Thread by @AsheinAmerica

DAY 9 — COOMER V LINDELL
Heading into the courtroom, as we near the end of this trial. Plaintiffs are expected to rest this morning, and attorneys for Mike Lindell et al will bring the remaining evidence for their affirmative defenses. Stay tuned!

Coomer Attorney: Mr Lindell was surprised when people connected his data to Dennis Montgomery. How could people tell?

Halderman: Code referenced Blxware.

Coomer Attorney: why was Montgomery a red flag for you?

Halderman: I was familiar with his reputation before the election—

Objection, may we approach?

SIDE BAR

Coomer Attorney: without getting into what anyone else has said, what is your opinion of Mr. Montgomery, what is your opinion on him being a credible source.

Halderman: He is absolutely not a credible source. I would not believe a single thing he says.

Coomer Attorney: were you here when we discussed the warning letter about Montgomery to Lindell?

Halderman: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: do you share the concerns?

Halderman: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: Give an example of a place that was allegedly hacked according to the Montgomery data?

Halderman: Yes. Taking the spreadsheet at face value and it’s 3,700 rows — each says attack came from one location to another (election office) location on X and changed X number of votes. You can look at those assertions and check them. We can prove that this is fake, by looking at the process in place. Real example form data of Brookfield VT — they doesn’t use electronic voting systems, it’s entirely paper. It couldn’t have happened. It’s fake.

Coomer Attorney: what were the other indications that the data was not credible.

Halderman: Required then to go back in time. (Example of timeline inconsistencies.) also hand counts confirmed the result — Maricopa hand count audit, from the senate, showed that Biden got more votes after that hand count.

Coomer Attorney: Discuss the experts. Are you familiar with Col. Phil Waldron.

Halderman: Longtime associate of ASOG. I think I’ve met him but I don’t recall where I first heard of him.

Coomer Attorney: did you review his work in Antrim county.

Halderman: Reviewed Russ Ramslund and ASOG’s report in Antrim county. Elections are imperfect and have problems. In Antrim county, its election night report announced the wrong presidential winner. An obviously wrong result. The county took down their results, consulted with the state, figured the likely reason was human error in configuration. They tabulated them in another way and provided the updated results. There was a lawsuit and gave the plaintiff, represented by Matt DePerno, the right to do an analysis of the equipment.

Coomer Attorney: were you involved?

Halderman: Plaintiffs brought in ASOG. MI SecState brought in me. I was able to confirm that the major errors were the result of human error: Late in the process, after ballots were mailed out, clerk realized that there were errors in ballot design. Clerk had to update design, mail out new ballots, and update the scanners (they have to be prepared) to read the ballot images correctly. Config typically happens a few weeks before the election. Clerk made a mistake in updating the configuration. They should have updated in all machines; but they only updated them in some, so some used outdated configuration. Misalignment between machines because some spreadsheets had an extra row that others were missing. Each Machines still got the right count, but when the data from the machines was combined in the system, we got this issue (where Biden got Trump votes and the county result was wrong). I reviewed all the data and log files and added poll tapes by hand. I confirmed the human error. I could back out that error and confirmed that the final result matched the correct machines. We’re very sure it was human error.

Coomer Attorney: What about ASOG?

Halderman: Their analysis concluded that the dominion voting system was specifically engineered to create fraud by creating errors in person to move ballots to adjudication, and in adjudication, ballots can be manipulated. They also claimed log files were deleted. It was incendiary. They claimed that electronic adjudication can flip votes.

Coomer Attorney: what is electronic adjudication.

Halderman: You do adjudication on a screen instead of on paper. The claim was that DVS fraud happened in adjudication and the log files were removed. There are several problems with this.
(1) There was NOT a suspiciously high error rate. Their methodology for error rate was flawed.
(2) They just didn’t understand what the log file description meant. “Reversed” for example, means that the feed of the ballot into the machine kicked out and had to be re-fed in. It didn’t mean that the vote was reversed.
(3) Electronic adjudication would be a stupid way to cheat because the log files capture everything. The records would show the cheating — it’s an extensive log of every change.

Coomer Attorney: Did Dr. Coomer have a role in adjudication?

Halderman: I reviewed Coomer’s patents — he didn’t invent electronic adjudication, he patented an improvement that captured the audit mark record in the same file.

Coomer Attorney: improvement make it easier harder to attack?

Halderman: Much more difficult because it’s an extensive log. Makes it more accurate.

Coomer Attorney: your report in Antrim — was it publicly available?

Halderman: SecState published it. Also, biggest problem with the ASOG report is that they claimed the cheating happened through electronic adjudication and that the log files were missing. The problem is that Antrim didn’t buy electronic adjudication. There was no log file because they didn’t use that function. ASOG hallucinated the issue. They didn’t own the electronic adjudication feature.

Coomer Attorney: do you have to be a cyber expert to know this?

Halderman: No.

Discussion about the Michigan senate oversight committee’s review.

Coomer Attorney: what did they find?

Halderman: No evidence of fraud. ASOG indefensible claims. Willful ignorance or avoidance. This report was made public in June 2021.

