Jessica Denson from Lights On podcast states in the above video that attorney Marc Elias told Kamala Harris not to get recounts.

Marilyn Marks, Exec. Director of Coalition for Good Governance discusses a bombshell recording of a Trump ally discussing how a team went to Coffee County, GA which illegally scanned all the equipment, imaged all the hard drives, and scanned every single ballot, absentee in person and absentee by mail.

Jessica Denson explaines why she left the Meidastouch Network. She also speaks with Duncan Buell PhD, Chair Emeritus of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of South Carolina, who penned a letter with other top election security experts to the White House alerting VP Harris that she should request recounts in swing states.

COPIES OF LETTERS FROM CYBER SECURITY EXPERTS TO KAMALA HARRIS

Cyber Security Expert Stephen Spoonamore’s Letter to Kamala Harris about the 2024 Election

November 15, 2024

Honorable VP Kamala Harris
The White House
Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500

Dear Madam Vice President.

This is my second Duty to Warn Letter regarding hacking of the 2024 Presidential Election. The first letter on November 7 was directed to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Officials. Both warnings are made per DNI Clapper’s 2015 directive to all agencies and contractors associated with intelligence and financial agency technologies to warn of suspicions of hacking.

Professionally I have worked as the CEO or CTO at seven high technology firms including two which specialized in hacking and counter-hacking operations. My clients have included numerous governments DoD, DHS, Dept. of State, F100 Financials and F500 Industrials.

I am a lifelong Republican who has long placed service and participatory democracy over party. In government, I have twice been invited to SoCom to give lectures on electronic warfare and techniques to find terrorist money laundering and gave a keynote speech of the National Counterintel Summit on this same topic. I served as an after-action reviewer of communications and data failures on 9/11 under the direction of Jim Woolsey and FDNY Commissioner Scopetta, and later co-wrote multiple hacking risk analysis of Smart Grid technologies for the Obama administration.

You should reverse your concession, call for both a full investigation of criminal activity and demand hand recounts in all seven swing states.

In my professional view there are multiple and extremely clear indications the Presidential vote was willfully compromised.

I wholly agree with the public letter of Duncan Buell, et. al. of Nov. 13th stating they believe there is a possibility of hacking and calling for hand-recounts.

This letter’s clear call to action is commendable, but its cautious tone may belie the severity of what I believe has happened. In my view it is a near certainty the results have been changed at a scale which reversed the US Presidential Election. They imply there is a chance a hand-recount will show you won more votes. I am stating a hand recount will most likely show you did win. Both letters call on you to act.

In my view, a capable and skilled series of exploits, electronic tools and hacks were used to change the Presidential vote in all seven swing states. These activities have reversed the outcomes in at least Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. I will lay out the basics of the attack, starting with unusual elements within the results. I will then outline two processes which could have been followed to insert these false results into the system. Finally I will outline how I would recommend investigating.

Unusual elements within the results.

The results of the attack are improbable in the extreme and well tailored to the sole benefit of your opponent.

Approximately 600,000 votes are for Donald Trump but with no down ballot choices. These are either inserted “bullet ballots” for the Presidential race or manipulated data fields. They are surgically added to totals in limited jurisdictions and within only the seven swing States. This historically unprecedented set of numbers found in the 2024 swing states is absent in every other state. In AZ, MI, NC and WI the effect of these drop-off votes reverses the voters’ will and even more improbably always pushes the winning margin beyond the mandatory recount numbers.

It is a result too perfect for belief. It is a bespoke and programmed outcome. In other states including PA and NV, removing these strange and bespoke added votes, it appears Donald Trump may have won the cast votes but within a margin which would force recounts. The inserted votes raise his totals, to avoid any scrutiny during mandatory recount results which would have slowed his claim on the Presidency. In GA and FL the same pattern exists with unclear impact on the results.

This attack is not technically difficult. It is modest in scale. It would require:

Modest and common computer programming skills.

Access to 10-100 tabulators or to the handful of facilities programming them in advance.

A credible database of voter IDs of non-voters around which to create false ballots.

Perhaps as few as 1, but more likely 3-5 human program managers.

Access to eBollBook Data during the election to determine who had not voted.

(Possibly) Human access to some tabulators during counting.

If I was asked to lead this hack, I would expect to have a core team of 6-10 people, and operating costs under $10M with a timeline of 3-12 months.

The tell: A historically absurd number of Trump-only bullet ballots or undervote ballots.

