Scott Bennett
Following the 2016 election, America endured three years of extensive and incessantinvestigations, fevered analysis, and, eventually, impeachment hearings - all premised on anassertion that, somehow, Russia 'hacked' the election. The U.S. government spent tens ofmillions of dollars. It chased nearly every allegation. It had virtually unlimited (and sometimesillegal) access to public, government, and private information ... and it came up empty handed.The only place it did not look for the alleged Russian 'hack' was in th only systems that couldhave been 'hacked': the electronic voting, imaging, and tabulating machines on which theelection was conducted and the software that controls them.The story of the 2020 election is much the same. Despite thousands of citizen reports and signedaffidavits attesting to significant irregularities and at least one forensic audit of an electronic votingsystem claiming that it was - in fact - 'hacked', Secretaries of State around the country haverepeatedly denied citizens their the legal right to observe, contest, and audit the election. A real'hack' can only be identified by looking at how the voting system operates, starting with themachines, the software, and the data it generates, including ballots and ballot envelopes, voterrolls, and adjudication logs, and at those who had access to the systems while they were inoperation.This brief reviews the last-minute changes to the election process in the contested states and themagnitude of the resulting fraud the changes were designed to facilitate. It also looks at the statusof the legal challenges where judges have dismissed cases before hearing evidence, and howboth courts and election officials have refused access to the only systems that can be 'hacked':the electronic voting systems.It should come as no surprise that a full 47% of the American people believe that electoral fraudchanged the outcome of the 2020 election. They understand that something is amiss.
