Venezuelan Whistleblower Testimony
“The electoral systems of the United States can be manipulated by foreign agents or third parties.”
“Were the results of elections manipulated in Venezuela while you worked for the National Electoral Council? A. That is correct.”
“In the case of 2004, one million fake voters were inputted into the system, into the record of voters, and then the electoral system was used in order to designate who each citizen had voted for.”
“A tool was used. The tool was called S-A-E-S data utility … it can allow you to inject votes without people knowing you did so.”
“Can the S-A-E-S data utility tool be used to manipulate election results? A. That is correct.”
“If the Dominion systems have bugs in their libraries, then, in turn, you can use those bugs while having the correct credentials or passwords, and use the processes of the same system to then inject the votes that are needed….”
“U.S. elections are not secure because Dominion's software contains basic vulnerabilities left uncorrected for years, making manipulation possible by any engineer with system access.”
“Dominion systems, built with Chinese components in a voting system designed by former Smartmatic engineers, are not secure or auditable in U.S. elections.”
“Did you notice the settings on the size of the Windows log files in the Windows operating system? … I seem to remember that it was too small, the size was too small for what it needed to do.… Once the log gets full, it starts rewriting over it and deleting evidence.”
“So, while the system was operating during the 2020 election, it was actually writing over the data from the election? A. It rewrites the day-to-day of an election.… it becomes impossible to audit the full election because the records are being erased after they are written.”
“Dominion has an engineer… who does maintenance on the electoral systems. … the person that puts that man-in-the-middle in place … changes in the system to update it … through a VPN and do all the changes that I need.”
“Venezuela financed Smartmatic with $250,000 to build its election system in 2003, later paying $140 million annually to run the elections. In exchange, the government received 28% ownership and full rights to the source code, stored at the Venezuelan central bank in Caracas.”
“Cuban communist managers were directly involved in Venezuela’s elections, exercising oversight.”
“Ronald Morales, Smartmatic engineer now employed by Dominion, installs man-in-the-middle systems for remote access to county voting systems.… Heider Garcia, former Smartmatic engineer, now head of elections in Dallas County, Texas.”
“Their involvement was a hundred percent. The software was created by the Venezuelan government. Historically speaking, the government financed Smartmatic for it to create the software.”
“Election audits only reveal what the companies allow. Source code is withheld, and tools like SAES data utility are excluded from review, leaving true manipulation undetectable.”
Testimony Topics
Venezuelan Whistleblower Evidence
How Elections Are Stolen
Venezuelan elections were allegedly manipulated through several coordinated technical and procedural methods, according to detailed whistleblower testimony from a former high-ranking Venezuelan government official involved in electoral systems between 2003 and 2016. These methods, which centered on the Smartmatic voting software, included both software vulnerabilities and administrative controls designed to ensure undetectable manipulation of vote tallies and audit records.
This list is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of the methods used as new methods are constantly being developed. Whistleblowers have confirmed that these methods, however, have been used to manipulate the results in previous elections.
See Methods UsedHelp Secure Tina's Freedom!
Support Tina's appeal of her 9 year prison sentence. Donate in support of her legal defense efforts at TinaPeters.US
Top 10 Assertions By Pro-Machine Groups Debunked
The testimony provided by Venezuelan whistleblower debunks 7 out of 10 of the top assertions made by those who believe we can have secure elections with electronic voting systems. All ten assertions are debunked when including a broader set of evidence.
See Evidence