By Luis Manuel Aguana
Second intervention in episode No. 2 of the series Sin Filtros, ELECTORAL APARTHEID IN VENEZUELA: Sovereign Elections 202X Ep. 2 (see in Spanish https://youtu.be/eI0Zjlxi8Zo)
After listening to the excellent presentations here, I would like to clarify some technical points that I consider important, even though it may seem immodest of me to speak in the first person. In February 2013, I published an article entitled "Executing a Technical Fraud in 10 Steps" (see the article in Spanish from February 2, 2013, in https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/2013/02/ejecucion-de-un-fraude-tecnico-en-10.html). Two months later I presented it at a forum in El Nacional that discussed the question: Will there be fraud on April 14? days before the Maduro-Capriles elections (see in Spanish, Luis Manuel Aguana, El Nacional Forum – Presentation Electoral Fraud in 10 steps, April 2, 2013, in https://tinyurl.com/2dpuzx7s).
What I proposed back then was a technical hypothesis, constructed upon legal loopholes and electoral patterns I had studied, as well as upon a software architecture that—in my judgment—left too many doors open. I presented it as one possibility among many, and I explicitly noted this during that presentation at the time. Virtually everyone from the Roundtable of Democratic Unity (Mesa de la Unidad) and the Simón Bolívar Command—as it was called back then—was in attendance.
Today, in 2026, we face the reality of a sworn affidavit from a protected Venezuelan witness in the United States—a former technical employee of the CNE—which was recently published in September 2025. And the details described in that testimony necessarily compel me to draw a comparison between what I stated over ten years ago and what the aforementioned protected witness has declared. I believe the results prove to be striking.
The 2013 model I presented was based on a central premise: there is no need to tamper with the stored votes or to intercept the data transmission. The fraud operated by manipulating the printed tally sheet—the only element that a witness can physically verify—and was executed selectively, targeting only those polling stations that the operator knew in advance would not be audited.
I described a technical room within the CNE that, prior to election day, calculated the desired results for every polling station in the country and pre-stored them in an alternative database. I described a small parallel program—installed on every machine—capable of printing a falsified tally sheet in the exact same official format that the opposition had audited. And I described a real-time coordination process: a field operator would notify the central command center via mobile phone as to which machines had executed the alternative procedure; the command center would then overwrite those results in the official database. In the final tabulation, everything tallied perfectly—a completely consummated fraud.
The witness—whose identity remains protected—possesses twenty years of experience in Venezuelan electoral systems. He served as the national coordinator for voting machines and data for the CNE. He was responsible for the Venezuelan government’s crisis centers between 2004 and 2016. In other words, he was one of the men on the inside, actively perpetrating the fraud.
His testimony centers on a tool called SAES Data Utility—part of the Smartmatic system—which was officially designed to test the integrity of the electoral system. However, the witness explains the following: this tool allows for the emulation of multiple voting machines and the transmission of their results, without the physical machines having transmitted anything at all. In other words: the actual machines fall silent, and the tool speaks on their behalf—using the numbers that someone had decided upon in advance.
The case he documents is highly specific: during the 2008 elections, data from the state of Mérida reached the national vote-counting center without having passed through any of the authorized transmission channels. The system indicated that Mérida had completed 100% of its transmissions; yet, according to the witness, what actually occurred was that someone utilized the "SAES Data Utility" tool to transmit all the data for that state, bypassing the regular channel entirely.
The dual-process mechanism—official for audited polling stations, alternative for those that would not be—is corroborated by the witness's own words. The crisis room operating in real time, the coordination between the field and the central hub, the database containing pre-calculated results, the design engineered to leave no auditable trace, and the electoral registry inflated with "ghost voters" serving as the raw material for the fraud—all of these elements align perfectly.
Where I fell short—or rather, where reality proved more sophisticated than my theoretical model—was regarding the specific technical mechanism involved. I had envisioned a small program installed individually on each voting machine. What the witness describes, however, is a tool that operated centrally—from a technical control room—remotely emulating the machines that were not subject to auditing. It is a more elegant, more powerful solution, and one that leaves behind even fewer physical traces. The underlying logic remains the same; the engineering, however, is far superior to anything I had imagined.
And there is something the testimony adds—something I was unable to see back in 2013: the international link. Smartmatic acquired Sequoia Voting Systems in 2005 using Venezuelan funds. Dominion Voting Systems purchased Sequoia in 2010. The very same engineers who integrated the Venezuelan code into Sequoia carried out that integration at Dominion, and they remain employed there to this day. The witness examined a forensic image of the election server for Mesa County, Colorado—in the United States—pertaining to the 2020 elections involving Trump, and discovered the exact same vulnerabilities he had previously identified within the Venezuelan system.
I wish to be precise on this point: I am not asserting that the Venezuelan fraud was replicated *exactly* in the United States. What I *am* asserting is that a system designed with structural vulnerabilities to facilitate electoral manipulation traveled—along with all its engineers and its internal logic—straight into the heart of the electoral infrastructure of the most powerful nation on Earth. And that no one—at any point along that journey—subjected it to a thorough audit.
In 2013, I concluded my presentation by noting that the technical debate had long since been left behind, and that the matter had evolved into a purely political issue. Today—twelve years later, and armed with sworn testimony confirming the very architecture I described back in 2013—the question is no longer whether such fraud was technically feasible, for clearly, it was. The question now is: What will be done with this evidence in Venezuela? And what of those individuals currently demanding that elections be held in Venezuela while this very trap remains in place—and without the "angels" to whom Guillermo refers.
That scenario would undoubtedly result in yet another fraudulent election for all Venezuelans. And the strongest card we hold for entering an election—María Corina Machado (MCM)—would lose by a margin of 2,000 or 5,000 votes, simply because absolutely nothing in that system would have been rectified. For that is precisely the tactic chavismo has employed ever since this fraudulent scheme first began in 2004.
Caracas, April 17, 2026
Blog: TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email:
luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario