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.
It’s wild that a mod can just decide what is misinformation based on whether they personally know who the author is or not.
Just post your rebuttal as a comment. Objectively, you are hardly a more reliable source than the person who wrote this.
You may “know what you’re talking about,” but how do I know that you know? Why should I believe that your opinion is more correct?
Click the “more direct source” in the body of the post for a recent tie-in of how it fits in with Rockland county etc.
I just updated my comment, to reflect another conversation about that Substack, and the short of it is: that Substack post is misinformation.
I know it probably wasn’t your intent, but In the future though, please don’t use a “shell” article to post other content.
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
You can see the spin already, hell Newsweek is using it verbatim: “Left-wing conspiracy theory”.
The key element of which is; there’s no evidence left behind.
Hell I can’t get people to watch the documentary of Cambridge Analytica because they literally do not want to know. And even if it gets proven 100% and soon, the DoJ and the army are owned. The Mueller Report spelled out collusion and with one news cycle, Bill Barr killed it with a simple lie that it did not.
Not putting much hope in this but it is interesting, anyway.
This is why I think our country is fucked. You have a whole side that would die before they admit they were wrong and voted for the criminals. They will literally let our country crumble before they admit they made a mistake…. How do you “fix” that?
Let’s be clear:
Donald Trump pledges allegiance to a red, white, and blue flag—
It’s just not the American one.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.
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.
BallotProof: The Front-End for Scrubbing Democracy
Enter the ballot scrubbing platform BallotProof. Co-created by Ethan Shaotran, a longtime employee of Elon Musk and current DOGE employee, BallotProof was pitched as a transparency solution—an app to “verify” scanned ballot images and support election integrity.
With Palantir’s AI controlling the backend, and BallotProof cleaning the front, only one thing was missing: the signal to go live.
September 2024: Eaton and Musk Make It Official
Then came the final public breadcrumb:
In September 2024, Eaton formally partnered with Elon Musk.
The stated purpose? A vague, forward-looking collaboration focused on “grid resilience” and “next-generation communications.”
But buried in the partnership documents was this line:“Exploring integration with Starlink’s emerging low-orbit DTC infrastructure for secure operational continuity.”
The Activation: Starlink Goes Direct-to-Cell
That signal came on October 30, 2024—just days before the election, Musk activated 265 brand new low Earth orbit (LEO) V2 Mini satellites, each equipped with Direct-to-Cell (DTC) technology capable of processing, routing, and manipulating real-time data, including voting data, through his satellite network.
DTC doesn’t require routers, towers, or a traditional SIM. It connects directly from satellite to any compatible device—including embedded modems in “air-gapped” voting systems, smart UPS units, or unsecured auxiliary hardware.
From that moment on:
- Commands could be sent from orbit
- Patch delivery became invisible to domestic monitors
- Compromised devices could be triggered remotelyThis groundbreaking project that should have taken two-plus years to build, was completed in just under ten months.
Elon Musk boasts endlessly about everything he’s launching, building, buying—or even just thinking about—whether it’s real or not. But he pulls off one of the largest and fastest technological feats in modern day history… and says nothing? One might think that was kind of… “weird.”
Lasers From Space
According to New York Times reporting, on October 5—just before Starlink’s DTC activation—Musk texted a confidant:
“I’m feeling more optimistic after tonight. Tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the matrix.”
Then, an hour later:
“This isn’t something on the chessboard, so they’ll be quite surprised. ‘Lasers’ from space.”
It read like a riddle. In hindsight, it was a blueprint.
Let’s review what was in place:
This wasn’t a theory. It was a full-scale operation. A systemic digital occupation—clean, credentialed, and remote-controlled.
The Outcome
Data that makes no statistical sense. A clean sweep in all seven swing states. The fall of the Blue Wall. Eighty-eight counties flipped red—not one flipped blue. Every victory landed just under the threshold that would trigger an automatic recount. Donald Trump outperformed expectations in down-ballot races with margins never before seen—while Kamala Harris simultaneously underperformed in those exact same areas.
If one were to accept these results at face value—Donald Trump, a 34-count convicted felon, supposedly outperformed Ronald Reagan. According to the co-founder of the Election Truth Alliance:
“These anomalies didn’t happen nationwide. They didn’t even happen across all voting methods—this just doesn’t reflect human voting behavior.”
They were concentrated. Targeted. Specific to swing states and Texas—and specific to Election Day voting.
And the supposed explanation? “Her policies were unpopular.”
Let’s think this through logically. We’re supposed to believe that in all the battleground states, Democratic voters were so disillusioned by Vice President Harris’s platform that they voted blue down ballot—but flipped to Trump at the top of the ticket?
Not in early voting. Not by mail. With exception to Nevada, only on Election Day. And only after a certain threshold of ballots had been cast—where VP Harris’s numbers begin to diverge from her own party, and Trump’s suddenly begin to surge. As President Biden would say, “C’mon, man.”
In the world of election data analysis, there’s a term for that: vote-flipping algorithm.
Billionaires and Tech Giants Pulled Off the Crime of the Century
Why? There wasn’t just one reason—there were many.
Elon Musk himself hinted at the stakes: he faced the real possibility of a prison sentence if Trump lost. He launched his bid for Twitter—at $20 billion over market value—just 49 days after Putin invaded Ukraine. That alone should have raised every red flag. But when the ROI is $15 trillion in mineral rights tied to Ukraine losing the war and geopolitical deals Trump could green light, it wasn’t a loss—it was leverage.
It’s no secret Musk was in communication with Putin for over two years. He even granted Starlink access to Russian forces. That’s not just profiteering. That’s treason.
