politics

NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.

Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.

I’m a mod on c/politics. I don't speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn't necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don't know enough about the author's intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I've been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.

And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.

The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):

I’ve been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect.

This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)

To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:

Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:

• The individual or group of individuals involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The technology involved in administering elections, varies from state to state, and sometimes even more, within a state, so extrapolating from a single case and assuming you could apply that to explain a nationwide election demonstrates a lack of familiarity with election administration.
• The article completely skips over addressing how any of these changes wouldn’t be caught during count verification steps.

Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.

I'm just gonna say it: Everything about everyone involved in this administration screams people who are hired for their loyalty, not their skillsets.

The theory that they used Uninterruptible Power Supplies to modify the vote, and that they had enough people involved to pull this off, yet everyone kept their mouth shut, is not the level of competency I have seen from anyone in Trump's orbit.

As someone with a background in tech, I find it hard to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They can make up all the stories about they want in their own heads, until there's some proof of it, it's just as bullshit as Trump's claims of election fraud.

If Eaton pushed an update to those UPS units, it could have gained root-level access to the host tabulation environment—without ever modifying certified election software.

So yeah, we're gonna have to have a hell of a lot more to go on than "could have" here. Also I'm skeptical on the claim that Windows automatically trusts any connected UPS and skeptical about the "root level access" claim (including the fact that it is called administrator access on Windows, Windows doesn't have "root" accounts).

Part of the reason I'm skeptical on the root-level access claim regarding a UPS. If you could do this with any old UPS, this would make any and every UPS in existence a major attack vector to every computer and computer network in existence. I find it hard to believe that cybersecurity experts would have somehow missed this in the last 20 years that commercial level UPS's have been in use. That it was just somehow conveniently overlooked that you could override server administration with a UPS. I don't buy that.

EDIT: All this being said, I think a court case to reveal any evidence that is there is important. It's highly improbable but not impossible and so I hope the court case moves forward quickly.

The truth is worse.

That there's more people who want this (or at least did until they realised it meant their families being abducted by ICE) than people who didn't, and more people still who didn't give a fuck enough to bother voting.

That should keep them up at night more than vote rigging.

OK, so let's prove it then.

Gather up the irrefutable concrete evidence and watch most of the people of this country either refute it or ignore it because, to them, the alternative is too difficult to face

Let’s be clear:
Donald Trump pledges allegiance to a red, white, and blue flag—
It’s just not the American one.

This is a source-check on the other substack article which is quoted from above.

The centerpiece of the new theory is recounted thoroughly in a June 11 Substack post titled "She Won. They Didn’t Just Change the Machines. They Rewired the Election." Unlike earlier post-election theories, this one doesn’t just focus on theoretical vulnerabilities plus suspicions or vague statistical anomalies. It introduces what it claims is a complete mechanism consisting of software manipulation; a new access mechanism; and a test case.

New Technical Documentation: It describes engineering change orders (ECOs) showing that Pro V&V, a federally accredited test lab, approved software and hardware changes to ES&S voting machines just before the election, without triggering a full certification review. It did so, according to the new claim, by declaring the changes to be “de minimis” (inconsequential) which allowed the changes to be implemented without a complex recertification process. This “de minimis” claim is presented as essentially bogus — a cover to create an ability to make substantive changes without subjecting them to review.

A New Starlink Access Pathway: It claims that Elon Musk’s Starlink gained a new, previously unknown access that provided real-time internet connectivity to voting machines, allowing votes to be altered during tabulation.

‘A “Smoking Gun” Test Case: It cites five machines in Rockland County, NY, that recorded zero votes for Kamala Harris while showing hundreds of votes for other Democrats in the same precincts. These claims suggest a full system: motive, method, and result. According to the post, this wasn’t just dirty politics or local fraud. It was a coordinated digital operation—technically sophisticated, nationally scaled, and hidden in plain sight.

