Understanding Voting Machine Vulnerabilities

Understanding Voting Machine Vulnerabilities

During Mike Lindell’s 96-hour Thanks-a-Thon, Attorney Kurt Olsen said: “Everybody should understand the vulnerabilities of these voting machines – either the machines are secure or they are not”.

He also spoke of the fact that in September of 2021 a cybersecurity expert from University of Michigan named J. Alex Halderman testified in a State of Georgia hearing that Dominion Voting Systems Corporation used hackable machines in 16 states.

Following is a link to Professor Halderman’s 24-page sworn Declaration prepared on August 2, 2021, in which he details an extraordinary amount of evidence of voting machine “vulnerabilities.”


Let me list a few excerpted statements from Professor Halderman’s Declaration that might compel you to read his full testimony:

  • numerous, critical vulnerabilities in Georgia’s BMDs (ballot marking devices)
  • serious vulnerabilities
  • exploiting those vulnerabilities to alter individual votes and election outcomes in Georgia
  • address the vulnerabilities it describes before attackers exploit them
  • promptly subject Georgia’s voting system to rigorous testing
  • Georgia’s BMDs contains multiple severe security flaws
  • malware, once installed, could alter voters’ votes while subverting all the procedural protections practiced by the State
  • the BMDs’ vulnerabilities compromise the auditability of Georgia’s paper ballots
  • My (Professor Halderman’s) testing has shown that the BMDs used in Georgia suffer from specific, highly exploitable vulnerabilities that allow attackers to change votes despite the State’s purported defenses
  • He (one of the State Defendants) ignores the relative ease with which Georgia’s BMDs can be hacked, including by a voter in a voting booth in mere minutes.

These 10 quotes were copied from just the first four pages of Professor Halderman’s 24-page sworn testimony.

Thanks-a-Thon Attorney Kurt Olsen went on to say that a federal court has denied Professor Halderman’s request to unseal a report that Professor Halderman published on July 1, 2021, that would provide evidence of election fraud to security personnel in (the five states that already have massive evidence of election fraud – my words in parentheses), and he basically said that this information is being kept from the people who might be able to do something about it to avoid future election fraud – that is the public and their state legislators.

Attorney Olsen then suggested that someone needs reach out to the judge and ask why he or she is keeping Professor Halderman’s report secret.

I found a possible clue as to why this report is being kept secret in a letter dated September 2, 2021, linked here:


The relevant part of this letter (to my analysis) is a warning sent to the Secretary of State of California informing her that “Professor Halderman’s full report, dated July 1, 2021, is so sensitive that the court in Curling v. Raffensperger ordered that it be sealed.”

The group of eight individuals who identified the sensitivity of Professor Halderman’s report  “urged (the SOS) to file a motion with Judge Totenberg to obtain a confidential copy of Prof. Halderman’s sealed report to inform (her) cybersecurity team of the vulnerabilities he discovered,” (which is basically what Professor Halderman asked for, except he wanted his report to be widely distributed; the “gang of eight” only wanted it distributed to the democrat CA Secretary of State).

So, who were the individuals who signed this letter, and what potentially was their own desired end goal?

The first signatory on the letter is Mustaque Ahamad, Professor at The School for Cybersecurity and Privacy at Georgia Tech. What can we learn about Professor Ahamad?  Well, according to an interesting website called Campaign Money, Professor Ahamad made regular, small donations to an organization called ActBlue each month during 2019. 


Okay, so what is ActBlue, you ask? 

According to Senior Investigative Researcher for the Capital Research Center, Hayden Ludwig, ActBlue is “The Left’s Favorite “Dark Money” Machine.


The next signatory is University of South Carolina’s Professor Duncan Buell, NCR Chair (Emeritus) in Computer Science and Engineering who has made donations to Emily’s List, which promotes itself as an organization that has raised over $700 million dollars to help elect Democratic women who favor abortion rights (I think that they meant “Democrat women” because truly there is nothing democratic about murdering people in or out of a woman’s womb).



According to their letter it seems that the end goal was to urge California’s Secretary of State to “mandate a statewide post-election risk-limiting audit of the outcome for the two questions on the (Governor Newsom) recall ballot.” They went on to say that they “believe that it is important that a public commitment to such post-election verification be made before Election Day.  Otherwise, it may appear to be a partisan decision, and there may be calls for other kinds of ‘audits’ that are neither scientifically grounded nor probative, and that would likely undermine public confidence in the election.

As if the identity of the first two signatories on that letter don’t make it “appear to be a partisan decision.”

Professor J. Alex Halderman mentioned risk-limiting audits in his 24-page sworn Declaration when on Page 3 Paragraph 4 he states: “I explain in detail how such malware, once installed, could alter voters’ votes while subverting all the procedural protections practiced by the State, including acceptance testing, hash validation, logic and accuracy testing, external firmware validation, and risk-limiting audits (RLAs).” (italics and bolding mine).

It’s just a guess of mine that the “other kinds of ‘audits’ that are neither scientifically grounded nor probative, and that would likely undermine public confidence in the election” that the leftist letter writers referred to might be the full, independent forensic audits that a growing number of American voters are demanding of the November 3, 2020, presidential election. 

With the ever growing mountain of evidence of election fraud being exposed, we need to force the issue and demand either full, independent forensic audits in all 50 states or simply call for a decertification of the November 3, 2020, presidential election based upon the obvious continued and serious subversion of our American constitutional Republic.

Back to blog

Leave a comment