There are always a handful of voters who cast a vote in one race which they care about, and do not make other selections on the ballot. These are called bullet ballots. In Presidential Races since 1980, these bullet ballots rarely account for more than 1% of the total votes including in Mr. Trump’s winning 2016 election and losing 2020 election, and when they do it warrants further investigation. In 2024 in the 43 non-swing states, bullet ballots make up a nominal >1%. In the seven swing states the numbers are so high to be unbelievable, unprecedented and demanding of further investigation. Here is analysis from totals as of late Nov. 12th

Here are the unprecedented results of drop-offs in the two western swing states:

AZ – 123K+ 7.2%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to reverse the outcome.
NV – 43K+ 5.5%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to exceed recount threshold.

It is my belief these two states have illegally added votes.

For comparison, examine Trump’s 2024 results in three states which border AZ and NV. They have equally passionate Trump supporters, but have the normal levels of drop off or bullet ballots.

ID <2K 0.03% of Trump’s total.
OR <4K 0.05% of Trump’s total
UT <1K 0.01% of Trump’s total.

In the case of Idaho and Utah, Mr. Trump was a run-away winner and had no need to add votes. In the case of Oregon, Ms. Harris was a run-away winner and adding votes to Trump’s total would add risk without adding value.

The same pattern of large numbers of drop-off votes or bullet ballots exists in the totals of MI, NC, PA, WI.

North Carolina is the most extreme. The public results indicate over 350K voters cast a ballot for Trump and no other race making up over 11% of Trump’s voters in NC drop off votes or bullet ballots.

Hack Part 1: Creating the pool of bullet ballot voters.

There are two possible methods to execute this attack. The simple version would only manipulate electronic totals and hand-counting the target precincts would discover this. The second involved ePollbook hacking and introducing bullet ballots. This would add the need to compare the ePollBook timestamps to find possible bad actors or other sources for these anomalous votes.

When Mr. Musk announced his $1M lottery for people to go online and sign a pledge to vote for Trump, I became personally suspicious of why such a promotion would be done. I signed up to see what information he wanted and what the pledge actually stated. He did not want to know people’s socials or send them texts. To sign up you had to provide your street address. That was all they cared about. Once they had the people’s names, and street address this would allow for building a pool of ghost voters who could logically be marked for fake ballots, structured in a manner which matched ePollBook and precinct data. You, as a member of law enforcement, understand criminals need certain pre-conditions to act. A database of pledged supporters with street addresses is required for this hack. Law enforcement should immediately find the team of programmers who pulled the lottery data capture. They will find those programmers immediately parsed the data into a system based on voting precincts and created macros to constantly update the pledged lists of who had cast a vote, and who had not. The programmers likely did not know they were working on a system to be used to steal the election. When confronted with that fact, law enforcement would likely gain cooperating witnesses.

Musk’s team used this system to build a list of voters pledged to vote for Trump. This list could also be used to make a ghost-ballot voter list. ePollBook data is nearly always linked to the internet, and in many jurisdictions this link was being made in real time via Mr. Musk’s Starlink or any available wireless network. Throughout the day, Musk’s team could compare existing turnout models to likely outcomes, based on well established voter profile databases vs. the actual voter turnout coming in from the ePollBooks. They would have been able to have a very good estimation in the closing hours of polls how many votes short Trump would likely be at the tabulation level. They would also have exact lists of the pledged voters for Trump and would know who had not shown up. The pledged voters who did not vote, became the bullet ballots. With any network connection to the ePollBooks, or via other compromised connectivity, they could be marked as voted.

Hack Part 2: Matching the tabulation to the ePollBooks.

The exact number of added voters to the ePollBooks as having voted would have to match the tabulation process. This attack could have been done in at least two different ways.

The easiest method to execute phase two, is also the easiest to discover by hand-recount. In a few jurisdictions where the tabulators either had network connectivity, approved or otherwise, or where a person on the team had physical access to the tabulation machine, the Trump votes that were added to the ePollBooks, would need to be added to the tabulators. At which point the ePollBooks and the tabulation totals would match, having been digitally stuffed with demographically credible voters for Trump. But there will be no paper ballot for these votes. A hand-recount will quickly discover the fraud.

As I write this letter, several hundred people are self organizing on Reddit and other forums. They include: data scientists, statisticians, and legal experts. They are examining the precinct level data of every swing state, and by Monday these teams will have lists of many precincts where these historically unprecedented Trump bullet ballots occur. The highest likelihood is that those ballots don’t actually exist. Those votes were electronically created but have no paper. This would be easily proven with a hand recount.