. . . Tentative Conclusions

• The voting machine changes were real, but the idea that Pro V&V scammed the system by claiming “de minimis” to cover up malicious changes does not seem to be supported. 

• The deployment of 265 Starlink satellites just before the election is confirmed, but there is no evidence any of them were ever connected to voting tabulators and it appears they played no role in vote counting.

• The “zero vote” anomaly has a strong sociological explanation and a clear historical precedent- bloc voting by orthodox jewish communities acting on recommendation of their rabbi. It happened in 2020 with Joe Biden receiving zero votes as well.

All I know is, Elon knew who won the election by 7pm est. make it make sense.

She Won. They Didn't Just Change the Machines. They Rewired the Election.

How Leonard Leo's 2021 sale of an electronics firm enabled tech giants to subvert the 2024 election.

This Will Hold

The Dark Enlightenment Coup

The missing votes uncovered in Smart Elections’ legal case in Rockland County, New York, are just the tip of the iceberg—an iceberg that extends across the swing states and into Texas.

On Monday, an investigator’s story finally hit the news cycle: Pro V&V, one of only two federally accredited testing labs, approved sweeping last-minute updates to ES&S voting machines in the months leading up to the 2024 election—without independent testing, public disclosure, or full certification review.

These changes were labeled “de minimis”—a term meant for trivial tweaks. But they touched ballot scanners, altered reporting software, and modified audit files—yet were all rubber-stamped with no oversight.

That revelation is a shock to the public. 
But for those who’ve been digging into the bizarre election data since November, this isn’t the headline—it’s the final piece to the puzzle. While Pro V&V was quietly updating equipment in plain sight, a parallel operation was unfolding behind the curtain—between tech giants and Donald Trump.

And it started with a long forgotten sale.

A Power Cord Becomes a Backdoor

In March 2021, Leonard Leo—the judicial kingmaker behind the modern conservative legal machine—sold a quiet Chicago company by the name of Tripp Lite for $1.65 billion. The buyer: Eaton Corporation, a global power infrastructure conglomerate that just happened to have a partnership with Peter Thiel’s Palantir.

To most, Tripp Lite was just a hardware brand—battery backups, surge protectors, power strips. But in America’s elections, Tripp Lite devices were something else entirely.

They are physically connected to ES&S central tabulators and Electionware servers, and Dominion tabulators and central servers across the country. And they aren’t dumb devices. They are smart UPS units—programmable, updatable, and capable of communicating directly with the election system via USB, serial port, or Ethernet.

ES&S systems, including central tabulators and Electionware servers, rely on Tripp Lite UPS devices. ES&S’s Electionware suite runs on Windows OS, which automatically trusts connected UPS hardware.

If Eaton pushed an update to those UPS units, it could have gained root-level access to the host tabulation environment—without ever modifying certified election software.

In Dominion’s Democracy Suite 5.17, the drivers for these UPS units are listed as “optional”—meaning they can be updated remotely without triggering certification requirements or oversight. Optional means unregulated. Unregulated means invisible. And invisible means perfect for infiltration.

A New Purpose for the Partnership

After the Tripp Lite acquisition, Eaton stayed under the radar. But in May 2024, it resurfaced with an announcement that escaped most headlines: Eaton was deepening its partnership with Palantir Technologies.

Let’s be clear, Palantir wasn’t brought in for customer service. It was brought in to do what it does best: manage, shape, and secure vast streams of data—quietly. According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include:

• AI-driven oversight of connected infrastructure
• Automated analysis of large datasets
• And—most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints”

The Digital Janitor: also known as forensic sanitization, it was now being embedded into Eaton-managed hardware connected directly to voting systems. Palantir didn’t change the votes. It helped ensure you’d never prove it if someone else did.

why does the title say left wing? musk and trump both admitted to it.

This article was from right after the election, before Rockland county found that its votes didn't add up and the investigation that followed.

I'd be curious to see newsweeks update considering that information.