Mesa County Colorado - Dominion Election Management Server BEFORE and AFTER Mandatory Update Ordered by Sec of State

  • Join War Room Forum!

    Welcome Deplorable! Please take a moment to Sign Up for a free account so you can join in on the LIVE CHAT and forum DISCUSSIONS.

    Sign Up    Live Chat Login


highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
There is nothing up, because there is nothing missing. Everything is right there on the "before" copy.

The characterization that files and folders have been deleted is completely disingenuous. It's stupid to think that the old files and directory structure should remain after a fresh build install. You always want to begin with a clean slate.

Whoever wrote this report didn't even have the guts to put their name on it. Not hard to understand why.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: carla_rogers

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
Those logs have to be retained for 26 months following an election. There is no good reason why updating the system would include deleting logs.
FFS, the logs are right there on the backup.

This was a trusted build install. Wipe the partition, make a new one, reformat, reinstall everything. Operating system, software, etc.

The old logs are not relevant to the new build, and do not belong on the server. They reflect something that happened on a different build at a different time.
 

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93
There is nothing up, because there is nothing missing. Everything is right there on the "before" copy.

The characterization that files and folders have been deleted is completely disingenuous. It's stupid to think that the old files and directory structure should remain after a fresh build install. You always want to begin with a clean slate.

Whoever wrote this report didn't even have the guts to put their name on it. Not hard to understand why.
It is people like you who give IT a bad name, facilitating problems to blame on others.

Those logs have to be retained for 26 months following an election (Colorado law). There is no good reason why updating the system would include deleting logs. "Starting fresh" is a vague concept that cannot justify deleting essential data.

If the intention for retaining 2020 election data is that it be offloaded to another system, the update procedure should verify the existence and validity of the offloaded data before proceeding with the update. If the county is responsible for having a copy of the data before the update is applied, the update process should require certification by the county that the copy exists in accordance with standards established ahead of time. That never happened. Anyone responsible for systems used by others knows they are responsible for the data placed into their control. No one should delete data from any system that is not verified to have been preserved on another device, unless that data is not needed. No one could make the mistake of thinking the 2020 system logs on an election management server are not needed.

The secretary of State sponsored the update, without safeguarding the data. That violates the Secretary of States oath of office.

This update was designed to destroy data the county is required to maintain, and to create legal liability for county officials. It was a setup perpetrated by the Secretary of State, who is defended by rules that make it the county's fault for failing to preserve data. The Secretary of State did nothing to protect the county's data. This is not public service. It is tyranny, using the power granted by the governed to harm the governed, motivated by malicious intent.

What purpose is served by an update that does not safeguard data from the 2020 election? Answer: guarantees no one will see the 2020 election data. Produces violations of data retention law, making the county vulnerable to legal liabilities that can be pursued by the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, and county voters.

The report's author is omitted from the copy posted at Frankspeech, to prevent attacks from Cancel Culture and dingbats like you. The report's author is known to the Mesa County Clerk, who stands by the report. The information in the report is verifiable, so it doesn't matter who wrote it for the purpose of ascertaining the facts regarding data on the Dominion system in Mesa County.
 

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93

Your attitude and impatience is not relevant

...the logs are right there on the backup.


Did the people applying the update verify the backup before deleting the 2020 election data?
Hint: no.

Do people deleting data have an obligation to verify the data is not needed?
Answer: if the people are civilized and interested in the best interests of the system's purpose, yes. If the people are sworn public servants, yes. If the people are enemies of the county: no.

A substantial body of data is preserved by the trusted rebuild process. Why should the system logs for the 2020 elections be excluded?
Answer: If your goal is to enforce power over the county against its will, dropping the 2020 election logs is a great idea. Otherwise, the 2020 logs should be preserved.


The old logs are not relevant to the new build, and do not belong on the server. They reflect something that happened on a different build at a different time.
Says who? The county has to have the data. Why should the 2020 data be consigned to a backup? Where is the backup stored? How is it accessed? How can it be put on a system running the build that generated it?

