The Democrats have now added an additional prong in their attack on truth: their use of MITRE Corporation, an “independent” entity whose (paid) analysis and report concluded that “multiple types of analysis found no evidence of fraud, manipulation, or uncorrected error in the eight states included in this research.” This report, entitled “Data to Enhance Election Transparency,” has subsequently been trumpeted by the legacy media (for example, here and here) as further “proof” that there is no evidence of election irregularities during the 2020 election, and that any lawsuits still in play are baseless.

So MITRE has a new “National Election Security Lab.” How timely and convenient. Is that just a coincidence or good marketing on their part? Before getting into their report, a little background on MITRE. They are a “nonprofit public interest corporation” that operates several federally-funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) supporting multiple federal, state, and local agencies. They claim that they don’t compete with industry, but that is not precisely true. From my own professional experience, MITRE competed with my company (and others) for analysis work at various Navy laboratories and elsewhere. Their business advantage is their non-profit status (but not necessarily low bidder) and being a government “insider” as an FFRDC. Like all federal contractors, they will do what they’re paid to do.

In browsing the National Election Security Lab website, I found the list of articles/topics to be strangely aligned with standard Democrat fare on “election security”: social media misdirection to influence votes (shades of the Mueller investigation into the Internet Research Agency), making every vote count (the Democrat narrative!), and disinformation campaigns (endlessly repeated by Democrats in Congress over the past year). Is it possible that MITRE is just another American institution that has been co-opted by the Democrat Party? You decide after reading the rest of this article.

I was privileged to previously report on independent analyses of election irregularities discovered by a team led by physicist and Mensa member John Droz, Jr., whose purpose was to conduct a statistical analysis of certain voter data in key states in order to determine whether there were any significant anomalies evident. None of these busy people were paid for this research. Instead, their motivation was to advance the principle of vote integrity. Here is the link to their analysis of massive anomalies in several Pennsylvania counties, with an excerpt from the article:

Biden’s vote totals in the four counties were 1.24 to 1.43 times greater than the totals for Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama (both elections). This is an absurd result, especially in the three Republican-leaning counties, given that Republican support for President Trump has hovered at 95% over the past year-plus. What is the probability that more Pennsylvanians in these counties voted for a thoroughly compromised candidate who did not even campaign down the stretch than voted for either Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton?

And here is a link to an article that summarizes the team’s discoveries in Michigan, along with a concluding excerpt from their report:

This is very strong evidence that the absentee voting counts in some counties in Michigan have likely been manipulated by a computer algorithm. The comparison of the 2020 results to the normal 2016 election data is dramatic. If no other plausible explanation can be made for these unexpected findings, it appears that this computer software was installed sometime after the 2016 Presidential election. On the surface, it would seem that the tabulating equipment in infected precincts has been programmed to shift a percentage of absentee votes from Trump to Biden. 

Droz’s team has just finished analyzing and eviscerating the MITRE report in a 30-page critique posted here. These are a few of the highlights from the Droz team’s analysis:

[There were] over a dozen (12) major reports done about various aspects of the 2020 Presidential elections.  The [MITRE] Report assures us that: “To help ensure public trust and confidence by providing some additional transparency, MITRE’s National Election Security Lab gathered and analyzed a wide range of relevant data.” Inexplicably, not a single one of these well-documented expert reports is utilized in the MITRE Report – or even mentioned.

[T]he Report has multiple references to journalists who purport to “fact check” election anomalies – by using unsupported statements, again from the parties who may be guilty (e.g., election officials and companies that provided the election systems). What’s missing here are any independent forensic audits, or investigations, pertaining to the 2020 election. Surprisingly the term “forensic” doesn’t even appear in the report. As a result, the readers of the MITRE Report are no more informed about election integrity than if they followed mainstream media.

The Droz team’s own independent reports linked above put the lie to the MITRE report’s claims, and the above two paragraphs expose the bias of the MITRE team’s “election analysis.” Using legacy media reports and their “fact-checkers” to derive conclusions about the absence of election fraud is absurd. To continue with excerpts from the Droz team’s critique:

The Report (on page 1) claims that “the team maintained situational awareness of legal and media events occurring between October-December 2020…” Since their Report was filed in February, why wouldn’t they have the same awareness in January?

Furthermore, as researchers, why would they arbitrarily only start looking at legal events in October, when several lawsuits pertaining to the 2020 Presidential election were filed before then (e.g., see here). In any case, using the Report authors’ artificially reduced time period of “legal awareness,” some fifty-five (55) lawsuits were filed from the beginning of October to the end of December, 2020 (see here). Stunningly, not a single one of these is discussed or even mentioned!

Quoting the biased media and fact-checkers and a complete disregard for 55 election-related lawsuits! So much for MITRE’s vaunted “objectivity”! Droz’s team skewered MITRE’s “objective analysis” in this startling excerpt:

[Our] Executive Summary outlines a few areas where the Report authors did a rather superficial analysis. … [I]n numerous reports by independent experts, there are over a hundred anomalies listed – so checking out a half-dozen [which is what the MITRE team did] is hardly a scientific basis for dismissing the other 95+%. Further, the methodology for even dismissing the handful of cases they selectively chose would not be considered rigorous.

Here’s a thought: attorney Jesse Binnall publicly (on TV) testified under oath before Congress about election improprieties. In that testimony, he identified numerous documented examples of major irregularities in Nevada – from some 130,000 unique voters! These included the same person voting twice (42,000+), the voting person being officially listed as deceased (1,500+), the voting person not being registered in the state (19,000+), the voting person not being a citizen (4,000+), the voting person using a non-existent residential address (8,000+), etc. (Note: Donald Trump lost Nevada by less than 35K votes, essentially all in one county.)

