- As in 2020, Democratic voters are far more confident than Republican voters that the count of absentee ballots will be accurate: Today, 85% of Harris supporters are confident these votes will be counted as intended, while only 38% of Trump supporters say this.
- Trump supporters are more likely to say that the Democratic Party is not at all committed to making elections fair (47%) than Harris supporters are to say this about the GOP (39%). - Pew Research Center Poll, Oct 24, 2024
The Cyber Symposium hosted by Mike Lindell in August 2021 aimed to present evidence of alleged voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.
 |
| Bob Zeidman vs. Mike Lindell (photo: Politico) |
In a highly contentious area of recent U.S. political discourse, Robert Zeidman, a software expert known for debunking data claims, has emerged as a central figure in the legal and public debate over the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.
The Context of Controversy: Zeidman's involvement began with Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium, where Lindell claimed to have definitive proof of election hacking. In response to this, Lindell offered a $5 million challenge to anyone who could disprove his evidence, leading to Zeidman's participation in what became known as the "Prove Mike Wrong" contest. Zeidman's analysis concluded that the provided data did not support Lindell's allegations, a stance which led to an arbitration award in his favor, ordering Lindell Management LLC to pay him $5 million.
 |
| Dr. Douglas Frank giving a presentation on averting election fraud - in SoCal 9/24 |
Zeidman's Rebuttal to Election Fraud Claims: In his book and statements, Zeidman directly addresses claims made by Dr. Douglas Frank, one of Lindell's "experts." Dr. Frank alleged that Zeidman failed to decrypt crucial election data, a claim Zeidman refutes by explaining that the decryption was never effectively demonstrated by Lindell's team during arbitration. Moreover, Zeidman highlights a critical admission by Lindell's expert, Doug Gould, who under cross-examination admitted the data's lack of connection to the election, undermining the core of Lindell's allegations.
Dr. Frank addressed the issue with Democracy Broadcasting in September, 2024:
Dr. Frank addressed the issue with Democracy Broadcasting in September, 2024:
Legal and Public Repercussions: The legal saga continues with Lindell challenging the arbitration award in federal court, and subsequently, an appeal is in progress. Despite Zeidman's legal victories, he expresses skepticism about receiving the awarded amount due to Lindell's financial situation, indicating broader implications for Lindell's business following the election controversy.
Implications for Election Integrity: Zeidman's engagement and the subsequent legal proceedings highlight the complexities of proving or disproving election fraud in the digital age. His work not only challenges the narrative pushed by Lindell but also serves as a cautionary tale about the misuse of data for political narratives. Zeidman emphasizes the need for credible, evidence-based arguments in political campaigns, advocating for voter engagement rather than alienation through unfounded fraud claims.
Robert Zeidman addressed the state of the dispute with Democracy Broadcasting in September, 2024:
Robert Zeidman addressed the state of the dispute with Democracy Broadcasting in September, 2024:
Robert Zeidman supplied this written rebuttal to Douglas Frank's comments:
"I watched the interview of Dr. Doug Frank about
Mike Lindell’s Cyber Symposium, his alleged proof of voting machine hacking
that allegedly threw the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump to Joe
Biden, and my arbitration in the Prove Mike Wrong contest that decided I had in
fact proven Mike Lindell wrong—he had no proof of election hacking. In his
short interview, Dr. Frank says little that is true. The long story can be
found in my book Election
Hacks that describes my experiences at the symposium and afterwards, my
arbitration, and all of the people promoting Mike Lindell’s false claims.
Dr Frank was one of Mike Lindell’s “experts” at my arbitration. He says I wasn’t able to decrypt the “election data” that was provided but that Lindell brought in a “white hat hacker” who decrypted the data. That is not correct. In fact, none of Lindell’s witnesses decrypted the data although one person, Todd Sanders, claimed to have done so. Although Sanders had no known expertise in encryption or forensics, he said he was able to decrypt the data in about 30 minutes and had done it again right in his hotel room before he took the witness stand.
All it would have taken to destroy my
$5 million claim was to demonstrate his decryption at the arbitration. Instead,
he claimed that he didn’t have the security clearance to present the data at the
arbitration. That’s particularly curious given that Lindell had distributed the
files to anyone who asked at the symposium.
It didn’t really matter anyway, because Lindell’s experts
all testified that if I had encrypted the massive 23-gigabyte file of “election
data,” it would have resulted in the 23-megabyte spreadsheet that was also provided
to the experts at the symposium. And that spreadsheet, they claimed, was where
the proof lay. Yet their own expert witness, Doug Gould, under interrogation by
my brilliant lawyer Brian Glasser of Bailey and Glasser, admitted that the data
in the spreadsheet was not election data, was not network data as claimed by
Lindell, and had obviously been manipulated by some unknown person. In fact,
the only connection to the 2020 presidential election was that dates in the
file were within a few days of the election.
The actual Perry Mason moment came
when Brian got Gould to sheepishly admit that he was “morally certain” that the
spreadsheet had no actual connection to the election.
Lindell challenged my arbitration win in federal court and lost again. He is now appealing that court decision in federal appeals court. Given that he has no legal basis for his challenge, I expect him to lose this case too. Given his financial situation, I doubt I will ever get paid, but at least I’ve brought his scam out into the light of day.
Lindell challenged my arbitration win in federal court and lost again. He is now appealing that court decision in federal appeals court. Given that he has no legal basis for his challenge, I expect him to lose this case too. Given his financial situation, I doubt I will ever get paid, but at least I’ve brought his scam out into the light of day.
If Republicans want to
win this upcoming election, we need our candidates to make clear, convincing
arguments and we need to encourage people to vote, not scare them out of voting
as Mike Lindell is doing."