A second possibility involves the same compromise as described above, but is then combined with human ballot stuffing, or ballot substitution, at tabulation to match the epollbook numbers. This possibility is raised as it appears these historically unprecedented bullet ballots fall heavily in a few counties. Maricopa County AZ, seems to be the source of the vast majority, perhaps nearly all, of the AZ bullet ballot voters for Trump. If these ballots were introduced it would require co-conspirators working inside the tabulation center.

I appreciate that many people, even sophisticated people outside this field, think this hack is an impossible task. It is not. Just 8 weeks ago the world watched a vastly larger and more complicated one. Unknown hackers intercepted over 3000 communications devices over 24 months destined for use by Hamas across the entire Mideast. The devices all had additional software, hardware and explosives inserted. The devices were then delivered to users and functioned normally for months until the hackers triggered the inserted series of exploits and explosions.

This hack, the entire world witnessed, was orders of magnitude more complicated than introducing Trump bullet ballots into – at most – 100 tabulation locations. I have personally managed full year long operations in which hundreds of credit card point of sale devices were rebuilt with added hardware and software and inserted in order to discover fraudsters and money laundering. No one knew we were there. The users never were aware. The devices did their normal job processing credit cards for merchants. While they also did a hacked job and helped my team and I root out criminals. The access, technical difficulty, and scale of the election hack I am describing is less than either of these. But the effect is vastly greater, and the FBI has excellent people who could address this very quickly.

Lastly, this hack methodology may or may not have some correlation with the series of Bomb Threats called in by Russian affiliated assets. The use of distraction or diversion of this kind is common. My first thought was, and my thinking remains, these bomb threats were called into tabulation centers and precincts where the hackers had already planned to conduct ghost bullet ballot introductions. I believe they wanted a disruption in the chain of custody, so lawyers could claim after the hacking events that the chain of custody on the ballots was flawed. The creation of the false-argument of a broken custody chain would be used as a pretext to prevent hand recounting, as hand recounting would not match the Trump favorable result. However, by a reverse of that logic, any jurisdiction which was subject to a bomb threat was forced to break standard operating procedure. This alone should be grounds for you to ask for a hand-recount.

Lastly, I have been advised by an attorney that Arizona and Georgia have mechanisms in place for members of the public to demand a recount, but only you have the ability to demand a recount across all the jurisdictions of concern.

A final formal note. This is principally a Duty to Warn letter. It is also a fulfillment of my constitutional oath of office as possibly the lowest level sworn office of public trust in America. I was appointed by my township to serve as a local Parks Commissioner. I am the public appointee to the Mt. Nittany Conservancy, a nature reserve. I have spent the last four years variously overseeing how public funds are spent on sports fields, kids playgrounds, hiking trails, and bike paths. To do this, I must make annual conflict and financial disclosures and I must swear nearly the same oath you did. I am under the sworn obligation to defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which, I am honored to do.

I will continue to investigate with a growing group of volunteers. We are also planning to offer rewards for information. But our efforts to preserve the integrity of this election can not take this to completion. You, and only you, can call for a full hand-recount and engage the vast public resources at your disposal. I can’t. This is all I can do.

Let me know how I can help.

Sincerely,

ESignature – Stephen R. Spoonamore

College Township PA

Former CEO or CTO of multiple Technology Firms

https://www.linkedin.com/in/spoonamore/

CC: Secretary. of States and Governors of AZ, FL, GA, MI, NC, NV, PA and WI. Additional PA representative Chris Dush (PA State Sen.), Paul Takac (PA State Rep.), Dustin Best (PA College Township Supervisor), and Robert Ziegler (PA Milhiem Township Supervisor.)

COPY OF LETTER TO PA GOVERNOR JOSH SHAPIRO FROM CYBER SECURITY EXPERT STEPHEN SPOOMAMORE ABOUT THE 2024 ELECTION

Gov. of Pennsylvania J. Shapiro. et. at Nov. 7th 2024

This is a formal Duty to Warn Letter. Per DNI Dir. Clappers 2015 directive to all agencies and contractors associated with intelligence and financial agency technologies I have a Duty to Warn of suspicions of hacking and have done so for my customers including Govt Agencies.Dept of Defense, F100 firms and numerous banks. l do so here as a directly affected voter. Nearly all my investigations begin for one of two reasons. The hackers make a mistake triggering a system issue and/or the aggregate effects of the hacking creates results outside nominal expectations There is a third and less common flag; an unrelated distraction to draw attention away from the hacking.

