#331 The Numbers Don’t Lie w/ Draza Smith

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:30):
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the state of freedom.
My name is Danielle Walker.
It's Thursday, September 9th at 10 a.m.
Central.
I'm joined by my good friend and co-host, Chris Alexander.
You might see that I'm out of my normal place.
I'm house sitting right now.
No, it's Tuesday.
You're right.

(01:50):
Did I say Thursday?
I jumped ahead.
uh
All right, we'll get it figured out.
It's Tuesday.
We're coming to you live on Voice of the People USA TV and Radio Network on Rumble, X,YouTube and Facebook.

(02:12):
Wherever you're watching, please give us a like, a thumbs up and a share.
helps us with the algorithms.
It helps us gain visibility.
Comment in the chat.
We love hearing your thoughts.
We wanna know where you're coming from.
We wanna know where you're listening from today.
Joining us today is Draza Smith.
She is a computer engineer and an electrical engineer who's done extensive statisticalanalysis of the 2020 election and many elections since then, finding evidence of

(02:41):
algorithmic election fraud.
And we know she's well over the target because of all the nasty articles written about herand her election denialism.
Draza, welcome to the show.
It's such an honor to have you with us here today.
Hello, thank you so much for having me.
You are most welcome.
Well, look, we love to frame out the show with a scripture.

(03:03):
And let me see.
I actually have my Bible here.
Y'all, I'm so out of sorts being out of place this morning.
So just bear with me.
I'll get it together.
But the scripture today is from Hebrews.
It's chapter one and it's verses eight through nine.
And it says about his son, he called him God saying your throne, O God, endures foreverand ever and you will rule your kingdom.

(03:29):
with justice and righteousness for you have cherished righteousness and detestedlawlessness.
For this reason, God, your God has anointed you and poured out the oil of bliss on youmore than any of your friends.
And for a lot of things on the national level, the state level, and even on our personallives level, it seems like justice can be slow in coming, but.

(03:54):
Our God is a God of justice and the foundations of His throne are righteousness andjustice.
And the scriptures tells us that He hates injustice and He detests a false witness.
The Psalms tell us that He will judge the upstart and the wicked judges and they will haveno higher authority to appeal to when the day comes.

(04:14):
So I believe we're on the cusp of seeing justice in the earth.
I don't think that all justice is reserved for the sweet by and by for the afterlife.
I believe that we will see plenty of it here on earth with our physical eyes.
Be encouraged because nothing is escaping the attention of the Lord who is truth and whois justice.

(04:36):
Our job is to keep praying it in, to keep doing the work the Lord has put on our hands,and to keep declaring the truth in the meantime.
That's so beautiful, Danielle, and I love the expression.
love the phrase, the oil of bliss.
imagine, I mean, think about it.
You know, we always tend to associate our peace, our joy, our happiness with results.

(04:59):
Americans tend to be very results oriented, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
But we're supposed to be able to enjoy the oil of bliss even during the process of work,even while we are moving toward
our victory, which we know we will have if we continue to work.
But to be blissful in the process and to try to be content in the moment is the realchallenge of the day and not let any external circumstance dictate how we are uh in

(05:28):
relation to God.
Because that is an intrinsic relationship based on our intrinsic value to Him, not on anyparticular results.
We want the results.
Don't get me wrong.
ah But we have to remember that we need the oil of bliss even as we wait and
Yeah, I love that Chris.
Yeah.
And speaking of someone who has worked and seems to be perpetually blissful, at least asfar as my observation, and just a delightful human being is Draza Smith, truly one of the

(05:59):
gurus when it comes to uh election security as it relates to these electronic uh votingsystems.
Draza, it is such a pleasure to have you with us on the State of Freedom today.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you so much for having me.
Really, really.
ah I've looked over the People Glad on You Show discussing election integrity and all ofthe work.

(06:23):
And you just have such amazing people that you've talked to that are providing peopleinformation on what's going on and the right path to the future.
And I'm honored to be among the guests that are speaking on the topic.
It's great to add you to the list of renowned and prominent guests that we've had on thestate of freedom.
know, Droszka, one of the things that one of the tired hacknide refrains that we get frompeople who believe in the established election system in the United States is that anybody

(06:55):
who opposes that system is somehow an uninformed uh conspiracy theorist, unqualified towade into this esoteric
subject matter.
ah Certainly that does not describe you.
You're eminently qualified and you've been studying these issues for a long time.
But for the benefit of our listeners and perhaps other naysayers, what are some of your,what is your background that you think qualifies you to be able to study this with

(07:24):
authority?
Okay, so I have two master's degrees, one's in electrical engineering and one's incomputer engineering.
The computer engineering master's I received during my PhD studies because I went back tocollege for my PhD and the area that I focus on, which is industrial control systems, had

(07:48):
moved out of electrical engineering and computer engineering.
So uh
Since my PhD was in computer engineering, I received a second master's degree.
And then I made it all the way through my PhD studies.
And I still have my dissertation to do, maybe one day, maybe not.
We'll see.
Almost, almost.

(08:10):
Yeah.
you've done all the work, you just don't have the prize.
I just don't have the price.
Yes, it was a combination of several things.
My advisor came down with cancer when I was ready to start my dissertation and some otherthings happened financially.
So it was just better to leave and go to industry and start getting a paycheck for awhile.

(08:31):
And maybe I'll go back and finish it up.
uh but uh so I've done an awful lot of awful lot of schooling in the area of controlsystems.
ah I've worked in industry in the power sector for many years and I have about sevenpatents now in control strategies for uh mostly gas turbines that uh are for controlling

(08:57):
emissions, controlling performance.
ah And those are the ones that I'm the
real quick.
I have to tell you real quick.
That blows me away.
Seven patents.
Getting one patent approved by the Federal Patent Office is a gargantuan feat.
And you have seven recognized patents.

(09:18):
And another one that's on the Gandalfi run that's in cybersecurity that is patented in theUnited States, uh Japan and the European Union.
That's kind of cool to have it in multiple locations as well.
Also a licensed professional engineer in the area of control systems.
And my specialty is in dynamic operations.

(09:42):
So if you have a machine that's running and something happens where you're having
thermal things happening and you've got lots of rates of change, then what do you do tobring the systems back into control?
That's where I really get excited to watch that, you know, as you're spinning all theplates on the stick, so to speak, you know, that everything's going on at once, how do you

(10:04):
keep everything in control so that the system as a whole plays together?
So that's my background.
And I can show you why I noticed
some of the things in the data from the elections that are reminiscent of my work incontrol systems rather than you would see in random behavior of, you know, what you would

(10:30):
see people voting over time in the elections.
Awesome.
And that kind of gets into what we wanted to talk about because we wanted to know, youknow, we know that you have seen evidence of uh manipulation from the numbers, but we
wanted to get uh an understanding of how you can tell.

(10:52):
So is that in your, is that a part of your PowerPoint here?
I did, I provided the PowerPoint with some things, but I wanted to talk, let me just takea second ah to talk about some of the things that I don't think people realize that what
they're seeing right in front of them is evidence of manipulation.
So ah we see the evidence of the white truck showing up with the ballots.

(11:17):
We see suitcases.
We've seen the reports from Georgia of people scanning mail-in ballots that were inpristine condition.
and Foldage Flat.
Now, uh if you were to be a bad guy and you wanted to control an election and you had theability to have uh fake people on your voter rolls, whether they were, uh you know,

(11:43):
clones, we've seen a lot of that where you would be on the voter roll and then all of asudden another
voter ID with your same name and a slightly different address or something or a slightlydifferent name would show up as a duplicate.
One of the reasons that we get the reports of people getting say six or seven copies ofmail in ballots in the mail, maybe they're going to different voter IDs that are all under

(12:10):
the same names in the clones.
That's a benefit because then if you move away or you die, your proper
uh name is pulled off of the voter rolls, but all of your clones stay to do whateverthey're going to do.
So we see all of these things in the voter rolls.
We see all of these extra mail-in ballots.
If you have that structure in place, just by having that in place, you are seeing evidenceof the ability to manipulate.

