TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A senate report revealed that voting machines are aging and vulnerable to exploitation. A hacker demonstrated how easy it is to gain full admin access to a model used in 18 states. Professor Ed Felton documented how unattended voting machines can be manipulated by anyone. Additionally, some machines that claim not to be connected to the internet actually are, while others use cards programmed on internet-connected computers. In summary, all voting machines can be tampered with in some way. As an axe murderer once said, "pretty much everything is hackable."

I am concerned about the upcoming election because this voting machine, used in 18 states, can be easily accessed by anyone. I will demonstrate how it can be done in less than 2 minutes without any tools. By opening the machine, removing the card reader and unplugging it, then picking the lock with a ballpoint pen, I gain admin access. I encounter a few error messages, but by clicking Cancel and okay, I bypass them and gain full admin control.

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.

Cybersecurity experts have provided signed affidavits stating that Dominion Voting Machines were tampered with over Internet connections. The machines used an unencrypted VPN with easily accessible login credentials, allowing foreign adversaries to monitor and manipulate votes. IP addresses showed that China, Iran, and other countries accessed the servers, while Edison Research also communicated with these adversaries. Claims that Dominion machines were not connected to the Internet are false. Dominion Voting Systems is linked to a Chinese-owned company, and its software is licensed from a Venezuelan-owned company. Forensic audits revealed significant errors in the machines. Georgia recently signed a $100 million contract with Dominion, despite the machines being easily hackable.

Dominion machines are certified and sealed, but vulnerabilities exist. Before elections, a supposed glitch prompts an emergency patch that opens backdoor access from a Serbian office, which is the true operational center of Dominion. This office, despite being presented as a U.S. company, has connections to Chinese nationals and operates on Huawei machines. Using virtual machines, they manipulate election results by creating a hidden environment within the county election equipment. After altering the data, they collapse the virtual machine, leaving no trace unless a forensic audit is conducted. This manipulation is facilitated through connections to China, raising concerns about the integrity of the election process. For more information, visit Stolen Elections Facts.

Dominion machines are certified and sealed, but vulnerabilities exist. Just before elections, a "glitch" prompts an emergency patch that opens a backdoor for remote access from a Serbian office, which is the real operational center of Dominion, despite claims of being a US company. This office has Chinese nationals who manipulate election results using Huawei machines. They create virtual machines within the election equipment, allowing them to alter data undetected. Once the manipulation is complete, they collapse the virtual machine, leaving no trace unless a forensic audit is conducted. For more information, visit Stolen Elections Facts.

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.

Voting machines in the U.S. are highly vulnerable to hacking, with researchers demonstrating that even those with limited skills can breach them quickly. Many machines are outdated, using unsupported software, and some states lack adequate paper trails for verification. Remote access software on machines increases risks, and several states have been hacked without detection. The use of cellular modems for transmitting results further exposes systems to cyber threats. Election management systems, often connected to the internet, can be compromised, allowing attackers to manipulate vote tallies. Despite assurances from vendors, the reality is that many machines can be hacked, raising serious concerns about election integrity in close contests. The lack of forensic evidence makes it difficult to confirm whether votes have been altered, leaving the electoral process at risk.

Voting machines remain highly vulnerable to tampering, as researchers have shown. Even those with limited skills can breach these systems quickly. In 2018, machines in Georgia and Texas were reported to have deleted or switched votes. Major manufacturers are compromising security by recommending remote access software, making machines targets for hackers. Many states still use outdated machines that are easy to hack, with 43% of American voters relying on systems known to have serious security flaws. Demonstrations have shown how easily these machines can be compromised. Additionally, aging systems often run unsupported software, increasing their susceptibility to cyber attacks. A successful hack could significantly impact close elections by targeting key swing states or counties. Concerns about potential breaches are growing.

Voting systems are designed to be closed systems without internet connectivity or external devices. Dominion, the company mentioned, does not have any remote access to the equipment or machines. No one has access to the information on the machines remotely.

Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering and hacking. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted or switched votes. The biggest seller of voting machines even violated cybersecurity principles by installing remote access software, making them attractive to fraudsters and hackers. Three companies control the majority of voting machines in the US. Antiquated machines in many states are particularly vulnerable. Demonstrations have shown how easily these machines can be hacked, with workers switching votes. Approximately 43% of American voters use machines with serious security flaws. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them even more susceptible to cyberattacks. A hack in just one swing state or a few counties could significantly impact a close presidential election.