Coomer Attorney: Familiar with Dr. Shiva?

Halderman: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: opinion on him being a reliable source?

Halderman: He is famous for outlandish claims, like being the inventor of email at a date when people already had email addresses.

MORNING BREAK

REMINDER: All posts are my personal notes and summaries. Please excuse typos and tag or DM for any corrections or clarifications. Reporting drafted during the proceedings and posted outside the courthouse on breaks (per the courts media order).

TYSM: If you appreciate my reporting, please like, share and follow, and please consider becoming a paid subscriber to my substack: asheinamerica.substack.com.

Coomer Attorney: IS Waldron a reliable source?

Halderman: Not a reliable election cyber expert.

Coomer Attorney: What about Montgomery?

Halderman: He is a known conman and a fraud. Hammer and Scorecard is another example of science fiction.

Coomer Attorney: Do you know Dr. Frank and is he a reliable source?

Halderman: Yes. And no, I think he was a high school math teacher and his analysis was rudimentary unreliable.

Coomer Attorney: have you had a chance to review Dr. Shiva’s findings and are they reliable?

Halderman: I have and they are fundamentally unreliable.

Objection! Approach.

SIDE BAR

Coomer Attorney: Dr. Andrew Appel — do you know him?

Halderman: Yes, Princeton, worked in elections almost as long as I have.

Coomer Attorney: has Dr. Appel made his opinion publicly available?

Halderman: I’ve spoke with him. I’m sure he has.

Coomer Attorney: did you guys sign the same letters that were publicly available?

Halderman: Yes I helped organize a letter that was signed by 59 leading election experts.

Coomer Attorney: why?

Halderman: There were public allegations of a hack, they weren’t factual in nature, other experts and I were concerned about the impact of the allegations on elections. We wanted to make a very clear public statement that there was no credible evidence the election had been hacked

Coomer Attorney: Mr Lindell said he respected you from Kill Chain. Did he reach out to you?

Halderman: Not that I’m aware of. People reach out to me all the time, and I try to be responsive. I don’t believe he reached out?

Coomer Attorney: were you invited to the CS?

Halderman: No.

Coomer Attorney: why didn’t you reach out to Lindell?

Halderman: It never crossed my mind, I didn’t think he’d be open to it, he was committed to his belief.

Coomer Attorney: what public info came out confirming there was no hack?

Halderman: Expert letter I mentioned, I went on Fox News, The NY Times reached out to every state and asked, and 49 states responded and said no. Texas didn’t respond. CISA called the election the most secure in history. Two of the relevant federal agencies in the Trump administration, 59 experts, there was a lot out there prominently within a month of the election.

Coomer Attorney: Did you speak out publicly after Antrim / ASOG situation?

Halderman: Yes, I wrote a thread on Twitter about what happened and why though MI explanation was credible.

Coomer Attorney: Statement from CISA (starts to ask a question)

Ojection! Hearsay! Approach

SIDE BAR

Coomer Attorney: Shows exhibit of CISA statement, NASS, NASED, and Reps from the largest voting machine makers.

Halderman: Was this statement widely publicized at the time? Draws attention to:
“Most secure in American history”
“No evidence that any voting machine was compromised.”

Coomer Attorney: Tell us about your Fox News interview.

Halderman: A report reached out for comment on the dominion allegations. I told him I thought there was no truth to those allegations, that they were baseless, no credible evidence, I said that on the air.

Coomer Attorney: Was Harri Hursti a signer of the letter?

Halderman: Yes, not just him either. Appel and all the other credible experts in elections.

Coomer Attorney: what was the general message conveyed to the public?

Halderman: That there are known vulnerabilities but there is a difference because the existence of vulnerabilities and credible evidence of a hack, it’s an extremely serious claim and needs to be seriously investigated and supported by evidence that a crime has occurred. Vulnerability doesn’t mean hack. We said claims were unsubstantiated and technically incoherent. No credible evidence we were aware of.

Coomer Attorney: after the pronouncements, if anyone still had lingering doubts, what other public pronouncements could have helped dispel those doubts?

Halderman: Best evidence came in through audits and recounts. Swing states: GA had a statewide hand count of paper ballots. MI and PA conducted an RLA. WI did its own form of audit. If people still had doubts, they should have looked at the investigations and put those doubts to rest. There were hand audits post-election in all five swing states. And we care about swing states because they’re the states with the narrowest margins. You’d need to change three or more swing states to impact the outcome of the presidential.

Coomer Attorney: let’s go through that.

GA: Counted presidential statewide by hand. Wasn’t perfect but no significant discrepancies

AZ: Auditors found no evidence of fraud, 99 more votes for Biden.

WI: Handcounted 150K randomly selected ballots. No evidence of fraud.

PA: RLA pilot in almost all of their counties. Random sample of ballots, compared to announced results. No evidence of fraud. Outcome confirmed

MI: Several audits: procedural and RLA, complete hand count in Antrim. No evidence of fraud or error.

Coomer Attorney: In your view is Matt DePerno a credible expert?