(12:39):
The reason is, is that if I was a bad guy and I had access to that, all I would have to dois fill out tons of ballots
that are 50-50.
So we're voting for both sides.
But what that does is, let's say uh you and 10 of your best friends are gonna vote on whatyou wanna have for lunch.

(13:03):
And somebody wants to order subs and somebody wants to order pizza and you take a vote.
And you have eight people vote for the pizza.
And then you have three people vote for the subs.
Well, the pizza is an overwhelming popular
Decision right and that shows the opinion of the people in the group now if you have abunch of ballots show up let's say you have 20 ballots show up with your friends voting by

(13:28):
mail and They are 50-50 now when you divide that up now, you've got 8 plus 10 and 310 andThat takes and changes your total score
to 18 to 13, you're no longer eight to three, you're 18 to 13.
That methodology is what we see time and time again that moves us to that 51, 49.

(13:55):
That's why all these votes that are end up being so close and then the last person winsjust at the last minute.
That's even before we get into any machine manipulation.
when we look at all of these things that we see,
when you put it together as a system of how they would all function together, it becomesmore and more apparent of how these can produce the results that we're actually seeing,

(14:25):
which is what you do in engineering if you're doing oh what we call root cause analysis.
Let's say you have something happen and it wasn't expected.
You go back through the steps and find out what happened that allowed that final result to
be the case, right?
And we so many times we see people saying, well, it wasn't enough to switch the election.

(14:52):
Well, depending upon how you apply it and where it's going on, possibly it is.
Wow.
Draza, I think most conservatives have a problem with the ballot harvesting and all themail-in ballots.
uh But I find the biggest divide among Republicans is the algorithmic manipulations insideof the computer systems.

(15:22):
So apart from the mail-in ballots, um are you confident that that
not only that computers are vulnerable to that type of manipulation where votes can beswitched back, malware can be implanted, but that has actually occurred and how.

(15:44):
The results that we've seen, I don't believe lead you to any other, if you actually studythe data, if you look at things from an auditing perspective, then I don't know how you
would be able to come to any other conclusion.
The problem is that our elections are uh isolated because you have one election everyyear.

(16:11):
You're looking at special elections every four years if we're looking at the presidentialelection.
And then people may compare county to county, but rarely do they compare state to state.
Those of us that have been doing large scale analysis on the overall structures, when yousee the same machines being used in different states with different profiles of their

(16:39):
overall
oh political alignment, what happens is you see that the process, the path that they walkfrom start to finish takes on very standard shapes.
And it's kind of like if you have a sunflower seed and you plant this flower seed and youplant a sunflower seed right next to it, they're not the same plant, but you can tell how

(17:06):
far along they are in the germination process.
by when you see the roots start coming out of the seed case, or when you see the firstleaf coming off.
And the first leaf looks very different than if it was a seed from another plant.
But we're seeing those.
And if you have one that you're watering a lot and giving it sunlight, it may grow bigger,but you'll see the same shape.

(17:27):
You'll see the same number of first leaves come out and everything else.
So what we're seeing is we're seeing kind of that.
You may see this plant over here growing bigger, which indicates that it is uh
that it's a know you know alien beef preference right and you see this one is being alittle smaller which means it's a preference but the fact is is that the process that it

(17:51):
goes through to reach the adult state follows a set path that we watch happen over timeand that's what we see in the data of the elections from start to finish.
I don't know that makes a whole lot of sense but I can show you with some some of thecharts in the slides that I have.
uh Just to clarify, just for a minute, you're saying that uh obviously, you know,different states have different political views.

(18:19):
uh Vermont is not going to have the same political uh ideology as a whole, the people asLouisiana or Georgia is.
And are you saying that when you compare the machine, the computer state by state, are yousuggesting that the people who are manipulating the algorithms are
are careful not to make it look obvious that things are being manipulated in the moreconservative states.

(18:48):
I'm trying to figure out where we're going here.
So ah I've done, I worked at Sandia National Labs in bridge security and I've worked insecurity for your power plant systems.
ah I wouldn't consider that my biggest forte as compared to control, but I'm probablybetter than the average bear.

(19:13):
And what I'm saying is that when I look at this, if I can identify the fact that the path
that the votes take over time, how the ratio of who's winning, you know, follows as we gofrom zero to 100 percent.

(19:34):
And that ends up looking like Vermont, except that one's more Republican and one's moreDemocrat.
But they're walking the same paths.
That shows some sort of external control that we're going through a process.
Now, when you say that
We don't want it to look like we're controlling the conservative states.
If I can control one, why would I not control all of them?

(19:58):
Honestly, if you're a bad guy and you have the ability to control, why would you leaveanybody up to a random outcome that could affect your overall control?
You still do, they just wear different badges, right?
I mean, they're still wearing, they're wearing the R badge with the red sticker around it,but they're a big, big uniparty member, regardless of whether, you know, they are in

(20:24):
Vermont, you know, or if they're in Louisiana.
I think that's exactly why the primary system, I think the primary system has beenhijacked by this exact thing, as well as the general elections.
And we're seeing that
good candidates, perhaps like honest candidates, can't make it through the process.
And that's why we continue or they're far less likely, in my opinion, to make it throughthe process for this reason.

(20:51):
have the ability to control a single state through manipulation, external hacking due toweak security practice in our systems or any other aspect, why would I not control all of
them in a single election to come up to a proper result?
If I have the ability to control them in one election, regardless of whether it's general,primary, et cetera, why would I have the ability to control them in all?

(21:18):
And Draza, uh this randomly came to mind when you were talking about um the sunflowerseeds growing.
Do you happen to know what state instituted the machines first?
Was it Florida because of the Hanging Chad um incident, whatever you want to call that, umOp?

(21:38):
Or was it somewhere else?
It'd be a good thing for us to look at.
they came in.
I do know that they came in very rapidly all at the same time as the result of that.
And Colonel Reynolds has been sharing a video at Dan Rabbit, which is very, veryinteresting from people that worked at the system that made the paper that were used in

(22:07):
the punch cards.
and how they think that that might have been a setup to intentionally cause that system tofail, which would have been, which was, which would be much, much more difficult to
manipulate than the current system that we have in place.
Yeah.
Draza, I just want to make sure that I'm clear and understand what we're talking abouthere.

(22:31):
So let's just say you're watching uh election results from multiple states, electronicresults that are coming in throughout the evening.
You have your graph diagram, whatever it is that you look at that shows the votes comingin, increase, decrease, whatever.
You're saying that you're able to look at
the electronic results as they're coming in and be able to tell by the trajectory of thevotes, the ebb and flow that things are being controlled or manipulated and not random.

(23:07):
Well, what I mean, what I can tell.
So one of the things that I started doing is I started looking at the election results aszero to 100 % of the votes.
And just let's throw away how many votes there actually are and just say we're from zeroto 100%, whether you're counting 5,000 people in a county or 500,000 people.

(23:32):
Um, and what I have seen, did, I did a study on Maryland's 2024 election and it's very,very obvious that, uh, once you hit around 75 to 80 % of the vote, you start seeing the
very same shape where it goes from a Trump favoritism dropping in almost the same shape ofparabola down towards, uh, a Harris preference in the 2024 election.

(24:00):
So why would every single county, regardless of whether they're 20, 25,000 people, 50,000people, why would they all when they got to 80 % of the vote, how would people in that
county know that they were at 80 % of the vote to start voting highly Harris in order toshift that total ratio?

(24:23):
Yeah.
That's so interesting.
I, I watched recently, um, an interview you did a couple months back with Joe Hoff andyou, y'all were talking about, I mean, I, your conversation was an excellent one because I
know he has an audit mind and you are coming from this as a, um, as a systems person aswell.

