REMINDER: After Years of Coverup and Lies, the CIA Finally Admitted Knowing About the Fraud Embedded in Election Systems
In June, the CIA finally declassified a report showing that the CIA did have intelligence that electronic voting machines could manipulate elections. They had this information for years and withheld it from the public.
They called you a conspiracy theorist. Then they released the paper that blows up their own story.
The CIA just released a document that contradicts the CIA. Their own file on Venezuela and Smartmatic.
Their own file called Smartmatic a U.S. national-security threat in 2006. It said Chávez wanted to stop a sitting American president. It described a 2012 Venezuela rigging plan: targeted machines, a set margin, built to beat an audit. The CIA’s source reported Chavez “congratulated” the team for rigging the election with the previously set margin. Then the CIA wrote “no large-scale fraud” next to it.
Eleven years later, Smartmatic showed up in the U.S. to build L.A. County’s system for $282M — America’s largest election jurisdiction — just in time for the 2020 election. Now its executives are federally charged with bribery and money laundering on that contract.
And we are the conspiracy theorists?? 🫨🤯
1/2
— Kari Lake (@KariLake) October 2, 2026
Here is a nice summary found at Sofia Karstens Substack entitled: “The CIA’s Own Document Contradicts the CIA“:
In June 2026, the CIA declassified a five-page summary of intelligence reporting on Venezuela’s electronic voting manipulation capabilities, spanning 2004 to 2020. The document is heavily redacted. What survived redaction is still enough to raise questions the document itself doesn’t answer: if this much was worth declassifying, what’s still being withheld? And why does the agency’s document undermine its own baseline finding?
First, a 2006 National Security Council threat assessment evaluated Smartmatic’s acquisition of the U.S. voting systems company Sequoia as a “moderate overall threat to US national security interests.” The assessment rested on two pillars: intelligence indicating Venezuelan government intent to influence U.S. politics, and documented evidence that Venezuela had manipulated its own electoral systems. That finding led directly to pressure from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which forced Smartmatic to divest Sequoia by 2007.
Additionally, intelligence reporting from April 2004 indicated Hugo Chávez stated his objective was to prevent the reelection of a sitting U.S. president – language the document says the IC treated as evidence of intent to influence U.S. domestic politics, not merely Venezuelan politics.
Lastly, prior to Venezuela’s 2012 presidential election, intelligence reporting described Chávez’s intelligence services – military counterintelligence and the Bolivarian Intelligence Service – as working with the National Electoral Council and Smartmatic to develop a specific manipulation plan: deploying altered machines to roughly 300 voting centers in pro-Chávez strongholds to secure a margin of about 1.5 million votes. Sources reportedly said Chávez congratulated his team afterward for “successfully implementing” it. Separately, September 2020 reporting on Venezuela’s National Assembly election described a technical method: creating a second, parallel set of “virtual machines” that would replicate legitimate vote data while substituting manipulated results, engineered specifically to survive standard audit procedures.
That is a documented election-manipulation plan, and a documented manipulation method, from the same company whose voting systems now run some of the largest election jurisdictions in the United States.
The baseline assessment problem makes the document even harder to take at face value. Despite reporting a detailed 2012 manipulation plan, the CIA’s stated baseline assessment – repeated twice in five pages – “maintained that large-scale electronic fraud did not occur.” The stated reasoning: pre-election polling had Chávez ahead by roughly 10 points, government spending rose 24 percent before the vote, the opposition conceded, and CIA’s own quantitative analysis found no irregular voting patterns.
Notice what ISN’T doing the work in that reasoning: none of it is forensic examination of the machines or the vote data themselves. It’s circumstantial; polling, spending, concession. A candidate can win comfortably by legitimate means and have intelligence services simultaneously execute a manipulation plan for a smaller margin; the document offers no forensic finding that rules out the latter, only inference that it wasn’t necessary. The document’s own 2013 “Devil’s Advocacy” analysis – an internal exercise built specifically to stress-test the baseline conclusion – acknowledged “conflicting” reporting and “limited insight into key elements of the electronic voting system”.
That same company now holds dominion (no pun intended) over the largest U.S. election jurisdiction. In June 2018, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously awarded Smartmatic USA a contract, capped at $282,097,321, to build LA County’s new “Voting Solutions for All People” (VSAP) ballot-marking system – the same Smartmatic named throughout the CIA’s Venezuela reporting. VSAP was certified and deployed in time for the 2020 presidential election, and Smartmatic has continued servicing it through 2024, by the company’s own account. LA County is the largest single election jurisdiction in the United States.
What are the odds the CIA developed this technology? What are the odds these machines flipped numerous US elections? What are the odds this technology built for fraud was used in the recent mid-terms by the Democrats to steal the election?
