In their Q&A accompanying their October 29 press release, Smartmatic asks if there were allegations about vote tampering in the Venezuelan Presidential Recall Referendum in which the company partnered with Bizta and the CANTV phone company.
It responds that “The National Electoral Commission conducted multiple tests to ensure accuracy & integrity of voting systems,” and that the Organization of American States and others served as witnesses.
Smartmatic then cites the Carter Center as saying that it “found no evidence of fraud.”
Source:
1. https://sfelections.sfgov.org/elections.pdf
1. Why didn’t Smartmatic ask and answer the yes-or-no question, “Are the allegations true that Smartmatic was involved in vote tampering and other controversies during Venezuela’s recent Presidential Recall Referendum?”
2. Why did Smartmatic/Sequoia word the question as follows, so that the company wouldn’t have to answer either way: “Weren’t there allegations of vote tampering and other controversies involving Smartmatic during Venezuela’s recent Presidential Recall Referendum?”
3. Why didn’t it structure the question in terms of truth of falsehood, so it could issue a clear denial of involvement in any fraud?
4. Why did Smartmatic rely on Venezuela’s National Electoral Commission to attest to the “accuracy & integrity of voting systems,” without informing the reader that the Commission at the time was a Chavez-controlled entity that paid Smartmatic and Bizta to do the work?
5. The elections were widely regarded as fraudulent despite the Carter Center’s statement. Did the Carter Center have anyone on the ground with the knowledge, expertise, independence, and time to audit the Smartmatic-Bizta systems?
6. What did the Carter-Baker Commission warn the year before about the integrity of electronic voting systems?
Comments are closed.