The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW Trump Campaign Hired Its Own Exit Polling — What Did They Discover?

Episode Date: August 6, 2024

Ken Block was hired by the Trump campaign to audit the 2020 election for fraud. The Trump campaign also hired its own exit polling company — what did they discover?  Block's book examines the flawed system from 2020 that will still be with us for 2024 and drastic changes he believes should be done to reform and protect election integrity. "Disproven: My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump Campaign, the Data That Shows why He Lost, and How We can Improve Our Elections"Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

At BetMGM, Ontario's best casino action is just a click away. Play thrilling games like Premium Blackjack Pro, the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, or try to score in Gretzky Gold Lucky Tap. It's all here at BetMGM. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Happiness. We all know what it feels like, but sometimes it doesn't come easy.

I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts.

All right, welcome back. And our guest is Ken Block. And the book is Disproven, My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud in the Trump Campaign, the data that shows why he lost, and how we can improve our elections. And we're going to spend a lot of time on election reform, not so much about litigating 2020. He's got a lot to say. How did he get involved in this? Well, he is president of a software systems company, Sympatico. Software engineer and entrepreneur.

Specializes in database technologies and groundbreaking projects, such as the country's first statewide debit card benefit system. And in Texas, he saved them a billion dollars off of the fraud and waste and their SNAP programs. But he said he wasn't really interested in getting involved in politics. But, you know, sometimes we find that politics is interested in us. In the past decade, he's analyzed voter data from more than 40 states. The few that he has yet to analyze do not provide their data to the public. He has served as an expert in legal challenges that involve voting data, voter fraud,

and election integrity. So we'll talk to him about all of these things and about what he has learned as he investigates this. What can we do to make sure that we have honest elections that are not going to be contested? Thank you for joining us, sir. Thanks for having me. It's very important because a lot of people are very concerned about this, and rightfully so. A lot of people are ready to have a revolution if the candidate that they

think should win does not win. And in an equally divided country like this, half the people are pretty much feeling that way. I saw that your foreword was written by Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State, that, you know, again, over the weekend, I talked about this at the beginning of the program, Trump was furious at Governor Kemp. He didn't talk about Raffensperger, but they have in the past. And so, you know, he is is and i said this about him i said it's unfortunate that he is so focused on revenge that he can't be focused on even winning uh let alone on reform

and so i want to talk about that but before we get into what we can do for reform tell us a little bit about your take on what happened in georgia investigated? Yeah, it's the idea that in states that are whisker close, and we have a bunch of them. We have Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia. Michigan is not really whisker close, but close enough. Nevada. The idea that if the election goes one way as opposed to another, that the only explanation for it must have been fraud is not an accurate way to depict what happened. And Georgia is maybe in a lot of ways the closest state that we have in terms of being evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. The results of the 2020 election have been gone up and down and backwards and forwards and sideways. And there really hasn't surfaced any credible claim of voter fraud that could be proven.

And in my work for the Trump campaign, I was hired very specifically to do data analytics that would stand up in a court of law. My job was to find enough voter fraud to matter in one of the swing states, document it, and have it be so rock solid that when it got taken to court, the other side's experts wouldn't be able to tear it apart. That's sort of the gold standard when you're dealing with legal challenges to elections. You have to have a foundation of fact in which to be successful in court. And the simple fact of the matter is, whether it was Georgia or any of the other swing states,

while we found some voter fraud, we didn't find nearly enough to cover the margin of victory. And the margin of victory in Georgia was roughly 12,000 votes. It was roughly 11,000 votes in Arizona, roughly 90,000 votes in Pennsylvania. And in none of those states did we find enough voter fraud to cover what those margins were and so and that's just a plain statement of fact and there were so many election challenges that failed in the court system because

the nature of their proof wasn't acceptable proof in courts of law right and that's just sort of was there any talk about them taking uh their findings i know that you were there to prepare the findings that they would use to argue the case but did they ever talk about uh taking the case instead of to a court to uh the legislature because i know four of these razor thin uh margin of victory for biden for these states had Republican legislatures. They were talking about presenting a case to the legislature to get them to acknowledge a Republican slate of electors officially. And then you would have had, as Thomas Massey talked about, as Pence talked about, as J.D.

Vance recently talked about, to have then a court case as to who gets to decide who the electors are. Is it going to be the governor and the executive branch, or is it going to be the legislative branch? Was there ever any talk about taking the case to the legislatures? So I wasn't part of any strategy meetings inside the campaign. My job was incredibly focused, and I had 30 days to do what amounted to about a year's worth of work. So I was highly occupied and segmented away from everything else that was swirling around the campaign at the time. probably are not the best body to try to ascertain a very technical determination, which was did fraud occur and how did it occur?

