Election Irregularities Project Update Colorado (Part 10)

I wrote somewhat of an adhoc report on Colorado election irregularities this past week that renewed the idea I presented over some eight or so previous articles on how Colorado was somewhat of the tip of the proverbial spear when it comes to election anomalies, largely attributable to the presence of Dominion Voting Systems (DVS) headquarters in Denver, Colorado and the presence of Dr. Eric Coomer as resident rat overseeing implementation of the DVS in 62 of 62 Colorado Counties. For those who are still on the fence about such things happening, believing what our elected officials are saying about the credibility of the process, the hard work and actions of the election workers-who are your neighbors-whose kids go to school with your kids-in most places the process is likely totally legitimate.

But not here in Colorado. The update of the Tina Peters battle for a recount of the Colorado Secretary of State race has played out exactly as expected: its stinky Jim, stinky! This Gateway Pundit article title tells you all you need to know: Breaking: Colorado Sec State Candidate Tina Peters sues every clerk in Colorado over recount procedures. By Colorado law the recount process had to be completed ASAP-but a little hiccup developed with the first step in the recount process which calls for a logic and accuracy (L&A) test of a sample set of ballots that is supposed to process through the DVS relatively error free with few anomalies. What happened according to monitors was an adjudication or flagged ballot rate of over 50%, when the target metric is low single digit-which in fact was apparently the case when the election results were initially counted based on a successful-record-L&A. A controversy immediately emerged (from the piece):

• Dominion claimed the machines “are doing exactly what they have been configured to do during pre-election testing.”   The machines had a 53% adjudication rate during the recount L&A test.  Prior the (SIC) the election, the L&A test had a much, much smaller adjudication rate.  Therefore, the machines are not doing what they were configured to do during pre-election testing as Dominion stated.
• The Secretary of State has been embroiled in controversy surrounding the elections in Colorado.  She was an opponent to Ms. Peters getting a recount in the first place.  Sec. Griswold will face the winner of this primary in the general election three months time.  Tina Peters, who was the Trump and Lindell endorsed front runner in both polling and fundraising, somehow ended up in 2nd place, barely beating out Mike O’Donnell for the runner up spot, and losing to the (on-leave) Director of the board for Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL).
• El Paso County Clerk Chuck Broerman was a candidate in the race.

Furthermore, if this was “completely expected”, then why did El Paso Co only account for one staffer for four hours and just four judges for a total of eight hours?  The adjudication of 2,266 ballots one time would take longer than that.  El Paso had to repeat that seven times for the remaining machines.  That doesn’t seem very “expected”.

So when something shockingly dramatic, like a 53% adjudication rate, orders of magnitude greater than the pre-election testing, occurs, especially without any warning, it would render the test a failure by any auditing standards.  Retroactively claiming “this was completely expected” doesn’t make it so.  Sources on the ground claim the clerk definitely did not appear to be expecting this.  None of the candidates were notified of a drastic increase of adjudications prior to the testing commencing.  This sounds like an “unresolvable discrepancy.”

Fortunately, the Colorado Secretary of State (Jena Griswold) has a recourse in the event of an unresolvable discrepancy to ensure a credible outcome:

According to 8 C.C.R. 1501-1 Rule 10.13.1:

In accordance with section 1-10.5-102(3)(b), C.R.S., if there are no
discrepancies in the test under Rule 10.12, the recount must be
conducted in the same manner as the ballots were counted in the election
except as outlined in this Rule. If there are unresolvable discrepancies in
the test, the recount must be conducted as a hand count under Rule
10.13.5.

So we are back to the courts again in an attempt to receive justice in what is supposed to be a fairly straightforward process of counting ballots.

Peters’ lawsuit addresses both the recount, as well as anomalous results found in the reporting data reflective of the election results. Did I mention the correlation issue that was discovered by Tina Peters and her team? It seems the vote tallies had somewhat of a normal variance in relationship to each other (that is the proportion or percentage-or raw number of votes each candidate received) in the first several-three-uploads reflected in the New York Times results feed between June 28 and July 2, 2022. But from that point on the vote tallies reported out of Colorado for the GOP SOS Primary showed a .99 correlation to each other between Anderson, Peters and O’Donnell, regardless of where or when votes were tabulated and updated. To belabor the obvious, we are talking about 99 heads out of 100-coin flips, or better yet, 99 events of a coin landing on it’s edge-just impossible and evidence of artificial influences on the vote counts by machine software or algorithms or other methodologies.