All three of these indicators are present in the election of Nov. 5th 2024.

Element three: distraction via bomb-threats is confirmed coming from Russian agencies. Element one is the inexplicable mismatch of reported votes vs voter turnout Here in Centre County initial tabulation was an absurdly low 67K votes when over 80K voters participated. Element two is also present. Our local scanner systems worked in testing but were unable to communicate properly with tabulation systems after the bomb-scare. I note from experience – the failure of a scanning systems to properly load a database is an extremely common development when a system is changed without notice to the users. l have personally worked on similar issues where sudden scanner configuration failures were the first symptoms of system hacking.

With these three elements present, l suggest immediately doing a relatively simple set of preliminary checks First, randomly selected precincts require manual comparisons of the number of voters who took ballots vs the scanned output of vote totals. Those did not match here in Centre County by apx 13K votes. Once added. those votes substantially changed outcomes and led to the outright reversals in multiple Centre County races.

Centre County BOE now shows vote totals over 80K votes. Apx. 6% above 2020 turnout. In my professional opinion every county in PA as well as many in Wt, Ml and GA currently reporting lower vote totals vs. 2020 and/or also experienced a distraction bomb threat should undertake the same process My professional opinion is: many thousands of voters are being disenfranchised. likely by a malicious actor via errors in tabulation software. My concern has been proven correct and warranted here in Centre County PA.

Esignature — Stephen R. Spoonamore

Stephen Spoonamore (Resident of Centre County PA)

TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS BY COMPUTER SCIENTISTS

November 13, 2024

The Honorable Kamala Harris
The White House Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Harris,

We write to alert you to serious election security breaches that have threatened the security and integrity of the 2024 elections, and to identify ways to ensure that the will of the voters is reflected and that voters should have confidence in the result. The most effective manner of doing so is through targeted recounts requested by the candidate. In the light of the breaches we ask that you formally request hand recounts in at least the states of Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are not suggesting that they were. But binding risk-limiting audits (RLAs) or hand recounts should be routine for all elections, especially when the stakes are high and the results are close. We believe that, under the current circumstances when massive software breaches are known and documented, recounts are necessary and appropriate to remove all potential doubt and to set an example for security best practices in all elections.

In 2022, records, video camera footage, and deposition testimony produced in a civil case in Georgia1 disclosed that its voting system, used statewide, had been breached over multiple days by operatives hired by attorneys for Donald Trump. The evidence showed that the operatives made copies of the software that runs all of the equipment in Georgia, and certain other states, and shared it with other Trump allies and operatives.

Subsequent court filings and public records requests revealed that the breaches in Georgia were part of a larger effort to take copies of voting system software from systems in Michigan,5 Pennsylvania,6 Colorado7 and Arizona,8 and to share the software in the operatives’ network. According to testimony and declarations by some of the technicians who have obtained copies of the software, they have had access for more than three years to the software for the central servers, tabulators, and highly restricted election databases of both Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Dominion Voting Systems, the two largest voting system vendors, constituting the most severe election security breach publicly known.

Combined, their equipment counts nearly 70% of all votes nationwide. Ninety-six percent of Arizona voters use Dominion and ES&S equipment; 100% of Georgia voters vote on Dominion machines; 98% of Nevada votes on Dominion voting machines and the remainder uses ES&S; 69% of Michigan voters’ ballots are counted on Dominion or ES&S equipment; 89% of Pennsylvania voters ballots are counted on Dominion or ES&S equipment; ES&S counts 92% of North Carolina ballots; and either ES&S or Dominion counts 97% of Wisconsin votes.

Possessing copies of the voting system software enables bad actors to install it on electronic devices and to create their own working replicas of the voting systems, probe them, and develop exploits. Skilled adversaries can decompile the software to get a version of the source code, study it for vulnerabilities, and could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large scale distribution of malware.

In December 202212 and again in 2023,13 many of us, concerned by the security risks posed by these breaches, wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director outlining the security concerns and urging an investigation. Though there have been limited, localized investigations,14 there is no evidence of a federal investigation15 to determine what was done with the misappropriated voting software.

Other relevant parties have pointed to the serious risks posed by the misappropriation of the voting software. Before it was known that partisan operatives had taken the software, Dominion Voting Systems objected vehemently to providing its software to the same partisan actors who ultimately got copies through voting system breaches, stating that to give its software to biased actors would cause “irreparable damage” to the “election security interests of the country.”

