STEPHEN SPOONAMORE: I’m a network engineer..

I build hardware. Most of it is for the credit card or satellite communications business.

I find it statistically almost impossible, as do a significant number of other people who are who are statisticians, that Trump won seven out of seven swing states just outside the margin of error.

There's an additional analysis… two of them that have been completed since then…one of them is absolutely stunning. It looks at what's called the 208 hinge counties. They’re the counties that are of a scale that tend to be the lead associated with the changing of election.

I can send the link from sub stack there's a long article about it on subsidy looked at the data analysis of those 208 counties and the only ones that flipped toward trump. And they all encounter to the general down ballot activity in those 208 counties. That’s across not just the swing states but many states.  There's a full analysis of every county of every swing state with what is the drop off votes which would include both bullet ballots drop off ballots what they're called shell ballots.

The data is just from my mind completely weird.

These sort of numbers are not normal. Some of these same states and same counties like Pennsylvania and Nevada and Arizona performed in 2016 and 2020 and Trump was on the ballot all three times.  And these strange drop off numbers that are way outside statistical norms, don't exist in those elections. At least not uniformly across the state.  There's always a few counties where something weird happened and you get things like that. But you have all these strange statistical anomalies going on.

But I'm not the one doing that work. I'm just looking at it and saying well here's what I think.

The thing that I became very interested in was: why is Elon Musk sending people money to get their St. addresses and signatures?  And there's now these waves of checks going out. And I'm now working with three different groups to collect the names and information of people who are receiving Elon Musk checks who claim they did not actually sign up for his polls or his pledge or his contests in different states.  It was given different names. And the reason this is important is this this does not lead directly to election fraud, but my theory is that he built a parallel E poll book . And then he used that information to inject voters who are pledged to Trump who hadn't actually voted into this system.

So that's my working theory. How do you prove it? How do you test it?  Well, first off law enforcement should be saying: Hey is this election interference?   They don't want to be involved. But we can go to people and say: you gotta check. but you didn't sign up at that.

Two things are possibly involved.

One, their identity has been borrowed by somebody. And if that somebody was a person that referred them into the election system for Mr. Musk, and got paid for it, then you have identity theft. You potentially have wire fraud. And you have potentially misuse of election information. You’re now getting into a potential provable piece of information.  At this point we have several hundred people that we have validated with photographs that they actually got checks, and they're making a claim that they never signed up for this. So we're in the process of writing letters and providing that information to the relevant attorneys generals of their States.   And hopefully it'll engage law enforcement to say, well, we don't want to touch the election---because most of them don't seem to want to--- but this is identity theft. Somebody took my identity and made money with it.  I got a check too. But I didn't sign up for this and I don't know how my identity was used.  And if we can then demonstrate that some of those people didn't vote, and they say in a couple cases they say they didn't actually vote. But if they’re marked voted in the final registrations for their counties, then we have the smoking gun that I think exists.

That's my update… and that's what I've been doing…so we're only talking here about the possibility that the 2024 election was purchased

SLUGGO: “Can you discuss the role of Elon Musk's $1,000,000 lottery or whatever it was…

SPOONAMORE: Well… here's the crazy thing… it varied from state to state what he was doing. He played the game different in the seven swing states.

There were different payment rates and they were sort of advertised and plugged in in different ways.

So if you signed up in Georgia yourself you could get a $45 check for pledging to be voting for Trump in Georgia.

In other places like North Carolina it was $100. In Pennsylvania it started as $100 and then eventually they really wanted more names and numbers so it became $200. And in addition to you signing yourself up they allowed for people to be gatherers.

And the gatherers came actually in three different buckets.

You could refer a friend or a family member and have one different payment rate. And we now have people who've confirmed they did that and some of those people have gotten their checks and some haven't.

Then there were also people who went door to door. And those people not only insisted on getting the address but you had to actually finger sign on like a duplicate E poll book that that was your address you were registered and you pledged and signed it so you were collecting people's signatures as well.

And it varies from state to state. I don't have a complete map of how they did it all I have is having set up the ballotbounty.com website.

These are all tips that have come in. So at ballot bounty we've now gotten hundreds of tips. We have validated some of them. And a lot of those interestingly… and the e-mail exchanges…that have led to people who signed up a bunch of their family members.  I'll give you one example. Nice guy from Georgia came in through the ballot bounty tip line. Or he may have come in through my sub stack. In his case I reached out to him and said: OK so you signed yourself up--- and he says yes. And you got your check. He says yes, this $45.00 check.  And then he gave me this list of people that he signed up. And he was informed that they would be reached out to by the campaign to get their consent for using their data.  But none of them they reached out to… nobody nobody got their consent…but about half of them have on their check so their data was put in they never gave consent. Some of them got paid and some of them have not. And this pattern seems highly variable. And the rates are variable.  But there's no question at this point that there's a significant number of people who did not sign themselves up or give a consent who did get checks who apparently are in the system without their agreement.

SLUGGO: how would all this tangibly affect the outcome of the election.

SPOONAMORE: Well here's my assertion… so I'm looking…both ESS software and Dominion software have been compromised. They've both been copied. They've been extensively played you know.  Sidney Powell had copies of it you know. Mr. Pillow guy had a conference about the software. You can buy it on GitHub.