(24:44):
And so y'all are kind of the experts in this, but you did talk about how there was, uh,you could detect the difference between human behavior.
and a program.
Would you talk about that a little bit?
It's not always 100%.
And that's very, um very difficult.

(25:09):
But when you see people coming in and expressing their opinions, ah then we don't reallycare how many people voted before us.
We don't really care how many people there are in line behind us.
That should not affect how we cast our vote.

(25:32):
ah But at this stage in looking at the cast vote records, which I have a slide to discusswhat that is.
But when we look at the cast vote records, which is an audit of how the votes come in overtime to aggregate to the total vote count, most people focus on those final numbers, just

(25:54):
the final numbers and look at the final numbers and the ratio.
Republicans it turned out and Democrats it turned out.
But when you look at how they aggregate over time, Ed Solomon has shown some really,really interesting data that when you look, say, at only people, he's done a lot of work

(26:14):
where he will take and split the votes by presumed vote intention, especially in apresidential election where he'll take the votes and split them into two stacks.
the people that voted for Trump and the people that voted for Harris or Biden, dependingupon the election that he was looking at.
And then he will analyze the down ballot races of only those votes.

(26:38):
So we're not mixing people that have oh differing opinions on the presidential race.
So these people should be more closely aligned in their views.
And yet he will still see shifts where the preference for topics that should
be partisan, uh abortion issues and property taxes and things like that.

(27:04):
It will depend on where you are in the percent count of the race as to how many people arevoting for and against that, even when you're only looking at presumed partisan groups.
So that should not be how humans are voting unless it's being controlled.
what you're saying is that it's so interesting to me that you're saying that, you know, 20% of the voters who go vote are going to wait until 80 % of the people have voted to go

(27:36):
vote.
And then the last 20 % are going to be all basically liberals that go vote.
Throughout in Maryland, you're saying in every county.
That's like me saying, I mean, I'm from Shreveport, from North Louisiana.
uh which is much more conservative than say New Orleans.
And you're saying if you were looking at Caddo Parish and also Orleans Parish, let's sayin Louisiana, just applying the Maryland situation, and after 80 % of the votes have come

(28:06):
in, you see this, for Trump, you see this substantial shift in both parishes towardHarris.
ah
how you see the effect that we're all so tired of seeing where it looks like the personwho the people think should win suddenly in this surprise horse race falls behind and the

(28:32):
other one wins by a nose.
Sorry, better luck next time.
Just vote harder.
Really?
harder.
It seems so unnatural and not organic in the way people behave.
Unless, like I said, everybody gets together, all the voters get together hypotheticallyon election day and say, okay, look, all the conservatives are gonna go vote between six

(28:54):
o'clock in the morning and 430 in the afternoon.
And once you people go vote, and then we, the liberals, are gonna go and we're gonna govote.
And we'll pull it out for the liberals.
show up, 10 to 30 buses just show up and dump people.
And that's not how people behave.
the thing is, the thing that you need to consider as well, I treat the cast vote record,which you can, it makes sense to do this, as a time series.

(29:23):
So that the first vote counted may not have a timestamp, but whatever timestamp ithappened would be before the timestamp of the second vote that came in, right?
So we don't have what's called a deterministic timestamp that we can say what
blocks like you mentioned that this was happening.

(29:44):
And so therefore when we're counting a bunch of mail-in ballots, when we're countingpeople voting early, voting in person, that's where it didn't matter whether they were the
last mail-in votes that were counted or the last people that came in and voted, it wasstill the last 20%.
So that
that adds to the concern for someone evaluating whether this was a unmanipulated result.

(30:11):
Yeah.
You know, Dras, I know you're not a lawyer.
You're a technical computer person.
ah But let me ask you this.
One of the things people say is, well, all these lawsuits from 2020, these lawsuits weredismissed.
you know, so there couldn't have been any election fraud.
Our position has always been that, you know, the cases were dismissed before the evidencewas really allowed to be heard.

(30:37):
uh in those cases regarding electronic manipulation.
What do you say about that?
And do you think that uh if given a real opportunity in court to present the evidence offraud uh in an objective way with an objective judge, you think you could be successful
there?
I could answer that by telling you the reason Tina Peters is in jail is because she wasnot allowed to present a different.

(31:07):
The cases that came up with election fraud, uh they've frequently been thrown out onstanding.
And I think it's a very poor interpretation of a law that came about uh during the falloutof the Vietnam War, where people tried to sue Congress for spending taxpayers' money to go

(31:29):
to a war that they didn't want.
And the decision, I'm going to
I might say this wrong, so if I'm wrong and people in the legal community can correct me,forgive me, but I believe my understanding is the decision came down that if everybody was
hurt equally, then nobody has standing to sue because everybody was hurting.

(31:52):
And that's the justification that has been used to throw out the individuals not havingstanding to sue when everybody is damaged the same.
elections fraud actually exists.
Yeah.
In other words, you don't have an individualized, uh particularized, whatever languagethey use, claim, damage claim that is unique to you.

(32:18):
Everyone was equally damaged.
Therefore, there really isn't any relief for anybody other than political relief at theballot box when the whole thing we're challenging is the irregularity in the very process
that we choose our elected officials.
But I never quite could understand that.
Yeah.
Yeah, horrible circular argument in that.

(32:40):
Draza, when you first um came on, it may have been before we got on air, you werementioning that you've spent some time in Louisiana.
testified, I believe, before our legislature when then Secretary of State Kyle Ardwin waslooking at purchasing some new machines.
Louisiana has been dogged in its pursuit of new machines from the Secretary of State'soffice, despite, I would say, very strong opposition from the people.

(33:09):
Uh, one of the main things that we, um, Chris's group, LaCag and, and many others acrossthe state have, um, complained about is look, president Trump is over here saying that he
wants paper ballots.
Um, DNI Gabbard is over here saying that our elections are manipulated or at leastmanipulatable and they're not secure and we should go to paper ballots.

(33:34):
And so our secretary of state has selective hearing as it turns out.
And she believes that a paper component is the same thing as a paper ballot, which in myview, it's pretty obvious those cannot be the same thing.
But what would you say to our secretary of state, if you were testifying right now aboutthe machines and the fact that it's okay, because what we're doing is in her view, moving

(34:01):
from a non-auditable uh system with no paper trail.
to an auditable system because it spits out a receipt.
You're not you're not moving to an audible system.
The problem with that is that any claim that the systems are audible is unfounded when itcomes to the actual processes in place by dates that are using these systems.

(34:30):
Just look at Georgia.
Georgia has has a lawsuit in place where they've been requesting their paper ballots tocompare against.
ah the actual results and years are going by and they're not allowed to look at them.
When you go into your own county, you're asked to do any sort of audits, they tell you,can audit against the ballot images, which are again computerized files, which could also

(34:56):
be manipulated easily, be manipulated to match the final results.
So it's more of a magic trick where the magician allows you to inspect the hat after hepulled the rabbit out of it.
But you you missed the part of where the rabbit was hidden inside of it to produce it inthe first place and it wasn't real magic.
The issues uh with those claims are the risk limiting audits, the lack of the ability forpeople to have access to the paper in the future, the...

(35:28):
excited nature that people seem to have that when their time limit expires that they'reallowed to destroy those papers without anybody being able to look at it.
The fact that we had a Maricopa County audit and when the auditors received the box, manyof the boxes had the security tags removed and were already opened when they arrived.

(35:51):
So the chain of custody had been broken on those paper ballots.
time and time again, you see these cases.
In any other case, if you were auditing something for a bank, if you were auditingsomething for any other industry and the start of the audit had started off like that with
all of your information, lost chain of custody, the audit would have failed right there.

