I am AMAZED at how much top quality journalism comes out of ONE person. You've been working your ass off & you are WEARING ME OUT! Keep it up & I'll have to hire staff to read it all.❤️
In truth, the stories are there. My "specialty," if you will, is taking a story that is available from multiple sources, but approaching it from the mindset of, "Okay, let's make this make sense...to ANYONE who reads it, so when they are finished, they truly understand the mechanics, and it's not just another article they've read...but...aren't really sure what to make of it."
In that way, the pieces of the story are already there...but I'm attempting to arrange them in a manner and in phrases...that "CLICK."
I read this several times and I think I will take a different approach this time. You asked who benefits. I'd like to add a few questions, since nobody in this plan seems to have asked who owns the machines.
Whose Machines Are They, Anyway?
Cleta Mitchell asked for proof in 2023, and by every public account nobody has produced it. So the plan is to skip the proof and send a federal official after the equipment. I have read that sentence about ten times now, and it still sounds like satire.
Jack asked the right questions, so I'll answer them. Who decides which machines are safe? Under this plan, one Cabinet secretary, using a supply chain statute written to screen routers and telecom gear. Who certifies the replacements five weeks out? Nobody, because there is no replacement plan. Who benefits when a county can't count on time and the result lands in dispute? Anyone who needed a disputed result in the first place. That answers the question Jack closed on, too. Between "bring me the proof" and today, the only thing that changed is the calendar.
Now I have a few of my own, and they go to the people who own this problem.
Who owns the machines? Counties and states bought them, leased them, or contracted for them, and the answer varies by jurisdiction. Does Washington hold title to a single one? If not, on what authority does it pull them?
Who runs elections in this country? The Constitution hands that job to the states, with Congress allowed to adjust the rules. I do not see a Commerce Department in that sentence. Has any state attorney general been asked whether a federal declaration can override a county's lawful equipment?
Who certifies voting systems? There is already a federal process through the Election Assistance Commission, with testing and public record. Why would anyone bypass it in October?
Who pays? A county election office in a rural state runs on a budget that wouldn't cover the secretary's lunch. Who writes the check for new equipment, the training, the logic and accuracy testing, and the poll workers who have to learn a new system in a few weeks?
Who has the chain of custody? If equipment is pulled from service, what happens to the ballots, the memory cards, and the logs? Who is liable if something goes missing in federal hands?
Who has a contingency plan? Every secretary of state and county clerk in a Dominion state should be able to answer that this week. If your governor or election director can't, pick up the phone and ask why.
Notice that every one of those questions is boring. They are about titles, budgets, statutes, and paperwork. That is what real election administration looks like. The fraud story always lives in the thrilling version, with the midnight ballots and the secret software, and the thrilling version has lost in every courtroom where somebody had to swear to it. The people pushing it now have found a duller route, a regulatory one, because the exciting route keeps getting them laughed out of court.
I want the supply chain risk examined if it exists. Bring it to the states, bring it with evidence, bring it with a replacement plan, and bring it in February. A security finding that arrives in October with no evidence and no plan is a pretext, and anyone paying attention can read it.
So read it. Call your county clerk. Call your secretary of state. Ask who owns the machines, who answers for them, and what happens if somebody in Washington decides to take them.
If the answer is "we hadn't thought about it," you just found the real vulnerability.
Who holds the title? That's the question that ENDS the argument...because the answer is "not Washington," and NO supply-chain statute CHANGES it.
Your list is boring in exactly the RIGHT way. Titles...budgets...chain of custody...the EAC process...ALREADY sitting there....in PUBLIC record.
The thrilling version...yeah...it loses in court EVERY time somebody has to SWEAR to it. The BORING version...is where this gets STOPPED. BORING...is the workhorse!
Also...you're right about the REAL vulnerability: a county that hasn't THOUGHT about it yet.
Keep writing, Jane. Well done. This is what the paid tier is for!