It is difficult to win an election if for every vote you receive, your opponent receives 1.25-or conversely if you only receive .75 of a vote for every full vote your opponent receives.

And hand in the back-wow-how could such a thing happen-has it happened before-how would you discover it-what can be done about it? All good questions.

This Tina Peters is the same that caused all the controversy over the 2020 election results because as the Colorado Mesa County Elections official, she was responsible to determine what if any anomalies occurred in their tabulation process-and what to do about it. The answer by the Colorado SOS and the DVS vendor to problems discovered like this near correlation in a progression that should be acting like a random data population-or more significantly in the 2020 election the fact that duplicate or replacement databases were created within the DVS machines that were then populated with somewhat of an arbitrary sub-set of the holdings of the original data base, none of which were the result of actions that were initiated by the Mesa County election staff. When these issues were brought to the attention of the SOS, as well as DVS technicians, the answer was pretty much a “phffft,” nothing to see here, although the recurring anomalies stopped the next day-but the real answer was certify and move on.

Peters would not move on and she was determined to have subject matter experts in the data forensics field evaluate those data and characterize them to determine once and for all that Colorado elections are as much and as close to a religious experience as has been maintained for nearly a decade or longer.

But a funny thing happened on the way to getting that assessment-the DVS was set to receive a statewide update scheduled by the SOS in February or so 2021. The update would result in the deletion of DVS digital 2020 election data records-gonezo, umbidiago-despite federal election laws that stated that records must be maintained for 22 months. Peters took action-courageous action-to ensure that before and after records were made and maintained to ensure they could get to the bottom of the anomalies that occurred that under ordinary circumstances, should have precluded Mesa County certification until a full audit was completed.

A huge bruhaha broke out as a result and at the end of it Peters home and office was raided by federal agents and representatives from the attorney general and district attorney’s office.

In the America most of us grew up in, this story should result in the hand count of the 2022 election to overcome problems and security vulnerabilities of the DVS system. With September on the horizon and the 22-month election records holding date approaching, we are about out of time to glean anything from the 2020 election-so what Peters accomplished with her team will have to suffice. However, paper ballots remain, and forensics could still take place with the Mesa dataset Peters’ copied-which may be the only actual digital election data set left in 62 of Colorado’s counties that use DVS.

The report is well done, clear, and documents a number of anomalous activities that support the conclusion that Mesa County 2020 election results cannot be certified. Emerald Robinson did an excellent summary piece of the key issues found by the audit team.

Just a teaser from the Mesa County report to close with:

CONCLUSIONS 1. Unauthorized creation of new Tabulation and Adjudication databases occurred during the counting of the November 2020 General Election, along with the selective copying of batch and ballot records from the original databases to the new ones. This manipulation places all 25,913 initial ballots counted into a state where they cannot be validated – some because it is possible that their vote information was changed, and unverifiable that it was not, and the rest because their “chain of evidence” has been intentionally obfuscated. Even if the count and content of ballot images match the numbers and counts reported by the database, there is no method to validate those ballot images due to missing “.sha” files, which are intended to provide such validation.

Tina Peters has been hounded harassed, raided, arrested, charged and bullied unmercifully throughout this process. Some of the worst treatment has been from Colorado squish RINOs who want to go along and get along, like someone who thinks you should let bygones be bygones after you’ve been punched. Fudge that nonsense-we should be getting to the “bygone letting piece” shortly after somebody receives a good butt whipping.

Peters will have to overcome what is a totally corrupt process and state apparatus that Stalin would have salivated over. Whether she succeeds in court or not, the Mesa County forensic audit is well worth reading as the results explain in great detail how the DVS machines produced strange events while at the same time exhibiting grave security vulnerabilities while lacking basic functional data base integrity checks and balances that have become industry norms.

I can’t close this piece having mentioned DVS Dr. Eric Coomer without linking to the video showing his skunky performance (taken down-try this link Rumble) when he ran into a building and almost lied his way into jail before the police convinced him to stop being a total jackbutt and fess up: it is glorious “schadenfreude,” but bittersweet because he deserved to have the book-the printer-the trees-everything thrown at him.

More to follow!

Max Dribbler

5 August 2022

Maxdribbler77@gmail.com

LSMBTG: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT) and government (G)

Follow AFNN

Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa

Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAz…

Twitter: @AFNNUSA

GETTR: @AFNN_USA

CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

Patriot.Online: @AFNN