Linda McLaughlin and her colleagues present a data-focused argument alleging election fraud in Georgia, supported by multiple data analyses and demonstrations. - Linda McLaughlin introduces the data integrity group and states that data is numerical and non-partisan; she aims to remedy a lack of presented data in the discussion. - Dave Labou, a lead data scientist, explains that their analysis across precincts, counties, and the state identified over 40 data points of negative voting or vote switching across candidates totaling over 200,000 votes. Separately, machine learning algorithms used for anomaly detection in fraud detection flagged over 500 precincts with over 1,000,000 corresponding votes showing suspicious activity. He emphasizes that the process is scientific and not tied to political affiliations. - Labou uses a banking analogy to illustrate data integrity concerns: in hypothetical online banking, deposits or withdrawals being redirected or split would indicate fraudulent activity. He applies this concept to voting data, arguing that the voting system data aligns with the Secretary of State data used to certify results, yet exhibits patterns akin to transfers and reallocation not authorized by voters. - He states that the data are publicly available but require advanced programming to extract, parse, and join datasets. Their independent team has made all analysis, programs, and data public to allow replication and has produced videos to translate the analysis for broader understanding. - A key claim is that receiving over 90% in a precinct is a marker for fraud; in Fulton County, more than 150 precincts voted 90% or more for Biden, and in the statewide race (decided by less than 13,000 votes), these 150 Fulton precincts accounted for 152,000 Biden votes, described as a clear indicator of suspicious or fraudulent activity. - Labou and team present a series of visuals and explanations indicating explicit vote count switching, e.g., in Dodge County, where Trump’s votes appear to be subtracted while Biden’s counts increase in tandem with county updates, leading to a shift in totals that would not appear in state totals due to timing of updates. - They reference adjudication as the review of ballots flagged during scanning, noting that only ballots with a contest causing questions about how the computer reads them are adjudicated. - In DeKalb County, they assert it is statistically impossible for nine out of ten voters to vote for Biden in 94 precincts. - They describe a data flow in Fulton County: poll pad check-in, ballot image saved on the machine, SD cards transported to drop-off locations, escorted to a warehouse, run through Democracy Suite, exported to a Dominion server, and inserted into a SQL Server database before transmission to the Secretary of State and data aggregators. - A critical point is the vulnerability within the county update data-entry process: the square box detailing data-entry options in the election software allows updating vote batches, projecting batches, and generating new or temporary batches that can be injected directly into the tally; these options can be validated and published, enabling potential manipulation before server upload. - They pose questions about validation: whether two observers from both parties were present during SD card transmissions and drop-off transmissions, and whether there is a public log of exchanges at drop-off points. They challenge why elected officials have not pursued these questions about voting integrity. - Labou notes the process is machine-to-machine and, by design, should not decrement sums; any decrement requires a robust explanation, and their data suggest negative drops are inconsistent with normal sequential processes. Speaker 2 clarifies the data sources (CITL election night data and Edison/New York Times data) and asserts that the process from poll pads to secretary of state is machine-driven, with no human entry of totals, thereby removing human entry error as an explanation for observed negative changes. Speaker 4 adds emphasis on the validation and potential vulnerabilities in the software options used for election administration, underscoring the need for transparency and inquiry into the electoral process.

Before every election, voting machines need to be programmed with the ballot design and candidate names. This is done by inserting a memory card into the machine. If an attacker infects the memory card with malicious code, it can change the programming on the voting machine and manipulate the election results. The election programming workstation, called an election management system, is often connected to the internet, making it vulnerable to hacking. In Michigan, during the 2016 election, 75% of counties outsourced their pre-election programming to just three small companies, making it relatively easy to target voting machines. By hacking into the election management system, an attacker can spread malicious code to individual voting machines and manipulate the votes without detection.

Before every election, voting machines need to be programmed with the ballot design and candidate names. This is done by inserting a memory card into the machine. If an attacker infects the memory card with malicious code, it can change the programming on the voting machine and manipulate the election results. The programming is done on a desktop PC or workstation, often connected to the internet. In Michigan, during the 2016 election, 75% of counties outsourced their pre-election programming to three small companies. These companies had weak security measures, making it relatively easy to hack into their systems. By targeting vulnerable states and hacking into their election management systems, attackers can spread malicious code to individual voting machines and manipulate the votes. Even if there are paper records, they are often not thoroughly checked.

