You actually read his full posts?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/check-the-code-dominion-voting-system-tied-to-hugo-chavez-voter-fraud-used-in-2020-swing-states/
"Check the Code: Dominion Voting system tied to Hugo Chavez voter fraud was used in 2020 swing states
November 15, 2020 by Wayne Creed
The Dominion Voting system was first designed for Hugo Chavez to “win” and “keep” himself in office. It was also used in the 2020 US Elections, in fact, it was used in all six swing states. And it unilaterally helped one team with late-night voter tallies. Only one direction, only one party. Always. Interesting how that works.
Three companies rule, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Dominion, and Hart InterCivic, used by 92% of US voters, as Dominion services 40%. Smartmatic is another big US player.
Question: What did the chairman of Smartmatic, a vote tabulating software, do to earn a place on Joe Biden’s “transition team?”
Smartmatic was the subject of controversy in 2004 when the Hugo Chavez-led Venezuelan government selected it to provide the voting machines system for the presidential recall election, even though it would have been the company’s first time providing machines for an election. Smartmatic teamed up with a Venezuelan software company, Bitza, which at the time was 28 percent owned by Chavez’s government. In 2005, a Chicago city alderman questioned the possible ties between Sequoia and the Venezuelan government when that company’s machines were used in the March 2006 Chicago primaries.
Dominion, founded by Canadian John Poulos in 2000, is now owned by Staple Street Capital LLC, says Bloomberg. Writes Forbes, “In 2009, Diebold Election Systems was sold to its competitor, ES&S, and in 2010 selling to Dominion Voting Systems” gaining “all intellectual property, software, firmware, and hardware.” Dominion and Smartmatic contracted for 2010 and 2013 Philippines elections where claims of malfunction and fraud abounded. In 2016, seventy-one million voters in 1,635 jurisdictions used
Dominion, also tied to the Clinton Foundation, and a $2.25 million project together. Robert Mueller’s firm Wilmer Hale was their agent in 2004. Dominion outsources components to China “…down to the chip component level.”
“Former WH Cybersecurity Coordinator, Michael Daniel, notes voting machine companies aren’t known for cybersecurity expertise. Jake Stauffer, AF cyber analyst tested Dominion voting systems for CA, observing: “I’ve found for voting systems, security isn’t taken very seriously.” Testing, Staufer found vulnerabilities in Dominion’s Democracy Suite (DDC) voting equipment enabling remote code execution, denial of service attacks, and off-line ballot tampering. “How can a vendor sell a voting system with this many vulnerabilities?”
Glitches or Witches??
The election software “glitching” in GA & MI, which incorrectly gave Joe Biden thousands of votes,
is used in 28 states. When Dominion blamed a day-before “update,” Politico wrote, “Supervisor, Marcia Ridley of Spalding County Board Elections says records show no such update occurred…That is something that they don’t ever do. I’ve never seen them update anything the day before the election.” Dominion then corrected this, admitting last update was Oct 31. Does this reveal fraud or cover-up?
What’s Up with Dominion’s Code??
The origin of Dominion’s source code is especially problematic, given Smartmatic being “adopted” by Hugo Chavez in 2004, subsidized, trained to build vote machines and code, then used to rig an election. And then Smartmatic acquired Sequoia in 2005, using it to evolve their software until selling in 2007 to Dominion. Smartmatic even went to court to preserve their right to use the code they developed..
Everything that was developed by Smartmatic and Sequoia, including the software allowing ballot fraud in Hugo Chavez’ failed recall, was passed onto Dominion.
Smartmatic machines were created for 2004 Venezuela elections, organized and funded by recipient Hugo Chavez. Then Dominion inherited it all. But questions still swirl regarding if Dominion is just a front for Smartmatic.
Questions continue to pop around all these tainted companies. Was the 1 million ghost ballot dump by Smartmatic in Venezuela’s 2017 election an accident?
If the engineers who ran Dominion wanted to commit massive ballot fraud against a US candidate, based on everything we know – Is there anything that could have stopped them?"
https://www.ptnewsnetwork.com/chairman-of-smartmatic-tied-to-dominion-a-biden-transition-team-member/
Chairman of Smartmatic, tied to Dominion, a Biden Transition Team Member
By Tonya Covarrubias
November 16, 2020
The US chairman of controversial electronic voting company Smartmatic’s Board has been tapped as a member of the Biden transition team. Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger (USCG retired) is a member of the Homeland Security transition committee and was the head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) under the Obama Administration. Smartmatic has links to Dominion Voting Systems. Sydney Powell, General Michael Flynn’s lawyer, has claimed there is evidence that shows Dominion was involved with potential election fraud in the 2020 General Election.