Before the breaches in Georgia had been confirmed, the Georgia Secretary of State’s chief information officer testified that having copies of the software would provide a “road map” to the ways the system could be accessed. The Georgia Attorney General opposed providing copies of the software to lawyers for the Trump campaign in a late 2020 election challenge, arguing that images of the voting system software would provide “the keys to the software kingdom.”

Notably, U.S. elections are potentially resilient because there are paper ballots recording the voters’ intent in most states, meaning that even if the voting system is at risk, the will of the voters can be determined reliably by recounting the paper ballots by hand (although we are aware that not all paper ballots are verified by the voter, and not all states take adequate care to protect the ballot chain of custody.)

Audits will be conducted in some of the most scrutinized states, but in key states they will not be conducted in a timely way that could reveal any concerns with the vote count. In addition, in most states the audits are insufficiently rigorous to ensure any potential errors in tabulation will be caught and corrected, and they cannot be considered a safeguard against the security breaches that have occurred. Specifically, Georgia’s audits are non-binding, and Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin laws do not provide that the audit be conducted before certification. Therefore, it would be impossible to know for these critical states if the audits uncovered errors or miscalculations before the state deadlines to seek recounts.

Among swing states, only Arizona’s audit laws ensure that, if enough discrepancies are identified, the audit hand count will be expanded to correct a potentially incorrect result. In other words, aside from Arizona, in contested states, there is no legal mechanism for the audit to correct the outcome, no matter how much error the audit uncovers. Given these facts, the only guarantee for rigorous, effective audits of the vote in the swing states will be through candidate-requested statewide hand recounts.

The facts around the voting system breaches are not disputed; it is well-documented that there were severe, multiple voting security breaches before the 2024 election. To ensure that voters can have confidence that the breaches in security did not taint the results of the 2024 election, we recommend pursuing hand recounts in, at minimum, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as they will provide insufficient safeguards against threats posed by the breaches of the election software and will not provide important information in a timely way.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

Duncan Buell Ph.D.
Chair Emeritus — NCR Chair in Computer Science and Engineering
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
University of South Carolina*

David Jefferson Ph.D.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* (retired)
Election Integrity Foundation*

Chris Klaus
Founder
Internet Security System*

Susan Greenhalgh
Senior Advisor for Election Security
Free Speech For People

William John Malik
Malik Consulting, LLC*

Marilyn Marks
Executive Director
Coalition for Good Governance

Peter G. Neumann Ph.D.
Chief Scientist,
SRI International Computer Science Lab*

John E. Savage
An Wang Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
Brown University*

She Won, Part III: The Devil Is In The Data

88 counties flipped red. None flipped blue. Trump swept every swing state—each just above the mandatory recount thresholds. What are the odds? About one in never.

(Per a post at https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/she-won-part-iii-the-devil-is-in)

This Will Hold

Jun 19, 2025

Darkness Our Old Friend

Watching the results roll in on election night, we can probably all agree—our collective gut was telling us something was just… off. Kornacki wasn’t nacki-ing, the blue wave never appeared, and a familiar dread—reminiscent of 2016—began to creep in. But this time was different. This time, we knew.

Because between 2020 and 2021, Trump’s allies illegally breached voting equipment in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona. That voting equipment is still in use, and thanks to a Federalist Society-led appeals court in Georgia, “Teflon Don” got away with breaking the law—again.

At 9:32 p.m. on November 5, Elon Musk preemptively declared victory with a cryptic tweet: “Game, set, match.” Thirty minutes later, Ted Cruz’s smug face squatted on the nation’s screens like he was claiming a throne. Many went to bed discouraged that night. But some of us? We went to bed determined.

Because if you’ve never been to Texas, let’s get one thing straight: everyone hates Ted Cruz.

So, we got to work.

When The Math Ain’t Mathing

We struggled to understand how a 34-count convicted felon—who couldn’t fill a stadium and doesn’t know that asylum is a homonym—somehow outperformed Reagan, flipping 88 counties red while not a single one flipped blue. It felt improbable. So, we did what anyone would do in the face of statistical absurdity: we started digging and ran the numbers.

And before any data purists get their knickers in a twist:
No, it’s not a coin flip.
No, we can’t apply strict binomial math.
We get it.

In fact, based on 2020 data, the actual probability is even worse.

But to be generous—and to keep the math conservative—let’s assume each of the 88 counties had a simple 50/50 chance of flipping red or blue. And yet, somehow, all of them flipped red. Not a single one went blue.

Math:

That’s about a 1 in 1 octillion chance of occurring naturally. This is why statisticians have been running around in hair-on-fire mode for the last six months.

