The testimony was given under oath by a confidential witness on September 18, 2025, as part of an investigation conducted by attorney John Case on behalf of Tina Peters. The stated purpose of the investigation is to determine “whether foreign agents manipulated computer voting systems in U.S. elections.” The witness’s identity was concealed due to expressed fears of physical danger.
Witness Expertise
- Experience: 20 years in electoral systems, beginning in Venezuela in 2003.
- Former Roles (2003-2016): Employee of the Venezuelan National Electoral Council, National Coordinator for voting machines, National Coordinator for national data, Creator and manager of government “situation rooms” or “war rooms” during elections.
- Technical Skills: Knowledge of programming, operating systems (Windows, Linux), and telecommunications for vote transmission.
- Responsibilities in Venezuela: Configuration of Smartmatic voting equipment and transmission systems, Management of the electoral manager system, Oversight of electoral system audits with the Carter Center and the European Union, Management of data centers containing voter records and biometric systems.
The Venezuelan Model of Election Manipulation
The witness provided a detailed account of how election results were manipulated in Venezuela while working for the National Electoral Council.
The “War Room”
- Function: A central command center for monitoring elections.
- Attendees: The President and Vice President of Venezuela (in person or by call), key government ministers (e.g., Diosdado Cabello, Jorge Rodriguez), the president of the state oil company, and high-level military personnel.
- Witness’s Role: The witness was “the person in charge in the situation room” and worked with these officials from 2004 to 2016. Decisions to manipulate an election were allegedly made by the ministers and presidents in these rooms and then relayed to the technology directors.
Transcripts of the whistleblower testimony can be reviewed via the following links:
The core assertions of the witness are as follows:
- Venezuelan Origins: The Smartmatic voting system software, branded SAES, was developed with $250,000 in financing from the Venezuelan government for the explicit purpose of manipulating election outcomes. The government retained ownership of the source code and a 28% interest in Smartmatic’s sister company, Bizta.
- The SAES Data Utility Tool: A specialized tool was created, ostensibly for system testing, which could be misused to emulate voting machines and inject fictitious votes directly into the tallying system without leaving a conventional trace. The witness describes this tool as being analogous to “a key to a house.”
- Technological Transfer to the U.S.: The witness claims the core Smartmatic technology was transferred to the U.S. market through a series of corporate acquisitions. Smartmatic purchased the American company Sequoia Voting Systems in 2005, integrating its SAES software. Subsequently, Dominion Voting Systems purchased Sequoia in 2010, inheriting the integrated system and key personnel.
- Enduring Vulnerabilities: An analysis of a forensic image of the Mesa County, Colorado 2020 election server allegedly revealed that Dominion’s software contains the same fundamental security flaws as the Venezuelan system. These include passwords stored in plain text, non-obfuscated source code, and critical encryption errors, which the witness claims are intentionally left uncorrected.
- Designed for Audit Evasion: The systems are allegedly designed to be difficult to audit. This is accomplished by overwriting critical log files during an election, blaming “human error” for system failures, controlling the scope of public audits, and destroying past election data during software updates, such as the “trusted build” performed in Mesa County.
- Foreign Supply Chain and Influence: The witness highlights significant national security risks, stating that Dominion’s hardware components are manufactured in China and Taiwan, and its software is developed in Belgrade, Serbia. This creates opportunities for foreign access and compromise of critical election infrastructure, which the witness asserts is illegal under U.S. law.