The most logical, simplest configuration is to keep the 2020 election data on the server where it was generated. There is no good reason for not having the 2020 build and the new build both on the same hardware. Each build can operate as its own virtual system, with its own installation of Windows, isolated from all the other builds. The new build does not demand wiping the old one. This is easier and less expensive than maintaining separate hardware.
 
Last edited:

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
It is people like you who give IT a bad name, facilitating problems to blame on others.

Those logs have to be retained for 26 months following an election (Colorado law). There is no good reason why updating the system would include deleting logs. "Starting fresh" is a vague concept that cannot justify deleting essential data.
This is tripe. I am very competent in IT and made good money doing it.

Starting Fresh is NOT a "vague concept" when you are setting up servers and no data has been destroyed, which is what preservation means.
If the intention for retaining 2020 election data is that it be offloaded to another system, the update procedure should verify the existence and validity of the offloaded data before proceeding with the update. If the county is responsible for having a copy of the data before the update is applied, the update process should require certification by the county that the copy exists in accordance with standards established ahead of time. That never happened.
You are making pronouncements with nothing to support. You have no idea what the update manual says, or what the process was.

The fact that the "before" image even exists demolishes your argument. The entirety of the report is just comparing the "before" and "after" configurations.

Somehow from that you can divine the process, lol. You are a poser- you don't have any grasp of how server builds are done.
Anyone responsible for systems used by others knows they are responsible for the data placed into their control. No one should delete data from any system that is not verified to have been preserved on another device, unless that data is not needed. No one could make the mistake of thinking the 2020 system logs on an election management server are not needed.

The secretary of State sponsored the update, without safeguarding the data. That violates the Secretary of States oath of office.

This update was designed to destroy data the county is required to maintain, and to create legal liability for county officials. It was a setup perpetrated by the Secretary of State, who is defended by rules that make it the county's fault for failing to preserve data. The Secretary of State did nothing to protect the county's data. This is not public service. It is tyranny, using the power granted by the governed to harm the governed, motivated by malicious intent.

What purpose is served by an update that does not safeguard data from the 2020 election? Answer: guarantees no one will see the 2020 election data. Produces violations of data retention law, making the county vulnerable to legal liabilities that can be pursued by the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, and county voters.

The report's author is omitted from the copy posted at Frankspeech, to prevent attacks from Cancel Culture and dingbats like you. The report's author is known to the Mesa County Clerk, who stands by the report. The information in the report is verifiable, so it doesn't matter who wrote it for the purpose of ascertaining the facts regarding data on the Dominion system in Mesa County.
This is just you making a bunch of accusations that you can't support. I downloaded the full report the day it was made public.

A "forensic report" by anonymous people is just an allegation. Also, they broke the chain of custody when they absconded with the files, so the stolen copies don't even carry any evidentiary value.

The notion that the authors have to remain anonymous to protect themselves from me is laughable. They are remaining anonymous to protect their own reputations.

I would do the same thing in their place.
 

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93
You are a poser- you don't have any grasp of how server builds are done.
You are typical blowhard IT thug, whose interests oppose those of the people who depend on systems.

Please educate me on the shortcomings of maintaining multiple builds of the election system as virtual machines on one computer, described above, repeated here for your convenience:


The county has to have the data. Why should the 2020 data be consigned to a backup? Where is the backup stored? How is it accessed? How can it be put on a system running the build that generated it?
The most logical, simplest configuration is to keep the 2020 election data on the server where it was generated. There is no good reason for not having the 2020 build and the new build both on the same hardware. Each build can operate as its own virtual system, with its own installation of Windows, isolated from all the other builds. The new build does not demand wiping the old one. This is easier and less expensive than maintaining separate hardware.
 

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
You are typical blowhard IT thug, whose interests oppose those of the people who depend on systems.
Should I call the waaambulance for you?
Please educate me on the shortcomings of maintaining multiple builds of the election system as virtual machines on one computer, described above, repeated here for your convenience:
1. There is no advantage to doing that, and it adds complexity for no good reason. At some point, someone will run the election on the wrong version.
2. It makes certification almost impossible, since every server would be a different configuration.
3. It makes troubleshooting more difficult because you don't know what remnants of the prior build are retained in the registry and in the system folders.
4. It consumes disk space and system resources.
5. Clean builds are just more stable than VM's.
6. It makes auditing the machine much more complicated because you have data from multiple elections on one computer.

