I find myself thinking about Maricopa Elections Forensic Audit tonight.
I read a little news story that a Democrat lawmaker got heckled at a presser he did to condemn the audit requested by Republicans in the Arizona Senate. He said this was not needed because the Maricopa County Elections Board conducted two audits already. About a "half dozen" listeners in the audience loudly disagreed according to the article I read.
Well, I got to wondering about the audits they did. I found this:
The audit of the tabulation equipment’s software and hardware was performing by two independent Voting System Testing Laboratories: Pro V&V and SLI Compliance.
So, how did Maricopa County choose these two auditors? From the ELECTIONS Assistance Commission. Hmmm.
So who is Pro V&V?
https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstl/pro-vv
A "certified" auditor picked by EAC, with a guy named Jack Cobb , who before going to Pro V&V in 2012 testified to EAC back in 2009 about COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) Equipment or software. It appears that he has a cozy relationship with the EAC.
A judge shared my concern about the qualifications of this audit in an article I found...
Although Judge Totenberg ruled to allow the Dominion System to be used in the Nov 3, 2020 election, she voiced real concerns, stating the “risks are neither hypothetical nor remote.”
She also noted that Jack Cobb, the director of Pro V&V, “plainly indicated that he actually claims no specialized knowledge or background in cybersecurity engineering and did not himself perform any security risk analysis of the BMD [Ballot Marking Device] system.” Instead, “State Defendants relied on Dr. Coomer’s testimony, to address—based on his professional experience—some of the significant cybersecurity issues raised by Plaintiffs.”
I posted previously about SLI in these posts:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkP7ESSP/who-will-do-the-arizona-senates-/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkP7ESal/what-does-msn-say-about-judges-d/c/
I have posted previously about my concerns regarding EAC.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkmXRfI0/can-you-believe-this--elections-/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12hkrE5XJ1/a-little-more-about-the-election/c/
AZ, NH, or GA. Who will be the first to reveal the steal? Then all hell breaks loose.
And, imho, EAC played a role in at least AZ and GA. I'm not as familiar with hearings in NH. And I've not researched the EAC connections there specifically.
Edit:
Was able to find this EAC page for NH...
https://www.eac.gov/new-hampshire
Absolutely. My concern is what the DS will do to prevent this exposure? They are desperate and will stop at nothing.
I dunno.
But I found the documents I downloaded from the link for the 2020 Request interesting.
And these certifications, very, VERY interesting...
[Read them from the pdf download from link.]
Now these may be standard clauses within grants, but I just found it interesting that this certification was required related to Elections Assistance grants.
Just one more thing that makes one go hmmm.
The two audits that Maricopa did were a joke. Not a single ballot was actually reviewed. They basically checked the source code of the machines were the vendors legit version, that there were no viruses on the machines, and that they had no internet connection (details a little foggy on that one).
One of the companies did do a scan check by scanning a known deck of simulated ballots and verified that the numbers matched. But there was no forensic audit of the machines, no check to see if audit logs were tampered with (as they were in Antrim County). There was no analysis of adjudication rates and some affidavits have said it was over 10% (when standards dictate that should be well under 1%).