(36:15):
There would have been no continued counting.
There would not have been the ability to say, it matches everything that's here becauseyou don't have any faith that what was there was the actual.
initial initial state after the election.
Yeah.
In this paper component that our Secretary of State is talking about, assuming there wasno issue with the custody, assuming the paper receipt or component could be kept intact,

(36:46):
do the paper components themselves accurately reflect the vote that the voter made, orcould the paper components themselves
be spitting out something that is not consistent with what is occurring inside of thecomputer.
Because the reason why I'm asking, Draza, is that 90 % of voters, the vast majority ofvoters, even though, as you said, they can't leave the precinct with their ballot, they

(37:14):
have to leave it there.
But most people don't even look at their ballot when it comes out.
A very small percentage.
uh And so my question is, if there was a situation where you had to go back and do somekind of an audit there,
and assuming that all the paper components were in order in place, is there hundredpercent guarantee that those are accurate?

(37:38):
You can't have a 100 % guarantee when you have the ability to do a thought experiment andsee where vulnerabilities exist.
Where I do a lot of work with protecting systems in the electrical field.
And part of what I do when I evaluate the security of them is I first have to, as someoneI dearly love said, flip my evil bit.

(38:05):
And for just a moment, I'm not a defender, I'm an attacker.
And I have to get what are all the ways that the system could be manipulated.
And that's how I develop my framework of where I need to build my defenses.
So when we're looking at these systems, if I was a bad guy, ah I've seen some of thesecompanies saying that, well, we're building tabulators now that mark the ballots with a

(38:33):
mark.
as it goes through the scanner so that it says like already been read so that you can'tdouble scan it.
Once you have the ability for the tabulators to be printing at the same time that they'rescanning, what's to stop them from printing in bubbles, turning good votes into over votes

(38:57):
that are now thrown out so that you fill in the bubbles for both hands.
filling in bubbles where people didn't vote and down ballot elections to be able tomanipulate them.
ah Whether or not the company themselves would be doing it, it would be open for someoneto easily manipulate it in that manner.

(39:18):
I can easily think of that type of situation where I could affect in a very secretive uh
invisible to the person during the election process and then auditable to show the resultsbecause now when I count the ballots, the number of that have over votes matches.

(39:41):
But that was not the intent of the voter.
If I can come up with that as a very quick thought experiment, I don't know how you couldsay that if we had really smart people sitting for a long time that they wouldn't come up
with a whole lot more that would then show you that the systems, you put that
that paper into a system that allows for uh computational manipulation that you as thevoter lose control.

(40:07):
Yeah.
Draza, could you tell us or show us what you found in Louisiana?
Because I am very curious to know what it is you've uncovered through your research.
Sure, I sent you some slides.
Could you show them?
I'm not as good as doing the presentation.
Let's see.
ah

(40:33):
Well, it's.
graphs because graphs speak to me.
I have discovered doing this that not a lot of people have the same love of graphs.
So I'm going to walk through some stuff here at the beginning to get you to understandthat based on my work and what I do, why I have seen the things that I have seen and the

(40:54):
claims that I have made and the results of what we're seeing.
So if you could go to the first slide there.
So when I work in industrial control, we have controllers in all kinds of equipment.
If you have a fridge, uh let's say that this was a refrigerator and that value on theleft-hand side that says SV, that's my set point value.

(41:18):
And that's how cold I want my fridge to be.
That I can put in the controller that isn't very precise, that'll get close to it like inthe first slide and then stop adjusting.
uh I can put in a more precise controller that gets closer to that set point, but still isa little cold.
Or I can put in a controller that goes and overshoots a little bit and oscillates mytemperature turning on and off my compressor so that we go around that set point and

(41:50):
everything on average stays close to what the temperature I want my refrigerator to be at.
And when you work, when we design the control systems, we design the software to be ableto produce these results, whether it's controlling your refrigerator or controlling the

(42:11):
speed in cruise control in your car or anywhere where you put a step point in, we designthese kind of systems.
This one is just a proportional controller.
where it looks at how far you are away from your set point and then makes a proportionaladjustment to the system to get you back to where that set point should be.

(42:36):
If go to the next slide, there's a more advanced control where you have an integralcontroller that takes into account how far you are away from that set point and kicks the
system harder when you have a further way to go.
and slows it down as you approach the set point and therefore provides you a fasterresponse to get to that set point.

(43:01):
You don't have to wait for the system to slide in.
And when we have a proportional controller that uh you see in that B side, you can seewhere that proportional kicks in and tries to push us closer to that set point.
So our fridge is going to get colder faster, right?
So these are the kind of shapes that when I look at the system analysis over time, I cansee how my systems are responding from the math that is in the actual control system of

(43:34):
what I'm trying to achieve as a result of the machine that I'm programming to a setoutput.
Okay.
So the data that I've been able to get with the elections for the most part, if you go tothe next slide,
Um in 2020 we were able to get one um one cast vote record the cast vote record.

(43:58):
Oh this it doesn't It may be very clear.
Um, but the cast vote record is just a table Uh, like a sample of here is shown Where wehave the cvr number the ballot in order is cast right?
Uh, the second column is the tabulate that that ballot went through and then

(44:19):
uh which precinct it was from.
You can see there's no identifying data in any of these columns that show who the actualvoter was when the vote was cast.
You just have what we call metadata that describes the ballot to be able to see how theelection stacked up over time.

(44:39):
The last two columns show the vote for the president.
The first one, first column is Biden.
And if that bubble was filled in, it got a one.
the second column is Trump and if that one was filled in, it received a one.
And then you can see anyone that has a one in one column should have a zero in the otherone or that would be considered an overvote.

(44:59):
Any of them like the fifth one, two, three, fourth line down that has a zero in vote meansthat it went somebody voted for a third party candidate that I didn't include in this
slide.
So this is the idea of the data that I've been working with.
And if you go to the next slide,
This is my best example of the way that I look at the data over time.

(45:21):
So if you had a marble that let's say the Biden votes were going on one side of the scaleand the Trump votes were going on the other side of scale, then that middle pin that's
going over that gauge in the center would move back and forth over time as you put themarbles in each side of the pan.

(45:43):
Right?
So what I do is I do a
plot that is basically for every single vote that as it's cast, how does that needle tipmove as we add the next vote?
And that's called the cumulative ratio.
So just understand that when we're looking at a cumulative ratio for something like this,Ouachita Parish, is that right?

(46:09):
Ouachita Ouachita.
Only had about 23,000 voters.
But still, when you think about it, let's oh say we're at 50 % of the vote and we've got11,000 marbles roughly in these pans.

(46:29):
Anytime you add another marble, the weight of the marbles that are already in the pan isgonna be so overwhelming that those individual marbles shouldn't be able to move that
cumulative ratio that much over time.
That's what is normally described as the law of large numbers and why we would see thatthe opinion should settle in over time for a standard population.

(46:55):
uh But that's not what we normally see.
So if you go to...
words, the more marbles you have in either in one side, the less effect adding one marbleis going to have to the aggregate.
to other side.
Exactly, exactly right.
So, but the problem is, is that we see it just go crazy all throughout the whole election.

(47:17):
It's fine.
If you go to the next slide.
So this is the result of the actual election.
uh And this is how that needle moved as we went through zero to a hundred percent of thevote.
Now ah you can see

(47:37):
the very first votes are very, very heavy towards Biden.
And it almost, it goes down to a Biden win because a hundred percent would be 50-50.
ah And so 70 % means that there's seven Biden votes for every 10 and that first five vote,which seems kind of odd.

(47:58):
ah But then...
once and this is only the early voting by the way, the only CBR that we received did notinclude any in person, but I know that most of Louisiana votes are any, we're looking at
the majority of the votes when we're looking at early votes in Louisiana anyway.
But then you see after we get past 5 % of the vote, we see a very rapid increase that hasthat shape that was very reminiscent of that curve when we saw that

(48:30):
uh, that, that integral controller that had that bump and curve that goes up to a setpoint.
Then we see another section that once we get close to 250, which means that it's 25 Trumpvotes to every 10 Biden vote.
we see a rapid decrease back down that now that we've gotten to 20%, we have to reineverybody back in.

