TruthArchive.ai - 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.

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.

A Microsoft certified security expert provided evidence of a Dominion vote counting machine in a swing state with a wireless card connected to a thermostat's wireless network. The IP address traced back to a city in China, linked to a Chinese corporation involved in questionable dealings with American politicians. There is a thick binder of documented evidence showing foreign access and interference in the election, including public statements from the FBI and DHS warning about Iran's involvement. The evidence is undeniable, and those questioning it should argue with the FBI and DHS. The photographs and IPs provide conclusive proof of foreign interference in the voting systems.

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.

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.

Clinton Eugene Curtis, a computer programmer, testifies that he created a prototype program in 2000 that could secretly fix elections. The program could flip votes to any candidate and go undetected by election officials unless they examined the source code or compared paper receipts to the actual votes. Curtis states that he could not have designed a protective program to prevent this kind of rigging, as it would require scrutiny of the source code by programmers from all parties. When asked if he believes the Ohio presidential election was hacked, Curtis says yes, citing significant discrepancies between exit polls and tabulated results. He also reveals that he was asked to design the program by Tom Feeney, who was a lobbyist for Yang Enterprises and Speaker of the House in Florida at the time. Curtis admits he doesn't know if the program was used.

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.

Speaker 0 asserts that there was direct access to the Antrim County election management system (EMS). They claim that 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, they say, constitutes a significant development, proving that the machines were remotely accessed and that access was by an anonymous user with elevated system privileges. Speaker 0 also discusses ballots, referring to black boxes on the side of the ballot, noting that there are 59 such black boxes. They state that forensic images show that in Antrim County, blocks 15, 18, 28, 41, and 44 were intentionally modified. The modification involved altering the height, width, and shape of those blocks with the intention of generating errors. They describe the consequence of such modifications: by modding these specific blocks, they were able to cause rejections for Republican ballots. Specifically, they claim that if a ballot voted for Donald Trump and was fed into the machine, that ballot was rejected at a rate 20% higher than for Joe Biden ballots.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.