Bev Harris has come out against Clinton Curtis' story that Florida Rep. Tom Feeney stole the election. Harris believes that this is a plant by Rove in an attempt to discredit the investigations into vote fraud, similar to the discrediting of the TANG scandal in fall.
Harris also addresses Wayne Madsen's forays into the Feeney scandal. She agrees with many here that Madsen is a questionable source whose theories don't fit the facts. She accuses him of bringing nothing new to the story.
While I have been a frequent critic of Harris, and still am, she is still knowledgeable about how the voting machines operate in Florida. She raises a number of valid points about Curtis and Madsen:
- As I have mentioned before, Curtis does not detail how the software entered the voting machines. Curtis, according to Raw Story, admits his story is not proof of fraud. Others have pointed out that the program itself was simply a demo version for Curtis to show Feeney.
- Harris calls it "unrealistic" to write the same program for both ES&S punch cards and Diebold optical scans. Also, many Florida counties used different machines in 2000 than they did in 2004, so she raises a major compatibility issue.
- The techniques that Madsen describes in his article and the techniques that Curtis describes are two different things.
- For Harris, it doesn't make sense that Feeney himself would direct the vote-hacking efforts as Curtis describes. It would make more sense for Feeney to use an operative for such a job.
- Harris says it is easy to write a trigger to, say, allow someone to hack into the machines on November 2nd and have it escape notice. Curtis says it's hard. Harris is correct; we wouldn't be having these discussions if the machines were hard to hack. Many other experts have written about the security flaws as well.
- You don't need an elaborate software package to hack a voting machine such as the one Curtis used; all you need is a VBA script, similar to a computer virus.
- Harris accuses Curtis of lying when he says he filed a "QUITAM" (whistleblower) suit. The correct rendition is Qui Tam. But the major flaw she points out is that a Qui Tam suit is supposed to be kept secret to protect the identity of the whistleblower. Since Curtis says a Qui Tam suit is pending, either he is lying or he is in contempt of court for talking about the case. Harris is correct about this; for more information, please visit http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Employment/qui-tam.html
- She calls on Curtis to explain how he got the software into the machines.;
- What systems took the software in question;
- What loophole in Florida law would allow him to get around the secrecy requirement.