Many members of legislators don't have that in their background. So it would be my preference that if it's going to be contested, that it gets contested in a venue where they can handle highly technical presentations and digest the facts. And our court system does that all the time. Legislatures typically don't. So that's just from a process perspective, that's kind of where I'm at. In Georgia, there are three different data points that really help document what really happened in Georgia. And I know that in a lot of conservative circles, Secretary Raffensperger is not well liked. But the data that he brought forward and can document, has documented, and it's hard proof,

he showed that about 30, gop presidential primary voters in georgia in 2020 took a pass on the general election uh those are lost presidential votes for president trump and he lost by fewer than 12 000 votes now those 30 000 votes were probably moderate republicans call them rhinos, whatever you want to call them, who probably voted against Trump in the primary and then decided they couldn't bear to vote in the general election. And there was another 30,000 votes that Raffensperger brought forward and has the proof for that showed that the presidential selection was left blank but all the down ticket republicans received votes and again that's a sort of symbolic protest votes by very likely

middle-of-the-road republicans uh who like to down ticket uh gops but didn't like what was at the top of the ticket uh and that's hard evidence to overcome and there's really no credible fraud that you can look at that comes close to having the solidity of the numbers that uh that raffensperger brought forward uh that matches with what my nationwide findings are and uh those are basically that Trump lost about two and a half percent support across the board everywhere in 2020 relative to 2016. And those are the rhinos. I'm pretty sure those are the rhinos who took a hike and left. It's not a lot of voters, but in a whisker close election, it was enough. Most probably people who were not too happy with what had happened the first part of 2020 let me ask you uh you know with the lockdowns and things like that that kind of soured a lot of us uh on on what was going on but uh let me ask you about the vote by mail thing because that was a

function of the lockdown as well and we'd never done that before uh how did you um audit or how did you view the vote by mail stuff so uh we looked at the the mail ballots uh not so much from uh the process of mail ballots were there changes to uh rules made to allow mail ballots to be changed how mail ballots were used uh my role in looking at them was, were dead votes cast by mail? Did people who voted by mail vote twice in two different places? It was the nature of what I was looking at was those sorts of things. You know, it was really a remarkable period of time in a lot of different ways. And honestly, I think maybe had we not had COVID, I actually believe there was a better than even money chance that President Trump would still be President Trump right now. I think COVID cost him dearly in this election.

Did mail ballot use tip the balance? I don't think so, because I think anybody who was motivated to vote would have figured out how to vote one way or the other. The presumption is, were mail ballots used in some nefarious way? Was massive mail ballot fraud happening?

And I didn't see evidence of that. I mean, to commit mail ballot fraud, you're either going to steal someone's identity and vote vote as somebody else or you're going to steal a deceased person's identity and do that and we found a couple a dozen dead votes in in most of the swing states uh we found a couple a hundred duplicate votes uh across the swing states and and the the campaign spared no expense on this we we exhaustively looked at uh every single mail ballot to ensure that the person whose name that mail ballot was cast was among the living so what do they do to to um to cast about do they have to request it and

is it mailed to them at an address or something they just pick it up and then mail it in themselves how did that so uh what's really frustrating is it's different from state to state to state. We're going to get into that down the line. In many states, you have to fill out a mail ballot application, mail it in, they verify your signature, and then when the time is right, they'll mail you a ballot that you then return. That's like the absentee ballot process that we've had for a very long time right right yeah a few states and this goes this happened before covid states like california and oregon uh and colorado interestingly have moved to uh entirely conducting their

elections by mail uh they send out mail ballots to everybody uh And if you don't want to vote by mail, you have to take extraordinary actions to opt out of voting by mail and instead to vote in a different way. So we had a mix of those different things. Many states made voting by mail is, I believe it's Louisiana, that has very strict usage in terms of who can use it and under what circumstances. So it's all over the map. I didn't see any partisan slant to the mail ballot fraud that we did find, it was pretty evenly divided by Democrats, Republicans, Independents. And that's been the case of all the voter fraud I've documented over the years. I have yet to find a form of voter fraud where when it happens, it's just sort of a bipartisan activity. How would you audit a situation to find out if somebody was voting for a dead person? And I ask because a friend of my brother-in-law's in 2012 in North Carolina,

they have, at least at that time, they had the longest voting period of any state, and there was no picture ID. So you could just walk in and give them you could vote early and when you went to vote you just give them a name and address and there was no validation of that with even a driver's license and so on election day this friend of my brother's and brother-in-law's goes in and register, he gives him his name and address. And he said, you've already voted. And so is this other person at your address?

