Reply #59: Asked and answered, elsewhere. Now about Diebold:

[BevHarris]

I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe this is deliberate malice by Diebold.

I consider lies about using "off the shelf" Windows when in fact it was significantly modified, and about not connecting the machines to anything when in fact they are connected in multiple ways, to be a form of malice.

I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe there is a conspiracy to rig votes.

As for a conspiracy to rig votes, the bizarre resistance to a paper trail certainly gives the appearance of trying to hide something. But, by definition, "conspiracy" takes more than one person. Some of the modifications I saw to the program appear to make it possible for just one person to rig votes, therefore, it would not be a conspiracy, but would be malicious.

There would have to be, at a minimum, negligence, to get that code through the certification process. If that involves collusion, I think it would be described in the press as racketeering, which is a form of conspiracy.

- You agree that Diebold has acted negligently.
- You agree that Diebold's answers aren't adequate.
-You agree that making a statement that they used Windows exactly as is, off the shelf, when actually they made significant modifications, is "suspicious."

I would note that few if any people on the "skeptic" side that I am aware of would dispute any of the above.

Good. We are truly getting there.

Bev Harris