In an apparent effort to protect Trump and Right Wing Republicans, Scopes media responded to Stephen Spoonamore’s Duty to Warn Letter to Kamala Harris by trying to disprove and disparage his statements in an op-ed posted on Yahoo, dismissing his claims that the 2024 election may have been hacked & rigged for Trump.

To believe that Trump legitimately won the 2024 election you must believe that the majority of Americans are stupid and have no decency or principles. You must also believe that the majority of Americans doesn’t care about Democracy, Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press, because Trump has promised to be a ‘Dictator of Day One’ and eliminate all descent.

As motivated as Democrats were about this being the most important election in the history of the United States… reports of ‘Record New Voter Registrations’, including 337,000 attributed to Taylor Swift, stadiums full of supporters at rallies never seen by Joe Biden, Republican voters crossing over to vote for Kamala, a record number of women voting for Abortion Rights, Trump saying he was going to be a ‘Dictator on day one’, saying he was going to lock up opponents who criticized him, saying news outlets which criticized him should be shut down, saying people who criticized the Supreme Court should be jailed, a pathological liar who lied over 30,000 times while president, his outrageous, hateful, insane conduct, his inciting an insurrection which caused 5 deaths and injuries of countless Capitol Police, it defies logic that more people voted for Trump than Harris. It also defies logic that according to the official vote count, less people voted in 2024 than 2020.

Scopes has a Right Wing agenda as rated by Mediabiasfactcheck.com “We rate Scope Ratings right-center biased based on financial support provided to right-leaning political parties”.

In my opinion, Scopes is desperately trying to protect Trump, Republicans and rich corporate elites like Elon Musk who wants Trump installed as President and doesn’t give a DAMN about Democracy, the will of the people and how insanely unqualified Trump is to be President.

I tried responding to Scopes letter posted on Yahoo and was blocked, which shows how they engage in censorship and refuse to allow voices of descent or opposing views.

Scope Ratings – Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

Per the above article…

History

Established in 2002, Scope Ratings is a German credit rating agency that provides credit ratings and fund analyses for corporate and financial institutions. According to an AFP interview, Scope Ratings aim to challenge the oligopoly of big US rating agencies such as Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P Global. Scope Ratings is headquartered in Berlin, Germany. Torsten Hinrichs is the CEO. The Scope Group is the parent company, and Florian Schoeller is the group’s founder, the largest shareholder, and Chief Executive Officer.

Funded by / Ownership

Florian Schoeller (a member of the Schoeller family) is listed as a major shareholder; however, there is no information regarding the other shareholders and percentages. Ownership is disclosed; however, it is on another website (scopeanalysis.com) and hard to locate. The site states 48 private investors, which includes names such as Simon Fraser (former non-executive director and board member of Barclays Bank), Dr. Manfred Gentz (former CFO of Daimler-Benz) as well as the top investors such as Scope’s founder, Florian Schoeller, is listed as an ‘anchor investor,’ and AQTON SE (holding company of Stefan Quandt). For the rest of the investors, see here.

Funding is not disclosed, but according to our research, German insurance companies, HDI, and Signal Induna are some financial backers of Scope Ratings.

NUMEROUS COMPUTER SCIENTISTS RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT THE 2024 ELECTION

Per the above article: Computer Scientists: Breaches of Voting System Software Warrant Recounts to Ensure Election Verification

Posted on November 13, 2024

“A group of computer security experts have written to Vice President Kamala Harris to alert her to the fact that voting systems were breached by Trump allies in 2021 and 2022 and to urge her to seek recounts in key states to ensure election verification.

Following the 2020 election, operatives working with Trump attorneys accessed voting equipment in order to gain copies of the software that records and counts votes. The letter to Vice President Harris argues that this extraordinary and unprecedented breach in election system security merits conducting recounts of paper ballots in order to confirm computer-generated tallies. The letter also highlights the fact that the post-election audits in many key states will be conducted after certification and after the window to seek recounts closes, and that therefore recounts should be sought promptly.

The letter states: “Possessing copies of the voting system software enables bad actors to install it on electronic devices and to create their own working replicas of the voting systems, probe them, and develop exploits. Skilled adversaries can decompile the software to get a version of the source code, study it for vulnerabilities, and could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large-scale distribution of malware.”

“In December 2022 and again in 2023, many of us, concerned by the security risks posed by these breaches, wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director outlining the security concerns and urging an investigation. Though there have been limited, localized investigations, there is no evidence of a federal investigation to determine what was done with the misappropriated voting software.”

The letter is signed by Professor Duncan Buell, Ph.D., Chair Emeritus — NCR Chair in Computer Science and Engineering, Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina*; David Jefferson Ph.D., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* (retired), Election Integrity Foundation*; Susan Greenhalgh, Senior Advisor for Election Security, Free Speech For People; Chris Klaus, Chief Executive Officer, Fusen World*; William John Malik, Malik Consulting, LLC*; Peter G. Neumann Ph.D., Chief Scientist, SRI International Computer Science Lab*; and Professor John E. Savage, Ph.D, An Wang Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, Brown University*.

TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS FROM REPUTABLE COMPUTER SCIENTISTS

November 13, 2024

The Honorable Kamala Harris
The White House Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Harris,

We write to alert you to serious election security breaches that have threatened the security and integrity of the 2024 elections, and to identify ways to ensure that the will of the voters is reflected and that voters should have confidence in the result. The most effective manner of doing so is through targeted recounts requested by the candidate. In the light of the breaches we ask that you formally request hand recounts in at least the states of Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are not suggesting that they were. But binding risk-limiting audits (RLAs) or hand recounts should be routine for all elections, especially when the stakes are high and the results are close. We believe that, under the current circumstances when massive software breaches are known and documented, recounts are necessary and appropriate to remove all potential doubt and to set an example for security best practices in all elections.

