President Donald Trump’s litigation attorney, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell, released core evidence to the public on Monday (Nov. 16) that key witnesses have testified that voting machine Dominion equipment used in the United States is suspected of being designed to tamper with voter results undetected.
The witness is the former Venezuelan President’s personal national security guard. He describes the inside story of the election fraud in which he was involved, how the Venezuelan leader manipulated the results of national and local elections by creating and operating a sophisticated electronic voting system, including how he chose election winners, seized and retained power, and how the Venezuelan system was linked to the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
“I am appalled by the brazenness of what is happening during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. This situation and event reminds me of the process by which Smartmatic software electronically changed votes in the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election. What happened in the U.S. is that on election night, five states using Dominion software (Smartmatic software) suddenly stopped counting ballots. At the time the vote counting stopped, Trump was clearly ahead. Then in the early morning hours (the day after election night), no voting took place and no voting machines were reported offline, but the tally changed dramatically. When the voting reports resumed the next morning, the vote changed very significantly in favor of Trump’s opponent, candidate Joe Biden,” Witness testimony reads.
In his testimony, the witness said, “I saw with my own eyes that the ballots could be controlled and changed in real time at the secret counting center in Caracas, Venezuela. To me, this was very surprising and disturbing. So, I know firsthand that it doesn’t matter what the voters decide or what the paper ballots say. It’s up to the software operators and the software to decide what matters, not the voters.”
“This conspiracy started in Venezuela more than a decade ago and has spread around the world; (designed to) wrongfully seize and retain power as well as wealth. It involves political leaders, powerful companies and individuals, and it is aimed at seizing and retaining power by changing the free will of the people and undermining the governing line,” The witness added.
This witness stated that he was a direct witness to the electoral fraud, creation and operation of the electronic voting system between Smartmatic and the leaders of the Venezuelan government. This system was able to change the vote count from unfavorable to favorable in the election, thus maintaining their control over the government.
Chavez authorized Smartmatic to develop a voting system in order to retain power.
In mid-February 2009, then Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a socialist, amended the Constitution to lift term limits for elected officials, including the President of Venezuela.
Chavez then instructed witnesses to arrange several meetings with the then president of the National Electoral Council and three Smartmatic executives.
Chávez asked Smartmatic to develop a voting system that would ensure that any time a vote was cast, it would guarantee the results Chávez wanted.
Chavez also offered Smartmatic a number of inducements, including a large amount of money, and Smartmatic accepted the proposal at that time.
The voting technology that Smartmatic then developed was called the “Electoral System” (“Electoral Management System”), which transmitted voting data via the Internet to a computerized central tabulation center. The voting machine itself has a digital display, fingerprint recognition to identify the voter, and the ability to print out the voter’s ballot.
At the heart of the system is the ability to change a voter’s ballot without being detected.
At the heart of the system, Chavez specifically requested that Smartmatic be designed in such a way that “the system could change each voter’s ballot undetected”.
The witness said, “He (Chavez) wanted the software itself to work in such a way that if a voter put his or her fingerprint or thumb on the scanner, the fingerprint would be associated with the voter’s name and identity record; but the voter would not be able to find his or her altered vote.
“He (Chavez) made it clear that the system must guarantee that no evidence is left behind when a voter’s vote is altered. And there will also be no evidence to show or show that the name, fingerprint or thumbprint is different from the altered ballot. “
2013 Actual War The system tampered with ballots in 2 hours.
The witness stated that on April 14, 2013, he witnessed a national election in Venezuela in which the Smartmatic election management system was used to manipulate and change the results, with Nicolás Maduro defeating his opponent, Capriles Radonsky.
Witnesses said there were multiple digital displays in a control room in the Caracas control center that showed the results of the vote in real time in each of Venezuela’s states. At 2 p.m. that day, when his opponent Radonsky was leading Maduro by 2 million votes, Maduro feared he would lose the election. So Maduro ordered nearly all of Venezuela to disconnect and change the results.
“It took the operator of the voting system about two hours to change the Ladinski vote to Maduro. Then, when the network was reconnected and the online reports started running again, they checked the screen display state by state to make sure they could see that every vote had been changed in favor of Maduro. At that point, the Smartmatic system changed Radensky’s vote to Maduro. By the time the system operators were done, they had won a narrow victory for Maduro by 200,000 votes. “The witness said.
Dominion had the same flaws as Smartmatic.
Since Smartmatic created the voting system that Chavez wanted, the witness explained, the Venezuelan dictator has exported software and systems throughout Latin America.
“I would like to point out that the software and basic design of the electronic election system, the software of the U.S. voting machine Dominion and other election tabulation companies rely on derivatives of Smartmatic’s election management system. In short, Smartmatic software is the DNA of every ballot tabulation company’s software and systems,” the witness said.
Dominion, one of the three largest voting machine companies in the U.S., uses “the same methodology and essentially the same software design to store, transmit and calculate voter ID data and voting data” as Smartmatic, the witness said.
In addition, Dominion and Smartmatic do business together.” The software, hardware, and systems share the same basic flaws that allow multiple attempts to corrupt data and mask the process and make it impossible for an ordinary person to detect any trace of fraud or manipulation. “The witness said.
Voting software determines election results, not voters
The witness said: “The voting machine has no problem displaying the results the voter wants and then printing out the paper ballot (under the voter’s choice). (The problem is) that it is software that counts the digital votes and reports the results. The software itself is used to change the electronic information into the count that the software and the operator of the counting system want to produce. That’s how it works. Thus, the software itself can configure the vote and set the result, which means it will change the voter’s choice. The software will determine the result, independent of the voter’s vote. “
“All computer-controlled vote tabulation takes place in a closed environment so that neither the voter nor any supervisors are aware of what is happening unless there is a malfunction or other event that causes the supervisors to question the process. ” the witness said.
Smartmatic clarified in a statement Sunday (15) that it had nothing to do with Dominion Voting Systems, saying that in fact “the two companies are competitors in the marketplace.
In addition, retired Navy Admiral Peter Neffenger, a former chairman of Smartmatic’s board of directors, is now a member of the Biden Transition Authority Review Panel, assisting in the transition with the Department of Homeland Security.
Recent Comments