The electronic voting machine company Diebold openly has ties to Republicans. However, despite that fact, they are secretly working for Democrats rigging election results in their favor –
In 1998, John Bolton‘s nephew, Greg Dixon, a Masonic High school friend and informant deeply connected with Freemasonry, explained how the US based company Diebold Election Systems, Inc., is willing to “die-boldly” if caught rigging votes for Democrats, while publicly appearing to be aligned with Republican interest.
At the time this information was conveyed in 1998, it was explained how Diebold was planning on using the now infamous “Hanging Chad” technique to create nationwide mandate for their electronic voting machines.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the term ‘hanging chad’ it’s the small piece of paper that gets punched out of ballots – that sometimes remains partially attached to the punch card causing the vote not to be counted when fed onto vote tallying machines.
The election of 2000 was extremely close, with the Republican presidential ticket of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney winning a tiny majority in the electoral college despite losing the popular vote to the Democrats Al Gore and Joe Lieberman – In the tightest election since 1876.
The result of the vote on election day, November 7, 2000, was a virtual tie. It soon became evident that everything depended on the outcome in Florida, where the difference was tantalizingly close. A recount of some ballots had begun when the United States Supreme Court intervened, forbade any further recount, and declared George W. Bush the winner. This action, supported primarily by the conservative, Republican-appointed members of the court, tainted the Supreme Court’s reputation for impartiality in many minds.
It was at this time, during the election recount of 2000, that ‘hanging chad’ scrutiny came into effect, after the elite handed Bush the tightly contested race for the presidency over Gore. Aimed to usher in both electronic voting machines they could rig in favor of Democrats, and a necon presidency that reigned over the inside false flag job of 911.
Two years prior, Dixon explained exactly how this ‘hanging chad’ scenario would unfold using a “googly-eyed” Jew actor to scrutinize multiple punch cards during the recount of this tremendously close orchestrated election result, particularly in Florida, designed to create wavering uncertainty of their continued use.
The act played-off perfectly, thus replacing the punch card ballot system with Diebold electronic voting machines under ‘The Help America Vote Act’ signed into law shortly thereafter by president Bush on October 29, 2002 – the very same day as the Stock Market Crash of 1929.
George W. Bush Signs the Help America Vote Act – Oct. 29, 2002
President George W. Bush signs the first law to specifically address voting technology. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) is “an act to establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, and for other purposes.”
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is signed into law in an effort to improve voting systems across the country. The law establishes the Election Assistance Commission, and authorizes $3.9 billion in federal funds for replacing lever machines and punch card voting systems with either DREs or optical scan systems with accessible ballot marking devices – Electronic Voting Machines and Related Voting Technology Timeline
The origins of Diebold voting machine came from a push for electronic voting that occurred after the chaos of the 2000 presidential election. The controversy surrounded “hanging chads,” which were the result of “a half-punched piece of chaff rather than a clean cut” from a “readable punch-card ballots,” according to Bloomberg, when it came to the Florida recount in that election. The result was a push for electronic voting to avoid a repeat of that anarchy by using voting machines like Diebold, which allow people to vote via touch screen.
In August 2003, Walden O’Dell, chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to Ohio Republicans. In the letters he says he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year. – Wikipedia
Diebold, having openly conspicuous ties to Republicans, officially has been granted legal status to use their electronic voting machine technology in future elections, where they actually will be rigging votes in favor of Democrats (dialectic) – since further accomplished under new ownership allied with the left.
In 2006, Diebold decided to remove its name from the front of the voting machines for strategic reasons. In August 2007 the company changed its name to “Premier Election Solutions” (PES) before Dominion Voting Systems acquired Premier on May 19, 2010.
Voting Machine Manufacturers:
Documented Security Issues:
Avi Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University and Technical Director of the Information Security Institute has analyzed the source code used in these voting machines and reports “this voting system is far below even the most minimal security standards applicable in other contexts. The company RABA did a security analysis of the Diebold AccuVote in January 2004 confirming many of the problems found by Avi Rubin and finding some new vulnerabilities.
“Memory card attacks are a real threat: We determined that anyone who has access to a memory card of the AV-OS, and can tamper it (i.e. modify its contents), and can have the modified cards used in a voting machine during election, can indeed modify the election results from that machine in a number of ways. The fact that the results are incorrect cannot be detected except by a recount of the original paper ballots” and “Harri Hursti’s attack does work: Mr. Hursti’s attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server.”
A new vulnerability, this time with the TSx DRE machines, was reported in May 2006. According to Professor Rubin, the machines are “much, much easier to attack than anything we’ve previously said… On a scale of one to 10, if the problems we found before were a six, this is a 10. It’s a totally different ballgame.” According to Rubin, the system is intentionally designed so that anyone with access can update the machine software, without a pass code or other security protocol. Diebold officials said that although any problem can be avoided by keeping a close watch on the machines, they are developing a fix.
Michael I. Shamos, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University who is a proponent of electronic voting and the examiner of electronic voting systems for Pennsylvania, stated “It’s the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system.” Douglas W. Jones, a professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, stated “This is the barn door being wide open, while people were arguing over the lock on the front door.” Diebold spokesman David Bear played down the seriousness of the situation, asserting that “For there to be a problem here, you’re basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software. I don’t believe these evil elections people exist.”
On October 30, 2006, researchers from the University of Connecticut demonstrated new vulnerabilities in Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scan voting terminal. The system can be compromised even if its removable memory card is sealed in place.
On November 2, 2006, HBO premiered a documentary entitled “Hacking Democracy“, concerning the vulnerability of electronic voting machines (primarily Diebold) to hacking and inaccurate vote totals. The company argued that the film was factually inaccurate and urged HBO to air a disclaimer explaining that it had not verified any of the claims. However, corroboration and validation for the exploits shown in Hacking Democracy was published in a report for the state of California.
In January 2007, a photo of the key used to open Diebold voting machines was posted in the company’s website. It was found possible to duplicate the key based on the photo. The key unlocks a compartment which contains a removable memory card, leaving the machine vulnerable to tampering.
A report commissioned by Ohio’s top elections official on December 15, 2007 has found that all five voting systems used in Ohio (made by Elections Systems and Software; Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold Election Systems); and Hart InterCivic) have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election.
Currently, no doubt, exactly what has taken place as of 2018. Thus, perhaps why Hillary has considered a second run to steal the election from Trump in 2020 – where perfected Diebold technology (or lack thereof) will help her win next time around, when Democrats once again steal the election through benefit of electronic vote rigging.