(48:58):
Um, and then.
Once we get to 35%, we go back up.
And then once we get to 45%, we come back down.
Now, what I want to point out here is I put that red line in there that has nothing to dowith the election.
But from my perspective, this is how system would respond if we have a controller that iscontrolling around a set point, trying to

(49:28):
make sure that we get our final value to hit that 150 or 15 to 1, 3 to 2 ratio as theresult of the final county.
If you go back to that second slide.
the one before that.

(49:49):
The one on the right that shows that oscillating controller, that's very, very similar.
And these are the kinds of shapes that as a controller I saw in the actual results, whichdoesn't make a lot of sense when we start seeing that this is the way that the people
should be voting.
That depending upon whether you're a member of that, you know, 20 to 35%, you're going tobe voting very heavy Biden versus if you're voting from five to 20 % that

(50:19):
Yeah, yeah.
voting for Trump.
Okay, so if you go back to...
yeah, I just find this interesting because it's not, it doesn't reflect uh any kind of areal pattern.
uh At some point, a pattern has to develop that you can sort of observe and that ispredictable.

(50:41):
This is almost like it's deliberate manipulation.
So we're going to give Biden a bunch of votes.
Okay, we're pretty safe for now.
So we'll come back down and let Trump come back a little bit and then we'll go back upsome more.
There's nothing natural about what we're looking at here.

(51:02):
That has been my point that if we go in and we look at the behavior of the people in eachsection of these, what is different about the people?
And if you look at the Calot record, they have the oh precincts within the parish allmixed in together.
So it's not like this is the result of a single parish, a single precinct within theparish that would have a particular political differentiation from a different precinct.

(51:30):
Great point.
all mixed in together.
And yet the people that are all mixed in together from all the precincts that chose to bepart of that 20 to 35 % of the vote percent of the vote again, not, the actual numbers of
the vote that they experienced this rapid parabolic decline to we see as that final setpoint value.

(51:54):
It's very indicative that once we hit that set point value, then we release.
so to speak, that kind of control and it's allowed to float back up and then is pushedback down.
ah That's what I would see in uh a controller that's trying to uh control your car to acertain speed as you're going down a hill.

(52:15):
We're gonna be braking and then we release it and the gravity will pull it back up andit'll brake again while you try to maintain that step point speed in the car.
draws an interesting point here to maybe note for you and you may know this, but for earlyvoting, Louisiana has these tablets now where you press, you know, it's like basically, um

(52:38):
it almost looks like a video game, you know, it's very simplistic.
our old system is what's used on election day pretty much only.
And this is one of those die-bold systems, right, where it's really difficult to, um yousee the paper, you see a paper ballot uh that outlines for you its input for every

(53:02):
election.
A different one is kind of slid in there and they program it to have the vote correspondwith the name on the paper.
And I would imagine that perhaps a big push for early voting is what's led to this.
And I would
be very interested to see how the different machines have different outcomes because ofthe mechanisms for manipulation that are different between the two.

(53:29):
Would you think they're probably different?
Are you saying that you can control people's behavior into two different options based onwhich option is less painful?
I think that that's so.
You
Hey, Draza, how would, I mean, this is maybe a speculative question, I'm not sure, but howwould this graph that we're looking at right here, these 23,000 Ouachita early voters, uh

(53:59):
how would this look different if it was not being manipulated?
So what you would kind of expect is that you would expect to see some, if you go back tothinking about those marbles in that pan scale, if you put the first marble in, the

(54:20):
needle's gonna go all the way over here, right?
And then put another marble on the other side, it'll go back to the middle.
So you can swing 50 % with each marble that you're putting in.
But over time,
as you take and add those marbles in, that impact of every single one of those marbleswould be less and less over time.

(54:41):
So once you're at 70%, actually what's really interesting is that last like 8 % here,you've got all of these marbles that are in the pan to like 20,000 marbles in the pan and
they're split out to be like 16 to 10.

(55:02):
ah And all of a sudden the very last votes come in are so preferential on side that theycan actually move the cumulative ratio so that that needle on the scale keeps going in the
Biden direction.
That's kind of interesting that once you have that, that, that mass, that momentum ofmass, that the tiny little marbles of the votes on the very end can actually result in an

(55:28):
actual physical movement of the overall ratio.
those last people actually had enough uh cohesiveness in their vote opinions to move theopinions of everyone else in the county.
And that's not something that I would really expect to see and yet we see that time andtime again.
Yeah.

(55:48):
Have you, did you say Ouachita County or Parrish in Louisiana, that was the only placefrom which you were able to secure cast vote records?
Yes, yes, someone, oh someone, someone wonderful in Louisiana actually paid the money thatthey were asking uh and we were able to get a copy that they generously shared with people

(56:12):
that wanted to do analysis on it.
And then, uh then the state decided that cast vote records should not be provided anylonger.
And I really don't understand why certain states have said that they won't supply the castvote records.
Cast vote records were developed as an auditing tool based on a missed standard that themachines have to produce.

(56:35):
And as you saw from the data that was provided, there's nothing that identifies theindividual that was casting the votes.
It just shows how the election stacked up over time.
Yeah.
Well, I can tell you that our secretary of state's office is doing basically anything andeverything they can to obstruct the people from knowing what's really going on or from

(56:57):
having their voice heard in the process.
So it's not surprising to me that they would do that after.
I don't know how much do you remember, Chris, how much this cost?
know I know there's someone that, know, I think it was like, was it three hundred thousanddollars or something?
I mean, complete robbery, complete and utter robbery.
Yeah.

(57:17):
An enormous amount of money, uh Draza, this, uh before we go on to something else, wedefinitely want to talk to you about ActGlue and a couple of other things here, but what
do you make of the idea that the voting system vendors, the manufacturers are the only

(57:39):
people who are allowed access to their source code and nobody else is really allowed tolook at that.
uh Number one, and secondly, what do you think you would find if you were given unfetteredaccess to the source code inside of these systems?

(58:01):
I don't know exactly uh how to end.
Okay, so the first part of your question is I don't like it all when we have uh code thatis for something to do with our critical infrastructure that you do not have an
independent verifier.
Maybe don't open it up to everybody, maybe.

(58:21):
uh With something as simple as counting the votes, one, two, three, I don't see why itshouldn't be, but.
If they want to be behind IP and they're a private company, one that raises the question,why are private companies were right to be the controllers of our public election?

(58:42):
But the second thing would be that anyone who has code hires independent auditors andverifiers to walk through the code and do a full analysis and do an independent
independent verification that what you're doing, we would never want to have uh softwarethat controls safety or other life aspects that wasn't independent and verified by people.

(59:13):
When you're doing your own work and you're checking your own work, you get that tunnelvision.
You make assumptions that you did that right.
You did that right.
But that's why the troubleshooting takes so long when you're writing a code because youhave to go back and
figure out where that thing that you knew was right, where you actually had the codingerror in it.
And you miss that if you don't have somebody independently verifying it.

(59:37):
And then you have the additional problem of what actually is put into the machine, even ifsomebody else is allowed to independently verify the code.
Because software is so malleable that even if the vendors were being 100 % honest that whocould modify that code.
If you've been to the solar winds path, which maybe people are very familiar with thesolar winds hack was a result of supply chain infiltration where the hackers were able to

(01:00:11):
get into the code development and put the back door into the actual codes.
So when people were doing real work and real
updates on their system, they were just putting the tools in to take over uh exfiltrationof data from all kinds of systems, including our governmental systems.
If that could happen there, I don't understand why we would trust that it wouldn't happenin election system.

(01:00:36):
Yeah.
would you also speak to the threat of AI when it comes to our election infrastructure andsoftware?
Because what you have to say about it is absolutely terrifying.
I was just talking about this.
I've been looking for it.
I saw an article and a presentation oh earlier in the year where people were talking aboutthe ability to develop malware now on top of an AI engine.

