Misinformation, Disinformation, Malinformation—and Censorship

I looked up the government’s definitions for these three types of information the new Disinformation Governance Board is concerning themselves with:

·        Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

·        Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

·        Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

Notice that this includes false information you didn’t know was false (a mistaken belief), false information you knew was false (a lie), and true information that the government deems evil. In other words, it includes all information, true or false, that the government comes up with a reason to disapprove of.

You’ve been hearing it called the Ministry of Truth, which wouldn’t make sense, since they want to hide inconvenient truth, not declare it—unless you’re familiar with George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

image from a T-shirt, found here

In that novel, the Ministry of Truth is the censoring department deciding what people are allowed to know or say or even think. Truth, of course, has nothing to do with it. But their language, Newspeak, is a way of saying things to hide what the government is doing, so as to control the people.

Ministry of Truth is a description of the kinds of organizations found in other regimes:

·        The Nazis’ Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, established 1933.

·        Glavlit, the Soviet Union’s propaganda arm, under Stalin.

·        The Kuomintang (KMT) of the Chinese Communist Party.

·        The Juche ideology in North Korea.

·        Castro’s propaganda apparatus in Cuba.

Of Cuba’s propaganda apparatus, Wikipedia says, “Today the Cuban government maintains an intricate propaganda machine that includes a global news agency, magazines, newspapers, broadcasting facilities, publishing houses, front groups, and other miscellaneous organizations that all stem from the modest beginnings of Castro's revolutionary propaganda machine.” Add in a total control of social media, on top of all other media, and a government just might find totalitarianism easy to accomplish and maintain. 

According to the government’ website, they are calling this—this writing that I do here, in the safety of obscurity—terrorism; domestic terrorism. Criticism of the government—including criticism of a current administration while they are undermining our Constitution—is considered a form of terrorism. 

On their website, they say there’s a focus on elections, so today so will I.

They do not bother about preventing election fraud. Instead, they are concerned with conversations that undermine trust in the election system. In other words, instead of increasing trust by increasing election security, they are targeting those who want to increase election security. Expressing questions about things that were not done according to law, or that left open the possibility of fraud, are on the list—I guess qualifying as malinformation, which is true stuff they don’t like.

 

2000 Mules

In a spirit of rebellion against Big Brother, then, I suggest you find a theater to go see Dinesh D’Souza’s new documentary 2000 Mules, which details a particular type of voter fraud, the kind that combines ballot harvesting and/or weak rules surrounding mail-in ballots and unmanned drop boxes. It’s illegal to handle anyone’s ballot but your own. So when you find people going from drop box to drop box—particularly after stopping at Democratic headquarters or other election fortification nonprofits—then you look at those.

True the Vote, the organization from here in Houston that taught me how to be a poll watcher, gathered the evidence. They thought to use geo-tracking data from cell phones, the kind of widely used information purchased by companies for marketing purposes. They targeted a few cities, I think five around the country. And they eliminated any chance of coincidental traffic, such as a person dropping off their own ballot and then by happenstance going to a store near the next drop box. They’ll spell out the details, but I think their targets had to go to at least five drop boxes plus the nonprofits.

Then, where it was available, they got public security camera footage, targeting the time stamps when the “mules” were dropping off ballots. Then they had not only phone tracking but photos of the person and what they were doing. There could be no excuses like, “I loaned my phone to my brother,” or “I was just going to that store there; I wasn’t even using the drop box.”

screenshot from the 2000 Mules movie trailer

The documentary is showing this week (May 2 and May 4). Tickets are only available at their website, not at theaters, so there can be no intimidation of theater employees. Unfortunately, I hesitated to coordinate with my husband, and all tickets within driving distance were sold out for May 2, when we were available. There will also be a livestream on Saturday, May 7. That is an election day here in Texas, so poll workers will miss that opportunity. I’m guessing that there will be additional opportunities after this initial viewing, because the idea is to get all the election fraud deniers to see it.

It appears that just the cities investigated, with the limitations True the Vote imposed on themselves, provided enough instances of voter fraud to have flipped the election.

There’s a Townhall article here. 

 

Another Data Scientist Proves Voter Fraud

While we’re on this to-be-censored subject, I saw yet another data scientist’s take on election fraud, which seems to me a reasonable focus for investigation. He has found an anomaly in the machine counting that took place in 2020. The data scientist is Jeffrey O’Donnell, whose company is Ordros Analytics. You can see the full interview here. 

This story is out of Mesa County, Colorado. Their Dominion machines were due for an update in May 2021. But a wise county clerk, Tina Peters, thought to ask what that update would do to the data already on the machines. Federal law requires keeping all election-related materials for 22 months after an election; Colorado requires 25 months. It’s fortunate she asked, because that update was going to do a clean wipe of the hard drive. So they took an image of the hard drive first—that is, an exact digital replica of the hard drive. It’s a process used by organizations to backup their data, to preserve it, or to present it elsewhere such as in a court proceeding. It’s how we are learning what is on Hunter Biden’s laptop without having the actual laptop; images were made and shared. (I do not suggest looking for that image, since there’s illegal stuff on Biden’s hard drive.)