Multiple sources, including Biden’s transition website, list Peter Neffenger as a member of the agency review team under the Department of Homeland Security. Agency review teams are responsible for ensuring a smooth transition between administrations. Neffenger is listed as a volunteer for the Biden agency review team.
So, why care about Smartmatic’s Board Chair joining the Biden transition team?
Well, according to Politico, authorities in the Philippines charged three of its employees with illegally altering code on an election server during their 2016 national election. Smartmatic was founded by three Venezuelans and was investigated by the Department of Treasury to purchase Sequoia voting systems in 2005. Smartmatic was also reported under investigation by the Department of Justice for bribing the Venezuelan government for contracts in 2006.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2019/07/whos-behind-voting-machine-makers-money-of-unclear-origins/
Who’s behind voting-machine makers? Money of unclear origins
By EMERY P. DALESIO
July 12, 2019 1:34 pm
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The voting-machine makers that aim to sell their systems in North Carolina are largely owned by private equity firms that don’t disclose their investors.
The companies didn’t want the public to know even that much.
North Carolina’s statewide elections board demanded the machine-makers’ ownership information last month after special counsel Robert Mueller’s April report into Russian efforts to sway the 2016 presidential election. Their concerns about potential foreign interference have grown since Maryland officials learned last year that a company maintaining that state’s election infrastructure did not disclose its financing by a venture fund whose largest investor is a Russian oligarch.
The private-equity backers of the three voting systems vendors seeking approval to sell to county elections boards in North Carolina told The Associated Press they’re controlled by U.S. citizens. They claimed they have no ties to foreign oligarchs or other nefarious persons facing financial sanctions by Washington. But they didn’t provide information about the sources of the money they invest. And they asked the board not to share what they did disclose with the public.
The elections board released the companies’ responses — as required by law — under a public records request from The AP.
Election security watchdogs remain frustrated.
“The answer that we all really want is, is there foreign influence over the companies that make equipment that’s used in our elections? We didn’t get that answer, because the actual influence is obfuscated behind the private equity firms,” said Maurice Turner, who focuses on election security at the Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington, D.C.
North Carolina — the country’s ninth largest state by population — is heating up as a market for voting equipment because the state has required touchscreen-only systems to be replaced after November with equipment that produces a paper record. The change will affect machines in about a third of the state’s 100 counties. New voting systems purchased from approved companies could be in use for a decade.
The three companies — Omaha, Nebraska-based Election Systems & Software; Boston-based Clear Ballot; and Austin, Texas-based Hart InterCivic — were told to disclose anyone holding a 5 percent or greater stake, or in a parent company or any subsidiaries.
All three private companies responded by listing their executives and equity funds as chief owners. And all three asked that even these responses be kept confidential.
Hart InterCivic said that it “derives independent actual value from this information not being generally known or readily ascertainable and makes reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of this information.”
Election Systems & Software did disclose that it is controlled through an intermediary company by McCarthy Group, a private equity firm also based in Omaha. The CEO and chief financial officer of ES&S own smaller stakes.
Hart InterCivic said nearly 80 percent of its ownership is held through an intermediary company by H.I.G. Capital, a Miami, Florida-based private equity firm. Gregg L. Burt, Hart’s board chairman and former CEO and the founder of his own Austin-based private equity firm, owns another 10.5%, the company disclosed.
Clear Ballot founders Larry Moore and Tim Halvorsen, later investor Steven Papa and Raging Capital Opportunity Fund V LLC all own more than 5 percent stakes, the election systems maker said, without detailing each owner’s share. The company said that neither the fund nor any individual invested in the fund controlled by Rocky Hill, New Jersey-based Raging Capital Management owns a controlling interest in Clear Ballot Group.
The board hasn’t scheduled a hearing to review the responses.
While election experts knew generally that the machine-makers had private equity backing, the scope of that ownership is now clearer because of North Carolina’s query, something few if any other states have demanded previously, Turner said.
Turner says the back-and-forth shows that the federal government is better equipped than states are when it comes to trying to determine who really controls the handful of U.S. election-equipment makers. Washington should take on this task, to protect confidence in the country’s voting system, Turner said.