(01:01:08):
So where our systems now, we feel protected uh by these companies that we pay our verygood money to.
uh the McAfees and the Nortons and everybody.
And what they do is they have a library of blacklisted uh malware codes that havefingerprints essentially that when they detect those fingerprints, they quarantine the

(01:01:35):
files or they block those files.
And then they don't allow that to impact your system.
back in March,
March, think someone wrote a very interesting paper about building a malware productthat's built on an AI engine that you give instructions to be able to change its own code

(01:02:03):
in the vein of uh genetic algorithms, where genetic algorithms are used to produce codethat is slightly different but produces the same output.
for different reasons, looking for optimal throughput or using different portions of anFPGA chip or things like that, uh you end up with multiple forms of code that still

(01:02:30):
produces the same output and the same results that you're going for with the code thatyou're running.
So that would just wreak havoc on anybody that's currently doing
the standard fingerprint type analysis of uh malware attacks on our computational systems.

(01:02:51):
And I saw just a couple of weeks ago that the first uh fully functional version that theyhave labeled uh prompt lock was discovered by an engineer at ESET that is built on
OpenAI's AI framework.

(01:03:14):
to be able to do that, rewrite its own code, automatically modify your log files, dowhatever it needs to be doing, then they're doing whatever sneaky thing it's being
programmed to do as a final outcome.
Our systems in general are not prepared for that.
um And our election systems, if we stay computational, are definitely not programmed forthat.

(01:03:40):
We have one system now that they have been touting
that actually meets the VBSG 2.0 voluntary guidelines for security as put forth by theEAC.
uh And those are already four years old before the first system was even being able tomeet those.

(01:04:00):
And the criteria within that structure is woefully behind the times to be able to stand upto something like this.
Mm-hmm.
Do you know the name of the system that is the one that is the VV whatever you said?
I believe that was the heart inner civic model.
But I don't know how, I don't have insight.

(01:04:23):
uh Someone who's more of an expert like Clay Tariq would have better insight into what theactual testing and criteria was achieved to get that certification.
I don't have that level of insight into it, but I do know that they've been touting thatthat one did pass whatever bar they set for meeting that criteria.

(01:04:44):
And, but that was, but it's at best four to six years out of date when it comes to dealingwith any kind of hackability or, yeah.
computer world is decades ago.
is decades, yeah.
So there's no difference, draws in your view, one electronic system to another as far assecurity.

(01:05:09):
No, no.
one of the things also that I think uh that, and I'm going to go off on a tangent in myown personal view of the world, is that part of our problem um in not understanding our
results is that we're using more and more our sense of community.

(01:05:30):
We don't have a good feeling of all the people in our community and their opinions to beable to say,
Okay, which one of my crazy neighbors voted for this, right?
You just have to go, my gosh, there's a bunch of people around here that really feel thatway.
So in addition to, I mean, I've said for a long time now, we should take all that moneythat your second state wants to spend, give it to the individual precincts, buy a big

(01:05:58):
dinner from a local restaurant to put the money back into the community and have everybodycome over, get a free meal.
hand cast your votes and everybody count it together and build a sense of community aroundthe election holiday.
I think that would be a much better solution all in all for so many reasons.
But ah when you enter ah the machinery in the middle there, you lose so many of theaspects that the system that I just described would engender among the community.

(01:06:30):
Yeah.
I want to switch gears for a second here, Draz, in the little time we have left here.
uh Someone put a post up, I don't know why I don't have her name here.
Anyway, recognizing you for doing excellent work in collecting and analyzing FEC data andessentially exposing uh the international financial scam uh regarding ActBlue.

(01:06:54):
uh Can you talk to us a little bit about
the ActBlue scam uh regarding all of these, I'm assuming, Smurf donations.
That is some crazy stuff.
is some crazy stuff.
The first person that mentioned that to me was a brilliant lady in New Mexico.

(01:07:15):
And she was like, the donations that are coming in are crazy.
And she called it the death of our republic by $12.50 a pop.
And then other people like Chris Gleason and Peter Bernager got into it.
And they really just jumped into it as well because

(01:07:36):
the financial aspect makes so much sense to people than uh the analytical data that I wasjust talking about on the charts.
They're both impactful, but you can understand, right?
If we go back to the idea, one of the stories that I heard was that uh when people havebeen videotaped uh bringing

(01:08:07):
handfuls of mail-in ballots and putting them in drop boxes.
I've heard some people say that they were given like $10 a ballot in order to do this.
So if they're given $10 a ballot, where are they getting the ballots from?
And who's paying them those $10 a ballot?
So when you look at what we're seeing in the FEC data, and it's been a lot of abuse ofretired people,

(01:08:32):
people that are unemployed.
think that that was intentional so that you don't have any conflict of interest with anenlisted employer per se.
But people showing donations of making $12.50 donations or $2.50 donation 500 times a dayto 400 different committees and commissions.

(01:08:58):
And I mean, how do you even decide 800 of the committees and commissions are worth your$2.50, but you're donating to that one?
It was just, and it was, once we started digging into the data, it was absolutelyridiculous how it was spread out.
And the continued work that's been done now, the House Oversight Committee just issued a700 page report.

(01:09:27):
that if you want to just have your mind blown, just go to the House Oversight Committeeand look up the ACMO ABC report and you can see all the things that they have found uh
that ah there's no guarantee that this money was coming from American sources, which meansthe possibility of foreign money being put in through uh activities like buying foreign

(01:09:51):
gift cards.
They were accepting foreign gift cards.
They were accepting
uh prepaid Visa cards and not using the CVV number for validation, lowering the CIFSscore, ah which is what the banks use to detect fraud.
So many things that were actively put in place to

(01:10:13):
not catch anything that could have been questionable.
And they're not the only ones that were doing that.
They're just the worst.
They're the worst participant.
There are other uh companies that collect money for Democratic causes for Republicancauses that both have earmarks of this as well.
Yeah.

(01:10:33):
So you have really what is a huge money laundering operation here, where about thesenefarious sources with lots of money are pretending as though or acting as though these
elderly or retired or unemployed Americans are actually the ones making all of thesedonations, when in reality, they're not making these donations.

(01:11:01):
Right, right.
People that have gone out and actually interviewed the people, they say, no, I'm not doingthat.
And, you know, some of the people I saw, I saw an interview with one lady, I believe,during one of James O'Keefe's interviews where he went out and spoke to people.
And the lady was quite honest.
She was like, if I had the money, I would be, which, you know, is fine if you have yourpolitical bends and you want to support all these campaigns, but then then do it.

(01:11:26):
ah But ah but she also said she didn't.
as a retired individual, she didn't have that amount of money and that the money reportedwas not there.
And that actually lends itself to an additional issue that I thought of because you'reactually conscripting really good, uh willing, almost victims uh from, uh because if you

(01:11:51):
find someone, say, is listed as retired, who makes one or two donations to a Democrat orRepublican cause.
if you then use their name in this reverse, you know, identity theft kind of operation andyou make continued donations in uh the areas that they would support if they had the money

(01:12:12):
to do so, even if they notice it, would they complain?
So without people doing independent investigation to see the scope of it, it uh was goingon for quite a while.
And draws another point on that is do the candidates even know this is happening, youknow, because they're raising a lot of money.

(01:12:32):
It's small.
It's small amounts.
mean, a lot of them probably aren't even looking at their campaign donation records,right?
They have like a treasurer that does, you know, I don't know the level of, um, directculpability the actual candidate has.
There's something larger at work in my view.
And the other piece of this is all of this money is coming in and it helps to create theillusion of popularity for a candidate that nobody wants or that's not the true winner of

(01:13:05):
the race.
Not only that, but the other rules have been structured.
uh When Tulsi Gabbard, uh who I think she's awesome, when she was running for president,if you recall, she was not allowed to be on the stage with uh the primary people in the

(01:13:25):
Democratic Party for some of their final debates, which didn't necessarily reflect herpersonal uh
popularity within the actual democratic side.
But they had rules in place that you had to have so much in donations because it wasfederal.