Halderman: No, Matt DePerno is a lawyer, and he’s been indicted for unlawful access to election equipment.

Coomer Attorney: Re: Mr. Lindell’s testimony. What is a blue wave or blue shift,

Halderman: In most general elections in recent years, we’ve had a phenomenon where results become more blue as results come in. This is because mail ballots are counted later than in person results. Demographically, democrats vote by mail at a higher rate than republicans. That was especially true in 2020. In the months leading up to 2020 election, there were election officials speaking to the press, predicting that this blue shift on election night and that it’s expected and not evidence of fraud (September to November) — some people said we should expect fraud. But really it was predicted and has a natural explanation. That Democrat votes would come in later on election night because Dems vote more by mail and those ballots are counted later. Noted that this didn’t happen in 2024.

Coomer Attorney: what are your conclusions on DNI Ratcliffe’s Jan 7 letter?

Halderman: He was talking about influence, misinformation, not hacking. Buying bots on socials, political ads, etc.

Coomer Attorney: what happened with Michele Longspears?

Halderman: I helped advise the candidate and her attorney when that happened. It was very much an incident that a candidate had dropped out and there were human errors made in the configuration of the voting machines as a result. They did a hand count and it was resolved and they got to the right conclusion. Configuration issues are consistent and human errors, but they aren’t evidence of deliberate manipulation. No reason to think there was malice or criminal intent. It was an error in the ballot design and an easy to make mistake by election officials.

Coomer Attorney: 4000+ people voting over the age of 100?

Halderman: Errors in voter registration data. Unfortunately, this is a big database, managed over many years, transferred to many systems over the life of voter. There are many reasons this happens (dummy values used, human error). These aren’t evidence of fraud. They’re evidence that managing big databases of people is hard. If you wanted to register false voters, you wouldn’t given them outlandish birthdays, you’d give them plausible ones. You wouldn’t do fraud that way. Voter registration databases aren’t updated as frequently as they should be.

Coomer Attorney: Lindell believes there is manipulation in the cast vote records. What is your opinion on that claim?

Halderman: I’ve seen no evidence of that, and I’ve been working with CVRs for a long time. Each line in spreadsheet is a ballot. It’s a record that records ballot by ballot. There often are things that superficially look strange. For example, 1% of people left the President race blank in 2016. That makes sense when you think about it — a lot of people were on the fence and couldn’t decide. Superficially that would look strange but it’s normal. There are a lot of patterns in election data but those patterns have natural explanations and shouldn’t be used to prove fraud.

Coomer Attorney: Kill Chain — talk about the equipment in that clip.

Halderman: we saw a remote hack shut down the system. That was a WinVote used until 2014-2015. It was a terrible design and one of the only machines to ever be decertified by the federal government (EAC) in 2015. Hadn’t been used for more than four years in 2020.

Coomer Attorney: let’s talk about Oltmann. Is he an expert in election security?

Halderman: No, as far as I can tell he is a dangerous crazy person.

Coomer Attorney: what about his expertise in system architecture.

Halderman: I don’t even know what that means in this context. Not a term we use in election security. Oltmann talks about connecting dots — this is not election analysis, it’s how people pull info together to create conspiracy theories.

Coomer Attorney: do the manuals show how Dr. Coomer hacked the election?

Halderman: No, there is no secret fraud manual.

Coomer Attorney: Oltmann saw deviations in the data in 2020, any veracity to that?

Halderman: No it was superficial. Also, statistical deviations are not indicators of fraud in elections. Finding statistical deviations is not a credible indicator in elections because voting is a noisy, high randomness function.

Coomer Attorney: What was your reaction to Lindell’s testimony of the Mesa County images.

Halderman: These were complete images of the proprietary systems. The data was copied by a person not authorized under state law and distributed to the public. That is harmful to election security (1) software is not intended to the public, it’s built not to be available to just anyone. If it is, it raises the risk of real attacks, (2) also raises the risk that people who want to create more convincing false evidence of fraud can do so in a more convincing way. Both of these raised risks in Mesa County. I think it would be great to have open source elections in the future where people can review the code. But that’s not where we are. Making that data available to the public was harmful.

Coomer Attorney: playing Hursti clip talking about the copies of Mesa county images being distributed at the CS. In cyber you always assume your adversary has your software. Distributing software doesn’t create a new threat. In cybersecurity, you assume your adversaries have your software. When these were distributed, I got the sense that they were trying to create evidence of a hack that never happened. Concerns about them creating fake evidence using real image — false evidence that is more compelling. CS was a Factory for false evidence creation.

Coomer Attorney: Do you agree with Hursti concerns.

Halderman: Agree with his assessment of the risks.

Coomer Attorney: Do you think the public should have been on notice that the election wasn’t hacked?

Halderman: I think they should have been on notice that there was no evidence that it was hacked.

Coomer Attorney asks a series of question about the timeline of what Lindell should have known from his own experts (specially names Josh Merritt). Halderman is aware of Merritt’s objections — telling Lindell that the data was fake.

