All he needs do is provide the data that substantiates his claim.
Who he is or his accomplishments are irrelevant. I want his data to be publicly released. That’s the only thing that matters due to the claims he made.
[#38] He made a claim about hacking.Pulitzer needs to provide the data that substantiate his claims.
[#54] Who he is or his accomplishments are irrelevant. I want his data to be publicly released. That’s the only thing that matters due to the claims he made.
Actually, no, he does not, at least not yet. Manufacturing absurd election results on Tuesday would demonstrate the ability exists without educating the entire world on how to do it. That could be done as part of a White Hat effort with governmental/presidential permission to demonstrate that the system is not, and has not been, reliable. On Tuesday night, the miscreants could receive a full pardon for anything they may have done to demonstrate that the system is broken.
Of course, if it is expected that his hacking claim is to be used to overturn election results, before such overturning there should be some demonstation showing that his hacking claims are not just blather. Pulitizer's drop dead date has not arrived yet.
As for his claims to being able to identify fraudulent, unofficial ballots, I see no reason to hide the ballots to prevent them from being subjected to his proposed methodology. The ballots are the property of the people. They should be able to have them inspected and audited.
Dominion and all other providers of election software should be required to make the source code public and available for review. Better yet, have all the software be open source and government owned. The software should not be comprised of proprietary unobtainium. All original paper ballots should be retained and available for inspection and audit. All electronic iterations of ballot images should be retained and available for inspection and audit. The record with which to perform an actual audit should be retained and available.
Something is seriously wrong when 112,000 ballots are run through the system and 106,000 of them are adjudicated, with the original image being destroyed. When the system spits out 95% of a large batch of ballots, what was the problem? How long does it take to "adjudicate" and determine the intent of the voter on 106,000 ballots? Spending 5 seconds to examine each ballot, and determine voter intent, would take almost a week. Performing a global change, as in a word processing document might go quickly. Review the first 100 or 1,000 ballots, determine 100% voter intent to vote for Biden, and just change them all to Biden. However, this would be a global change to documents one did not create and did not read or examine. How is it determined that the last 105,000 affected ballots are the same as the inspected 1,000?
They said an adjudication of 106,000 ballots was performed. Just how was the adjudication, and determination of voter intent, performed? It would seem there is a real requirement for the election workers to detail what they did, and how they did it, before their reported results are confirmed.
For example, an election worker is on video running the same stack of ballots through the machine over and over. How is the result certified without an explanation of what is on that video?
The drop dead date for these actions came and went with the state certifications of the results. The actions of responsible state officials left something to be desired.