a visit to the swamp with Smartmatic

The New York Times states that "the role of the young Venezuelan engineers who founded Smartmatic has become less visible" and that its organization is "an elaborate web of offshore companies and foreign trusts",^[115] while BBC News states that though Smartmatic says the company was founded in the United States, "its roots are firmly anchored in (Venezuela)".^[3] Multiple sources simply state that Smartmatic is a Venezuelan company.^[119] Smartmatic maintains that the holding companies in multiple countries are used for "tax efficiency".^{[120]   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartmatic}

^{………………………………………………………………………..……}

  An American Congresswoman called into question the national security implications involved in the sale of an American election services company (Sequoia Pacific) to a Venezuelan software firm, SMARTMATIC.

Of course, it wasn’t really Venezuelan.  Not exactly, anyway….SMARTMATIC was actually owned by a trust in Amsterdam.  Not exactly, though…Because the trust in Amsterdam was itself owned…by a company in the Netherlands Antilles, but not exactly…Because the company in the Netherland Antilles was owned by a private foundation in Geneva, Switzerland.

In America’s hugely compromised election industry this is  business as usual.  Yet somehow this fact completely escapes scrutiny every four years in the mainstream media  https://www.madcowprod.com/2020/11/15/short-history-election-fraud/

……………………………………….

Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.“ https://cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election  "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,” the statement adds.  It is now revealed that Dominion Systems and Smartmatic are both members of the SCC.  http://itnshow.com/2020/11/17/revealed-dominion-and-smartmatic-are-members-of-the-council-that-helped-author-the-nov-3-election-was-the-most-secure-in-american-history-statement-from-cisa/

……………………………………………………………………………………….

  For online voting 2016, the Utah Republican Party used an internet voting system developed by the Smartmatic-Cybernetica Internet Voting Centre of Excellence, based in Estonia.  Smartmatic received thousands of calls from Utah voters surrounding issues with the process.  The Washington Post states that “the concern seems to be less with the technology and more with the security of the devices people use to vote”.

  According to Joe Kiniry, the lead researcher of Galois, a technology research firm:  Several of us did a lightweight analysis of it remotely, to see how it was built and deployed and this sort of thing … we found that they were using technologies that even modern Web programmers stay away from. … It’s like the dumbest possible choices are being made by some of these companies with respect to deployed technology that should be mission-critical!  https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/designed-for-power-to-keep-power/

………………………………………………………………………

  Most leading election security experts instead recommend hand-marked paper ballots as a primary voting system, with an exception for voters with disabilities…These scholars warn that even a robust manual audit, known as a Risk Limiting Audit, cannot detect whether a BMD-marked paper ballot has been hacked.  BMDs instead put the burden on voters themselves to detect whether such ballots include fraudulent or erroneous machine marks or omissions—even though studies already show that many voters won’t notice.

  For this reason, many analysts have cautioned against acquiring these new ballot-marking machines for universal use, but election officials in at least 250 jurisdictions across the country have ignored their advice….     Calling attention to this problem has been complicated over the past few years by vendors, election officials, and election-system lobbying groups such as Verified Voting, who have blurred the issue by referring to both hand-marked paper ballots and ballot-marking device printouts as “paper ballots,” “backup paper ballots,” “voter-marked paper ballots,” and “voter-verifiable paper ballots.” Unless voters are unusually well-informed, they have no reason to know that these catchphrases—repeated by Congress and the media, even I Am John Oliver—can refer to risky new voting machines.  https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/12/17/how-new-voting-machines-could-hack-our-democracy/

…………………………………….

11-17-20  from the affidavit of a high ranking military officer:    Designed in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected.  He wanted the software itself to function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumbprint or fingerprint on a scanner, then the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote.

He made it clear that the system would have to be set up but not leave any evidence of the changed vote for the specific voter, and that there would be no evidence to show, and nothing to contradict that the name and the fingerprint or thumbprint was going with a changed vote. SmartMatic agreed to create such a system and produced the software and the hardware that accomplished the result for President [Hugo] Chavez.

After the SmartMatic electoral system was put into place, he closely observed several elections where the results were manipulated using the SmartMatic software.  Once such election was in 2006, when Chavez was running against Rosales.  Chavez won with a landslide over Rosales, a margin of nearly 6 million votes for Chavez, vs. 3.7 million for Rosales.

In 2013 he witnessed another Venezuelan national election where the SmartMatic system was used to manipulate and change the results.  In a control room where multiple digital display screens were shown for results and voting, the actual voting results were fed into that room and onto the displays over an Internet feed, which was connected to a sophisticated computer system created by SmartMatic.

People in that room were able to see in real time whether the votes that came through the electronic voting system was in their favor or against them.  If one looked at any particular screen, they could determine that the vote from any specific area or as a national total was going to be against either candidate.  Persons controlling the vote tabulating computer had the ability to change the reporting of votes by moving votes from one candidate to another by using the SmartMatic software.  https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DH3i239yL0QJ:https://greatgameindia.com/witness-smartmatic-elections/+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

……………….....................