reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of securing election systems. They highlight the risk of connecting these systems to the internet, as it can make them vulnerable to hacking. The speaker suggests that using paper ballots might be a smarter option, as they cannot be hacked like computer systems. By having something tangible to hold on to, like a piece of paper, we can ensure the integrity of the election process.

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

In general, would you say that Smartmatic software was designed with two principles in mind? Number one, it's easy to rig elections. Number two, it's hard to audit. That is correct. And is the same true for Dominion software? It's easy to rig an election with it, and it's hard to audit. That is correct.

The speaker states they are investigating dangerous and negative consequences with the "best of the best." They claim electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and open to exploitation, allowing manipulation of vote results. This vulnerability purportedly reinforces the need for paper ballots nationwide, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

We demonstrated how easily election machines can be hacked, raising concerns about the limited number of companies controlling voting technology. 43% of American voters use machines with security flaws, and some states lack a paper trail to verify results. The lack of transparency in cybersecurity practices is alarming.

Speaker 1, Clinton Eugene Curtis, testifies that he wrote a prototype program in 2000 that could secretly fix elections. The program could flip votes to any desired candidate without detection by election officials. Curtis explains that the only way to detect such a program would be to view the source code or compare paper receipts to the actual vote totals. When asked if he could have designed a protective program to prevent election rigging in Ohio, Curtis says no, as it would require examining the source code and involving programmers from all parties. Curtis believes that the Ohio presidential election was hacked based on statistical anomalies between exit polling data and tabulated results. He also reveals that he was asked to design the program by Tom Feeney, who was a lobbyist for Yang Enterprises.

The speaker, a computer science professor, warns that the electronic voting systems used in the US are vulnerable to sabotage and cyber attacks that can change votes. Through their research, they have repeatedly hacked voting machines and found ways for attackers to manipulate them. They emphasize that these vulnerabilities are within reach for America's enemies. While some states have secure voting technology, others are alarmingly vulnerable, putting the entire nation at risk. The speaker debunks the belief that voting machines are secure because they are not connected to the internet, explaining that many machines have wireless modems for faster result uploading. They conclude that it is only a matter of time before these vulnerabilities are exploited.

Speaker 0: The election was stolen. A graph shows people who worked for ES&S, Hart, Dominion Voting Systems, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic, recycling through companies. People who worked at Dominion Voting Systems are entering the political sphere and taking over election offices; one county in Texas, after hiring someone who worked for Dominion, went blue for the first time. The speaker walks through information: Dominion using “Serbian technology with Chinese characteristics.” Huawei Bank is involved; there’s no public board saying Bank of China funds anything, but research on Roaming Networks—a relatively unknown Serbian company until 2013—shows it signed a value-added contract with Huawei Bank. Huawei is “the Bank of China.” Roaming Networks built ICT infrastructure and data centers in Serbia, with owner Nenad Kovac identified as the enterprise partner. Some Roaming Networks information may come off their site after this presentation. Dominion Voting Systems has a corporate office in Serbia; a screenshot of the office and a developer on their site is noted. A Serbian legislative leader said, “I know Dominion Voting Systems back in November. They have an office here.” Dominion started rapidly removing Serbian coders from their site/LinkedIn. Code is built in Serbia for a system used in the United States, using infrastructure funded by China, not just China but the Bank of China. A slide discusses Dominion’s enterprise partnership with Huawei, added to the restricted list on 05/16/2019. Roaming Networks references show Dominion Voting Systems using a pure flash storage solution in Dominion’s data center. A photo of Sacramento shows Dominion hardware coming from China, with a bill of lading from a Chinese supplier to Dominion’s McKinney, Texas office. Testing and approval of Dominion hardware show similarities with Smartmatic; the same hardware with different branding. They claim a “tail” behind the scenes—evidence of connections among ES&S, Hart, Dominion, ClearBallot, Smartmatic, with people cycling through these companies. People who once worked at Dominion are now entering election offices; in Texas, a county that hired a former Dominion employee “went blue” by accident with ES&S involved. The speaker calls out Gina Griswold for commenting on Tina Peters and Mesa, and Matt Crane’s role as Arapahoe County clerk and recorder, now head of the County Clerks Association; Crane’s wife previously worked for Dominion and Sequoia Voting Systems. The speaker asserts a public breach of trust requires an audit; if there’s nothing to hide, audits should restore trust. They argue, whether Dominion is the bad actor or not, removal of logs, altering code, and a “trusted build” are problematic, and emphasize the need for audits and investigations to restore trust in elections. Speaker 1: Indicators: a senior Dominion vice president’s name appears on patents; a software engineer involved in the Wayne County, Michigan tabulation center is connected to the software. Coincidences accumulate, suggesting there is a preponderance of evidence with affidavits across the country. The speaker asks which computer produced certain files analyzed yesterday; whether it came from the central count or precincts. Speaker 0: Answers with a non-answer, noting they imaged the main EMS and the tabulation system; servers in the county coordinate precinct information and house audit reports, cast vote reports, error reports, adjudication reports, and access logs. Thumb drives can contaminate the county and state systems if connected to a machine; it’s not unique to Dominion or voting systems but a general risk. They emphasize avoiding white noise and focusing on facts: Dominion is in Serbia; Huawei Bank funds the enterprise partnership and Serbia-based data centers; code is written in Serbia; imaging shows fingerprints of this. They call for audits, note deviations in Georgia (ballots appearing identical in different batches, a shredder truck before January 20 in Georgia, and a leaky arena water claim later proven to be a leaky toilet), and point to media silence. They argue against accepting the gold standard claim and highlight perceived connections to Soros-funded groups. They stress deviations in state and county behavior, urge audits, and compare the election system to a serial killer—unacceptable to let foreign systems run it. Speaker 2: Adds that with 100 indicators, a pattern emerges; reiterates the need to examine which files came from which computer, and questions the integrity of the central count. Speaker 3: Notes the risk of a non-internet-connected thumb drive introducing malware; emphasizes auditing all machines for that reason.