Dominion machines are certified and sealed, but vulnerabilities exist. Before elections, a supposed glitch prompts an emergency patch that opens a backdoor for remote access from a Serbian office, which is the true operational hub of Dominion. This office, staffed by Chinese nationals, manipulates election results using virtual machines created within the election equipment. The manipulation is done through software, leaving no trace unless a detailed forensic audit is conducted. This process involves using Huawei servers, linking back to China. For more information, visit Stolen Elections Facts for documentation.

Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering and hacking. Even with limited knowledge and resources, hackers can breach these machines within minutes. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted or switched votes. The biggest seller of voting machines violates basic cybersecurity principles by installing remote access software, making them attractive to fraudsters and hackers. Three companies control the majority of voting machines, posing significant risks. Many states still use outdated and hackable machines. Researchers have found serious security flaws in 43% of American voting machines. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. A hack in just one swing state or a few counties could impact a close presidential election. Concerns about the possibility of a successful hack are high.

The Sequoia AVC Advantage, now called the Dominion AVC Advantage, is a voting machine that can be easily hacked by removing the memory chip and installing a cheating program. This program can change votes and alter the electronic log of votes cast. Other voting machines can be hacked by installing a software upgrade memory card. These vulnerabilities have been demonstrated by various universities, including Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and Michigan. Voting machines are often accessible to potential attackers before and after elections. The ease of hacking raises concerns about the trustworthiness of election results.

Modems in voting machines are vulnerable to hacking as they are network connections. ES and S claims that their modems are separated from the public internet by firewalls. However, once a hacker gains access through the modem, they can manipulate the voting machine software to cheat in future elections. Some jurisdictions use cellular modems or the internet to upload election results, introducing additional vulnerabilities. Voting machines with embedded modems transmit vote totals to the county elections office via cellular networks, which pass through routers and switches used for regular internet traffic. An intruder can intercept data between the cell tower and the voting machine, altering votes and software. Despite claims that voting machines are not connected to the internet, many have 4G wireless modems for faster result uploads, raising concerns about their security during elections.

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.

Voting machines in the US are vulnerable to hacking and manipulation, according to security researchers. These machines, which come in various models, have been found to have security vulnerabilities that allow attackers to inject malicious software and change election data. The most efficient way to hack the machines is through the machine used to program them, as it can pass rogue software to the voting machines. Contrary to popular belief, many voting machines are connected to the internet, either through wireless modems or other means, making them susceptible to cyber attacks. The lack of proper security measures and outdated systems make it only a matter of time before election results are compromised.

Voting in America is conducted by private companies contracted by the county. However, there are no national security standards for these companies, making it easy to change votes without leaving a trace. Additionally, the votes from Texas and 28 other states are sent to a server in Frankfurt, Germany, owned by a multinational company based in Barcelona, Spain, which controls and reports the votes.

Dominion machines are certified and sealed, but vulnerabilities allow for manipulation. Just before elections, a supposed "glitch" prompts an emergency patch that opens a backdoor for remote access from a Serbian office, which is the true operational center of Dominion. This office, staffed by Chinese nationals, allows them to log into U.S. election machines and alter results. They use virtual machines to manipulate data without leaving traces. After the manipulation, they collapse the virtual server, making detection difficult unless a thorough forensic audit is conducted. This entire operation relies on Huawei equipment, linking back to China. For more information, visit Stolen Elections Facts.

According to the testimony, Dominion equipment is generally not connected to the internet, but there is evidence of a connection in Gwinnett County, Georgia, during the 2020 election. Non-election personnel have remotely accessed a Dominion system. Dominion emails discuss remotely accessing Gwinnett County, Georgia. There is evidence of Dominion remotely accessing Georgia election equipment in one county, along with involvement in Colorado and Michigan. Dominion can remotely connect to election systems without detection, and this has occurred. The Denver, Colorado server granted access to Belgrade, with questions raised about why Belgrade, Montana, would need to connect to a Colorado file transfer server. Changes to the database server lack an engineering change order, which is important for change management and system integrity.

