reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A computer science expert demonstrated how easy it is to hack voting machines in a federal court in Atlanta. Using a pen, he breached security, altered vote totals, and entered superuser mode. The reaction in the courtroom was shocked, with gasps from the plaintiff's counsel and onlookers. The state's defense downplayed the demonstration, claiming precinct security measures would prevent such hacking. The theatrics of the courtroom were evident as each side tried to sell their argument.

Two employees from Clark County Technical came forward independently and revealed that they found discrepancies in the number of votes recorded by voting machines. The votes would change between the closing of the polls at night and their reopening the next morning, with votes appearing and disappearing overnight. When they tried to verify the integrity of the voting machines, they were only allowed to visually inspect the outside of a USB drive, which was useless. They were denied a forensic examination.

Mark Cook, an election cybersecurity subject matter expert in threat assessment and common sense mitigation, introduces himself: he’s been working on elections nonstop for about six years and has forty years of IT industry experience. He states that he has evidence he hopes to show that there are backdoors built into electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes. He references a demonstration clip, saying, “backdoors built in to electronic voting systems that allow flipping, changing of votes,” and notes that the testing labs miss this, leaving the systems blindly certified and supposedly safe. He highlights audio he believes was clipped from a recording, insisting that the content shows voting systems are vulnerable: “that allow flipping, changing of votes,” and that testing labs are blind to these issues. He says, “I can demonstrate this to you even while I'm still here in this building.” Cook argues that there is a lack of government transparency, claiming, “the testing labs all miss this, then they're blindly certified, and then we're told, it's shut down our throats, that everything is safe and secure.” He describes the entire system as “built on a pyramid of lies,” and asserts that it must be stopped. He offers to educate and show problems, insisting he can do so, but emphasizes the need for a common-sense approach. He emphasizes practicality and accessibility, arguing that the problem can be solved with straightforward methods: “We're literally filling dots out on paper. We're counting the dots, adding the dots up, and whoever has the most dots wins.” He calls for a change that keeps elections under the control of the people and avoids simply “kicking the can down the road.” He reiterates that the resolution is not complicated and frames the solution as a simple, transparent counting method using paper records rather than electronic manipulation. In summary, Cook asserts the existence of covert backdoors in electronic voting systems, criticizes testing labs for blindly certifying these systems, condemns what he calls a “pyramid of lies,” and advocates a return to a basic, paper-driven, dot-counting approach where the person with the most dots wins, to restore public control over elections. He offers to provide demonstrations and education to support this view.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer, testified that in October 2000, he wrote a prototype program for then-Florida Speaker of the House Tom Feeney that could rig an election by flipping the vote 51/49. According to Curtis, this program would be undetectable to election officials, only visible in the source code or by comparing paper receipts to vote totals. Curtis stated that while a protective program could not prevent such rigging, programmers could examine source code for irregularities. He testified that he did not know if Ohio elections had protective measures. Based on statistical anomalies between exit polling data and tabulated results, Curtis believes the Ohio presidential election was likely hacked. Curtis said he was asked to hide the fraud in the source code to control the vote in South Florida. He handed in a report and program to Missus Yang, who said they needed to hide the fraud. Curtis stated that if exit polls are significantly different from the vote, then someone is manipulating the vote. He added that timers could also be set to manipulate the vote.

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.

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.

I was invited to investigate the Mesa County server to compare the before and after images. I wanted to test the system's security, so I used a backdoor utility called SQL Server Management Studio, which is not certified software and should not be on a voting machine. I quickly accessed the presidential election results in Mesa County, showing Biden with 31,000 votes and Trump with 56,000 votes. I will explain later how easily I could manipulate the election results if I wanted to.

Do you believe votes were manipulated electronically in favor of Joe Biden? Yes, I do. I saw reports of votes switching from Trump to Biden—around 12,000 and 20,000 votes in two instances, with Trump's numbers decreasing exactly as Biden's increased. I suspected something was wrong, especially with claims of intelligence involvement. The Dominion Company, a Canadian firm, stored its records in Germany and Spain, raising concerns about foreign interference. It seems there may have been CIA involvement, as U.S. forces seized servers in Germany, which were linked to CIA operations. Now, those servers are with the FBI, which makes me uneasy, but at least they are in American hands.

A computer programmer testified that programs exist to secretly fix elections. He claims that in February, he wrote a prototype for Congressman Tom Feeney that could rig an election. The program could flip the vote to 51-49 for a candidate in any race. He stated that election officials would never detect the program.

