TGP has a link to the affidavit of an expert consultant to Sidney Powell in her legal challenges to the election. Here's the TGP blog--it's been up for a while but I've been occupied reading a variety of stuff, including the affidavit:
HUGE! Sidney Powell Witness Whom NY Times Described as “Always the Smartest Person in the Room” Concludes Hundreds of Thousands of Votes Transferred from Trump to Biden IN ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES
Keshavarz-Nia, it turns out, is the hero of a NYT article from just this past September, 2020, which TGP quotes:
17. Navid Keshavarz-Nia, those who worked with him said, “was always the smartest person in the room.” In doing cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A. and F.B.I., he had spent decades connecting top-secret dots.
This is the conclusion of the affidavit that TGP quotes:
I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
Where is that evidence? Because it's not enough to cite vulnerabilities--you have to show a likelihood that the fraud actually happened. The evidence Keshavarz-Nia cites is in paragraph 15. Here's a link to the 9-page affidavit, which also gives Keshavarz-Nia's full background.
I'm not qualified to assess the evidence, but others may be able to. I've pasted in paragraph 15 and have highlighted what appear to me to be significant parts of the argument. Naturally, the findings in this paragraph follow upon the preceding portions of the affidavit, but I can't paste it all in:
15. I have not been granted access to examine any of the systems used in the 2020 Election. However, I have conducted detailed analysis of the NY Times data sets and have discovered significant anomalies are caused by fraudulent manipulation of the results. In my expert judgment, the evidence is widespread and throughout all battleground states I have studied. I conclude the following:
a. The vote count distribution in PA, WI, MI, AZ, NV, and GA are not based on normal system operation. Instead, they are caused by fraudulent electronic manipulation of the targeted voting machines.
b. On approximately 2:30 AM EST, TV broadcasts reported that PA, WI, AZ, NV and GA have decided to cease vote counting operations and will continue the following day. The unanimous decision to intentionally stop counting by all 5 battleground states is highly unusual, possibly unprecedented and demonstrates prior coordination by election officials in battleground states. There would be no legitimate reason battleground states need to pre-coordinate election activities and stop on-going adjudication processes. However, it is equally puzzling that the vote counting did not stop, as reported. In fact, it continued behind closed doors in early hours of November 4, 2020. This activity is highly unusually and demonstrates collusion to achieve desired results without being monitored by watchers.
c. When analyzing the NYT Times data for the 2020 election, I conclude that the software algorithm manipulated vote counts forging between 1-2% of the precinct results to favor Vice President Biden. The software performed data alteration in real-time in order to maintain close parity among the candidates and without raising red flags. The specific software algorithm was developed by Smartmatic and implemented in DVS machines to facilitate backdoor access by a nefarious operator to manipulate live data, as desired.
d. The DVS Democracy Suite’s ImageCast Central optical scanner failed to correctly verify and validate absentee ballots, as described in its own literature. There is reported evidence that the optical scanner accepted and adjudicated ballots that did not have signatures or other key features that is required for ballot validation and verification. This indicates that the DVS system configuration was modified to accept invalid ballots when they should have been rejected.
e. After the DVS ImageCast scanner validates a ballot, by design, it is required to tabulate and store the results in a cast vote record along with a human-readable image of the ballot that has been scanned. The image, called AuditMark provides the user with scanned results that is verifiable. However, media reports indicate that not only did the ImageCast fail to properly verify absentee ballots; it also failed to maintain records of the AuditMark that would be necessary to conduct an audit. The only way to alter this protocol is to alter the system configuration and prevent the ImageCast scanner from rejecting illegal ballots; and reprogram AuditMark to store ballot image that could be verified. This is evidence of fraud perpetrated to prevent investigators to discover the number of invalid votes that were cast.
f. The cryptographic key store on DVS thumb drive (reported stolen in Philadelphia) was used alter vote counts prior to up chain reporting. Since DVS uses the same cryptographic key for all its voting systems in all battleground states, the key allowed a remote operator to conduct massive attacks on all battleground state data set without being detected.
g. Beginning on approximately 4:30 AM EST on November 4, 2020, the vote counts favored Vice President Biden by nearly 80% in many jurisdictions. The data distribution is statistically congruent [sic; incongruent?], even when considering a larger number of absentee ballots were collected for Vice President Biden.
h. The data variance favoring Vice President continues to accelerate after 4:30 AM EST on November 4, 2020 and continues until it momentum through November 9, 2020. This abnormality in variance is evident by the unusually steep slope for Vice President Biden in all battleground states on November 4, 2020. A sudden rise in slope is not normal and demonstrates data manipulation by artificial means. For example in PA, President Trump’s lead of more than 700,000 count advantage was reduced to less than 300,000 in a few short hours, which does not occur in the real world without an external influence. I conclude that manually feeding more than 400,000 mostly absentee ballots cannot be accomplished in a short time frame (i.e., 2-3 hours) without illegal vote count alteration. In another case for Edison County, MI, Vice President Biden received more than 100% of the votes at 5:59 PM EST on November 4, 2020 and again he received 99.61% of the votes at 2:23 PM EST on November 5, 2020. These distributions are cause for concern and indicate fraud.
i. DVS has acknowledged that Chinese made parts are used in its voting machines. However, the company is unwilling to share details on its supply chains, foreign ownership, or its relationship with China, Venezuela and Cuba. In particular, I have seen USIC intelligence reports showing China’s espionage activities in the United States and efforts to infiltrate elections. Since these countries are our enemies, I conclude that FIS and other operators were involved to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.
j. A Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) cyber attack was carried out by covert operators using sophisticated tools, such as Hammer and Scorecard. The MITM attack occurred in two ways. Initially, remote operatives used USB memory cards containing cryptographic keys and access system backdoors to alter votes in battleground states. Subsequently, the results were forwarded to Scytl/SOE Software servers located in Frankfurt, Germany (previously, Barcelona, Spain). The MITM attack was structured to ensure sufficient data alteration had occurred prior to forwarding the tallied results to the Scytl/eClarity Software Electronic Night Reporting (ENR) system. The reason election data are forwarded overseas is to avoid detection and monitoring by the USIC to obfuscate the MITM.
k. In my expert opinion, the DVS Democracy Suite, Scytl/SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic have not produced auditable results in the 2020 election. It is evident that ballots were not properly validated, system records were not kept, and the system experienced considerable instability even several days prior to November 4, 2020 that required DVS to implement software changes at the last minute. In addition, the disparity in data distribution after 4:30 AM on November 4, 2020 indicates significant systemic anomalies that were widespread among all battleground states. The evidence is both extensive and persuasive and indicates large-scale fraud by remote operators.