So you have the software and they've had it for enough time you could build and exploit it. And one of the things that is true--- especially of like the D850 machine, most of the S 2200 series machines. all of the Dominion machines---they have massive storage on board.  So when you take a ballot there's actually a series of steps associated with it. The ballot isn't actually a paper ballot that you've signed up… is not actually what's counted… that goes into the scanner.  And the first process that goes on is an image is made of the ballot. So instantly you're taking a paper ballot and you're making an image. That image is then stored in batch sets.  The image then goes into a separate set of processors where those shapes that are around the edge of the grid, which are all little dots and squares, are basically an index.  And so the scanning software which is separate from the tabulation, or rather the cast vote record software.

The first is called a cast vote image. Then it becomes a cast vote record. The second piece of software looks at that grid and says: if I go to .3 and X axis…if there's a dot rather than one vote for Trump, so it looks at the particular reference points. Then it looks for a dot and then adds a cast vote record as to what that image should be added. Then that set of data is sub tabulations within the actual batch of things that's run that batches then uploaded to larger processors. So it would be completely simple to write a script in advance to pre store ballot images in these machines. You would not go there. It would just make it a time script ..

There is no logical way to line up with the data as to where the seven swing states perform unless somehow votes were injected.  It would be great if somebody opened up the boxes and actually hand-counted the ballots and prove me wrong. But until then I'm trying to figure out how it could have been done. 

SLUGGO: So you're saying that the only way to find out if there was an electronic theft based on the ballot imaging would be to actually hand count the paper ballots.

The presumption with digital imaging was that we could count both the ballots and the ballot images. If there was reason to question the outcome, or if the election was close enough, then they had the ballots… the ballots themselves would be counted.  But the balance themselves in 2024 have not been counted and the Democrats have not called for them to be counted. Is that correct?

Stephen Spoonamore has assented to what I just said.

So if all the media and all the government and all the election boards rely on the ballot images without counting the paper ballots, it is possible that the ballot images are wrong because the ballots have have not been checked.

SPOONAMORE: Most of my work is in banking. there are a lot of different kinds of scanners. When people sometimes hear this, they go ‘well that sounds crazy why would someone do this?  I have personally investigated and found two different places where scanning systems within banks had scripts written that substituted information.  In the one case it was internal fraud, where they were taking scans of internal transfers and changing what functionally was the account number to move money out of a general purchase account into somebody else's account that they were embezzling.  It was done through a scanner hack.  There are ways to build scanners that actually count the paper.  So like if you want to take your bills or your money and put them in an actual counter it's actually looking at the image and counting from what it actually sees of the bill.  But that's not true of voting technology, which scans the image separately stores it, then interprets the scan in a separate set of software.  So I don't trust that the ballots were scanned, or exactly what's going to the interpreter. I can write a script that would change which ballot gets pulled.  And if you’ve stored them…these things all have huge storage—you could do it.

Am I saying that was done? No.  Could you write that script? Yes.

JOHN BRAKEY: Before he leaves, I just want to tell him that I think he's right on. One thing that has me very concerned is that when I'm out here fighting for these ballot images we are also trying to make them put the inkjet back into the machine. They need to marry the physical ballot to the image. You should be able to do a risk limiting audit if all the images check out and go to the ballot library because all of this stuff is tied together to go ahead and prove the outcome.  But what you're talking about…it’s not happening.  And that's why, right now, I'm after 5 counties in Arizona. That includes the Congressional 6 race, where $14 million was spent between two candidates. And that doesn't even count all the dark money.

SLUGGO: If this election was not accurate, and did not reflect the public will, there's only one word that describes why and how that happened and that's money.

I was walking around wondering why is Donald Trump… like Ronald Reagan… so Teflon. Nothing sticks to him.   As he said, he could stand in 5th Ave. and shoot everybody and not be called called to justice.

The reason is money.  Now we all know that Elon Musk has more than enough money to have done…well let me ask you, Steven…does Elon Musk, or or any of the other billionaires that back Donald Trump, have enough money to make this happen?

SPOONAMORE: Oh, yeah, it's not that expensive to build a script.  And I would say that never in the history United States has any billionaire come forward and run some kind of lottery.  I mean when I'm voting, I don't know how he spent the money, but he's filed the FEC saying he spent $238 million in support of Trump.  Oh my God I mean that's the public record he's announced. Maybe it's 10 times that but in a lot of places the scale of this is a few hundred tabulators maybe as many as 400 at tops. It is one or two scripts to write. You don't have to intercept that many SKUs.  This is actually not a particularly difficult. It’s much less than was done to Hezbollah it's much less than I've had people do.

I ask everybody on this call: do you have a drawer in your office with seven or eight notices of data breach where somebody is taking the time to spend 7 to 10 or 12 months to intercept them. 
 But somebody has spent $238 million that apparently has built a parallel epoll book.

But just count the damn paper ballots.

SLUGGO: In 2016 Jill Stein won a court case where the judge ordered a recount, but he said ‘Jill, you can't win.’ Hillary Clinton's lawyers were in the courtroom and they declined to ask for the recount.

Kamala Harris said ‘when we fight, we win,’ and then immediately conceded.  So how do we get a recount of the paper ballots in this country?

I’ve noted that Steven Spoonamore has shrugged his shoulders.