not exhaustive attack testing).
● Key independent reviews:
→ J. Alex Halderman (Georgia Curling v. Raffensperger case): court access → demonstrated serious vulnerabilities (malware via USB, QR-code vote alteration), but classified them as poor security design — not intentional backdoors.
→ County audits (Antrim MI, Maricopa AZ, Mesa CO, others): forensic imaging / log checks → no evidence of widespread manipulation; some audits actually increased Biden’s certified margin.
→ Dominion defamation discovery (vs. Fox, Powell, Giuliani, etc.): defense experts reviewed code → found no hidden vote-flipping algorithms or fraud mechanisms.
● Real vulnerabilities exist (physical access, insider risks), but appear to result from design trade-offs rather than purposeful fraud engineering.
● Coomer admissions raise legitimate questions about foreign-developer access and security practices — but do not prove backdoors or intentional manipulation capability.
User comment: That’s grasping at straws to suggest “intentional design” … absolutely no one would leave an obvious trail such as that.
Correct — sophisticated intentional manipulation would never use obvious indicators (e.g., no “flip votes” button in plain view).
Any real backdoor would be hidden (obfuscated code, conditional triggers, abuse of legitimate features like adjudication).
Despite that:
● Multiple deep-dive reviews — by adversaries with strong motive to find fraud — still found no hidden manipulation mechanisms after years of access (lawsuits, sealed expert reports, forensic images).
● Consensus among security researchers: flaws are real and exploitable under specific conditions (physical access, insider help), but stem from bad engineering choices — not deliberate vote-rigging architecture.
● Coomer deposition (Jan 2026) highlights risky offshore development practices — a valid concern for critical infrastructure — but remains several steps away from proof of deployed exploits or backdoors.
Absence of smoking-gun evidence after extensive hostile scrutiny leans toward systemic weakness rather than intentional fraud. Open-source voting systems or mandatory public code audits would help resolve persistent distrust.
Question: What would be the smoking gun would be the end users software that would exploit the identified vulnerabilities.
Exactly — the decisive proof would be discovery of actual end-user exploit software (malware, scripts, USB payloads, adjudication tools) capable of silently exploiting known flaws to change votes or records.
Such a tool would need to:
● Exploit specific documented weaknesses (USB code execution, QR-code override, insecure file handling in election management system, etc.)
● Be simple enough for moderately skilled insiders to run (thumb-drive executable, batch file, modified adjudication utility)
● Alter vote data / insert fake ballots while evading logs, checksums, risk-limit audits, and hand recounts
Academic proof-of-concept exploits do exist (e.g., Halderman’s sealed Georgia demonstrations — machine hacked in minutes to install persistent malware and change recorded votes), but these remain confidential to prevent real-world misuse.
Despite full forensic imaging in multiple counties (Antrim, Maricopa, Mesa, others) and extensive lawsuit discovery — no malicious end-user exploit tool has ever been found on any Dominion system examined.
No statistical or audit anomalies consistent with large-scale exploitation have appeared in certified results or post-election hand tallies.
Until such software (or clear deployment artifacts) surfaces, the known vulnerabilities remain theoretical / lab-demonstrable risks rather than proven real-world election-altering mechanisms.
Stronger public transparency — full open-source voting platforms or independent mandatory code & logic audits — is the most practical path to settle the debate long-term.

As of January 29, 2026 — no publicly available forensic report or court filing has presented working end-user exploit software tied to Dominion systems in any live election.