That's just a few, there are many reasons to do it the way it's done now.

The law requires Preservation of Data. It does not require that the data must reside on it's original disk- only that it is preserved. Forensic images are petrified, bit-by-bit copies of the disk- they are admissible in court and comply with the preservation requirement (assuming chain of custody is maintained).

If you can show that there is something missing on the BEFORE image, you might have an argument that data from the 2020 election has been deleted. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:

AVETINNC

Well-known Member
Feb 13, 2021
459
478
63
We know a purge is coming, hopefully its Real Americans doing it!

Sad we have such negative spam/spin at times, maybe find a job at CNN, or maybe you do already!
 

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93
Should I call the waaambulance for you?


I pick my teeth with people like you. Business manager hires me to deal with internal IT. That is where I meet you. If you force me, I will expose the weakness of your technical assertions you normally hide by being an asshole, which intimidates enough people for this strategy to work for you. You expertise in power exceeds your technical prowess. If you resist the truth of my technical assertions, I expose the weakness of your arguments and your irrational resistance to better information, killing respect for you in the business manager's eyes. While you are steaming about it, I collect an hourly fee twice what you are paid. If you are not a jerk, we'll both benefit.

You argued the 2020 data does not belong on the rebuilt server, because it was produced by an earlier build. If 2020 logs require the 2020 build, which they do not for most purposes, but since you said they do, what good is having 2020 log data on the backup image without a machine to run it on?



1. There is no advantage to doing that, and it adds complexity for no good reason. version.
Adds complexity to what?

At some point, someone will run the election on the wrong version.
So what?

2. It makes certification almost impossible, since every server would be a different configuration.
FALSE. Boot the build that needs to be certified, run the certification routine. What is the problem?

Should I call the waaambulance for you?


3. It makes troubleshooting more difficult because you don't know what remnants of the prior build are retained in the registry and in the system folders.
FALSE. The presence on disk of unbooted builds does not complicate troubleshooting. Can you provide an example of a case where it does?

4. It consumes disk space and system resources.

Compared to what?

What arrangement requires less resources?

The 2020 data has to be stored somewhere. The old build has to be stored somewhere. If not on a host of virtual builds, where are they stored? What system resources do they use if they need to run? I am surprised to see you ignoring this basic math. Virtual systems always conserve resources or in extreme cases, use the same resources compared to stand-alone implementations. Virtual systems never require more resources than stand-alone implementations of the same systems. Exception: if all the guestBuilds have to run a maximum capacity at the same time, extra memory will be required for the hypervisor. In the case of election systems, only one system needs to run at a time, so resource usage is less than standAlone, every time.

If you had done your homework, you would know a host of virtual builds always is the most resource efficient configuration possible. Disk space cannot be conserved by storing the 2020 logs or build somewhere else, unless you are moving them off disk to tape or other storage that is not readily accessible. Memory is conserved by using virtual builds, because one set of memory, gpu, cpu, power supply, and communication devices supports multiple builds.


5. Clean builds are just more stable than VM's.
FALSE.

Stability of Hypervisor + guestBuild = Stability of standAloneBuild for practical purposes including running elections.
6. It makes auditing the machine much more complicated because you have data from multiple elections on one computer.
FALSE. An audit is done by booting the relevant build. The other, unbooted builds do not affect the audit, because the builds are stored in a packages the booted build cannot access. Verifying that the packages holding other builds are inaccessible by the booted build does not make the audit much more complicated.

The law requires Preservation of Data. It does not require that the data must reside on it's original disk- only that it is preserved. Forensic images are petrified, bit-by-bit copies of the disk- they are admissible in court and comply with the preservation requirement (assuming chain of custody is maintained).

