reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"The use of some 19,000 electronic voting machines in the city of Chicago and Cook County primary on March 21 is now under intense scrutiny." "The US company that makes the machines, Sequoia, was bought in 2005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen." "I think that American elections ought to be run by American companies and ought to be run by American citizens, not Venezuelan nationals." "We believe this is a national security issue. There is no way that companies belonging to non US corporations should have access to our elections." "In the case of, Smartmatic, there are a number of unanswered questions." "Certainly, our government should know."

In 2018, the Dallas elections had irregularities, similar to what we're hearing now. Texas hired a cybersecurity group to investigate these irregularities, finding 10 different ways the Dominion equipment could be manipulated. Texas outlawed the use of Dominion, but it was still used. This group spent 2 years reverse engineering how to rig an election using Dominion. Meanwhile, another cybersecurity group, including hackers and other experts, mapped out the election manipulation plan. They approached DHS and CISA for a meeting, but they refused to attend. It's concerning how many people turned a blind eye to this issue. Lawyers involved may not understand the technology, but they should be held accountable.

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.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Speaker 2 discuss Dominion’s access to election systems during the 2020 election period in Georgia, with Gwinnett County cited as a specific example. The dialogue confirms that the questioning period was during the 2020 election, and the focus is on whether Dominion remotely accessed election systems and whether such access occurred in Georgia. Speaker 2 asks if there is any indication of nonelection personnel remotely accessing a Dominion system. Speaker 3 responds that they have reviewed a series of emails produced by Dominion in which they’re discussing remoting into Gwinnett County, Georgia. Speaker 1 then notes that Speaker 0 had mentioned Dominion remote collection or connection to election systems but lacks evidence that it occurred in Georgia. Speaker 0 asserts that there was one county and that they have seen many Dominion emails, requiring translation from Serbian to English to verify technical questions and translations. Speaker 1 asks specifically: “So it's your testimony that there is evidence of dominion remotely accessing Georgia election equipment?” Speaker 0 answers: “Yes, on the one county. It was included with stuff that I was researching and reading through considering Colorado. Michigan was also involved and there were other ones.” Speaker 2 inquires about Dominion’s ability to remotely connect to these election systems and whether they could do so without detection. Speaker 0 responds: “Yes.” Speaker 2 then asks if the interviewee is aware of any instances in which that has occurred, and Speaker 0 confirms: “One would be the Denver, Colorado server was granted or requested to grant Belgrave, Only Belgrade. Did search. There is a Belgrade Montana.” The speaker questions why Montana would need to connect to a Colorado file transfer server as part of the election system, noting there are other components and things done in the background concerning the database and the configuration of the database server that still do not have an engineering change order. Speaker 0 explains that in operational environments, things sometimes break and need fixing, leading to the submission of a change request or, in this case, an engineering change order that is retroactive. The goal is to record the process to ensure change management and integrity of the system. If changes are not recorded, it leads to a bad situation, according to Speaker 0.

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.

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.

"Smartmatic is a labyrinth of international holding companies owned by Venezuelan businessmen." "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." "Exit 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." "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." "The Chavez government gave Bizta, Smartmatic, and another company a $91,000,000 contract to run voting machines for the February."

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.

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.

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.

We subpoenaed Mike Frontera, Dominion's lawyer, but they prevented us from accessing our witnesses. Since June, 670 bios passwords from 63 of Colorado's 64 counties have been publicly available, putting election security at risk. Jenna Griswold should be held accountable for this leak, which she knew about during my trial but failed to address. This negligence has compromised not just Colorado's elections but potentially others across the U.S. involving Dominion machines. There are serious concerns about election integrity in states like Arizona and Michigan. The situation ties back to international corruption, including connections to Venezuela and figures like Hugo Chavez.

Voting systems are designed as closed systems without any Internet connectivity or external access. They are not meant to connect to the outside world in any way. Is there any remote access to the information on the equipment or within the machines? No, there is no remote access. Does anyone have access, to the best of your knowledge? No, no one has access.

The speaker reveals shocking information about the deletion of the entire database directory from the d drive of the machine called EMS primary. This deletion occurred approximately 10 days before the machines were handed over to the Senate. Deleting documents after being told to preserve them can have severe legal consequences. Additionally, the main database for the election management system software, which contains all election-related data from the November 2020 general election, is missing from the EMS primary machine. This suggests that it has been removed.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. The auditors initially didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that's right. You didn’t feel obligated to turn them over? We responded to the subpoena. It’s laughable to suggest a county could delete files in response to a subpoena. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February as standard practice. Can you confirm that’s done for all elections? I cannot confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we will provide one. The recorder will answer questions in a timely fashion, but he previously criticized Adrian Fontes, who ran the 2020 election. Yes, we had oversight from both parties during the election.

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.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. Initially, auditors didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that’s correct. It’s laughable to suggest that a county can delete files in response to a subpoena while claiming they are archived. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February; is that standard for all elections? I can’t confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we’ll provide one. The recorder will answer questions timely. You hired someone to oversee the 2020 election due to concerns about Adrian Fontes, correct? We took back responsibility for election operations to ensure oversight.

Forensic copy bit for bit of everything that was on the Mesa County computer. Just to clarify, there were two forensic images taken of the Mesa County Election server. One, before the software update. Another image taken after. Everything that had been on that drive before this update was gone. Looks like a cover up. Low risk of being caught. Low consequence if they are caught. The reason we know it was deliberate is because of Tina Peters. Are those files important to elections? Critical. The federal voting system standards are very clear that the election records that are required to audit a voting system include the digital records that are all the log files generated by that voting system, especially when it's a complex computer system.

A senior law enforcement officer witnessed unauthorized individuals inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite demands for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no remedy available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unconscionable. Translation: A senior law enforcement officer saw unauthorized people inserting USBs into voting machines multiple times. Despite requests for forensic evidence collection, no action was taken. Chain of custody logs and records in Delaware County are missing, leaving 100,000-120,000 ballots in question with no solution available. The speaker believes certifying the vote would be unethical.

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.

I have questions about the election in Arizona, particularly in Maricopa County. Did you authorize the secret testing on the machines, considering the election procedures manual states you should oversee additional testing? Also, are you aware of the signatures on the mail-in ballot updates and how they don't resemble the voter's signatures? As Secretary of State, you oversaw elections in Maricopa County and Arizona. Is it true you told someone to give it an "effing rest?"

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.

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.