In 2022, records, video camera footage, and deposition testimony produced in a civil case in Georgia1 disclosed that its voting system, used statewide, had been breached over multiple days by operatives hired by attorneys for Donald Trump. The evidence showed that the operatives made copies of the software that runs all of the equipment in Georgia, and certain other states, and shared it with other Trump allies and operatives.

Subsequent court filings and public records requests revealed that the breaches in Georgia were part of a larger effort to take copies of voting system software from systems in Michigan,5 Pennsylvania,6 Colorado7 and Arizona,8 and to share the software in the operatives’ network. According to testimony and declarations by some of the technicians who have obtained copies of the software, they have had access for more than three years to the software for the central servers, tabulators, and highly restricted election databases of both Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Dominion Voting Systems, the two largest voting system vendors, constituting the most severe election security breach publicly known.

Combined, their equipment counts nearly 70% of all votes nationwide. Ninety-six percent of Arizona voters use Dominion and ES&S equipment; 100% of Georgia voters vote on Dominion machines; 98% of Nevada votes on Dominion voting machines and the remainder uses ES&S; 69% of Michigan voters’ ballots are counted on Dominion or ES&S equipment; 89% of Pennsylvania voters ballots are counted on Dominion or ES&S equipment; ES&S counts 92% of North Carolina ballots; and either ES&S or Dominion counts 97% of Wisconsin votes.11
Possessing copies of the voting system software enables bad actors to install it on electronic devices and to create their own working replicas of the voting systems, probe them, and develop exploits. Skilled adversaries can decompile the software to get a version of the source code, study it for vulnerabilities, and could even develop malware designed to be installed with minimal physical access to the voting equipment by unskilled accomplices to manipulate the vote counts. Attacks could also be launched by compromising the vendors responsible for programming systems before elections, enabling large scale distribution of malware.

In December 202212 and again in 2023,13 many of us, concerned by the security risks posed by these breaches, wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director outlining the security concerns and urging an investigation. Though there have been limited, localized investigations,14 there is no evidence of a federal investigation15 to determine what was done with the misappropriated voting software.

Other relevant parties have pointed to the serious risks posed by the misappropriation of the voting software. Before it was known that partisan operatives had taken the software, Dominion Voting Systems objected vehemently to providing its software to the same partisan actors who ultimately got copies through voting system breaches, stating that to give its software to biased actors would cause “irreparable damage” to the “election security interests of the country.”

Before the breaches in Georgia had been confirmed, the Georgia Secretary of State’s chief information officer testified that having copies of the software would provide a “road map” to the ways the system could be accessed. The Georgia Attorney General opposed providing copies of the software to lawyers for the Trump campaign in a late 2020 election challenge, arguing that images of the voting system software would provide “the keys to the software kingdom.”

Notably, U.S. elections are potentially resilient because there are paper ballots recording the voters’ intent in most states, meaning that even if the voting system is at risk, the will of the voters can be determined reliably by recounting the paper ballots by hand (although we are aware that not all paper ballots are verified by the voter, and not all states take adequate care to protect the ballot chain of custody.)

Audits will be conducted in some of the most scrutinized states, but in key states they will not be conducted in a timely way that could reveal any concerns with the vote count. In addition, in most states the audits are insufficiently rigorous to ensure any potential errors in tabulation will be caught and corrected, and they cannot be considered a safeguard against the security breaches that have occurred. Specifically, Georgia’s audits are non-binding, and Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin laws do not provide that the audit be conducted before certification. Therefore, it would be impossible to know for these critical states if the audits uncovered errors or miscalculations before the state deadlines to seek recounts.

Among swing states, only Arizona’s audit laws ensure that, if enough discrepancies are identified, the audit hand count will be expanded to correct a potentially incorrect result. In other words, aside from Arizona, in contested states, there is no legal mechanism for the audit to correct the outcome, no matter how much error the audit uncovers. Given these facts, the only guarantee for rigorous, effective audits of the vote in the swing states will be through candidate-requested statewide hand recounts.

The facts around the voting system breaches are not disputed; it is well-documented that there were severe, multiple voting security breaches before the 2024 election. To ensure that voters can have confidence that the breaches in security did not taint the results of the 2024 election, we recommend pursuing hand recounts in, at minimum, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania as they will provide insufficient safeguards against threats posed by the breaches of the election software and will not provide important information in a timely way.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,
Duncan Buell Ph.D.
Chair Emeritus — NCR Chair in Computer Science and Engineering
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering
University of South Carolina*

David Jefferson Ph.D.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory* (retired)
Election Integrity Foundation*

Susan Greenhalgh
Senior Advisor for Election Security
Free Speech For People

Chris Klaus
Founder
Internet Security System*

William John Malik
Malik Consulting, LLC*
Marilyn Marks
Executive Director
Coalition for Good Governance

Peter G. Neumann Ph.D.
Chief Scientist,
SRI International Computer Science Lab*

John E. Savage
An Wang Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
Brown University*

Trump admitted the 2024 election and future elections will be rigged when he said “I don’t need your votes”. “Get out and vote just this time…. you won’t have to do it anymore… we’ll have it fixed so good, in four years you don’t have to vote again”.