Part 3: She Won. Or Did She? A Deeper Look and a Request For More Investigation

A Reaction to "This Will Hold's" Part 2 in their "She Won" Series

There’s an iconic scene in All the President’s Men where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, deep into the Watergate investigation, come rushing into the newsroom convinced they have enough to go to print. They’ve traced money, interviewed sources, and connected several troubling dots. They bring it all to their editor, Ben Bradlee, expecting green lights.

Instead, Bradlee gives them a long, quiet look—and then says:

“You haven’t got it.”
“You’re about to accuse the former Attorney General of the United States of being a crook. Just be sure you’re right.”

Bradlee wasn’t throwing cold water on their work. He was doing the opposite: respecting the magnitude of the momentby insisting on a higher evidentiary standard. He wasn’t saying don’t go there. He was saying: if you’re going there, go all the way. Nail it down.

That’s Where I Find Myself with This Will Hold

First of all, I’m not claiming I’m Ben Bradlee. But I use that illustration because, over the past few days, I've been crossing paths a lot with the folks behind the Substack This Will Hold, who’ve been publishing detailed investigative claims about the 2024 election—particularly regarding Starlink satellite infrastructure, remote access vulnerabilities, and unusual voting patterns in key jurisdictions.

They've been present, responsive, and very professional in how they’ve handled feedback, including my original post, which some of their readers have inaccurately described as a "debunking." That was never my intent.

Let me be clear: I respect what they’re doing, I think the questions they’re raising deserve a hearing, and I see their effort as part of something that might help uncover something real and historically important — and at a minimum will contribute to restoring trust—eventually, after changes are made—in our election process.

But here I’m trying not to play the role of advocate. Rather I’m trying to independently and honestly analyze the claims that are out there — not just from This Will Hold, but the others as well, and do so without being dismissive or dampening the efforts to find evidence. Quite the opposite — this is a hugely important topic and to the extent I can help clarify what’s missing, where more work is needed, then I’m presumably dong something useful. So that’s why you hear the refrain: “You’re not there yet. More is needed. Keep digging.” Not because I don’t believe they’re onto something or because I want to debunk—but because if what they're pointing to is true, it would be one of the most consequential stories in modern American history. That demands a standard of documentation that can withstand fire—from critics, from fact-checkers, from history itself. End of Preamble.

---

What TWH Part 2 Asserts

In Part II: Seven Judges. Direct-to-Cell Satellites. A Hijacked Election, This Will Hold expands on their original theory with three major threads:

First, they frame Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter as part of a larger strategic move to consolidate influence over key digital infrastructure—both public and private. The post notes that Musk’s acquisition occurred just weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, implying a larger geopolitical context. The subtext here is clear: Musk’s ownership of both a social media megaphone and the world’s most advanced private satellite network positioned him to impact not only narrative, but systems.

Second, they focus on Starlink’s Direct-to-Cell (DTC) satellite capability. The claim is that 265 Gen2 satellites launched prior to the election created an entirely new type of access point—one that bypassed conventional firewalls and internet gateways, and that could interface with LTE-capable infrastructure on the ground. According to the theory, this DTC mesh provided a stealthy command-and-control backbone through which compromised infrastructure—like SNMP-enabled Tripp Lite UPS devices—could be exploited to access voting machines, poll books, or back-office systems.

Third, they highlight a judicial firewall—naming seven judges, all Trump-appointed or Federalist Society-aligned, whose rulings either dismissed election-related challenges or declined to order discovery in cases involving suspicious voting anomalies. The implication is less about overt conspiracy and more about ideological insulation: that these judges helped to prevent any serious inquiry into what actually happened.

Finally, the post anticipates the objection that "no audit has shown this." They argue that the absence of detection does not prove innocence—and that existing election verification mechanisms are too narrow, too vendor-reliant, or too legally constrained to uncover the type of covert digital manipulation they’re alleging.

Where the Case is Strongest

1. DTC Satellite Capability — They are correct that Starlink’s Gen2 satellites enable direct communication with standard LTE-capable hardware. This is not hypothetical—it is technically verified and commercially documented. It is very important that this is out on the table and being investigated because previously the debunkers just shut down discussion with “the voting machiens weren’t connected to the internet” — full stop. This makes clear there’s more to consider.

2. Tripp Lite SNMP Cards as a Potential Vector — Their focus on how SNMP-enabled devices (like certain UPS systems) might serve as indirect access points to tabulation systems is worth scrutiny. They are not the first to raise this, but they have compiled infrastructure details in a novel way that warrants deeper investigation.

3. Judicial Pattern Recognition — Their identification of seven key judges and the decisions they made is a useful dataset. Even if no conspiracy exists, the consistency of procedural roadblocks is notable and worth documenting.

Where the Case Needs More

But this is also where the Ben Bradlee voice kicks in. What’s missing right now is proof—not just technical possibility or legal context, but the forensic, documented kind that converts hypothesis into evidence.

Specifically:

• We still lack confirmation that any Starlink DTC node interacted with election systems. There is no audit trail, no router log, no software trace, no forensic anomaly to corroborate access.

• There is no documentation showing that Tripp Lite UPS units were co-located, networked, and acting as bridge points into sensitive voting hardware in a way that would bypass standard protections.

• There are no internal communications, whistleblower testimony, or logs showing command-level interference or remote patching of tabulators before or during voting.

• The judicial analysis, while insightful, remains circumstantial—without internal documents or corroborated sourcing that would turn a pattern into a provable mechanism. Now I hasten to add — “circumstantial” does not mean it should be dismissed. In my day job I see people get convicted all the time on purely circumstantial evidence. When there is enough of it, circumstantial evidence is compelling. But as a general rule, you need to get beyond circumstantial and I urge them to do so.

What Would Move This Forward

To build this into something historically irrefutable, these areas need to be pursued:

1. Forensics — Logs, audits, vendor updates, or internal IT tickets from counties in question showing unusual access points, connectivity patterns, or unexplained firmware pushes.

2. FOIA and Insider Accounts — County election board emails, support tickets, vendor correspondence, or testimony from election staff who saw or questioned unexpected behavior in the tabulation environment.

3. Correlating Satellite Activation Logs — Starlink maintains telemetry on satellite activity. If DTC nodes were active over specific counties during the voting window, that’s documentable—and testable against voting anomalies.

4. Vendor and UPS Inventory Matching — Proof that vulnerable Tripp Lite units with networked SNMP cards were used alongside e-poll books and tabulators in a way that bypassed air-gap assumptions.

In Conclusion

I really want to be clear. This is encouragement. I’m not writing this to shut anything down. This needs to be investigated. My post is meant to invite more investigation and provide feedback as to where to focus the investigation. I believe this kind of work is vital to trust in democracy, whether it proves foul play or simply confirms security.

So, to the team at This Will Hold: My feedback (and thanks for listening to it) is that you’re asking the right questions, and you’re moving the investigation forward. Please keep digging. You need the missing pieces and if you get all the way there, it will be historic. And if you don’t, you still will have performed a valuable service to democracy.