Our Democracy

Why did Donald Trump say we have all the votes we need?

Summary:Stephen Spoonamore, a former CEO/CTO with extensive experience in cybersecurity and counter-hacking operations, has issued his second Duty to Warn letter regarding potential election hacking in the 2024 Presidential Election. He presents evidence of unusually high numbers of "bullet ballots" (votes cast only for the presidential race) in seven swing states, ranging from 4.0% to 11.0% of Trump's total votes, compared to just 0.01-0.05% in neighboring non-swing states. This pattern, he argues, is historically unprecedented and statistically improbable.The letter outlines a potential two-part hack involving ePollBook manipulation and vote tabulation interference, possibly utilizing data from Musk's voter pledge campaign to create credible ghost voters. Spoonamore argues that this operation would require only modest technical skills, a small team, and access to certain election systems. He calls for Vice President Harris to reverse her concession and demand hand recounts in all seven swing states, stating that such recounts would likely reveal discrepancies between electronic totals and actual paper ballots. The letter emphasizes that while this hack might seem impossible to some, it is technically simpler than other recent cyber operations, such as the Hamas device interception, and could be quickly investigated by the FBI.

• Stephen Spoonamore Substack Letter

Here's an in-depth analysis of the vote manipulation process described in the letter:THE TWO-PART HACK PROCESS:Part 1: Creating Ghost Voters
1. Data Collection:
- Used Musk's $1M voter pledge lottery as a data collection tool
- Only required street addresses from participants
- Created database of potential Trump voters by precinct
- Tracked who actually voted vs. who didn't through ePollBook data2. ePollBook Exploitation:
- ePollBooks often connected to internet (sometimes via Starlink)
- Could monitor real-time voter turnout
- Used non-voting pledge signers as "ghost voters"
- Marked these non-voters as having voted in the systemPart 2: Vote Manipulation (Two Possible Methods):Method A (Electronic Only):
- Add votes directly to tabulation machines
- Required network access or physical access to machines
- Matches ePollBook numbers with tabulator counts
- Easiest to execute but also easiest to detect via hand recount
- No paper ballots exist for these votesMethod B (Combined Electronic/Physical):
- Same ePollBook manipulation as above
- Plus physical ballot insertion at tabulation centers
- Required inside help at counting locations
- Concentrated in specific counties (e.g., Maricopa County, AZ)
- Harder to detect but required more conspiratorsEVIDENCE OF MANIPULATION:Key Indicators:
1. Unprecedented "bullet ballot" rates in swing states:
- Arizona: 7.2% (normal: <1%)
- Nevada: 5.5%
- North Carolina: 11.0%
- Other swing states: 4-6.5%2. Contrast with non-swing states:
- Idaho: 0.03%
- Oregon: 0.05%
- Utah: 0.01%3. Strategic Patterns:
- Only appeared in swing states
- Pushed margins beyond recount thresholds
- Concentrated in specific jurisdictions
- Approximately 600,000 total suspicious votesRequired Resources:
- Team of 6-10 people
- Budget under $10M
- Timeline: 3-12 months
- Basic programming skills
- Access to 10-100 tabulators
- Connection to ePollBook dataAdditional Context:
The letter suggests the bomb threats at voting centers may have been used to create chain-of-custody issues, either to facilitate ballot manipulation or to prevent future hand recounts by claiming broken custody chains.The author emphasizes that while this sounds complex, it's technically simpler than other known hacking operations, such as the recent Hamas device interception operation, and could be uncovered through hand recounts of paper ballots in targeted precincts.

• Stephen Spoonamore Substack Letter

YouTube Interview with Stephen Spoonamore