If you can show that there is something missing on the BEFORE image, you might have an argument that data from the 2020 election has been deleted. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

The law is not the only source of requirements. How is anyone going to look at the 2020 data if it is on a forensic image stored apart from a machine to run it? All the election data, minus personally-identifiable data, should be available to the public via the internet at the same time it becomes viewable by election officials. That data should remain visible permanently and impossible to change.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHITEFRANK

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93
  • Like
Reactions: WHITEFRANK

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
I pick my teeth with people like you. Business manager hires me to deal with internal IT. That is where I meet you. If you force me, I will expose the weakness of your technical assertions you normally hide by being an asshole, which intimidates enough people for this strategy to work for you. You expertise in power exceeds your technical prowess. If you resist the truth of my technical assertions, I expose the weakness of your arguments and your irrational resistance to better information, killing respect for you in the business manager's eyes. While you are steaming about it, I collect an hourly fee twice what you are paid. If you are not a jerk, we'll both benefit.
Haha, knock yourself out. You are in HR because you are not competent to be in IT.

Go ahead and expose my weak technical assertions. BTW, I did very well in IT- made very close to lawyer money doing it.
You argued the 2020 data does not belong on the rebuilt server, because it was produced by an earlier build. If 2020 logs require the 2020 build, which they do not for most purposes, but since you said they do, what good is having 2020 log data on the backup image without a machine to run it on?
Pathetic. The logs are generated by the server. The old logs are from the old build, and need to be kept separate from the new logs generated by the new build.

If you want to read the old log, open it and read it. There isn't any trick to it.
Adds complexity to what?
The server.

The more you post, the more ignorance you show. Just adding installation on top of installation on critical systems is crazy.
Yeah, we'll just do the election over, no big deal...
FALSE. Boot the build that needs to be certified, run the certification routine. What is the problem?
The problem is that you have to do it on every install. When you use trusted builds, you can push them all down and just verify the hash value.

You certify the BUILD, not the particular installation. That REQUIRES a clean install.

You talk about running the "certification routine" as if it's some little batch file or something. You and I do not know what all is involved in certifying the build, but it will certainly involve a lot of different tests under various scenarios. It could easily be a months-long process.
FALSE. The presence on disk of unbooted builds does not complicate troubleshooting. Can you provide an example of a case where it does?
Yes I can, but it would go right past your pea brain.

Also you said VM's, not a multi-boot system. A VM runs inside the existing OS- it is an emulation of another OS. All the interactions between the Virtual OS and the hardware are managed by the hypervisor. The more VM's, the more resources have to be shared between OS's.

And if you are going to run your elections on VM's, they become part of the election infrastructure and have their own certifications to meet. New versions have to be recertified, and update procedures have to be written for that software just like everything else. Another layer, additional complexity.

That's enough wasted time for now, I will leave the rest of your inane screed alone.

But feel free to answer my question any time- can you show us any missing data from the "before" image"?

Since I already know you can't, what are you calling evidence of file deletion on that server?
 
Last edited:

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
All this hand-wringing about how the servers are configured is utterly meaningless. However you do it, there is a process. You follow the process. If you ran your elections on VM's, you would have a process for that setup. If you don't, your process will not involve VM's.

The only question is- does the report show that data that should have been preserved was instead deleted?

The answer is- no, it does not show that.

This report is a comparison of the server before and after the update, nothing more.

All of the data on the backup is accessible and verifiable. If data was deleted, it's not discoverable without the image of the previous installation for comparison. And that's another reason to do it the way they do instead of piling builds alongside each other. When you take a forensic image of each build, you have a clean reference for future comparison.
 

AVETINNC

Well-known Member
Feb 13, 2021
459
478
63
Lets be clear here, there is no room for Computerized Election Systems such as this. It is obvious there are bad players, and purposely put into position to oversee manipulation and negate any scrutiny. Fair and honest elections are difficult to begin with and machines must be removed from the equation!

Our elections have been compromised for some time now particularly in Blue States where they themselves hold the keys to everything! I guarantee Virginia is Red and has been all along!