Coomer Attorney: what impact have defendants claims about Coomer had on your industry?

Halderman: I cannot emphasize enough how much of a setback that Lindell’s claims have been on the security of elections. He has confused the public so badly that it’s almost impossible to have a real public conversation about real election issues and security’s. References the secure elections act (didn’t pass) that was good bipartisan. Now, the issue has been so confused that there are very few people that are able to publicly engage. It’s made it so much harder to do the work that I do. It’s been a very very miserable time. We would be there today — we’d have more auditing and more paper ballots if it were not for Lindell so deeply confusing the public. Our work has been hijacked by science fiction. It’s much harder to have substantive conversations because of Lindell.

Coomer Attorney: Did you hear Lindell describe this as a battle of good and evil?

Halderman: I did, it’s not. Progress on this happens slowly and requires more effort and resources. That takes public understanding and care. His framing has been very counterproductive.

Coomer Attorney: do you consider General Flynn of being a credible election security expert?

Halderman: No, he was convicted of lying to the FBI. His lies were in the context of Russia, who was attempting to hack into our elections in 2016 — this is known, it’s a fact.

Coomer Attorney: What about the impact of Lindell’s claims about Coomer on your industry?

Halderman: those allegations are the end of your time working in that industry. Elections are about Public Trust. These allegations harm individuals working in this business — integrity and reputation matter.

Coomer Attorney: pass the witness

Lindell Attorney: your job is made harder, not by Mr. Lindell, but by the things you do and say in public, Agree?

Halderman: I disagree.

Lindell Attorney: The state of GA called you an election denier, Gabriel Sterling.

Halderman: I disagree and so did a federal judge. I was an expert witness for the people that were suing them.

Lindell Attorney: court dismissed the plaintiffs case in Sterling, correct?

Halderman: Yes on standing

Lindell Attorney: but the case was dismissed, correct?

Halderman: Yes on Standing

Lindell Attorney: you found Josh Merritt credible?

Halderman: Not his background but his interventions with Lindell and putting him on notice.

Lindell Attorney: you don’t know his background, how can you say that?

Halderman: Recognizing PCAPS doesn’t take a lot of technical experience

Lindell Attorney: you heard him say he pulled the fire alarm to mark time?

Halderman: I don’t remember that.

Lindell Attorney: That’s committing a crime to mark time.

Objection! Sustained

Lindell Attorney: You don’t have any evidence of that Lindell was involved in the Tina Peters case.

Halderman: She was on the stage at the CyberSymposium.

Lindell Attorney: we’re talking about the images of Mesa County,

Back and forth about the details of Tina Peters conviction. Halderman misstated that she was in federal court, and misstated the charges,

Lindell Attorney: you don’t know why Tina peters was convicted do you?

Halderman: Has to do with unauthorized access.

Lindell Attorney: where did Lindell cite Oltmann as informing his analysis?

Halderman: He was on the stage at the cybersymposium.

Lindell Attorney: 4000 people that were over the age of 100?

Halderman: data hygiene issue.

Lindell Attorney: they voted.

Halderman: so what?

Loud outburst from the gallery.

Discussion about concerns and data hygiene

Jury Exits

The court addresses the gallery. Warning audible outbursts will result in you being removed from the gallery. If you feel like you cannot control your reactions, please watch from the overflow room.

Parties briefly discuss jury instruction issues to resolve over lunch.

LUNCH BREAK

REMINDER: All posts are my personal notes and summaries. Please excuse typos and tag or DM for any corrections or clarifications. Reporting drafted during the proceedings and posted outside the courthouse on breaks (per the courts media order).

TYSM: If you appreciate my reporting, please like, share and follow, and please consider becoming a paid subscriber to my substack: asheinamerica.substack.com.

We’re back!

Lindell Attorney: You summarized DNI Ratcliffe’s letter as influence and misinformation. But wasn’t it a statement that the IC was downplaying China’s interference in US elections?

Halderman: I believe he said that China attempted to influence the election not hack it.

Lindell Attorney: did I say hack?

Halderman: you said interfere.

Lindell Attorney: so you’re splitting hairs. What about Matt DePerno?

Back and forth on DePerno and how he’s not credible because he was indicted. Asked about the timing of DePerno indictment.

Lindell Attorney: you were trying to position Matt DePerno that Lindell should have known he wasn’t credible because he was indicted. But he was only indicted last year.

Halderman: I don’t know when he was indicted but everyone should know he is not credible. He was sponsoring outlandish claims in Michigan that the experts had all disputed

Lindell Attorney: you mentioned that Michigan did an RLA in Michigan, but that wasn’t concluded until June 2021, correct?

Halderman: No that’s not correct. They competed in January. They might not have been done with their report but I believe they were done in January,

Lindell Attorney: Would it surprise you to know that they weren’t done until April 2021.

Objection! foundation. Approach.

Lindell Attorney: Let’s talk about GA, you didn’t call it an RLA, you called it a hand count. The first count in GA was a machine count, wasn’t it?

(Missed answer)

Lindell Attorney: you know Phillip stark, inventor of RLA and his positions that no voter in GA should trust their elections?