Speaker 0 presents a video focused on data and evidence of alleged irregularities in the 2020 election, asserting that there has been no comprehensive place to see widespread fraud until now. He states the video is “pure data” and invites viewers to consider the statistical anomalies in three states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia) in the early hours of 11/04/2020, when Biden received major vote spikes after trailing Trump. - He analyzes 8,954 individual vote updates and identifies a clear statistical pattern across nearly all updates, with four notably aberrant updates: two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia, all occurring in the same five-hour window in the middle of the night when counting reportedly stopped in some places. - In Michigan, a 06:30AM update shows Biden at 141,258 votes to Trump’s 5,968, described as the most extreme update in all datasets across all states, followed by a noticeable ratio change in nearby updates. In Wisconsin, a single update allegedly moved Biden from trailing by over 100,000 votes into the lead. In Georgia, a 01:34AM Eastern Time update shows Biden at 136,155 to Trump’s 29,115. They claim these four spikes exceed the states’ margins of victory, making the spikes not only abnormal by percentage but also by magnitude. They conclude that if these four unlikely updates had not happened, the presidency could have been different. - Detractors are cited as arguing human error, but the video questions where evidence of corrections is, and notes that California shows only one anomalous update in percentage, not enough magnitude to shift outcomes. - A “consistently identical ratio of Biden to Trump votes across time” is highlighted as allegedly impossible, with a Florida example showing 100 identical ratios over several days. The video asserts a computer algorithm is involved, termed a weighted race distribution, associated with Diebold voting machines (known as early as 2001), implying values rather than simple counts. - In California, a single update is shown with Biden receiving about 65% and Trump 32% for one vote, raising questions about how one vote could go to more than one candidate. Speaker 0 then links these patterns to alleged connections between Diebold and Dominion Voting Systems, claiming Dominion acquired ESNS in 2010, which had previously acquired Diebold, and that Dominion’s software is licensed from Smartmatic. They also note that forensic audits show errors and that the mainstream narrative claims these issues are misinformation. They reference NBC News and PBS findings on how easy it is to hack voting machines or cast fake votes. Next, Speaker 0 notes eyewitness and video evidence from Georgia: poll worker Ruby allegedly was filmed in the backroom with absentee ballots, and at 10:30PM on November 3, media and poll watchers were told to leave, yet Ruby and others remained, pulling ballots from under a table and distributing them to counting stations. They describe Ruby running the same stack of ballots to the machine three times, observing a large Biden surge after 01:34AM Georgia time, and question whether a ballot can be counted more than once, citing Coffey County, Georgia as an example of someone claiming to scan the same batches repeatedly. Speaker 0 references Raquel Rodriguez, arrested for election fraud in Texas over video evidence of ballot harvesting, and asserts that cybersecurity evidence indicates Dominion and Edison Research used an unencrypted VPN with easily accessible credentials allowing foreign access, asserting that China, Iran, and other countries accessed the servers, contradicting claims that Dominion machines were not connected to the Internet. They mention Dominion’s association with a Chinese-registered domain, and board members with Chinese nationality, alleging conflicts of interest through corporate ownership and licensing from Smartmatic. Speaker 0 highlights that Antrim County, Michigan audits found high error and adjudication rates in Dominion, with an 68 o 5% error rate far above federal guidelines, missing logs for 2020, and reprogramming of election event designer cards during the safe harbor period. They point to subpoenas and the lack of access to logs, and to affidavits from poll workers claiming illegal activities, non-equal treatment of observers, counting without proper oversight, shredding ballots, and other irregularities. Speaker 7 concludes with a claim that many Americans distrust the 2020 election and urges viewers to download and share the video, demand election reform, and notes that the video’s credits will continue with data readers, while warning of erasure or fact checks by tech platforms.

Voting machines have been proven to be vulnerable to tampering and hacking. Even with limited knowledge and resources, hackers can breach these machines in minutes. In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted or switched votes. The biggest seller of voting machines violates cybersecurity principles by installing remote access software, making them attractive to fraudsters. Three companies control the majority of voting machines in different states, posing significant risks. Many states still use outdated and hackable machines. Researchers have found serious security flaws in 43% of voting machines used by American voters. Aging systems rely on unsupported software, making them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. A hack in just one swing state or a few counties could impact a close election.