Speaker 0 describes a belief that Dominion could steal an election and that he built a model to prove it. He says, “they're gonna steal it,” and that he “mathematically mapped out how they were gonna steal the election.” He claims he went to Washington, met with NSA and ODNI personnel, and with lawyers, and that he explained how he obtained the information by “going through and did a map of all the RFPs, RFQs, manuals, things that I had for Dominion, and I built backwards what the vulnerabilities would be.” He asserts that he analyzed what happened on November 3 and concluded that in the Georgia runoff for the Senate, “the Democrats are gonna take both seats.” He specifies the method: “They're gonna flip it, the vote's gonna come down. It's gonna come back up.” He states that John Eastman was present, and that his entire speech at Ellipsis with President Trump on January 6 was information that Eastman took from him after “hours of grilling me over a two day period of time.” He adds that he then went to meet with Pompeo's counsel; Pompeo was supposed to be there, and he was in a skiff at the State Department when the Capitol events occurred during a briefing with counsel. He says the counsel looked up at him and was sweating in a room that is very cool, and concludes, “And I'm like, oh, crap. He knows.” He claims that’s how he knew it was an inside job.

Christopher Krebs, the former head of CISA, is described as having weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in relation to a presidential memorandum involving the Department of Justice and other areas of government to investigate some “malign acts” he participated in while at CISA. The other speaker responds, saying he does not know Krebs well, but notes Krebs appeared after the election and characterizes the election as rigged. He asserts the country’s problems followed from that election, including open borders with millions entering the country, and references broader geopolitical and security events such as Russia and Ukraine, the October 7 incident, and Afghanistan, describing the withdrawal as resulting in 13 dead and many others killed and injured. He contends Krebs claimed the election was great, but he argues it was not, citing lawsuits and lawyers signing hundreds of millions of dollars in support, and claims that legislative processes and various schemes demonstrated a corrupt election where COVID was used to cheat. The speaker claims that Krebs asserted the election was the most secure in history, which he calls a disaster. He advocates for paper ballots, same-day voting, voter ID, and a citizen certificate or piece of paper proving citizenship prior to voting. He argues for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting, and claims that delays in ballot boxes and air-conditioning changes affected election processes. The speaker asserts that the election was not safe and that the press has been dishonest, describing the press as not free. The speaker adds that Krebs sat back as a member who appeared to be a Republican and claimed the election was safe from the start, but the speaker believes daily papers report increasing fraud. He states that Krebs is a fraud and a disgrace and asserts there will be an investigation into whether Krebs was right, with Krebs facing consequences if the election was not safe. He concludes that Krebs is a bad guy. The final remark notes that the last two points are very important for the country, emphasizing the questions around Krebs’s role and the integrity of the election, and indicating a determination to determine whether Krebs was correct about the election’s safety.

In this video, the speaker discusses the importance of securing election systems. They highlight the risk of connecting these systems to the internet, as it can make them vulnerable to hacking. The speaker suggests that using paper ballots might be a smarter option, as they cannot be hacked like computer systems. By having something tangible to hold on to, like a piece of paper, it becomes more difficult for entities like Russia to interfere with the election process.