Anyway, they took this digital image of what was on their machines after the 2020 election. And, since they could, they made it available, in case somebody out there wanted to go through the data. Friends of O’Donnell thought he was the right person to take that on.

The first step of a computer audit is to look at the numbers and see if they add up. They did not. He tells the story, using the timeline:

They started counting ballots on the 19th of October. And these were, of course, mail-in ballots that had come in at that point. And over the next three days until halfway through the 21st, they had counted about over 25,000 mail-in ballots at that point. And what happened is that at 2:00 or so in the afternoon, something woke up inside the machine.

This was not caused by anything the clerks did. This was not a normal procedure. Some bit of code inside the Dominion machine woke up and decided that it needed to create some new databases, copy some ballot information to those new databases—not all but some of that—and essentially went through that reprocessing of about 20,000 of the 25,000 ballots.

We know that they are reprocessed, because there’s a thing called adjudication, or manual adjudication. And that’s simply that, when a ballot gets put into the system, if the computer can figure out what the voter meant to do by the dots, then we’re fine. It registers those votes. If it can’t, then it kicks them out to a couple humans that have to look at them and at the image of the ballot and see if they can determine what the voter meant to vote for. That’s what we mean by adjudication. Or, I call it manual adjudication just to kind of make clear it’s a human being doing it.

Well, when those 20,000 or so were run through again, the number of ballots that were kicked out for this manual adjudication process wasn’t the same.

Now, the same ballots run through the same computer with the same software should have had the same results. And the only way to explain that is, something had changed in the ballots at that point. Which, to me, points to where— Well, what I’ve told you so far is already proof of ballot manipulation. That it went through this process that nobody told it to do and nobody— There’s no way to explain it terms of normal processing.

It's unauthorized. And it is on a very deep level, illegal. And by the fact that these were reprocessed, then, if it had the opportunity then to overwrite any votes that were counted the first time it was through, it was a do-over on those 20,000. And then after that was done, it just kind of went on to the rest of the election as normal.

the anomalous reprocessing in Mesa County, Colorado during mail-in ballot counting 2020
screenshot from the O'Donnell video interview

Lest you think this was a one-off, an anomaly, a “mouse running across the keyboard” sort of scenario, there’s more. Mesa County had an additional election in April 2021, with mail-in ballots starting to be counted in late March. The same anomaly happened again, in the same way. For this one, O’Donnell says,

They were about 40% through the election [the count of existing mail-in ballots]. And suddenly this rogue process woke up. It can't read some of the ballots, and reprocessed and left others in there. It was, you know, different numbers obviously, because it was a different election and a smaller number, but it was the same unauthorized process that occurred again.

So that meant they needed to look deeper. He has spent the last seven months preparing his report. And he calls this Mesa County information the Rosetta Stone that is giving them the clues to know what to look for in other elections.

They are finding some serious anomalies. There’s what he calls the Law of Big Numbers. He explains:

The best way to think about that is as if you flip a coin and it comes on some coin twice; it comes up once heads and once tails. So, if you look at, I have half heads and half tails. If I flip it again the third time, whichever one comes up, it's going to be I have a third now of one and two thirds. So it's a big jump from 50% to 66% or whatever percent.

But imagine if you flip the coin a thousand times and you're keeping track of what percentage of heads tails. On the thousand and first flip, that count where you get the heads or tails of that coin can only affect the percentage by 1/1000^th, because you've already had a thousand flips into that data.

What they saw was that, in the counting of mail-in ballots, after a large number were counted, you’d expect only a very little affect in percentage with each additional ballot counted—because you’d expect some randomness in how they were turned in. But what you actually see is, late in the process a huge percentage go a certain way and no other.

As he explains, in olden days of voter fraud, the fraudulent actors would wait until well into the process to find out what number they needed in order to accomplish their win, and they would suddenly come up with those ballots. Someone comes in with—"these boxes of ballots I had forgotten were in my shed” (actually happened in Washington State a couple of decades ago).

These days it’s less physical. It’s in the numbers being counted. They’ve done a hyper-accurate calculation of how many votes they need under what circumstances; they’ve pre-loaded the expectation into the machine. And when the machine sees they’re not going to reach their plan, the algorithm kicks in to “reprocess” ballots to get a new count.

When we should expect to see very little affect on the percentage with each additional vote—

Instead, we see wild rises and falls in the last portion of these races.

That's the fingerprint, or one of the fingerprints, that we see once we're out 100,000 votes or so…. Suddenly have a swing, and that swing can be frankly in either direction.