Halderman: I know him, he is good friend, I disagree with him on this. (Summarized Stark’s positions.) Perfect is the enemy of the good here.

Lindell Attorney: do you know whether the EMS server in Fulton county crashed during the 2020 election?

Halderman: I don’t recall and I don’t know what effect that has on the facts here. Computer systems crash.

Lindell Attorney: it could also be a software design defect.

Halderman: I’m one of the biggest critics of election software, but the defects are often benign. Not the same to say they’ve been exploited. One is mundane the other is extraordinary.

Lindell Attorney: You mentioned CISA saying safest and most secure (paraphrased)

Halderman: Yes.

Lindell Attorney: And at the time they made that statement, they were being hacked (Solarwinds)

Halderman: (laughing) Their claims weren’t about the security of CISA, they were about the security of the election.

Lindell Attorney: They didn’t know about the solar winds hack until Dec 2021.

Halderman: not a rebuke of the agency, a rebuke of their IT

Lindell Attorney: why didn’t you reach out to Lindell?

Halderman: Absolute proof? Really? Not worth my time, he is not going to change my mind.

Lindell Attorney: you said he was the biggest voice out there, but it wasn’t worth your time to talk to him?

Halderman: My position was clear, the letter was out there with 59 experts.

Lindell Attorney: isn’t that an appeal to authority. Did you mail the letter to Mike Lindell?

Halderman: I arranged for it to be published in the NYT, I don’t know what more I could have done

Lindell Attorney: you’re a Princeton man, correct?

Halderman: Yes I have three degrees from Princeton, one a PhD

Lindell Attorney: Mike Lindell has a high school diploma.

Halderman: If you say so.

Lindell Attorney: you’re holding him to the same standard as a PhD?

Halderman: I’m holding him to the standard of reading the newspaper.

Lindell Attorney: when did you research Dr Frank?

Halderman: I don’t recall.

Lindell Attorney: you said ASOG was debunked in Dec 2020?

Halderman: Yes

Lindell Attorney: What was that debunk?

Halderman: That was my own investigation.

Lindell Attorney: Nov 6, you were on an email chain concerning the Antrim county miscount, do you recall that.

Objection! Approach.

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: you believed on Nov 6 2020 that the ballot tabulation was a design flaw correct?

Halderman: Well, what constitutes a design flaw is a little bit nebulous here. I questioned their assessment of the underlying problem.

Lindell Attorney: you said “calling this human error puts the impact on election officials… should be called a software defect

Halderman: I probably said that but what I meant was that we need to make systems more resilient to human error.

Lindell Attorney: quotes him again saying that the issue could have impacted the results

Halderman: Yes but it turned out that wasn’t the underlying problem.

Lindell Attorney: after you spoke to MI official Braddock and stated that calling it human error, plausibly human error but if the system doesn’t prevent it then it could be considered a design flaw.

Halderman: That sounds like something I said. (Missed the rest of the answer — was explaining the nuance of his statement)

Lindell Attorney: You were contracted by MI in Dec 2020 — what data did you have?

Halderman: Comprehensjve — log files, software, machine data, etc. Everything I needed to do the analysis.

Lindell Attorney: and your initial draft was dated March 23, 2021.

Halderman: in believe that

Lindell Attorney: you concluded in that report, that dominion voting systems was a contributing factor.

Halderman: Contributing factor is a term of art.

Lindell Attorney: what’s root cause analysis?

Halderman defined it.

Lindell Attorney: if dominion were to fix its software, it would have fixed the issue right?

Halderman: No, I didn’t find that it was the root cause, but a contributing factor.

Lindell Attorney: Between ln March 23 and March 26, you had two meetings with the AG office, and you talked about your report correct?

Halderman: Yes

Lindell Attorney: And you discussed changing details in your report. In the final draft, you no longer cited dominion as a contributing factor, and emphasized human error as the root cause.

Halderman: Human error was the root cause and my final report was very critical of dominion. You’re trying to say I changed my position to support Dominion. A court has dealt with that, and found that I didn’t do that.

Lindell Attorney: Actually that case is on appeal, and the drafts were only produced in February, right?

Halderman: I don’t know when they received them,

Lindell Attorney: you didn’t disclose in your report that you spoke to John Poulos or that you contacted Eric Coomer in 2020 and told him you wanted to help him?

Halderman: I know Poulos. If I talked to him, it wasn’t about the report. I found the claims in 2020 to be beyond to pale, so yes I reached out to Eric Coomer because it was horrible what was happening. Of course I reached out to them to offer my support. We share a common interest. I’m very proud of reaching out to him in that moment. It was a gesture I had to make.

Lindell Attorney: but you didn’t reach out to Mike Lindell?

Halderman: I didn’t reach out to him because I didn’t think anything would change his mind

Lindell Attorney: In the draft report you partially concurred with ASOG but three days later you took the ASOG references out?

Halderman: There were somethings I agreed with but they weren’t particularly material.

Lindell Attorney: After you issued your report, MI SecState issued a press release emphasizing human error?