Then there’s Peter Thiel and the so-called “broligarchs”—tech billionaires who worship at the altar of shower-avoidant blogger Curtis Yarvin. They casually joke about “humane genocide for non-producers” and have long viewed democracy as a nuisance—an obstacle to their vision of hypercapitalism and themselves as the permanent ruling elite.
Well, what is the elimination of Medicaid if not “humane genocide”—and does anyone really wonder why his 40-year-old protégé and political rookie, JD Vance, is Vice President? With this technology in place, if the third-term legislation were to pass, it would hand Vance a minimum of twelve years at the helm of Thiel’s regime.
And of course, Donald Trump himself:
He spent a year telling his followers he didn’t need their votes—at one point stating,“…in four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”
Trump was facing eighty-eight felony indictments—he was desperate to avoid conviction and locked in a decades-long alliance with Vladimir Putin. An alliance that’s now impossible to ignore—look no further than his policy trail.
He froze aid to Ukraine and has threatened to place sanctions on them, while planning to lift sanctions off Russia. He openly campaigned for anti-EU candidates, and sided with Russia in multiple key United Nations votes related to the Ukraine conflict.
Let’s be clear:
Donald Trump pledges allegiance to a red, white, and blue flag—
It’s just not the American one.What Happens Now?
We don’t need permission to enforce the Constitution. We need courage. While state attorneys general begin their investigations, it only takes one U.S. senator to initiate the disqualification proceedings against the unelected and unfit occupant of the Oval Office.
State Attorneys General and Investigators:
- Conduct independent audits of UPS firmware on Dominion and ES&S machines
- Subpoena communications between Eaton, Palantir, Starlink employees, and Pro V&V
- Audit Starlink satellite logs for the week of the election
- Freeze uncertified infrastructure updates
- Recount physical ballots—by handNow they’re rolling out the same technological toolkit abroad—forcing countries into Starlink contracts in exchange for tariff relief.
The U.S. election wasn’t their endgame. It was their litmus test.
All I know is, Elon knew who won the election by 7pm est. make it make sense.
Trump and his cohorts were ALWAYS going to claim victory. To this day plenty of them won’t say Biden beat Trump.
why does the title say left wing? musk and trump both admitted to it.
because Newsweek
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.
This is the reply from the “This Will Hold” author:
“This Will Hold
5d Edited
Hi Michael,
Just here to clarify a few things and offer additional context, especially since some of what you’ve presented includes outdated assumptions about air-gapping, “de minimis” logic, and the scope of Starlink’s role in voting infrastructure.
Poll Books vs. Tabulators: Yes, Starlink was “officially” contracted to service e-poll books in multiple counties. What’s been largely overlooked is that many poll books share ports and internal pathways with tabulation systems—especially when all components run through a central UPS or networked control unit. In counties using centralized setups or vendor-integrated “turnkey” packages, the distinction between air-gapped systems and externally connected components becomes blurrier than it should be.
Air-Gapping Is No Longer a Guarantee: The claim that tabulators are “air-gapped” is often cited, but vendor documentation and independent testing contradict that. ES&S DS200s, for example, have modem capabilities that have been activated in previous elections. Add to that the Eaton/Tripp Lite UPS devices with SNMP-enabled network cards—often sitting directly between tabulators and their power/network environment—and it becomes clear there were viable pathways for intrusion, even if indirect.
The Pro V&V ‘De Minimis’ Loophole: This is a bigger deal than most people realize. Pro V&V certified software changes as “de minimis”—which legally sidesteps a full recertification—but the magnitude of those changes, particularly firmware-level updates across multiple counties, raises major red flags. This isn’t a theoretical concern—it’s part of documented complaints from at least three states.
Starlink’s Role Is About Access, Not Visibility: No one is saying Starlink was directly connected to every tabulator. The concern is command-and-control level access. Starlink’s DTC capability—enabled by the Gen2 satellite fleet and confirmed by Musk’s own documentation—bypasses traditional network routes altogether. This isn’t your average ISP connection. It’s a dedicated, private mesh that can sync with smart hardware in real time, independent of local firewalls, and it’s also the reason the “air-gap” dialogue is a nonstarter.
The Ramapo Example (Which I Never Cited): Correct, the voting patterns in ultra-Orthodox communities follow bloc behavior. But that wasn’t my claim. I’ve focused on Clarkstown, where precinct-level data doesn’t follow that sociological trend and includes affidavits from voters whose ballots are inexplicably absent or distorted.
Evidence vs. Admission: The fact that a post-election forensic audit hasn’t caught this yet doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Many audits are partial, lack administrative access, are candidate-specific, or rely on vendor-provided data. Our report is based on data inconsistencies, confirmed system access pathways, contract timelines, and alignment between satellite activation and vote spikes in key precincts.
You said: if someone can offer more information or a correction, you’re open to hearing it. This isn’t just a theory anymore—it’s an evidence-based hypothesis backed by infrastructure records, expert forensic analysis, and patterns too precise to dismiss. Add to that a year’s worth of ‘confessions,’ if you will, from the very person who benefited most from the heist.
We’ve laid the groundwork—there’s more than enough evidence for state attorneys general to open an investigation.
Thanks! - TWH“
And actually, for the first time I can ever remember, I’m specifically recommending reading the comments on there.
-
The people denying this are the same ones who screamed collusion the first time around, and this is infinitely more clear and obvious. Why are you so desperate to assert that trump won fair and square as it becomes clearer and clearer that isn’t the case?
I’m just glad some of y’all are starting to realize, I remember getting banned from multiple communities for stating the obvious cx
