The files below document sworn testimony from a former Venezuelan election official with direct experience in managing Smartmatic election systems, as part of legal filings surrounding Tina Peters’ incarceration. This testimony draws direct lines between election rigging methods in Venezuela and technical vulnerabilities found in U.S. election systems (specifically Dominion) after the 2020 election, focusing on hearings regarding Peters and broader election-related lawsuits.
Key Findings
Election Vulnerabilities Mirrored: Forensic images from Mesa County, Colorado’s Dominion election systems contained vulnerabilities—encryption flaws, plain-text passwords, exposed source code—that the witness had previously seen and exploited in Venezuela’s Smartmatic system for rigging elections. Log files were deliberately sized too small to retain all data, leading to critical loss of audit evidence during long U.S. election periods.
Erasure of Election Records: Colorado’s Secretary of State’s May 2021 “trusted build” was found to have erased 2020 election data from servers, a direct violation of federal law (52 U.S.C. § 20701) requiring records to be kept for 22 months.
Technical Manipulability: The Dominion systems were found susceptible to manipulation in ways nearly identical to those exploited in Venezuela, including using “SAES data utility” tools capable of emulating voting machines and injecting false votes, with undetectable forensic traces.
Foreign Control and Manufacturer Risks: Both Smartmatic and Dominion voting machines used Chinese-manufactured components assembled in Taiwan. The firmware and modems could be remotely enabled for outside connections, opening the possibility of covert foreign access, even against software settings.
Personnel Continuity: Engineers who designed the Smartmatic system used to rig Venezuelan elections (notably Ronald Morales and David Moreno) now work for Dominion in the U.S., configuring and supporting systems used in American elections. Additional leadership and technical continuity is cited in Dallas County, Texas.
Suppression and Prosecution of Critics: The witness described how Venezuelan critics of Smartmatic were prosecuted, often with evidence supplied by the company. The U.S. filing draws a direct analogy to Tina Peters’ prosecution, stating the same pattern—whereby those speaking publicly about system vulnerabilities are criminalized—appears to be recurring. The judge in Peters’ case cited her statements as dangerous “lies,” though the newly filed testimony asserts that her core claims are verified by expert analysis.
Implications for U.S. Election Lawsuits and Tina Peters
Basis for Overturning Conviction: The testimony asserts that Tina Peters’ statements about election vulnerability were not “lies,” but factually supported by technical analysis and global expert comparison. This undermines the legal basis for her incarceration and bond denial.
Systemic Audit and Security Challenges: The hearings highlight that “audits” performed in the U.S. do not provide meaningful validation because vendors tightly control the process, source code is withheld as proprietary, and critical manipulation tools are excluded from review. This limits the capacity for meaningful judicial or public oversight in election challenges.
Evidence for Broader Election Lawsuits: The testimony provides detailed technical and process-based evidence that can be used in election-related lawsuits. Specifically, it demonstrates the plausibility of undetectable vote alteration, foreign component/firmware risk, and the inadequacy of current chain-of-custody practices—all key points in ongoing litigation and policy debates around the 2020 election and beyond.922651931-70-2-Exhibit-PM-Transcript-of-EUO-Confidential-Witness.pdf+2
Policy and Security Reform Justifications: The content may serve as grounds for calls for deeper public audits, replacement of foreign hardware, and reforms to both software transparency and whistleblower protections, both within and beyond the Peters case.
Tina Peters’ Incarceration Context
The filings state that Tina Peters’ nine-year sentence and denial of bond were based on her public claims about voting system insecurity—now supported by the new sworn testimony. According to the summary, there was no legal or factual basis for her ongoing incarceration, and the witness asserts her claims were true.
In summary:
The sworn testimony provides a strong technical and experiential basis for alleging that key U.S. election systems (Dominion) possess vulnerabilities and architectural similarities with systems already used to rig elections abroad. These facts have material implications for Tina Peters’ legal battle and any election-related lawsuits challenging the integrity and auditability of 2020 (and subsequent) election results in the U.S..