(01:13:46):
Those had to come from so many different states and everything else.
So it was like, if you weren't receiving this kind of support through this manufacturedstructure, you would fall out of the donation structure.
were defining
as the criteria your campaign had to have in the show of support in order for you to evenbe able to be involved in the debates to further your popularity among your supporters.

(01:14:17):
manipulating where the money's going, therefore uh indirectly controlling who gets to beon the stage and who doesn't.
Correct.
Any inkling of who is behind, who's behind it?
Is it the parties themselves?
I mean, obviously the parties must be a party to it because they created the rules thatfollow the money or does the money follow the rules?

(01:14:40):
The amount of money that is coming in is on the order of billions.
When you add up the death of America by $12.50 a pop, huge amount of money coming intocampaigns.
And I don't have insight.
People that I trust say certain things, but

(01:15:03):
I don't have the insight to give you my own personal evaluation as a good engineer ofactually evaluating the data to say where that is actually coming from and if the
candidates know that it's happening.
Hey, how would you compare this to Act Blue to win red on the Republican side?

(01:15:27):
that the earmarks are there.
The earmarks are there.
The magnitude is hugely different though.
ah And without having a better understanding of the machinations behind, but just like allthe questions you're asking or all the questions that I was asking as well, who's doing

(01:15:50):
it?
Who's making the decisions?
How are
How are we deciding that this particular campaign is today, today is the day that 50,000people are gonna donate $25 to this candidate?
Who's making those decisions that are some of the earmarks that we saw, we see in thedata?
For what purpose?
Where's the money actually coming from?

(01:16:12):
Where's the money actually coming from?
The amount of, I am, I,
I have my own concerns of the people that want to see our elections manipulated, ah thatit would have be coming in from countries that don't necessarily have our best interests

(01:16:35):
at heart.
We saw other types of manipulation like the FBI releasing uh the data that China wasimporting the fake IDs to support fake ballots and things like that.
Whenever you see again, like I was saying before, you know when people say well it wasn'tenough to change the election when you add up all of the aspects of everything that's

(01:17:00):
going along that this little bit by this by this entity this little bit by this entitythis little bit by this entity you end up looking, you know, like awful there is.
Yeah.
extraordinary.
mean, the total lack of transparency, the duplicity of it.
You know, I think the only thing that's probably keeping many of these people, goodAmericans, you know, going crazy over this and really, really getting very upset about the

(01:17:32):
whole thing is the fact that it's not actually their money.
They're not actually making the donations.
They're using their names and their identity, but it's not
really their money, but I still think I would be pretty upset about this.
It should be so.
So it's very, very funny that the FEC donations, all of the donations that you makethrough campaigns and committees through the political structure are not tax deductible.

(01:17:58):
So with all these people, you know, with all these people showing all this money goingthrough, it's not even like they're able to take tax deductions on these donations.
Like if you were donating it to a charity.
So when people see this.
this is actual money that they can see that's going to causes that they may support thatare outside of their ability to support.

(01:18:20):
And they wouldn't be necessarily as upset in that regard.
I would be upset about people putting money, in my opinion, into ah anything.
I haven't seen anybody use my name.
you know, they could get in and have some problems if uh it's believed that it's actuallythem making these donations as far as taxes.

(01:18:44):
ah Well, when you're in the retired, when you're in the retired sector, that becomes alittle less, you know, a little, what are you doing?
You're pulling out of your social security money, you're pulling out of your retirementmoney that you've already paid taxes on, etc.
So that again, again, that's another reason that it was a lot of abuse for the people inthe retired and unemployed sector.

(01:19:06):
Wow.
That's incredible, Draza.
I just appreciate you so much and thank you for walking us through this.
think for me, the most revealing thing is what is happening through our early voting inLouisiana, because I truly believe that the early voting is perhaps more manipulated, or

(01:19:29):
at least it's more manipulatable than these ancient machines that we're voting on.
ah So if we could ever get our hands on a cast boat record from these ancient machinesthat we vote on on the day of love to get that to you so you could do a side by side of
these two because it's absolutely astounding what they're able to do with these tabletsand the technology is just ripe for fraud.

(01:19:55):
And it's, I have one of my very favorite quotes.
One of my very favorite quotes uh is Isaac Asimov's, from the Foundation Series, anytechnology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.
So once we start putting so much technology into these simple processes, then it becomesindistinguishable from magic and we have no understanding of how that person got into

(01:20:20):
office or how the rabbit came out of the hat.
Yeah, absolutely true.
Daniel, we have time to ask Daraza briefly about this uh audit in Pennsylvania?
Asked Drazi if she has time.
I don't know.
Draza, do you have a minute?
I know that there was supposedly some audit or reexamination of some election results inPennsylvania that was done uh fairly recently.

(01:20:47):
Okay.
have a lot of data currently on that.
I did see the results.
This is talking about the state Senate seat.
Yeah.
So uh that became very, very interesting because when you look at the data, uh what itshowed was that, and Ed Solomon has an awful lot of evaluations.

(01:21:14):
that mathematically show how this has happened in other areas.
But ah when you look at the results of this particular population and how they voted inthe general election shortly before this, and then the special election for the state
senator following this, there was an awful lot of what appears to be Republican votersthat voted by mail that crossed party lines.

(01:21:39):
and put the Democratic state senator in office after everybody had just voted for Trump toput him in office as the president from this from the same area.
So the processes that we have seen in play in order to produce a an overall an overallresult, you have to take a little bit from every single part.

(01:22:10):
so that nobody ends up looking like the problem child.
So if you are able to manipulate a small amount of votes every single day, a small amountof mail-in votes, every single precinct, then everyone is now an in-lier because they're

(01:22:33):
all doing the exact same thing.
We've got the same percentage of
Republicans crossing over to support the Democratic candidates.
However, when you think about people, if everybody's doing the same thing, that's aproblem.
Because if everybody is an exact inlier right on top of each other, that becomesproblematic as one precinct being a significant outlier and is also indicative of some

(01:23:03):
sort of manipulation.
Yeah, that, yeah, I'm glad I got, we got a chance to briefly ask you about that.
uh It is just extraordinary to me, Draza, the work that you have done to really, really,really dig down into this uh and also to explain it in a way that is understandable.

(01:23:30):
uh And, you know,
Thank you so much for your work that you're doing.
Well, thank you so much.
The math has been something that I've been able to contribute because I don't have theskills of people like you who speak so well and bring the voices out to the people.
So I appreciate you doing what you do and our people that are fighting for the legalbattles and all of us that have been working together to bring uh change to this very,

(01:24:00):
very critical topic.
It's true, it's a real Body of Christ moment, I believe.
No question about it.
And I don't think you understand the impact you're having or the niche that you'refilling.
So God bless you moving forward and we hope to get you back on soon.

(01:24:23):
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Draza.
We'll be talking to you soon.
Well, Chris, what do you say we go to a quick ad?
Yeah, let's go to our affiliate sponsors briefly and I cannot wait to debrief this when weget back.

(01:25:15):
Alright, well what'd think Chris?
I thought, I think she's, she's unbelievable.
I mean, and it's such a technical area, but the way she explained it, the way sheexplained the graph, the way she explained sort of the artificial inputting of votes at
various times, uh, in order to ensure that the, the threshold that they want, i.e.

(01:25:40):
the result that they want at the end of the night is achieved.
The thing that strikes me most
about her graphic is that after a period of time in any election, Danielle, you're goingto start to see a pattern.
The more votes that come in, you're going to start to see a pattern developing and thediscrepancies are going to get less and less.