“It’s hard to think of many services that are of greater public importance than running our elections,” said Lawrence Norden, an expert on voting machines with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school. “The public should know who is doing that and who has control over the companies that are doing that.”
The Market for Voting Machines Is Broken. This Company Has Thrived in It.
Half the country votes on machines made by ES&S. Many experts and election officials say the manufacturer remains dominant because there’s little government regulation and almost no oversight.
by Jessica Huseman
Oct. 28, 2019, 2:20 p.m. EDT
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-market-for-voting-machines-is-broken-this-company-has-thrived-in-it
The Market for Voting Machines Is Broken. This Company Has Thrived in It.
Half the country votes on machines made by ES&S. Many experts and election officials say the manufacturer remains dominant because there’s little government regulation and almost no oversight.
by Jessica Huseman
Oct. 28, 2019, 2:20 p.m. EDT
In the glare of the hotly contested 2018 elections, things did not go ideally for ES&S, the nation’s largest manufacturer of voting technology.
In Georgia, where the race for governor had drawn national interest amid concerns about election integrity, ES&S-owned technology was in use when more than 150,000 voters inexplicably did not cast a vote for lieutenant governor. In part because the aged ES&S-managed machines did not produce paper backups, it wasn’t clear whether mechanical or human errors were to blame. Litigation surrounding the vote endures to this day.
In Indiana, ES&S’ systems were plagued by mishaps at the local level. In Johnson County, for instance, the company’s brand-new machines faltered in ways that made it difficult to know whether some people had voted more than once.
“ES&S misjudged the need for appropriate resources to serve Johnson County on Election Day 2018,” a report issued by state election officials later concluded. Johnson County subsequently terminated its contract with ES&S and, this September, paid more than $1.5 million to purchase an entirely new set of equipment.
The uneven performance by ES&S in 2018, however, did little to dent its position as one of the most popular and powerful voting technology companies in the U.S. Any number of prior controversies hadn’t either.
The vote in 2006 in Sarasota, Florida, was just one. There, ES&S machines lost around 18,000 votes; it is still unclear why. The loss was far more than the margin of victory, and a lawsuit followed that ultimately resolved little. The company said in a statement that a variety of testing done on its machines supports its claim that the devices were not at fault, but the county wound up canceling its dealings with the firm shortly afterward.
Despite such stumbles,
ES&S — based in Omaha, Nebraska, and employing roughly 500 people — controls around 50% of the country’s election system market, the company says, meaning that some 70 million Americans vote using the company’s equipment....
A ProPublica examination of ES&S shows it has fought hard to keep its dominance in the face of repeated controversies. The company has a reputation among both its competitors and election officials for routinely going to court when it fails to win contracts or has them taken away, suing voting jurisdictions, rivals, advocates for greater election security and others.
In September 2018, ES&S filed a federal lawsuit against Cook County, Illinois, after the county awarded a $30 million voting machine contract to another company. ES&S later dropped the lawsuit, but the dispute delayed the implementation of Cook County’s new machines, and the Chicago mayoral election this spring ultimately was conducted using the same machines that were meant to be replaced.
ES&S’ lawsuits and threats of lawsuits have helped delay or thwart progress toward better voting technology even when the litigation is unsuccessful, more than two dozen election officials and voting technology experts said in interviews.
“I’d love to see a vibrant marketplace of voting technologies, with companies competing to make better products at lower prices. We have that in mobile phones, personal computers and automobiles, but we don’t have it at all with voting technologies,” said Dan Wallach, a computer science professor at Rice University who studies election systems and has testified in many such lawsuits.
“These companies’ litigiousness creates a barrier to competition that becomes a barrier to improving our elections.”
ES&S is owned by the McCarthy Group, a private equity firm, and thus its financial records — revenue, profits, salaries — are not public. A spokesperson declined to make ES&S officials available for an interview for this article, and the company instead issued written responses to questions. It said its machinery and technology were ultimately found blameless in some of the election controversies over the years. In Georgia, it said that while the company was responsible for the maintenance of the machines, it was unable to make updates to the software. The state of Georgia, it said, was ultimately responsible for the mishaps.
“ES&S believes strongly in the security, accuracy and reliability of our machines,” the company said. “We’re committed to our role in democracy and protecting the right to vote.”
Asked about its history of litigation, the company said it sued only as a way to keep competitors honest: “We believe American voters deserve accountability in this industry.”