Halderman: Issues were human error.

Lindell Attorney: it didn’t mention software defects.

Halderman: I don’t write their press releases.

Lindell Attorney: Do you agree with me that transparency is important in election investigations?

Halderman: I suppose in some general sense, sure.

Discussion on importance of transparency and public trust and avoiding the appearance of pressure from the government.

Lindell Attorney: In this case, your conclusions about dominion changed after two government meetings, correct?

Halderman: My conclusions didn’t change. I was careful to make sure my words didn’t amplify misinformation/public distrust.

Lindell Attorney: What is your compensation in this case?

Halderman: $750/hr

Lindell Attorney: You’re fighting a subpoena in a MI case? OANN

Halderman: My wife won’t let me testify.

Lindell Attorney: They offered to pay for your opinion?

Objection! Sustained.

Discussion on terms BMD, ICX.

Lindell Attorney: In curling, you issued an extensive technical analysis on GA’s BMD.

Halderman: oh yes. Did a report and CISA put out an advisory.

Lindell Attorney: GA and CISA and dominion objected to your findings becoming public?

Halderman: I don’t know if dominion objected. They weren’t a party.

Lindell Attorney: you hacked a voting machine in open court in that case?

Halderman: I did a demonstration using a pen from counsel.

Lindell Attorney: You flipped an election and got it to print as many ballots as you wanted right?

Halderman: I was demonstrating an issue that could affect a single machine.

Lindell Attorney: Discussing declaration in this case. No mention of vulnerabilities and concerns with Dominion. No credible evidence that the outcome was affected

Halderman: I mentioned vulnerabilities but there is no credible evidence of a hack that changed the outcome.

Lindell Attorney: you don’t deny that there are machine glitches, bugs, serious vulnerabilities?

Halderman: Look, take Antrim county example. It produced the wrong result, we figured out the right result, and we fixed it,

Lindell Attorney: and you’re convinced that what happened to Michele Longspears In Dekalb?

Halderman: And it happened in some other cases, too. But that doesn’t mean it’s a widespread issue because it had to do with last minute change in ballot design and the human error.

Lindell Attorney: Your tweet in July 2022, you adopted Appel’s position on BMD vulnerabilities that can impact outcomes?

Objection!

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: do you recall the X post in July 2022 where you adopted Andrew Appel’s statement of issues with the BMD?

Halderman: vaguely.

Approaches and hands him the exhibit.

Lindell Attorney: You adopted his position on BMD’s — reads into record. Says issue would survive any audit and change outcomes,

Halderman: What this is referring to is using BMDs, not for accessibility but for all voters, creates a number of security issues.

Lindell Attorney: that’s not what it says. It says survive any audits.

Halderman: I’m explaining what it means. Because voters don’t check their print out effectively. (Rambling about other types of attacks on BMDs)

Lindell Attorney moved to admit, objection

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: Did you watch Absolute Proof? what do you recall it being about?

Halderman: Election vulnerabilities generally? Oh sorry, you said Absolute Proof not Kill Chain.

Lindell Attorney: right

Halderman: theory was that election was hacked by China

Lindell Attorney: next one was scientific proof?

Halderman: basically the same thing but more and more outlandish questions

Lindell Attorney: you didn’t see scientific proof did you?

Halderman: I reviewed them but I don’t know if I watched them. They all blend together in my mind.

Lindell Attorney: Absolute Scientific Proof was about cast vote records. Are you aware that Mike Lindell had obtained Cast Vote Records?

Halderman: Obtained them himself?

Lindell Attorney: and he obtained voter rolls and canvassed in some of those states?

Objection! Sustained.

Lindell Attorney: Are you aware that he enabled canvassing to check the machine count?

Objection! Sustained.

Lindell Attorney: You called Eric Coomer a man of principle and said he believed in protecting the integrity of elections?

Halderman: Yes, I stand by it. We met at a conference, Coomer introduced himself to me. We had a conversation about election security.

Lindell Attorney: and your only other interaction was in litigation on these kinds of cases? (Reference curling)

Halderman: Yes I was impressed with his testimony in that case. I believe he wants elections with integrity such that people can trust them.

Lindell Attorney: In your court case in MI, you’re aware of emails of Eric Coomer, correct?

Objection! Approach

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: Going to play a video exhibit.

Dispute over video — court dismissed the jury so she can review the video.

AFTERNOON BREAK

Arguing over video clip. Defense says it impeaches the witness and goes to affirmative defenses. Court will allow defense to impeach him with the clips, but will not admit the video into evidence. The jury will see the clip.

Moved on to admit Coomer messages. Defense will not recall Coomer if this exhibit is admitted. Making offer of proof for Coomer calling Halderman a shill that lies. Defense argues plaintiff impugning his own expert is relevant and should be admitted.

Discussing logistics and timing.

Jury instructions will be tomorrow morning.

JURY ENTERS

Lindell Attorney: You would concede that given the serious vulnerabilities you’ve raised, you would concede that there could have been some fraud?

Objection! Approach.