But wait—it gets worse.

Another Crack In The Liberty Bell

The data above reflects what’s commonly referred to as the “drop-off”—the difference between the number of votes cast for the presidential race and those cast for the next down-ballot race within the same party.

In mail-in voting, Harris and Trump show similar drop-off rates (1.48% vs. 1.96%), which aligns with expected voter behavior. But on Election Day, the numbers diverge sharply: Trump’s drop-off rate skyrockets to 4.51%, while Harris’ plummets to 0.87%.

That kind of disparity is impossible to ignore. According to this data—on Election Day only—voters selected Democrats down-ballot, then flipped to Trump at the top of the ticket.

This pattern isn’t just unusual—it defies logic and human voting behavior. It’s the kind of anomaly that should sound every alarm.

But don’t take the ETA’s word for it—the foremost expert in election forensics, Dr. Walter Mebane, backed it up. His eforensics model estimated that 225,440 votes in the Pennsylvania presidential race were possibly fraudulent. Of those, 111,088 were identified with high confidence as intentional, malevolent manipulations.

And that’s just the data. It doesn’t even include the tens of thousands of voters still reporting their ballots as unaccounted for.

Step 1: It’s A Sweep

Under our previously generous 50/50 assumptions, what are the odds of a candidate winning all seven swing states?

More math:

So even with idealized conditions, this kind of a sweep is already rare.

Let’s take it a step further:
What are the odds that a candidate wins all seven swing states and comes in just above the recount threshold in every single one?

Step 2: Seven Swing States Above Recount Threshold

Based on historical trends, competitive elections have about a 3% chance of landing within the margin required for a recount. The odds of that happening in all seven states?

More math: This alone is not suspicious, but when layered with the probability of sweeping all seven swing states, the scenario becomes even more rare.

Even more math: And again—for the statisticians already heading to the comments—we know this isn’t how electoral modeling works in real life.

This is a simplified, extremely generous baseline meant to illustrate how implausible the official outcome is, even under favorable assumptions.

And as you’ve probably guessed by now… It gets worse.

HOW could it get worse? Because when you combine the probability of all three—the 88 counties flipping red (with none flipping blue) and the sweep of all seven swing states, each one landing just above the threshold for an automatic recount—you’re no longer talking about a statistical outlier.

You’re talking about a Fairy Godmother.
Or, more likely, a Space Godfather.

Step 3: Combined Probability of All Three
We promise, this is the final math you’ll have to look at:

This equation puts the odds at roughly 1 in 50 octillion

Yes, you read that right. That’s a 1 in 5×10²⁸ chance—a 1 followed by 28 zeroes:

1 in 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The chances of a candidate flipping all 88 counties red and winning all 7 swing states just above the mandatory recount thresholds? So minuscule, it rounds down to zero—at least in any world governed by math and not “magic.”

Trump spent most of 2024 telling his dwindling crowds that he didn’t “need” their votes:

“I’m being told I already have all the votes I need,” he bragged. “My beautiful Christians… just vote this one time… it’ll be fixed so good… you’ll never have to vote again.” Then came his praise for Elon Musk’s expertise with those “vote-counting computers.”

Now, Trump is claiming he’ll sweep the 2026 midterms:

“Blue states will totally disappear from the map,” he’s promising a “big, big surprise.” It’s probably fair to say that for must of us, we already experienced this so-called “surprise.”

And in our collective, gut we know it.

What You Can Do

The Rockland County, NY case is just the tip of an iceberg that stretches across the swing states and Texas.
We have constitutional avenues to remove this entire illegitimate administration—but the American people have to know the truth about what happened on November 5 to compel the “right people” to act.

Key Action: Pennsylvania

The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the statutory authority to take action against election fraud or manipulation.
Sign the petition sponsored by the Election Truth Alliance, demanding a paper ballot audit in PA.

How Else You Can Help

• Normalize the truth:Share the data. Talk about the first two articles. Talk about all of it. Because as we’ve learned, “They’re not like us…”
• Contact members of Congress and state attorneys general:
  Voice your concerns about the statistically improbable results of the 2024 election.
• Start a correspondence campaign:
  Call, email, and post on social media to urge PA officials to proceed with a paper ballot audit.

Hold on to your hope. Because again—we don’t need permission to enforce the Constitution. We just need courage.

MEANWHILE, DEMOCRATS AND THE NEWS IS FAILING TO DISCUSS
OR REPORT ANY OF THIS WHILE TRUMP DESTROYS OUR COUNTRY

She Won, Part II: Seven Judges. Direct-to-Cell Satellites. A Hijacked Election.

