Cybersecurity expert Clay Parikh recently joined The Gateway Pundit for an interview to speak about the Kari Lake lawsuit and new video evidence of illegal machine configurations that led to wide-scale voting machine failures on Election Day in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Parikh is a former voting machine tester and certified ethical hacker. Recall that Parikh testified under oath in Kari Lake’s first trial that he inspected a sample of ballots, and it was “easily identifiable” that nearly half of them were printed with a 19-inch ballot image on 20-inch paper. He also stated that this could not have happened accidentally or by coincidence, and this caused Election Day tabulators across Maricopa County to fail and create extremely long wait times for Election Day voters.
We discussed this testimony and the opposing testimony by Maricopa County Election Director Scott Jarrett, who possibly perjured himself by lying about the ballot printer settings that caused tabulation failures and disenfranchised thousands of Election Day voters.
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor’s election investigation report, which concluded that printing of misconfigured ballots was “random” and that “none of the technical people with whom we spoke could explain how or why that error occurred,” found “facts contradictory to what Maricopa County officials testified in court,” says Parikh. “It basically said that Scott Jarrett either perjured himself in court or he was totally lied to.”
It appears that the Lake team recently discovered the source of these errors.
The Gateway Pundit reported on new footage that shows Maricopa County employees reprogramming the voting machines on October 14th, 17th, and 18th, after their statutory Logic and Accuracy testing, so that 59% of them would fail when Republican voters came in to vote on Election Day in 2022.
In the video, on October 14th, these reprogrammed machines can be seen jamming as employees test them, just as they did on Election Day. Still, the County claims this testing was not done in secret, despite no public warning, oversight, or media presence. They also claim that it was not “testing.” Parikh told The Gateway Pundit that it was testing, and if it wasn’t testing, then “there’s no reason to run ballots.”
As The Gateway Pundit reported, Kari Lake told Steve Bannon last week that they have more footage coming out and will continue fighting the rigged election in court.
Lake’s attorneys have filed a Notice of Appeal against Judge Peter Thompson’s recent rulings, and they plan to take their challenge all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
This is why Katie Hobbs is terrified of questions about the election she oversaw as Secretary of State and rigged to be inserted into the Governor’s office. Last week, Hobbs ducked questions from The Gateway Pundit about the machine failures on election day and fraudulent signature verification, calling them “conspiracy theories” and claiming that it is not in her jurisdiction, despite her role in the election as Chief Election Officer for the State.
According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s webpage, “as part of elections administration, the office certifies: voting devices, election results, candidates and measures to the ballot, as well as the results of statewide elections.”
Katie Hobbs certified the voting equipment despite fraudulent testing that was conducted and changes to the firmware.
As revealed by new evidence and footage, none of the 446 vote center tabulators used on election day were tested by the Secretary of State or Maricopa County during Logic and Accuracy testing on October 11th. A test using only five tabulators that were not used on election day “was the only metric to ensure all election day ballots could be cast, counted, and reported accurately.” Clay Parikh told us, “They ignored 446 vote center tabulators that were used in the election. They had the wrong programming on them, which means they were misconfigured.”
The Arizona Elections Procedures Manual requires Counties to test “all of the county’s deployable voting equipment,” and the Secretary of State must “request that all central count equipment be made available for the L&A test” to “randomly” select a sample of equipment to test. It also requires elections officials to “utilize the actual election program for Election Day (not a copy).” When the County reprogrammed the machines after Logic and Accuracy testing, they violated the law.
The Elections Procedure Manual does allow “re-testing”. However, the EPM states, “re-testing may continue during the early voting period and through the day prior to the election” and requires public notice to be made.
Additionally, as The Gateway Pundit’s Brian Lupo reported, the tabulators had the wrong database and machine behavioral settings loaded, which caused warnings and mismatches to be displayed throughout Maricopa’s tabulators. Parikh said, “the only way that could be is if the expected program had been modified or changed.”
The Gateway Pundit correspondent Jordan Conradson discussed the newly discovered evidence of secret machine testing and reconfigurations that was dismissed before Lake’s second trial last month. Parikh also confirmed that more footage and evidence will be made public in the near future.
Conradson: Let’s talk about this new video that came out of the secret testing and reconfiguration of these machines from the 14th to the 17th. I saw in the video that it said only five tabulators were tested during the statutory Logic and Accuracy testing on October 11. Can you explain what that means and what they did afterward from the 14th through the 17th?