I read Marc Elias's piece on this as well. I will be contacting my county clerk tomorrow with that question as well as the Secretary of State's office and the Attorney General's office as well. #HOLDFAST
I am AMAZED at how much top quality journalism comes out of ONE person. You've been working your ass off & you are WEARING ME OUT! Keep it up & I'll have to hire staff to read it all.❤️
Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
In truth, the stories are there. My "specialty," if you will, is taking a story that is available from multiple sources, but approaching it from the mindset of, "Okay, let's make this make sense...to ANYONE who reads it, so when they are finished, they truly understand the mechanics, and it's not just another article they've read...but...aren't really sure what to make of it."
In that way, the pieces of the story are already there...but I'm attempting to arrange them in a manner and in phrases...that "CLICK."
I hope this one hit that target for you!
-Jack
🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂...Same here..
Dear Jack,
I read this several times and I think I will take a different approach this time. You asked who benefits. I'd like to add a few questions, since nobody in this plan seems to have asked who owns the machines.
Whose Machines Are They, Anyway?
Cleta Mitchell asked for proof in 2023, and by every public account nobody has produced it. So the plan is to skip the proof and send a federal official after the equipment. I have read that sentence about ten times now, and it still sounds like satire.
Jack asked the right questions, so I'll answer them. Who decides which machines are safe? Under this plan, one Cabinet secretary, using a supply chain statute written to screen routers and telecom gear. Who certifies the replacements five weeks out? Nobody, because there is no replacement plan. Who benefits when a county can't count on time and the result lands in dispute? Anyone who needed a disputed result in the first place. That answers the question Jack closed on, too. Between "bring me the proof" and today, the only thing that changed is the calendar.
Now I have a few of my own, and they go to the people who own this problem.
Who owns the machines? Counties and states bought them, leased them, or contracted for them, and the answer varies by jurisdiction. Does Washington hold title to a single one? If not, on what authority does it pull them?
Who runs elections in this country? The Constitution hands that job to the states, with Congress allowed to adjust the rules. I do not see a Commerce Department in that sentence. Has any state attorney general been asked whether a federal declaration can override a county's lawful equipment?
Who certifies voting systems? There is already a federal process through the Election Assistance Commission, with testing and public record. Why would anyone bypass it in October?
Who pays? A county election office in a rural state runs on a budget that wouldn't cover the secretary's lunch. Who writes the check for new equipment, the training, the logic and accuracy testing, and the poll workers who have to learn a new system in a few weeks?
Who has the chain of custody? If equipment is pulled from service, what happens to the ballots, the memory cards, and the logs? Who is liable if something goes missing in federal hands?
Who has a contingency plan? Every secretary of state and county clerk in a Dominion state should be able to answer that this week. If your governor or election director can't, pick up the phone and ask why.
Notice that every one of those questions is boring. They are about titles, budgets, statutes, and paperwork. That is what real election administration looks like. The fraud story always lives in the thrilling version, with the midnight ballots and the secret software, and the thrilling version has lost in every courtroom where somebody had to swear to it. The people pushing it now have found a duller route, a regulatory one, because the exciting route keeps getting them laughed out of court.
I want the supply chain risk examined if it exists. Bring it to the states, bring it with evidence, bring it with a replacement plan, and bring it in February. A security finding that arrives in October with no evidence and no plan is a pretext, and anyone paying attention can read it.
So read it. Call your county clerk. Call your secretary of state. Ask who owns the machines, who answers for them, and what happens if somebody in Washington decides to take them.
If the answer is "we hadn't thought about it," you just found the real vulnerability.
#HOLDFAST
Jane...thank you.
Who holds the title? That's the question that ENDS the argument...because the answer is "not Washington," and NO supply-chain statute CHANGES it.
Your list is boring in exactly the RIGHT way. Titles...budgets...chain of custody...the EAC process...ALREADY sitting there....in PUBLIC record.
The thrilling version...yeah...it loses in court EVERY time somebody has to SWEAR to it. The BORING version...is where this gets STOPPED. BORING...is the workhorse!
Also...you're right about the REAL vulnerability: a county that hasn't THOUGHT about it yet.
Keep writing, Jane. Well done. This is what the paid tier is for!
#HOLDFAST
-Jack
I read Marc Elias's piece on this as well. I will be contacting my county clerk tomorrow with that question as well as the Secretary of State's office and the Attorney General's office as well. #HOLDFAST