How the Federalist Society’s judicial pipeline and a new network of 265 low-Earth orbit DTC satellites cleared the runway for Trump’s return to power.

(Per a post at https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/she-won-part-ii-seven-judges-direct )

Jun 15, 2025

That’s One Expensive Bird, Mr. Musk

There’s no question Elon Musk is a headline-maker—but in April 2022, he was making headlines for a very specific reason. One that should have raised eyebrows for anyone paying attention. Seemingly out of nowhere, Musk made an unsolicited offer to purchase Twitter for $44 billion—$20 billion over its market value.

Most dismissed it as just another billionaire flex—but the timing told a different story: his bid came just 49 days after Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. That was the first red flag. What followed wasn’t a red wave—it was a red carpet.

Over the next two years, a path was cleared, systems were compromised, and Trump was repositioned—not through public mandate, but through a strategic judicial firewall crafted by a powerful faction within the Federalist Society and reinforced by a coordinated campaign of technological manipulation.

We’ve already broken down the digital and satellite infrastructure. Now, we’re stepping inside the courtrooms—and following the judges—who strategically removed all accountability hurdles between Trump and the White House.

The Nuclear Option: Judicial Engineering by Design

The term “nuclear option” sounds dramatic, but what unfolded was exactly that: a procedural detonation that reshaped the U.S. judiciary—and cleared the runway for Donald Trump’s legal invincibility. In 2017, Mitch McConnell pulled the nuclear trigger for Supreme Court confirmations. Facing a filibuster on Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch, McConnell changed the rules to force him through with just 51 votes.

What followed was a full-on Federalist Society takeover of the federal judiciary:

• 3 Supreme Court justices: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
• Over 200 lower court judges, all fast-tracked under the new simple-majority rules

Let’s just say: McConnell caught the car—which turned out to be a MAGA bus barreling straight toward the Constitution. And no, his idol Ronald Reagan wouldn’t be pleased—at this trajectory, our children will soon be learning Russian.

Your Seat Awaits, Judge Cannon

Just seven days after Trump lost the 2020 election to President Joe Biden, the Senate rammed through Judge Aileen Cannon—a Federalist Society loyalist—to the federal bench, again via the nuclear option. The seat? It would later oversee Trump’s classified documents case.

Think about that. Before he even walked out of the White House with stolen materials and a failed insurrection attempt, Donald Trump had already secured the judge who would protect him. He wasn’t just breaking the law—he was fortifying his legal escape route in advance, with an assist from Senate Republicans.

By mid-2022, Judge Cannon was the only active judge in Florida’s Fort Pierce division. Trump’s legal team took full advantage, filing his case in person—in violation of standard protocol—which all but guaranteed it would land on her desk. That week, Cannon was assigned 9 of 29 new cases—over 30%, nearly triple the norm. Despite calls for recusal, she refused. She stayed. And she stalled.

Five States, Five Illegal Breaches

Trump’s allies—under the guise of investigating voter fraud—illegally breached election equipment in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Colorado. What should have been a five-alarm fire in American democracy was instead buried beneath strategic delays, bureaucratic filings, and a crowded judicial calendar.
Eighty-eight felonies, so little time.

• In Fulton County, Pennsylvania, machines were taken out of secure facilities and transported to offsite locations for unauthorized “inspections.”

• In Mesa County, Colorado, election clerk Tina Peters disabled surveillance and granted full access to operatives who compromised the system for months. She was later sentenced to nine years in prison.
• In Michigan, attorneys connected to Trump physically removed tabulators and took them to hotels and Airbnbs for off-site analysis—resulting in felony charges.

These weren’t one-off breaches—they were part of a coordinated, multi-state campaign with access lasting weeks or even months, in some cases extending through the 2021 election cycle.

Judicial Gymnastics in Georgia

Smile! We could ask Governor Kemp how his poll workers got the backdoor codes to the voting equipment for their t-shirts—but we already know the answer. In early January 2021, lawyers aligned with Sidney Powell—accompanied by fake “electors”—gained illegal access to the Coffee County elections office, where they copied data from Dominion voting machines and servers. Although the equipment itself wasn’t removed, the top-secret software was later transferred to off-site locations, including hotels. That’s when Fulton County DA Fani Willis stepped in, filing charges on behalf of the people.

In 2023, DA Fani Willis’s case against Trump was gaining traction—until January 2024, when Trump co-defendant Michael Roman filed a motion claiming Willis had a conflict of interest. The issue? She had a romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor on the case.

