WorldnetDaily’s Bob Unruh served yet another fit of lazy “reporting” in an April 10 article:
Electronic voting machines, basically computers programmed to tabulate the vote data that is input, have been around for a long time. Probably about as long as hacking into computers, an issue that has been concern for that same period of time.
Observers, even election experts, often have made claims about the porous defenses built into the machines, and sometimes have been sued by voting machine corporations for expressing their doubts.
Now Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence, has confirmed in a bombshell announcement that there is “evidence that electronic voting machines have been tampered with to manipulate election outcomes in the United States,” a report in the Gateway Pundit reveals.
The report described Gabbard’s revelation as “jaw-dropping” and explained she said, “We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast, which further drives forward your mandate to bring about paper ballots across the country so that voters can have faith in the integrity of our elections.”
Yes, Unruh is simply rewriting an article from the highly unreliable Gateway Pundit, right down to this claim:
The report continued, “In 2023, University of Michigan Professor of Computer Science and Engineering J. Halderman, revealed in a Georgia courtroom that Dominion Voting Systems were vulnerable to hacks.”
But as we documented back in 2023, WND has censored criticism of Halderman’s claims. The national security nonprofit MITRE has argued the hacks he identified were “operationally infeasible” based on normal voting practices, scale considerations, and adherence to strict security measures, and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger stated that Halderman’s work “was the result of a computer scientist having complete access to the Dominion equipment and software for three months in a laboratory environment. It identified risks that are theoretical and imaginary.”
But Unruh is a stenographer, not a reporter, and he’ll never tell you the full truth about anything if it conflicts with his (and his employer’s) far-right talking points.