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: In the 2020 election, don’t speculate on amount or impact, but given the serious vulnerabilities you’ve raised, you would concede that there could have been some hack?

Halderman: Yes, my work is all about this. But that doesn’t mean that it changed the outcome, which seems to be the central claim

Lindell Attorney: and you heard Lindell say, “You did your best, Dominion, you failed.”

Back and forth on what the actual statement was. Halderman couldn’t hear it. Asks again; objection, side bar, sustained.

Playing video clip now. It’s Halderman stating that in every single case, vulnerabilities were found that could inject software that could change the outcome. Debunks wireless connectivity.

Lindell Attorney: This is from Mike’s documentary. All of them have disreputable people right?

Halderman: They do.

Lindell Attorney: but you’re not disreputable?

Halderman: This is another example of Lindell taking my work out of context. I am appalled that Mike Lindell chose to selectively use my work to prop up his theories. Very selective. He’s not open to considering that he may be wrong. He is not open to considering that his people are disreputable.

Lindell Attorney: You said you were very concerned about 2020.

Halderman: I was! In many ways, we were very lucky in 2020 the way things worked out.

Back and forth.

Lindell Attorney: nothing further

Coomer Attorney: Do you know whether an Alabama voter has to present ID to vote? (4000 ppl reference)

Halderman: one of the best states for voter ID.

Coomer Attorney: anything else you want to tell the jury about how Lindell has taken your work out of context?

Halderman: He uses my work to make his theories sound plausible and they aren’t. The science is about making elections better. That isn’t what Lindell was doing, he was cherry picking, using the work of scientists to mislead people.

Objection! Sustained.

Coomer Attorney: you said your biggest concern in curling was the casting of doubt on elections.

Halderman: I wrote in my possibility that vulnerabilities could be exploited. But using that analysis to weave science fiction. Rambling…

Objection! Sustained.

Coomer Attorney: why is it important that there is trust in elections?

Objection! sustained.

Coomer Attorney: Why are you concerned about public trust in elections?

Objection! Outside the scope. Sustained.

Nothing further.

Halderman exits the stand.

Plantiffs rest.

Defense calls Peter Kent, technical expert for the defense.

Lindell Attorney: explain your credentials

Kent: Worked in computer systems since 1979, originally on oil rigs. I help test systems, design systems. Written 65 books on technology. Complete idiots guide to the Internet. Bitcoin for dummies. SEO for dummies, more on click advertising like we heard from Mr. Bania today.

Lindell Attorney: and you’re being offered as a reach expert, correct?

Kent: Yes, you’re all using the term reach. We’re primarily talking about social media.

Lindell Attorney: task - what happened in 6 months (Nov 3 to May 9). Offer as expert, no objection. So accepted as an expert. Explain what you did.

Kent: Methodolody: (1) Manual Research, (2) SMI Aware. Wanted to use Brand watch but it was too expensive.

Timeline should begin on Nov 9 which was the first statement from Oltmann. Bania’s analysis begins in May 3 and I find that misleading. Goes through timeline: Nov 15 (Fox News), Nov 15 (Malkin Tweet ~2M followers). No way to get absolute numbers, so we speculate with RTs, Likes and views but that’s speculation.

Nov 17 Eric Trump, 1.2M times (this is extrapolated)
Nov 23 Gateway pundit, 149K page views, 121K unique viewers (TGP provided this data)
Nov 24 OANN interview Oltmann, 1.6M views on YT.

Podcast 38
Video streams 38 (9M combined views)
19 tweets 37M potential views
TGP blogs 25
TV broadcasts 8
Articles 7

There were 10s of millions of views of the statements of Coomer before Mr. Lindell said anything.

Lindell Attorney: pass the witness.

Coomer Attorney: Parsing Mr. Kent’s background. Books, publishing, oil rigs tech, league nation websites for medical clinics, goes through other companies.

One of the reasons you started Peter Kent Consulting is because your business collapsed?

Kent: Yes, we were caught up in the dot com bubble.

Coomer Attorney: you got into building websites, helping companies building website. You now help a company to find a company to build websites.

Kent: Sometimes I project manage.

Coomer Attorney: You don’t focus on social media?

Kent: Not 100% of the time.

Coomer Attorney: you give a lot of talks. Like “why you’re not finding business online and how to stop that.” Names other talks and their topics. Talks are given to local groups in CO. Your goal is to “dig through the garbage and find the information you need.”

Kent: I don’t recall. What page is that from and what is the context?

Coomer Attorney: For $350/hr, users can connect with you through go to meeting,

Kent: If that is on there, then it’s old. I don’t use GTM for a while. (Describes his consulting approach and services.)

Coomer Attorney: At the end of the session, your assistant will send an invoice to the user for $350/hr. Now let’s talk about what Mr. Lindell pays you, it’s $600/hr?

Kent: I think it’s $550/hr.

Coomer Attorney: you would agree with me that what you put in your report is accurate?

Kent: Yes, does it say $600?

Coomer Attorney: Sure. So Mr. Lindell pays you $250 more per hour than the public?