Our current voting systems are complicated and messy. Votes are not reconciled and verified at the precinct level in many states. Instead, they are sent to third party entities or counted at centralized locations without public oversight. Mail-in ballots are not secure and can lead to fraud. We need to return to hand counting at the precinct level to ensure accurate accounting and transparency. This system worked for years before 2000 and is still used in France because it is secure. Our current system invites fraud and distrust, so we must act now to restore faith in our elections. Demand hand counting at the precinct level to stop fraud and build back trust in our elections.

The transcript presents a broad, multi-voiced warning about the vulnerability of U.S. voting systems and the ease with which they can be hacked, hacked-stopping demonstrations, and the security gaps that remain even as elections continue. Key points and claims: - Virginia stopped using touch screen voting because it is “so vulnerable,” and multiple speakers argue that all voting machines must be examined to prevent hacking and attacks. Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and others emphasize systemic vulnerability across states. - Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering, with examples that even hackers with limited knowledge can breach machines in minutes (Speaker 2, Speaker 3). - In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas allegedly deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another (Speaker 4). - The largest voting machine vendors are accused of cybersecurity violations, including directing that remote access software be installed, which would make machines attractive to fraudsters and hackers (Speaker 5). - Across the country, voting machines are described as easily hackable, with contention that three companies control many systems and that individual machines pose significant risk (Speaker 2, Speaker 6). - Many states use antiquated machines vulnerable to hacking, with demonstrations showing how easily workers could hack electronic voting machines (Speakers 7, 2). - A substantial portion of American voters use machines researchers say have serious security flaws, including backdoors (Speaker 5). Some states reportedly have no paper trail or only partial paper records (Speaker 5, various). - Aging systems are noted as failing due to use of unsupported software such as Windows XP/2000, increasing vulnerability to cyber attacks (Speaker 9). An observed concern is that 40 states use machines at least a decade old (Speaker 9). - Specific past intrusions are cited: Illinois and Arizona in 2016 had election websites hacked, with malware installed and sensitive voter information downloaded (Speaker 4). - There is debate about whether votes were changed in the 2016 election; one speaker notes that experts say you cannot claim—without forensic analysis—that votes were not changed (Speaker 17, 18). - The existence of paper records is contested: some jurisdictions lack verifiable paper trails, undermining the ability to prove results are legitimate (Speaker 5, 9). - Some devices rely on cellular modems to transmit results after elections, creating additional avenues for interception and manipulation; vendors acknowledge modems but vary in how they frame Internet connectivity (Speakers 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). The debate covers whether cellular transmissions truly isolate from the Internet or provide a backdoor, with demonstrations showing that modems can be connected to Internet networks and could be exploited. - The “programming” phase of elections—where memory cards are prepared with candidates and contests—can be a vector for spread of rogue software if an attacker compromises the election management system (Speaker 11, Speaker 10). - A scenario is outlined in which an attacker identifies weak swing states, probes them, hacks the election management system or outside vendors, spreads malicious code to machines, and alters a portion of votes; the assumption is that many jurisdictions will not rigorously use paper records to verify computer results (Speaker 10). - A Virginia governor’s anecdote is shared: after a hack demonstrated off-site by experts, all machines were decertified and replaced with paper ballots (Speaker 16). Overall impression: the discussion paints a picture of pervasive vulnerability, aging and diverse systems, reliance on modems and networked components, potential for targeted manipulation in close elections, and the need for upgrades and robust forensic capabilities, while noting contested claims about the extent of past interference.

The speaker believes some amount of cheating takes place in elections, particularly with mail-in ballots and lack of proof of citizenship, making it hard to prove. Statistically unlikely events occurred, such as the use of Dominion Voting Machines in specific locations like Philadelphia and Maricopa County. The speaker advocates for paper ballots, hand-counted, citing the ease of hacking computer programs. They also support in-person voting with voter ID, which they claim is standard in almost every country with democratic elections. To effectively address fraud, the speaker suggests in-person voting with ID. Given the current situation, they believe a very large margin of victory is needed to overcome potential cheating.

For the safety and security of our nation, we should switch to paper ballots, which cost only 8% of what machines cost. These paper ballots should be watermarked to prevent cheating. Along with paper ballots, we need same-day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship. Some states take weeks to finish counting votes, and in a close election, this delay is unacceptable. With paper ballots, everyone would know the results by 10 PM. I asked Elon Musk about voting systems, and he said computers aren't suitable for voting due to too many transactions happening too quickly. The most secure and fastest way to secure elections is with paper ballots. France used mail-in ballots but switched back to paper ballots and had their election results by 10:05 PM with no complaints. We're one of the only countries with mail-in voting.