That’s right: two people on the same side of the courtroom, working toward the same legal objective, were… dating. Pardon me while I dig for my pearls.

There was no evidence of case compromise, no mishandled materials, no ethical breach impacting the charges—just the appearance of impropriety, according to Trump’s attorneys. Rich, coming from a man convicted of falsifying records to cover up hush money payments to a lady of the evening. Apparently, what really undermines democracy are lunch tabs and the thread count at the Napa DoubleTree.

The case survived the initial challenge but was quickly appealed. That’s when Federalist Society-member Judge Elizabeth Gobeil stepped in at the Georgia Court of Appeals and delivered exactly what Trump needed: a ruling that DA Willis’s personal relationship—and her decision to occasionally cover meals or travel expenses—was reason enough to disqualify her—and her entire office—from the case.

Had this case not been thrown into legal purgatory, the entire country would know that in 2020 and 2021, Trump’s associates used the ‘Big Lie’ to illegally breach voting equipment in five states. He’d be living the life he deserves—three hots and a cot—and we’d be sipping mimosas on patios instead of marching in the streets for No Kings Day protests.

All ‘Heil’ King Trump

Then came the big one.

Not that it was a surprise—after stalling the ruling until the absolute last minute on their calendar, in the summer of 2024, Trump was gifted immunity by a 6–3 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Five of the six justices in the majority were Federalist Society members.

The Court didn’t just look the other way—it rewrote the Constitution from the bench. They call it “Leo’s Court” for a reason. Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell’s 2017 judicial takeover was reshaping the republic—one ruling at a time.

Shortly thereafter, on an opinion gone rogue—complete with a love note and a wink from her SCOTUS daddy Clarence Thomas—Judge Aileen Cannon, after months of stalling the documents case, tossed it altogether. Because naturally, stealing classified documents from the National Archives, lying about having them, then refusing to return them—until the FBI had to raid your house—is an official duty for a president, right?

Seven judges—all Federalist Society members—systematically dismantled every legal obstacle between Donald Trump and the Oval Office. They didn’t rule on cases; they eliminated them. They didn’t just set the table—they handed him the crown.

“Lasers From Space”

Let’s not forget what we covered in Part One.

• In 2021, Leonard Leo sold Tripp Lite—a company responsible for powering over 70% of U.S. voting equipment—to Eaton Corporation.
• Eaton Corporation was already partnered with Peter Thiel and Palantir.
• By September 2024, Eaton announced a new partnership with Elon Musk, just weeks before the election.

Buried in that partnership agreement was this line:
“Exploring integration with Starlink’s emerging low-orbit DTC infrastructure for secure operational continuity.”

What does that mean in plain English?
Election infrastructure and Musk’s newly launched low-Earth orbit DTC satellites were on a collision course—and no one was regulating the outcome. This technology wipes out the “air-gapped” defense altogether—because with Eaton in the picture, these systems can bypass it entirely.

Brass Tacks

Give it to us straight, Mr. Bean—a clean sweep in all seven swing states. The fall of the Blue Wall. Eighty-eight counties flipped red—not one flipped blue. Ronald Reagan would like a word. Every supposed victory landed just under the threshold to trigger an automatic recount. And statistically absurd data that left Dr. Walter Mebane and the Election Truth Alliance statisticians scratching their heads and burning the midnight oil.

They blew it out—think Revenge of the Nerds: Villains Version. Almost like a pack of young hackers threw out the Ric Flair “WOOOO” and slammed the Go Big or Go Home button.

From the courtroom to orbit, this wasn’t a campaign—it was a coordinated operation that fused judicial engineering, backdoor breaches, hardware infiltration, and satellite deployment. The outcome? Data so manipulated, it makes the Russian tail look like a nub.

And the part no one seems willing to confront is the through line—from the front-end stacking of courts, to the sale of Tripp Lite to a company already partnered with Palantir, to their subsequent handshake with Elon Musk just weeks before the election.

Now, I’m not a state attorney general—but if I were, I’d be inviting folks down to the office for a cuppa joe and a conversation under oath. Because what we’re looking at is, quite clearly, a four-year coordinated strategy to return Donald Trump to the Oval Office—whether he won the 2024 election or not.

“Concerning.”

MEANWHILE, DEMOCRATS AND THE NEWS IS FAILING TO DISCUSS
OR REPORT ANY OF THIS WHILE TRUMP DESTROYS OUR COUNTRY