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.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer from Tallahassee, Florida, testified about the existence of software that can secretly rig elections. He developed a prototype in 2000 for Tom Feeney that could flip votes in any race without detection by election officials. Detection would require access to the source code or a paper trail to verify results. Curtis stated that while he could create software to rig elections, he was not asked to develop protective measures against such software in Ohio. He expressed that significant discrepancies between exit polls and actual results indicate potential manipulation. Curtis recounted that when he prepared documentation to prevent fraud, he was told the goal was to conceal it instead. He concluded that if such rigging software were used, it could potentially be detected if the machines had not been tampered with.

While on the oversight committee in the senate, Dominion was investigated. The president of Dominion and his software maker testified. Questions focused on whether Dominion machines had internet access. The president of Dominion said no, but this was a lie. The investigation was published, recorded, and should be online.

Two Clark County technical employees independently revealed that they found discrepancies in the number of votes recorded by voting machines. The votes would change between the closing of polls at night and their reopening the next morning. This means that votes were appearing and disappearing during the night. When they tried to verify the integrity of the voting machines, they were only allowed to visually inspect the outside of a USB drive, which was useless. They were denied a forensic examination.

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.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer, testified that he created 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 stated that the only way to detect such a program would be to examine the source code or compare paper receipts to the actual vote totals. He also mentioned that he was not asked to design a protective system for Ohio's elections. When asked about the Ohio presidential election, Curtis believed it was hacked due to significant differences between exit polling data and the tabulated results. He mentioned that the program he created could potentially be detected if the machines were not patched and experts like Microsoft or MIT were involved.

Speaker 0: Totals being awarded to Biden and Jorgensen's totals being awarded to Trump. After gaining access to a forensic image of the Dominion election management system in Mesa County, Colorado, IT experts demonstrate how easy it is to switch tens of thousands of votes from Trump to Biden in seconds by simply changing the index number next to each candidate's name. Speaker 1: This is a a backdoor utility called SQL Server Management Studio that is actually installed on the image of the voting system. So is it certified? It is not on the list of certified software. What I'm gonna do first, I'm just gonna pull up the presidential results in Mesa County for that election. And here they are. You can see Biden has 31,000. Trump has 56,000. K. So I'm gonna come up here now, and I'm going to make a quick change. Change that to a two? Yep. I'm changing Trump to a one. Okay. And then I'm going to come up here, and I'm gonna rerun the port. And there you go. Biden, 56,000. Trump, 31,000. So I just flipped the results of the election using a tool that's actually built in to the voting system. And what I did is not even logged. There's no trace of what I just did now. For some reason, the logging of activities by a user that has the password are not retained. Speaker 0: In Pennsylvania on live TV, Trump had 1,690,589 votes, while Biden had 1,252,537 votes. The time was approximately 11:08 Eastern Standard Time. The next interval report shows Trump's votes decreasing to 1,670,631 and Biden's votes increasing to 1,272,495. The time is approximately 11:09PM. Live on CNN, exactly 19,958 votes were switched from Trump to Biden. This means Trump lost 39,916 votes.

There was fraud in the election, including dead people voting. The machines played a role in this fraud. Instead of having hidden ballots, they stored them in a secret folder. After the polls closed, the machines matched unvoted ballots with unvoted voters. This was evident when the vote percentage reached 99% but the votes kept coming in. The denominator, which represents the remaining ballots, started increasing, indicating that they were unloading the hidden ballots and matching them to unvoted voters. This allowed them to barely cross the finish line with enough votes.

Dr. Corsi claims that algorithms are embedded within state board of election voter roles in at least 13 states, allowing for hidden, fake votes. He asserts that these algorithms function like national security coding systems, concealing the manipulation from the board of elections. Specifically, Corsi alleges that Ohio's voter registration roll contains a mathematical formula enabling someone within the Board of Election to cast unlimited mail-in votes to rig elections undetected. He states that he has a team of NSA/CIA-qualified code experts prepared to demonstrate the existence of this secret code to Ohio officials. According to Corsi, this embedded code allows bad actors to simulate elections and determine desired outcomes, including vote percentages and timing of vote surges. He claims that fake voters can request and have mail-in ballots certified without detection, even by the Board of Election.

