Forensic audit shows Dominion software “intentionally designed” to influence election results

Forensic audit shows Dominion software "intentionally
designed" to influence election results 1

(Natural News) A forensic audit of Michigan voting machines found that Dominion Voting Systems election tools were “intentionally designed” to influence election results. The audit conducted by data firm Allied Security Operations Group determined that Dominion voting machines and software were designed with fraud and election interference in mind. Allied released the preliminary results of its audit on Dec. 14 after 13th Circuit Judge Kevin Elsenheimer agreed to the publication of the findings a week earlier.

Allied co-founder Russell Ramsland Jr. said in the preliminary report that “the system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors … [which] are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors led to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency and no audit trail … [leading] to voter or election fraud.”

Ramsland and his team examined earlier this month Dominion’s election management server, flashcards and memory sticks used in Antrim County. The audit was performed as part of the ongoing Bailey v. Antrim County election case: Plaintiff William Bailey hired Ramsland to conduct the examination, which Elsenheimer approved. Bailey alleges in his suit that an incident where 6,000 votes meant for Republican candidates were counted for Democrats may not have been caused by human error.

The Allied co-founder stated that the tabulation log for the county’s election server showed 15,676 individual events: About 68 percent of these were recorded errors, proving that the Dominion election system “is flawed and does not meet state or federal election laws.” (Related: Antrim Co. forensic report reveals Dominion machines were set at 68.05 percent error rate… meaning 68.05 percent of ballots could be sent out for mass adjudication.)

Ramsland further elaborated: “Our examination of the server logs indicates that this high error rate was incongruent with patterns from previous years. The statement attributing these issues to human error is not consistent with the forensic evaluation, which points more correctly to systemic machine and/or software errors.”

Given these findings, the audit concluded that “the Dominion voting system should not be used in Michigan … [and] the results of Antrim County should not have been certified.”

Michigan officials slam the findings, insist no election fraud occurred in the state

However, Michigan officials and attorneys criticized the findings by Ramsland and his team, insisting that the state’s elections were devoid of fraud.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said in a statement following the report’s release: “Let’s be clear: [The] Nov. 3 general election in Michigan and across the country was the most secure in the nation’s history. There continues to be no evidence of widespread fraud.” Benson said in a statement last month that elections in the state “were conducted fairly, effectively and transparently” and accurately reflect the will of Michigan voters. (Related: Michigan Sec. of State Jocelyn Benson calls for “mass deletion of election data” amid audit calls.)

Assistant Attorney General Erik Grill told Elsenheimer during a Dec. 14 hearing that the report by Allied was “inaccurate, incomplete and misleading.” Antrim County attorney Haider Kazim concurred with Grill, saying that report contained several errors which the county believes were based on “faulty and incorrect assumptions.”

The state’s Elections Director Jonathan Brater said the report “makes a series of unsupported conclusions” in a court filing. Brater added that the report by Ramsland’s firm “ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections” and “suggests without explanation” that aspects of election software that were not used in the state caused “nonexistent or easily explained” tabulation or reporting errors.

“Oftentimes, a party will hire an expert witness to support the conclusion [they want or need] to reach. It’s why we give the other parties in a lawsuit a chance to depose the expert and challenge their qualifications in court. Anyone can have an opinion, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the opinion is based on fact or science,” Attorney General Dana Nessel commented.

Spokespersons for both Antrim County and Dominion Voting Systems did not respond to The Epoch Times‘ request for comment.

Read more about irregularities and security issues in Dominion voting machines at

Sources include:

Read the Full Article

Dominion Voting Systems found using software flagged by CISA for its open security breaches: SolarWinds
Obama and Pelosi didn't win elections in the last decade, it was Dominion

You might also like