Steven Miller said there were multiple instances of fraud. One instance involved potential votes that weren’t counted and another was ballots requested by a person other than the GOP-registered voter. Miller is able to analyze this as his background specializes in analytic number theory and sabermetrics.
“I estimate that the number of ballots that were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican or requested and returned but not counted range from 89,397 to 98,801,” Miller said in the sworn statement (pdf), according to Just The News.
Elaborating, Miller said that “almost surely, the number of ballots requested by someone other than the registered Republican is between 37,001 and 58,914,” and that “almost surely the number of ballots requested by registered Republicans and returned but not counted is in the range from 38,910 to 56,483.”
Pennsylvania’s state data for early and absentee ballot requests showed 165,412 ballots requested in the names of registered GOP voters that were not counted as of Nov. 16, Miller stated.
Data shows Democratic nominee Joe Biden is ahead of President Donald Trump by around 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania.
Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor, an appointee of Trump, told the news outlet that Miller’s affidavit is evidence of potential voter fraud.
“This data, which is provided by an expert witness, who would be qualified in almost any court in the country, adds to the conclusions that some level of voter fraud took place in this year’s election,” Trainor remarked. “Therefore, the rush to certify results that are this suspicious from places with known election violations would nullify millions of votes that were legally cast by individual voters.”
Miller, who was educated at Yale and Princeton, said he analyzed data from Pennsylvania’s election that was collected by Matt Braynard, who formerly worked for the Trump campaign, and conducted 2,684 voter interviews by a phone bank.
Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar’s office said it has found no evidence of voter fraud or mass irregularities. Unfortunately for her, the science, data and eyewitness accounts to fraud don’t seem to match that statement.
Can You Hack an Election in 7 Minutes?
Can an election be hacked in seven minutes?
Andrew Appel, a professor at Princeton University set out to do just that, hack into a voting machine. In order to do this he could have tried traditional ways of hacking or writing malware to sneak on to a machine at a polling place that are left unguarded for days, but he decided it was much easier to just buy one online.
For the cost of a whole $82, Appel became the proud owner of a behemoth machine called Sequoia AVC Advantage. This machine is one of the oldest and most vulnerable in the US and is unfortunately used in places like Louisiana, New Jersey, Virginia and Pennsylvania.
No sooner did a team of bewildered deliverymen roll the 250-pound device into a conference room near Appel’s cramped, third-floor office than the professor set to work. He summoned a graduate student named Alex Halderman, who could pick the machine’s lock in seven seconds.
Clutching a screwdriver, he deftly wedged out the four ROM chips—they weren’t soldered into the circuit board, as sense might dictate—making it simple to replace them with one of his own: A version of modified firmware that could throw off the machine’s results, subtly altering the tally of votes, never to betray a hint to the voter. The attack was concluded in minutes.
To mark the achievement, his student snapped a photo of Appel—oblong features, messy black locks and a salt-and-pepper beard—grinning for the camera, fists still on the circuit board, as if to look directly into the eyes of the American taxpayer: Don’t look at me—you’re the one who paid for this thing.
Appel’s mischief might be called an occupational asset: He is part of a diligent corps of so-called cyber-academics—professors who have spent the past decade serving their country by relentlessly hacking it.
Electronic voting machines—particularly a design called Direct Recording Electronic, or DRE’s—took off in 2002, in the wake of Bush v. Gore. For the ensuing 15 years, Appel and his colleagues have deployed every manner of stunt to convince the public that the system is pervasively unsecure and vulnerable.
Beginning in the late ’90s, Appel and his colleague, Ed Felten, a pioneer in computer engineering now serving in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, marsha led their Princeton students together at the Center for Information Technology Policy (where Felten is still director).
There, they relentlessly hacked one voting machine after another, transforming the center into a kind of Hall of Fame for tech mediocrity: reprogramming one popular machine to play Pac-Man; infecting popular models with self-duplicating malware; discovering keys to voting machine locks that could be ordered on eBay.
Eventually, the work of the professors and Ph.D. students grew into a singular conviction: It was only a matter of time, they feared, before a national election—an irresistible target—would invite an attempt at a coordinated cyberattack.
There is no singular national body that regulates the security or even execution of what happens on Election Day, and there never has been. It’s a process regulated state by state.
The Princeton group has a simple message: That the machines that Americans use at the polls are less secure than the iPhones they use to navigate their way there. They’ve seen the skeletons of code inside electronic voting’s digital closet, and they’ve mastered the equipment’s vulnerabilities perhaps better than anyone (a contention the voting machine companies contest, of course).
They insist the elections could be vulnerable at myriad strike points, among them the software that aggregates the precinct vote totals, and the voter registration rolls that are increasingly digitized. But the threat, the cyber experts say, starts with the machines that tally the votes and crucially keep a record of them—or, in some cases, don’t.
Cleary hacking into voting machines is an easy task, which is a major concern for our democracy. If powerful people with money and resources want to stay in control, we now know they can make that happen very easily.
Charlie Kirk Discusses Rudy Giuliani's Bold Prediction Stating "The Election Will Be Overturned"
During Charlie Kirk’s show, he breaks down how Rudy Giuliani says the election will be overturned.
In the first video clip that Kirk plays, Giuliani says “you want to get down to the votes, lets just pick Pennsylvania, we have identified 632,000 illegal votes, 632,000! It’s enough to have the president win the state by 300,000, which is actually what he won it by if you get that smartmatic machine out.”
Giuliani continued “They are counting mail-in ballots and they don’t allow any Republican to inspect, that is illegal, unlawful, against the law, I don’t know how else to put it.”
Kirk then refers to another clip where they describe how Smartmatic has a backdoor where you can see how many votes are needed to gain an electoral advantage. Kirk explains that it is consistent with what Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney and Trump attorney Sidney Powell have been saying.
Giuliani says that he can prove with witnesses that the backdoor was used in Michigan and that they are investigating the rest of the states they believe to have issues. He said with illegal ballots alone they have enough to overturn the state.
Kirk went on to say “I love Rudy, he is a dear friend” he went on to say how involved he is, “no matter what it is, it’s the laptop, Rudy’s there, impeachment, Rudy’s there, going after the president, Rudy’s there, Smartmatic, Rudy’s there. No matter what it is, he has lived the most interesting full life of any political operative I’ve ever seen in the last decade.”
In a final clip that Kirk plays, Giuliani explains that they have people and proof that they can’t disclose yet that will lead to the election being overturned.
See the full clip from the show below.