First, Navid Keshavaz-Nia is clearly qualified in this arena and should be listened too, just as Christopher Krebs as the Former United States Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Both have first hand experience in election security and/or inside knowledge.
Now let's look at Navid's claims. In your passage he's claiming all those facts "create the perfect environment" for fraud. Does he have actual evidence of fraud? He's analyzed some data and reached some conclusions but does he have actual evidence of fraud?
He says right here that all his conclusions are based on his analysis of the data, not any forensic examination of the systems. So, what conclusions was he able to reach by merely evaluating the data?
Hold up...he's making a supposition based on "TV Broadcasts" which aren't even being cited? That has
nothing to do with his data analysis but is merely commentary on a rumor. He's losing credibility at this point...
Next...
That's a claim without authentication. It's evidence but pretty weak.
He's commenting on "report" (2nd hand? 3rd hand?) to use it as evidence.
I'm giving Navid the benefit of the doubt that the cryptographic key store was stolen. How do you make the leap that the "key allowed a remote operator to conduct massive attacks" based on an analysis of the data? Remember, he openly states that he has not has access to
any of the 2020 voting machines. Additionally, one of the states (GA) that he's claiming the vote was rigged just had their paper ballots hand counted to confirm the count accuracy of the electronic voting machines.
Honestly, Navid is likely a wickedly smart person. "Data anomalies" need to be explained, not from New York Times data but from the states. Their mere existence does not mean "fraud" but rather something the SOS of each state should explain. As stated previously, they could simply be the process of counting absentee ballots last which we
know heavily favored the candidate that encouraged them vs. the candidate that discouraged their usage.
Ultimately, much of Navid's 9-page affidavit was supposition. The volume of data analysis shared within the affidavit was extremely limited while he went off the reservation with claims Hammer and Scorecard and the stolen cryptographic keystore were used to hack the vote based on....their mere existence as facts?
Click to expand...