Computerized Election manipulation requires upfront anlaytics, to decipher and set algorithms for desired results! At some point all will be revealed, and it's best to keep most of the proof hidden!
 

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93
1632432542146.png



All this hand-wringing about how the servers are configured is utterly meaningless.
100% correct. So no one shall wring their hands to object to preserving prior election data on election systems whether they are upgraded or not, for at least as long as that data is required to be retained by law.

The only question is- does the report show that data that should have been preserved was instead deleted?
As soon as I am able to verify that Trusted Upgrades are not in the habit of deleting data that has not been preserved in convenient form on another device, I will stop worrying about prior election data being deleted by Trusted Upgrades. That is my provisional answer to the question starting this thread
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHITEFRANK

carla_rogers

Well-known Member
Feb 24, 2021
743
609
93
Pathetic. The logs are generated by the server. The old logs are from the old build, and need to be kept separate from the new logs generated by the new build.
Why is that?

the server.

If your job is to run the election server with no responsibility for protecting critical data, then you're right, dropping prior election data leaves you a simpler server. That is only a partial solution. A whole solution has to include the prior election data. If that is on another computer, that is more complicated than one server that has the new build plus the old data in restricted-access files.

The problem is that you have to do it on every install. When you use trusted builds, you can push them all down and just verify the hash value.
That is not a problem


You talk about running the "certification routine" as if it's some little batch file or something. You and I do not know what all is involved in certifying the build, but it will certainly involve a lot of different tests under various scenarios. It could easily be a months-long process.
This is complete non-issue. Holding onto the prior election data is not a significant complication. It is, however, it is a significant omission in any case where the only copy of the data is on the server getting the build. In no case should that data be deleted without verification of its being stored safely somewhere else. The impact of this on the certification routine, no matter what it is, is negligible compared to the importance of safeguarding the data.

Also you said VM's, not a multi-boot system. A VM runs inside the existing OS- it is an emulation of another OS. All the interactions between the Virtual OS and the hardware are managed by the hypervisor. The more VM's, the more resources have to be shared between OS's.
Depends on the schedules and loading of the various VMs. If you are running only one vm at a time, you need resources for the most demanding VM plus the hypervisor. If you run these as stand-alone machines instead of vm's, you can drop resources for the hypervisor (small) but you have to add resources for a whole new system. That is a big part of why virtualization is cheaper.
And if you are going to run your elections on VM's, they become part of the election infrastructure and have their own certifications to meet. New versions have to be recertified, and update procedures have to be written for that software just like everything else. Another layer, additional complexity.
The EAC could say VMs are not allowed. It also could say the old data cannot be on the machine with the new build.

In Antrim County Michigan, prior election data was found on the ems going back to 2018, but 2020 log data was deleted.



But feel free to answer my question any time- can you show us any missing data from the "before" image"?
2020 election data was removed from the machine, by people who did not know the data had been copied to another device. So, no data was lost, but no thanks to the Trusted Build. Were the previous builds not trusted?

You remind me of Fauci, when he says he funded no gain of function in Wuhan, or Biden, justifying a boched exit from Afghanistan by explaining that exiting was the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHITEFRANK

highsea

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2021
1,443
1,376
113
Why is that?
Because the forensic image is an archive of the history of that server over a specific time frame. The logs are part of that history and belong with the data. Somewhere, there is an image of that server on the day it was setup for the 2020 election. That's the reference image for that election cycle.

The new logs are the start of a new cycle, and you want to start fresh. It's a certified build that has a specific hash that is used to confirm the installation. The hash value is registered with NIST. There can't be random stuff on the computer when you start.

And when you finish the cycle, you archive and do it again, and everything is done under chain of custody rules and include validation tests that they are supposed to follow, but seem to frequently ignore.
 
Last edited:

War Room Live Chat

Support War Room With a Small Donation
Donations pay for increased server capacity, Live Chat and patriots/causes that appear on the show.

Hey Deplorable! Join us...

Never miss out. Join in on all that our community as to offer!

Sign Me Up!

War Room Podcast

War Room Live Chat