(01:26:02):
But on the graph we saw, it's like this and down here, then a little bit, you know, thenit's kind of goes even then up here.
It's like it's all over the place.
It doesn't seem to be a natural progression of results.
And the other point that jumped out at me was the fact that how is it that the last 20 %of the people who go vote in a given county or a given parish are all going and voting for

(01:26:32):
the same guy or the same lady in a race?
It's like, did they all get together and say, OK, we're going to make sure that the last20 % of the votes here are going to be all for the Democrats?
That makes no sense either.
Right.
Well, I love that she brought up Ed Solomon.
We had him on the show once and he's been on For the Love of Freedom as well.

(01:26:55):
And he the way that he described it in the slides that he showed, uh he showed what itshould look like and what it does look like and what it should look like is much more of a
scatter plot that kind of as she talked about the scales balancing, you know, kind of evenout over time or settle down as she talked about.

(01:27:17):
Whereas what we're seeing is that kind of herky-jerky thing.
I just, we, mean, what a gift she is to the election integrity movement and what anabsolute gift it is that she had time for us as we're going through this process of uh
looking at these machines.
I think it's so important that we continue to bring on these expert voices who can speakinto the fact that they are not only manipulatable,

(01:27:44):
but they are actively changing the outcomes of our elections right now.
Yeah.
And it's unfortunate and it's scary.
And you really don't have to have the technical prowess that Daraza Smith has or some ofthe others have in order to sort of know instinctively that this is not safe.

(01:28:06):
This is not a safe process.
uh And the only people who are continuing to push for this are the people who have uh areal uh institutional interest in continuing things.
exactly the way that they are right now.
But I'll tell you that, you know, the vast majority of Louisianans and probably the vastmajority of Americans fully understand how vulnerable this electronic system is.

(01:28:32):
My 12 year old, Danielle Jenin and Eli, who's 17, they know how vulnerable computers are.
They know how cyber experts can hack into computers and manipulate things.
It's like the only people who don't understand how vulnerable we are are the professionalpoliticians and the bureaucrats who want to maintain the current system.

(01:28:57):
You know, Chris, I think an excellent test of this is ah how much they're listening to thepeople.
If you feel, if you believe that you were truly elected by the people and you believe thatthe purpose of your role that you were truly elected to do is to serve the interests and
the will of the people, would you listen to the people or would you not?

(01:29:18):
And I think the people that we see who are listening to the people are probably ones thatslip through the machine's cracks.
and got through because the people were so supportive of them, they beat the algorithms orsomething.
Because I have to tell you, by and large, the people that we uh are seeing in office inthis state are people that are not listening to us.

(01:29:42):
Yes.
And the flippancy and sort of the callous disregard for the will of the people is what Ifind most striking.
It's as though they know that they're not really vulnerable.
And how they know that, well, maybe there's a good reason for that as well.
But I'm just thankful for Deraza Smith and so many other Americans who understand howvulnerable our systems are.

(01:30:09):
And of course, I'm very thankful
to President Trump as well, Danielle, and Tulsi Gabbard for continuing to sound the hornon this.
There is not much more, not many more places for, you know, the Nancy Landrys of the worldand others to hide and to plead ignorance on this.
That's right.
And if you want to see her in person, I believe you can see her this week and next week.

(01:30:32):
ah The Horse and Pony Show of Voting Machine Demonstrations is continuing at the OldGovernor's Mansion.
It started today at 9 a.m.
I believe it goes to noon, but you might want to double check me.
This is the clear ballot, clear vote.
And Thursday is ES &S, I believe, from 9 to noon.
So go and make your displeasure known.

(01:30:55):
Not that they're asking.
Right.
we should voluntarily volunteer the information that we're against these voting machines.
then tomorrow, same time, same place, Brad Zerbo will be joining me on For the Love ofFreedom to talk about his absolutely outstanding documentary, Codex 9-11.

(01:31:17):
Really looking forward to talking to him about that.
It is his debunking of the traditional narrative of 9-11.
has done so much research um to prove that what we were told was an absolute and utter lieand absolutely impossible.
So looking forward to talking to him tomorrow.

(01:31:38):
And then we'll be back here on the state of freedom on Thursday at 10 a.m.
We are super excited.
Trenis Evans will be joining us.
He's part of Tina Peters legal team.
As you may know, uh
September 11th is Thursday and it is also Tina's 70th birthday.

(01:31:58):
So we will be taking the opportunity to spotlight her case to honor her and her braveryand to get an update from Trennis on where her case stands.
So, I know.
And keep praying for Tina Peters.
This is such a gross miscarriage of justice that's occurring here.

(01:32:19):
And it's a situation that absolutely begs for justice.
This is a lady who simply was doing what she was legally bound to do to preserve theintegrity of the elections in her state, and she's in prison because of it, because of
sinister and criminal forces that conspired against her.

(01:32:39):
It is a wonderful, it's going to be a wonderful day when she is released from that prison,hopefully to never ever have to go back and she will go down in history as an American
hero.
There's no question in my mind.
Yeah.
Well, Danielle, God bless you as always.
The state of freedom is moving on the march across the state of Louisiana, continuing tobuild, continuing to grow, continuing to build trust.

(01:33:06):
among Louisiana citizens as the voice of freedom and constitutional conservative,unapologetic and uncompromising.
So I just want to say thanks to all of our listeners, supporters and subscribers andencourage everyone to let your family and friends know about the state of freedom, because
we will not stop until we are the voice that you trust and go to as far as constitutionalfreedom, conservatism,

(01:33:34):
and the protection of your liberty and your rights.
That is why we are here.
I know, I think I can speak for you, Danielle, when I say that we are called to do this.
We're called to be here at this time, and we intend to be faithful to this call.
Amen, Chris.
Well said.
Absolutely well said.

(01:33:56):
So grateful to be here with you, Chris.
And also please just a reminder to support LeCAG.
LeCAG is beating down the doors of uh all kinds of bad legislation during the legislativesession, but they are still highly in action outside of session with tons of issues that
come up.
As you know, the carbon capture issue has been one election integrity, another issue.

(01:34:20):
The list would surprise you.
The list would surprise you.
uh
in all likelihood, you're not going to hear it, at least the truth of it from many of yourelected representatives.
know, Danielle, I was in uh Forest Hill last night, which is right below Alexandria, andhad to speak, opportunity to speak to probably 115, 120 people who came out on a Monday

(01:34:43):
night out of concern for this carbon capture sequestration racket here in our state.
And I went through, you know, a legislative briefing.
regarding the delegation that's from Forest Hill, the two reps and the Senator from upthere, a number of very critical votes, how they voted, what they did.

(01:35:05):
And I love being transparent with voters.
I love telling voters how your representatives and how your senators, good, bad, and ugly,are voting on an issue that is of profound importance to you.
And here's the issue and here were the votes.
So that way, when they go...
To vote at reelection, they're going to have the opportunity to make an informed choicethat's based upon actual data, actual record votes, instead of simply relying on what

(01:35:36):
their representative is coming back home and telling them.
So I'm very humbly proud to be able to provide that service on behalf of LCAG to votersall over the state of Louisiana.
Yeah.
And you do an excellent job of it.
You're very faithful to the, to the truth and to the facts, Chris.
So, um, thank you for that.
I appreciate it.

(01:35:56):
And I know the folks that's true.
That's true.
I know the people of forest Hills, uh, also really appreciated what you brought lastnight.
So thanks for, thanks for making the trip and thanks for telling the truth, Chris.
You bet.
And thanks to Bert Calle who wrote up with me, a great supporter of Lecague and just agreat American.

(01:36:20):
Bert, if you can hear me, God bless you, sir.
Love you.
All right, have a great one, Chris.
I'll see you back here on Thursday.
Love you, take care.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#331 The Numbers Don’t Lie w/ Draza Smith

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

#331 The Numbers Don’t Lie w/ Draza Smith

Stuff You Should Know