Cybersecurity experts agree that electronic voting machines are dangerous and obsolete. These machines can be easily hacked, as demonstrated by a computer scientist who has hacked multiple machines and even turned one into a video game console. The vulnerability of these machines puts our election infrastructure at risk of sabotage and cyberattacks. In the 2016 election, millions of Americans voted on paperless electronic machines. The speaker reveals a step-by-step process for hacking these machines and stealing votes. The solution proposed is to use paper ballots, which can be quickly scanned and verified by humans. It is emphasized that all elections should be run with paper ballots and audits. The importance of having a paper backup system is highlighted. The concise transcript emphasizes the need to replace electronic voting machines with paper ballots for secure and reliable elections.

The speaker states that the best investigators are pursuing election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a long time and can be exploited to manipulate vote results. This vulnerability allegedly drives the mandate to implement paper ballots across the country, so voters can have faith in election integrity.

A computer science professor explains how a voting machine can be easily manipulated by gaining physical access to it. By connecting a computer to the machine's serial port, one can rewrite the code and control the election results. The professor also highlights the lack of security measures on these machines, making them vulnerable to hacking. Another expert shares their experience of being left alone with voting machines after an election, emphasizing how easily someone could insert malware into them. The central count scanner discussed is widely used in America for counting ballots. The speakers mention the ease of obtaining the machine's software from a Russian server and the numerous individuals who have access to the machines, including potential adversaries. They conclude that the multitude of possible hacks and entry points make it unlikely that someone isn't taking advantage of these vulnerabilities.

- "The electoral systems of The United States can be manipulated by foreign agents or third parties." - "Are you in danger, physical danger, if your true identity is known?" - "Yes." - "We configured the transmission systems and the tally systems." - "I was the national coordinator for voting machines." - "You examined the forensic image of the election management server, that was used in the Mesa County twenty twenty election." - "In the case of Mesa, Colorado, all evidence, all log, all of that was deleted." - "We saw both images, the old one and the new one." - "And the structure changed, the structure of the program changed as compared to the version 5.5." - "Whoever gave the authorization for the system to be updated would be the person responsible for all the files that were deleted." - "It's easy to rig an election with it, and it's hard to audit."

Contrary to the current political narrative, the speaker emphasizes that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, making them secure. However, in 2018, there were instances of electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleting or switching votes. The speaker mentions that even hackers with limited knowledge and resources were able to breach these machines easily. They also highlight concerns about remote access software making the machines vulnerable to fraudsters and hackers. The speaker clarifies that Dominion, the company in question, has no involvement in switched or deleted votes, and has no ties to communism or China. However, there are indications that some machines may be connected to the Internet, despite being designed as closed systems.

The speaker claims that the public is being deceived about election security. They argue that while individual voting machines may not be connected to the internet, state and county databases are. They allege that votes are stored on a server in Frankfurt, Germany, and that the election software used in 28 states may be infected with malware called Q Snatch. Cybersecurity investigators suggest that this malware could allow hackers to manipulate votes in election databases nationwide. The cofounder of Allied Security Operations supports these claims, stating that the malware collects credentials and enables changes to be made to votes at various stages of the election process. The speaker suggests that this could explain the malicious activities observed during the election.

The speaker discusses the importance of paper documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and voting ballots. They explain how voting machines can be manipulated, using the example of a dollar bill being rejected by a vending machine. They question why mail-in ballots in heavily Democratic areas are consistently accurate, while those in Republican areas are frequently out of calibration. The speaker suggests that human intervention allows for interpretation of voter intent, which they believe is unacceptable.

Contrary to the current political narrative, the speaker emphasizes that voting machines are not connected to the internet and the Department of Homeland Security claims the 2020 election was secure. However, in 2018, there were instances of electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleting or switching votes. The speaker mentions that hackers were able to breach these machines easily, even with limited knowledge and resources. They also mention the concern of remote access software making the machines vulnerable to fraudsters and hackers. The speaker then addresses the controversy surrounding Dominion, stating that there were no switched or deleted votes involving their machines and that the company has no ties to communism or China. However, there are concerns that some machines may be connected to the internet despite being designed as closed systems.

The speaker states that the "best of the best" are investigating election integrity. They claim there is evidence that electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers and exploitation, allowing for the manipulation of vote results. This allegedly supports the mandate to implement paper ballots nationwide, with the goal of restoring voters' faith in election integrity.