Binnall’s testimony was on December 16, 2020, well inside the window where the Report authors were researching the election integrity issue. His report was about a group of scientists who had carefully researched hard numbers for significant examples of voting irregularities. Why didn’t the Bald Eagle people [MITRE] take that data and double-check it?

It’s a shame that the Bald Eagle authors didn’t follow this stellar example. If they had, their Report could have done some really good regarding election integrity – rather than be a deflecting diversion as to what actually transpired.

In short, their assertion (Page ii): “In summary, multiple types of analysis found no evidence of fraud, manipulation, or uncorrected error in the eight states included in this research” is misleading and disingenuous, especially considering the MITRE Mission Statement, and the purported objective of this Report.

I think that Droz’s team was being overly polite. In my view, MITRE willfully disregarded information that would have forced them to reach a different conclusion than that for which they were paid. How can any objective person conclude otherwise?

Finally, here are just a few choice excerpts from the rest of the Droz team report that expose the MITRE report as a hack job equivalent to the biased legacy media and fact-checker reports:

• The Bald Eagle team’s reliance on media headlines that typically drive public perception resulted in a report of limited value because of its focus on five irregularities from the states of Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The irregularities in those states comprise only a small portion of the wide range of election anomalies that surfaced after the 2020 election.

• [B]y focusing only on the election data related to Trump and Biden, the MITRE research ignored election data related to Minor Party candidates, write-in candidates, and down-ballot candidates in state-wide races. Other research conducted after the 2020 election pertaining to those categories of candidates revealed significant anomalies in voting results that cannot be explained by chance and are strong indicators, if not proof in some instances, of wide-spread vote manipulation.

• [T]he MITRE Report did not address repeated post-election allegations of  hacking and/or vulnerabilities of the 2020 election system. The Report team could have covered this topic in its analysis of the Antrim County, Michigan anomaly or in its analysis of Dominion voting systems.

• [T]here are no summary tables, graphics, or narratives for four of the five key themes in the Report. For example, summary graphics could have been included for the analysis for ballot harvesting, vote spikes, vote switching, and delays in processing of mail-in ballots, for the eight battleground states.

• The main suggestion is that the authors recognize and address the numerous allegations of voter fraud and, necessarily, expand their sources to include Edison Research time series data, government and non-profit sources of election related data (e.g., tracking of mail-in ballots, changes to election deadlines, etc.) and numerous affidavits alleging voting irregularities with election systems used in the 2020 election.

• [On Georgia.] [T]he MITRE team concludes that since county mail-ballot data fall on or near the trend line [which, according to MITRE, indicates that no unusual ballot harvesting took place] based on simple visual inspection, the ballots were not mishandled. A more detailed analysis shows there are in fact outliers of sufficient magnitude to influence the election outcome. How those occurred justifies further investigation.

• Many claims of fraud in Georgia were simply not covered by the MITRE Report: out of state voters, dead voters, under-age voters, voters registered after the registration deadline, etc. The video of egregious, mid-night unsupervised ballot counting (at Fulton County, Georgia) was not mentioned in the MITRE Report.

• Most egregiously, no analysis was provided on time-series data at all, which at the least begins to identify places to look to validate or dismiss any of the anomalies that were identified.

• The Report begins their counter to the multiple assertions against Dominion, by saying that “no evidence has been provided to national media outlets.” The authors of this section [Alleged Irregularities in Dominion Machines] engage in a logical fallacy by using an appeal to authority while explicitly choosing to not investigate actual primary data sources of allegations – namely thousands of affidavits; including eye-witness testimonies, confessions, videos, forensic audits, judicial hearings, and court proceedings. Statistics are precursors to look for evidence, and are of little relevance when appearing after actual court evidence is available from investigation. Citing sources of allegations from “social media” and served up “media outlets” is by far the most outrageous part of the MITRE Report. An academic journal would instantly reject this review with such willful ignorance outright, as would an undergraduate professor in an entry level course. Yet the section will be given credence because it satisfies a selection bias to feed a narrative.

• The MITRE analysis is fundamentally flawed because it centers around subtracting percentages that were based on a different number of votes. This is an elementary fatal flaw that would be caught by any external reviews of mathematical rigor. A second major flaw is the lack of citing omitted variables. Omitted variables bias is a central issue in the social sciences. These controls are vital because areas that tend to vote for Biden differ in many ways from those that vote for Trump and are less likely to have Dominion machines. The MITRE Report authors do not even mention the presence of omitted variables or endogeneity, which implies that their team either lacks the technical know-how or is intentionally deceiving readers.

In my opinion, that last sentence tells the real tale of the MITRE report. Its entire purpose is to deceive by ignoring pertinent information, using shallow analytical techniques to “prove” the entering assumption that there was “no election fraud,” and drawing false conclusions from carefully selected data sets and flawed analysis. The MITRE report is tailor-made for the legacy media to slurp up and regurgitate its conclusions as “factual” – just as it was intended to do.

The above excerpts are just a few of the damning conclusions in the Droz team’s critique; there is MUCH more! Anyone in the Democrat-media who cites the MITRE report as an authoritative source proving that there were no election irregularities during the 2020 election is either a fool or a willing tool of the Democrat Party — but I repeat myself…

The end.