Kent: Correct.

Coomer Attorney: You wrote cryptocurrency for dummies, Bitcoin for dummies, and crypto mining for dummies?

Kent: Correct.

Coomer Attorney: so your expertise is wide and vast and not in social media.

Kent: Well in a teacher. Everything I do is a teacher.

Coomer Attorney: you also write “best sex of your life”

Kent: Yes, that’s another hobby of mine.

Coomer Attorney: You wrote a book on Coronavirus, and that book covers how humans kissing camels got people sick in another COVID outbreak?

Kent: Yes it does.

Coomer Attorney: And Amazon took it down?

Kent: No, Amazon blocked its publishing because they were blocking all coronavirus in 2020. I appealed and they published it but to my knowledge they never took it down. (Confirm — book is still available on Amazon.)

Coomer Attorney: You gave away hard copies on your website.

Kent: No, I gave away a PDF copy.

Coomer Attorney: okay thank you for that clarification. You agree that your expertise is vast but also has limits.

Kent: unsure of response

Coomer Attorney: your assignment was to evaluate Oltmann’s story and how it spread. And you didn’t evaluate Mr. Lindell’s statements.

Kent: Absolutely, I stopped the day before Mr. Lindell first Coomer statement.

Coomer Attorney: Did the defendants ask you to evaluate the 10 statements alleged to be defamatory?

Kent: No, they didn’t

Coomer Attorney: They didn’t ask you or want you to look at the reach of any of the defamatory statements?

Kent: No it was to understand the reach of the statements before Lindell.

Coomer Attorney now asking about each defamatory statement individually. Asking about all the stuff after May 8.

Objection! May we approach?

SIDE BAR

Coomer Attorney: Your opinion is based on Mr. Lindell having not made a statement before May 8.

Kent: Long form answer basically restating his assignment.

Coomer Attorney: defendants did not ask you to consider Absolute Proof?

Kent: No wasn’t in the purview

Coomer Attorney: Though it was released on Feb 5, 2021?

Kent: I don’t believe it mentioned Dr. Coomer

Coomer Attorney: Excellent. Do we have that? Shows screen shot of Coomer name. Did the defendants ask you to analyze this?

Kent: Sure but this wasn’t defamation?

Coomer Attorney: Were you asked to review this?

Kent: No (makes a comment about plaintiffs not including in their complaint)

Coomer Attorney: Great, I appreciate you commenting on what was in my mind, but I’d like you to stick to my questions.

Lots more questions about things the expert wasn’t asked to cover. Latest was a reference to March 11 — which is outside the scope of the original report.

Objection! approach.

SIDE BAR

Coomer Attorney: We’re you asked to evaluate Oltmann’s pillow code?

Kent: I didn’t do any analysis of pillow codes.

Coomer Attorney: some of the data you evaluated went through June 30, 2021, fair?

Kent: That’s misleading. I’m quoting Mr. Bania.

Coomer Attorney: you say I — and that means Kent — and reads the statement.

Kent: The I is within the quotation marks.

Going through statements from Bania’s report, on accounts that use violent language with Coomer, 1000 unique Twitter accounts covered the time period when you talk about the reach AND the time period of Mr. Lindell’s statement.

Coomer Attorney: You agree wit me that there have been over 31M viewers that have seen the defamatory statements?

Kent: Where are you getting this?

Coomer Attorney: From your report.

Kent: That number only applies to tweets. The real number is far greater.

Coomer Attorney: yes it’s a conservative number of people who have viewed tweets. In your report you said 18M people that reviewed tweets about Dr. Coomer?

Kent: Yes, that’s the SMI data.

Coomer Attorney: you agree posts can be reposted?

Kent: yes

Coomer Attorney: like a ripple effect

Kent: yes.

More questions about posts and renewed interest and old stories being put back into the public eyes.

Coomer Attorney: A story posted in November, reposted in January, reposted in May — each post is generating new interest. It puts the story at the top of the feed again.

(This exchange lasted about 10 mins.)

Coomer Attorney: So if Mr. Lindell reposted the post in May, it would go back to the top of his followers feeds, right?

Kent: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: nothing further.

Redirect

Lindell Attorney: We’re you aware that Mr. Lindell doesn’t have a Twitter account?

Kent: No

Lindell Attorney: nothing further.

The Court dismisses Kent. Asks if the defense has anything further.

May we approach?

SIDE BAR

The court dismisses the jury.

Defense may proffer for one additional witness in the morning. If not, then we go directly to jury instructions followed by closing arguments.

Note: Mike Lindell told me after the close of trial today that he never had a Twitter account, he never joined the platform before it was X.

TOMORROW: I’m so sorry but I won’t be in the courtroom tomorrow. I will be getting updates from on breaks and will post what I can. I will also be looking out for the jury instructions to be public and will share if/when I have them.

Tune into Badlands Daily at 10aET — I’ve been withholding my opinion on how the trial has gone (in terms of outcome) but will make my predictions tomorrow AM on @BadlandMedia_.

Have a great night, everyone!

/END

@threadreaderapp pls unroll