Discover and discuss great writing with the world’s smartest readers on Substack.
substack.com
Duty to Warn Letter - to VP Harris - Re: Election 2024
(Revised 430PM)
Stephen Spoonamore
Nov 15, 2024
November 15, 2024
Honorable VP Kamala Harris
The White House
Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500
Dear Madam Vice President.
This is my second Duty to Warn Letter regarding hacking of the 2024 Presidential Election. The first letter on November 7 was directed to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Officials. Both warnings are made per DNI Clapper’s 2015 directive to all agencies and contractors associated with intelligence and financial agency technologies to warn of suspicions of hacking.
Professionally I have worked as the CEO or CTO at seven high technology firms including two which specialized in hacking and counter-hacking operations. My clients have included numerous governments DoD, DHS, Dept. of State, F100 Financials and F500 Industrials.
I am a lifelong Republican who has long placed service and participatory democracy over party. In government, I have twice been invited to SoCom to give lectures on electronic warfare and techniques to find terrorist money laundering and gave a keynote speech of the National Counterintel Summit on this same topic. I served as an after-action reviewer of communications and data failures on 9/11 under the direction of Jim Woolsey and FDNY Commissioner Scopetta, and later co-wrote multiple hacking risk analysis of Smart Grid technologies for the Obama administration.
You should reverse your concession, call for both a full investigation of criminal activity and demand hand recounts in all seven swing states.
In my professional view there are multiple and extremely clear indications the Presidential vote was willfully compromised.
I wholly agree with the public letter of Duncan Buell, et. al. of Nov. 13th stating they believe there is a possibility of hacking and calling for hand-recounts.
This letter’s clear call to action is commendable, but its cautious tone may belie the severity of what I believe has happened. In my view it is a near certainty the results have been changed at a scale which reversed the US Presidential Election. They imply there is a chance a hand-recount will show you won more votes. I am stating a hand recount will most likely show you did win. Both letters call on you to act.
In my view, a capable and skilled series of exploits, electronic tools and hacks were used to change the Presidential vote in all seven swing states. These activities have reversed the outcomes in at least Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. I will lay out the basics of the attack, starting with
unusual elements within the results. I will then outline
two processes which could have been followed to insert these false results into the system. Finally I will outline
how I would recommend investigating.
Unusual elements within the results.
The results of the attack are improbable in the extreme and well tailored to the sole benefit of your opponent.
Approximately 600,000 votes are for Donald Trump but with no down ballot choices. These are either inserted “bullet ballots” for the Presidential race or manipulated data fields. They are surgically added to totals in limited jurisdictions and within only the seven swing States. This historically unprecedented set of numbers found in the 2024 swing states is absent in every other state. In AZ, MI, NC and WI the effect of these drop-off votes reverses the voters' will and even more improbably always pushes the winning margin beyond the mandatory recount numbers. It is a result too perfect for belief. It is a bespoke and programmed outcome. In other states including PA and NV, removing these strange and bespoke added votes, it appears Donald Trump may have won the cast votes but within a margin which would force recounts. The inserted votes raise his totals, to avoid any scrutiny during mandatory recount results which would have slowed his claim on the Presidency. In GA and FL the same pattern exists with unclear impact on the results.
This attack is not technically difficult. It is modest in scale. It would require:
Modest and common computer programming skills.
Access to 10-100 tabulators or to the handful of facilities programming them in advance.
A credible database of voter IDs of non-voters around which to create false ballots.
Perhaps as few as 1, but more likely 3-5 human program managers.
Access to eBollBook Data during the election to determine who had not voted.
(Possibly) Human access to some tabulators during counting.
If I was asked to lead this hack, I would expect to have a core team of 6-10 people, and operating costs under $10M with a timeline of 3-12 months.
The tell: A historically absurd number of Trump-only bullet ballots or undervote ballots.
There are always a handful of voters who cast a vote in one race which they care about, and do not make other selections on the ballot. These are called bullet ballots. In Presidential Races since 1980, these bullet ballots rarely account for more than 1% of the total votes including in Mr. Trump’s winning 2016 election and losing 2020 election, and when they do it warrants further investigation. In 2024 in the 43 non-swing states, bullet ballots make up a nominal >1%. In the seven swing states the numbers are so high to be unbelievable, unprecedented and demanding of further investigation. Here is analysis from totals as of late Nov. 12th
Here are the unprecedented results of drop-offs in the two western swing states:
AZ - 123K+ 7.2%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to reverse the outcome.
NV - 43K+ 5.5%+ of Trump’s total vote. Enough to exceed recount threshold.
It is my belief these two states have illegally added votes.
For comparison, examine Trump’s 2024 results in three states which border AZ and NV. They have equally passionate Trump supporters, but have the normal levels of drop off or bullet ballots.
ID <2K 0.03% of Trump’s total.
OR <4K 0.05% of Trump’s total
UT <1K 0.01% of Trump’s total.
In the case of Idaho and Utah, Mr. Trump was a run-away winner and had no need to add votes. In the case of Oregon, Ms. Harris was a run-away winner and adding votes to Trump’s total would add risk without adding value.
The same pattern of large numbers of drop-off votes or bullet ballots exists in the totals of MI, NC, PA, WI.
North Carolina is the most extreme. The public results indicate over 350K voters cast a ballot for Trump and no other race making up over 11% of Trump’s voters in NC drop off votes or bullet ballots.
Hack Part 1: Creating the pool of bullet ballot voters.
There are two possible methods to execute this attack. The simple version would only manipulate electronic totals and hand-counting the target precincts would discover this. The second involved ePollbook hacking and introducing bullet ballots. This would add the need to compare the ePollBook timestamps to find possible bad actors or other sources for these anomalous votes.
When Mr. Musk announced his $1M lottery for people to go online and sign a pledge to vote for Trump, I became personally suspicious of why such a promotion would be done. I signed up to see what information he wanted and what the pledge actually stated. He did not want to know people’s socials or send them texts.
To sign up you had to provide your street address. That was all they cared about. Once they had the people’s names, and street address this would allow for building a pool of ghost voters who could logically be marked for fake ballots, structured in a manner which matched ePollBook and precinct data. You, as a member of law enforcement, understand criminals need certain pre-conditions to act.
A database of pledged supporters with street addresses is required for this hack. Law enforcement should immediately find the team of programmers who pulled the lottery data capture. They will find those programmers immediately parsed the data into a system based on voting precincts and created macros to constantly update the pledged lists of who had cast a vote, and who had not. The programmers likely did not know they were working on a system to be used to steal the election. When confronted with that fact, law enforcement would likely gain cooperating witnesses.
Musk’s team used this system to build a list of voters pledged to vote for Trump. This list could also be used to make a ghost-ballot voter list. ePollBook data is nearly always linked to the internet, and in many jurisdictions this link was being made in real time via Mr. Musk’s Starlink or any available wireless network. Throughout the day, Musk’s team could compare existing turnout models to likely outcomes, based on well established voter profile databases vs. the actual voter turnout coming in from the ePollBooks. They would have been able to have a very good estimation in the closing hours of polls how many votes short Trump would likely be at the tabulation level. They would also have exact lists of the pledged voters for Trump and would know who had not shown up. The pledged voters who did not vote, became the bullet ballots. With any network connection to the ePollBooks, or via other compromised connectivity, they could be marked as voted.