Parikh: So the five that were tested, and actually in the video, they showed the photos of them, the screenshots; those five were tested, but they were never used on election day. And could that happen? Yes. But the thing is, when the official L&A testing, the county, by Arizona statute, is supposed to test all electronic voting equipment, not just a sampling. That’s for the Secretary of State because the County does their testing, and then they come in and test a percentage to make sure the County did their job correctly. And so, all that goes, it’s tested on the 11th. They ignored 446 vote center tabulators that were used in the election. None of them got tested. They had the wrong programming on them, which means they were misconfigured, everything’s sealed up with security seals, as it’s supposed to according to the Arizona statute, and then, they certify it, and they started early voting on the 12th. And so, they started the election and started moving forward, knowing that those systems hadn’t been tested. Then, on the 14th, they’re in there… They’re going in there, and they’re taking the seals off, which is a violation, and then they’re reprogramming, and then they claim, in Jarrett’s testimony in their counter, said that wasn’t testing, they were just checking to make sure that compact flash cards were inserted properly. That can be done on the screen that’s on the tabulator. There’s no reason to run ballots. So, it was a test. Maricopa County just, a few hours ago, posted that no, that’s normal testing. So, which is it? Is Jarrett lying in a second declaration that they used to try to dismiss the count, or is the County lying? It’s one of the two things. So, that’s the complications of that, but anything done after the 14th, they should have had to retest it, report it to the Secretary of State that the changes were made. And then if the Secretary of State decides to go in and do the testing, sampling, they should go in and do that. That was not done. They just did that. And two, if you notice, none of the admin sales were recorded. So how do we even know if they weren’t changed the second time or a third time? There’s no way of knowing that. So, if you read through and understand the Arizona statutes the way we had to as a team to investigate this stuff and go through the data, you know that they violated Arizona statute, and everything done on the 14th after was illegal.
Conradson: Right, the EPM says that you have to test every single deployed voting machine, and you have to log, report, and also verify the tests that you conduct. So, how did they get away with this? Were they withholding these system log files from you guys in the first trial?
Parikh: We had multiple PRR requests put in. They were very slow in getting information to us, and that’s what hurt us. We were still getting information in January, February, and March. I almost want to say April, but I can’t remember. There were a lot of PRR requests. And the funny thing, a lot of multiple grassroots teams, you know, were requesting stuff, and they were sharing the data that they obtained from Maricopa County because people were getting it at separate times. Unfortunately, I mean, it was over like 3 million lines of logs that have to be searched and went through, the tech call logs, we had to go through all the precheck lists. I mean, it was tons of data to have to go through and then correlate, and so you know, getting it after the trial, most of it after the trial, and then having to go through it, this was just the time, and then I did my declaration. Of course, they didn’t allow count two to go forward. And so then, we had to sit on it. I mean, what could we do? Except, we had all this information in the video things, and an election oversight group said, “hey, let’s make a video.” They showed it to me, and I said, “this is awesome.” And I wanted to share it, so I posted it out, and luckily, Kari’s War Room picked it up, and they ran with it. And this is good, because the people need to know what was going on.
Conradson: I understand another thing that you guys have been able to find is some of the machine behavioral settings, MBS settings, and some of the database settings. Can you give us a little sneak peek of where you guys are finding there?
Parikh: In the logs, as they were going through and examining the logs, they were noticing these warnings and errors, right? And one of them deals with the MBS version number. Well, when the system’s built and certified, all the applications are supposed to be at one level, right? And so it looks for certain things, and that’s how the program knows. So, when you configure a new component, and you put it in, it’s going to expect to see these versions, these versions, these versions. Well, there were two settings that they were getting warnings on in the logs that said, they were mismatches. Now, the only way that could be is if the expected program had been modified or changed, and why would it be changed? These systems were supposedly certified by a federal lab, and then the Secretary of State of Arizona does the certification on them to that level, so they should be exactly what was certified. Yet, in the certification paperwork with one version listed, the system checks for that version, but the stuff that’s configured and running is two different versions. So why would they modify it? Somebody did something that they weren’t supposed to. And my thing is, most likely, they were done during the configuration setup; Maricopa does their checks, and they do their checklist, and they program, and they check this in that. The scripts they used obviously put the wrong software versions on there. And the only way that I know that can be checked is if through being able to examine the scripts and the programs that they used because they change drivers, they’ve changed firmware, which is another thing that I find highly questionable, because the changing of firmware requires recertification because that’s a low-level application that handles how programs function on the system. So, to change firmware, whether it’s on a printer, a laptop, or a server, is a pretty significant change. And to me, those two issues right there basically state that the system is not certified any longer. It’s not running what it’s supposed to be according to a certification level. And so that’s a whole other thing. That’s just one of the things that we discovered. You have to understand too, some of these logs, when we see something, you’ll see the initial issue when it boots up and starts, so you’ll see something on line seven, then the next thing that indicates it is at like line 69,000 and so on. So, these are huge files that you just painstakingly have to go through. But those two version issues are pretty telling.
Conradson: I think this is huge. We’ve got improper and illegal testing, improper and illegal certification of these machines. I want to ask you, Kari Lake told Steve Bannon that there’s gonna be some new footage coming out. Can you tell us anything about that?
Parikh: There’s going to be a good bit of footage. I’ve seen a lot of other stuff that they haven’t shown concerning the signature verification, and that stuff in itself, if that got out, I think the citizens of Arizona would be pretty irate because it’s pretty apparent that Maricopa failed at signature verification. Now, there are a couple of other videos that are coming out that deal with different subjects. They’re still in the works. I really don’t want to expose those, but yeah, there will be more videos released, and hopefully, we’ll do it at a bigger, faster scale… But there are more videos. I don’t want to get into specifics because I don’t know if you’ve already seen Maricopa County’s already saying that the video is false and all that.
The post Cyber Security Expert Clay Parikh Discusses Secret Machine Testing, Says “There Will Be MORE Videos Released” Exposing Election Fraud in Maricopa County In EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.