Theoretically it could be either direction. In this particular election it was one particular direction—the Democrat direction. He adds, in case it’s not clear yet,

This is an unnatural pattern of voting. This is not how people vote. This is not how large numbers work. It points to manipulation. There has to be something manipulating the votes in order to get this kind of pattern of voting.

Theoretically, you could have a place where this unnatural pattern happens. You could get a sudden string of 100 “tails” in your coin flip following a randomly even first 1000 tosses. But you wouldn’t see it over and over in different places. Other places would even out the percentages. The odds are so astronomically against this anomaly that it’s impossible for it to happen naturally.

When asked whether they’d found this anomaly elsewhere around the country, the answer is a definitive Yes:

We have found the same fingerprints in all states, all counties, and all vendors that we have looked at so far. And it’s considerable now.

He's saying it isn't just Dominion machines; it's every counting machine they've looked at. 

A machine to count votes—its one task—ought to be fairly simple. These machines are not simple. They contain 300 or so complex tables in dozens of separate files and folders—only one table of which is the actual vote count. But the machines seem to be whirring along, sorting votes, apparently to keep better track of when an algorithm needs to kick in and reprocess some votes.

O’Donnell was asked where his report and the investigations in other states are all going. He says,

I think that things are finally moving at comparatively breakneck speed as we get close to the 22-month period, where they are allowed. As I've said, that we're right now, I guess four months from the biggest coordinated bonfire since Nero burned down Rome.

And so everyone—that I deal with anyway—is fully aware of this. And there’s really a three-pronged effort going on. And there's no reason why we can't do all three at the same time, because we've got a lot of good people. And one is exposing everything about 2020.

I still think we're going to see a number of states decertify. Unfortunately, I can't wave my magic wand and make it happen, but I think it's going to happen. That's going to have a huge emotional, if no other, impact on the process and start the ball rolling at the same time.

 

Recommendations

O'Donnell suggests we learn from 2020, “to make sure that they don't do the same things in 2022.” He recommends several things: don’t use machines to count, for one. Humans haven’t actually forgotten how to count. 

I would interject here that it isn’t quite that simple. I had a state rep who told the story of his first run for office. He lost by a few votes. An alternate judge and clerk of his party followed the presiding judge and another clerk to drop off the ballot box, back when they were paper ballots. The relatively short trip took hours. They could see the people in the car with the ballot box, shaking it and removing ballots they didn’t like—until they had taken out as many of the ballots for my rep that they needed for their candidate to win. So you’ve still got to deal with chain of custody, counting with both parties present and witnessing, and you need a definitive way of deciding what a ballot says. But all that might be doable—with willing people of good intention.

He also recommends getting rid of universal mail-in ballots. We’ll probably always have mail-in ballots for people documented to be out of town or in nursing homes, etc. But that should be a small number so that it can’t likely sway an election.

We ought to clean the voter rolls—accurately. We shouldn’t be outsourcing that to ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center, a Democrat-aligning nonprofit) or any non-local entity. Some states had thousands of double voters—people who have changed their registration, because of getting married or some other reason, so they get a new registration and the old one is dormant; but both show up as voters who voted in the election. Thousands of these in some states—in addition to all the other election issues.

And of course we need Voter ID laws.

O’Donnell suggests we ought to train people the way we train bank tellers—not to assume that nobody would ever do anything wrong, but to think that, if there’s a way to game the system, somebody’s going to do it, so you’ve got to be vigilant.

He’d like to see total transparency. Like with that image of the Mesa County election—anyone could see it, go through the data on their own. You don’t include data that connects the voter to how that person voted, but everything else ought to be available for viewing. The only reason not to do that is that you’re hiding something.

 

Conclusion: The 2020 Election Was Stolen

Let’s note that Colorado wasn’t one of the few swing states in question in 2020. It was just another place using those machines. What would we find if we did this careful look at every location using voting machines?

If you look at only the six counties in the swing states, you have enough evidence to show the election outcome was rigged. If you look at just the evidence of illegal mail-in ballots in 2000 Mules, you’ve got more than enough to show the election outcome was rigged. The various states that held hearings to hear about the voting irregularities—many showed enough evidence to indicate that their election results should not have been certified; decertifying those few states would have changed the outcome.

I think anyone who looks honestly at that election can see that the sitting President of the United States was ousted by voter fraud. You might call that a coup. Many people knew that right away—well ahead of January 6^th. Evidence continues to verify that the election was stolen.

We don’t have a solution for this unprecedented theft of our country and our freedoms. But awareness is a first step.

And we become aware when there is the free exchange of information. You cannot restore the people’s confidence in the election process until you make the system transparent and honest—something they might call malinformation: truth that they don’t like. But it’s what we’re going to have to insist on.