The speaker suggests that the Venezuelan election results were manipulated in favor of the government due to the programming of the astromatic machines. A Harvard mathematician analyzed the numbers and concluded that the smart mathematic system must have been involved. The machines communicate with a central machine that can report any information. Although Smartmatic is technically based in Boca Raton, Florida, the company's president testified that only a few employees work there, while the majority are based in Venezuela.

- "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."

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer, testified that he created 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 stated that the only way to detect such a program would be to examine the source code or compare paper receipts to the actual vote totals. He also mentioned that he was asked by Tom Feeney, who was a lobbyist for Yang Enterprises and the speaker of the Florida House at the time, to design a program to rig the election. Curtis believed that the Ohio presidential election was hacked based on statistical anomalies between exit polls and tabulated results. He admitted that it would be difficult to detect the rigged software unless the machines were examined before being tampered with.

Antonio Mujica and his partner Alfredo Enzola received a small business loan from the Venezuelan government just months before the recall election. Venezuelan corporate registration documents show the government owned 28% of the stock of Bizta, a company they started that adapted voting software for the Smartmatic machines in the 2004 elections. The same document shows Chavez government minister Omar Montillo was on Bizta’s board of directors. The Chavez government gave Bizta, Smartmatic, and another company a $91,000,000 contract to run voting machines for the February election. The next year, the owners of Smartmatic, primarily Venezuelan businessmen, bought Sequoia, one of the top electronic voting system companies in the United States, for $16,000,000. Smartmatic is a labyrinth international holding company structure. Smartmatic Group NV of Curacao Netherlands Antilles owns Smartmatic International BV of Amsterdam, which owns Smartmatic Corporation of Florida, which bought Sequoia Voting Systems of California, USA. When Smartmatic bought the US voting machine companies, the US government did not review the sale. Many experts say those voting machines were manipulated in Venezuela to give president Hugo Chavez a victory. Polls done by The US firm Penn shown in Berlin had Chavez losing 41% to 59%. But the next day, Chavez declared victory, reversing the score, saying he won 59% of the vote. “Everything was computed in the favor of the government.” So the only explanation is that the smart mathematic machines had been programmed in that way. A mathematician crunched the numbers on the Venezuelan election. “All these machines talk to a central computer and report on their results. And in that mechanism, as they communicate with the center, the central machine can report anything.” Smartmatic is technically based in Boca Raton, Florida. But the president of the company, Jack Blaine, testified to the Chicago City Council. Fewer than a dozen Smartmatic employees work in Florida. The majority of the workers are based in Venezuela.

Up to 13 states' Board of Elections voter registration roles are coded with secret algorithms that allow for hidden, unreal votes. This coding system is like a national security coding system. In Ohio, there is a mathematical formula embedded within the state board of election voter role that permits someone within the board of election to vote as many mail-in votes as they want to rig and steal an election without it being known. The speaker is in Ohio demanding a proof of concept.

Clinton Eugene Curtis testified that programs exist to secretly fix elections. In October 2000, he wrote a prototype for president congressman Tom Feeney that did just that, which "would flip the vote fifty one forty nine. Whoever you wanted it to go to and whichever race you wanted to win." "They'd never see it." Detection would require viewing the source code or having a "receipt" and counting the hard paper against the actual vote total. When asked if he could design a program to protect Ohio elections, he said: "Sure. Anybody can" to "No. Could you have designed a program... that would have protected Ohio against this kind of rigging?" "No." He said he handed in documentation of what to look for in the source code and, when told to hide fraud, replied, "We need to hide the fraud in the source in the source code." He warned that central tabulation machines could be flipped by a "flag," that machines could "talk to each other" if networked, and that there is "absolutely no assurance whatsoever" unless the source code is examined.

The speaker asserts that there was direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). According to the forensic images, on November 5 an anonymous user logged on to the EMS remotely with escalated privileges and made changes to the database while attempting to retabulate the election. This is presented as a major development indicating remote access to the machines, and specifically remote access by an anonymous user with elevated privileges. Additionally, the speaker describes intentional modifications to ballot components. Ballots have black boxes along the side, with boxes 59 in total. The forensic images allegedly show that blocks 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44 were intentionally modified, altering their height and width to generate errors. The claimed consequence of these modifications is that errors were produced which led to ballot rejections. Specifically, ballots in which a voter chose Donald Trump and then fed the ballot into the machine were rejected at a rate 20% higher than ballots for Joe Biden.