And he said, well, that's my mom. She's been dead for several years. So how do you how do you audit that to to know if that is happening, you know, in Georgia, for example? Well, so in 2020, the Trump campaign had us process every single male ballot voter in the swing states. There was about 31 million of them. We process them through a data vendor who matches up the voter with their Social Security number. And then using the Social Security number, you can look at something called the Social Security death master file which is the social security administration tracks everybody who dies uh so we use that mechanism uh 31 million times for

every mail ballot that was cast what did you find election uh like i said you know we found a couple at most a couple of dozen in each swing state uh not nearly enough to matter uh i did predict because i had done an analysis in pennsylvania about a month before the election i found a couple of recently registered dead voters uh and i predicted that those would become mail ballot fraud and and they did yeah yeah now you you uh did your research uh you presented your findings to the trump campaign and uh who had hired you to their attorneys and you also reported to mark meadows all of your results is that correct yeah so i didn't speak directly to mark meadows the uh lawyer who hired me and who basically was my point person throughout this whole thing, Alex Cannon,

the basic premise of what I did were two different things. I looked for duplicate votes. I looked for dead voters. And then the campaign used my company to help vet every claim of voter fraud that came their way. There were a lot of them uh from outside of the campaign uh asking he asked us to vet them determine whether they were true or not be uh before they would consider taking those claims into court so they were operating in a very careful methodical way they asked us to review about 20 different claims of fraud some of them came in through folks like Sidney Powell and John Eastman. Others came through academics or just random people out there who did their own research.

And every one of the 20 different claims that we looked at, we were able to show why it was wrong. When we wrapped things up towards the end of November, Cannon took the summation of everything that we had done and went to Mark Meadows and told Meadows that when it came to voter fraud, we looked pretty exhaustively at it. All the claims we looked at were false and we couldn't find enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome in any election. And when did, when was that presented? What was the date that roughly that you presented that stuff? Well, so I didn't do a presentation to anybody. Every one of the claims I looked at had its own email and documentation and all that landed on Cannon's desk. Cannon took that all together and went and talked to Meadows, I believe, right at the end of gave him gave him the summation of everything okay all

right and so it was december the 14th that the um the electoral colleges you know the people that were selected the elector the slate of electors from each party that had won uh submitted their votes on december 14th the january the 6th was a formal uh acceptance of all that stuff but everybody presented that stuff on december the 14th so they knew um the end of november they knew a couple of weeks before the electoral college voted uh and then again uh about another uh about i guess um six weeks or so before um uh the january the thing, they had those results in. What did you think about the Stop the Steal stuff? You mentioned that you debunked fraud claims on those advancing the Stop the Steal initiative.

Tell us a little bit about that. Yeah, I mean, so as I looked at everything, I wasn't aware usually of where the claims came from. I was able to piece a lot of it together afterwards uh so uh you know for the from the sydney powell john eastman perspective i didn't know that the claims that i found were false that they brought forward came from them until uh about a year ago really yeah so uh it's the you know the whole problem with stop the steal and with a lot of so many people believe firmly that the election was stolen but that belief is based

upon a set of facts that's at best really really squishy right what i mean by that is uh the facts on which the claims are being made that everybody is grabbing onto and says it was stolen can't possibly ever stand up in court, usually for a really basic reason, because that reason is it's more usually it's hearsay evidence. is often defined as he said, she said type stuff. Right. And our courts don't allow that kind of evidence on which to convict somebody because someone can easily be lying about that. Right. The court systems want to see fact-based evidence that can be double and triple checked, you know, hard facts. Sure. And most of, most of the evidence that people are being presented

as evidence that the election was stolen is squishy evidence. It's not the kind of evidence that you could take to court and win. And that to me is really something that I have a problem with because I, you know, I'm a data guy. I take data to court and my data survives legal scrutiny, right? So if you can't find data that survives legal scrutiny, I think it's sketchy to start bringing forward data that can't and then using that information to really get people amped up about what happened in our election. I do not believe that the election was stolen i believe that the election in 2020 was lost i was very skeptical of it from the very beginning actually you know when i i worked at info wars i had a show there and two days after the election steve pachinik came on and said that

there had that that it was a sting that they had blockchain watermark ballots that had somehow come out of the federal government at some central location. But the key thing that was obviously disprovable was he said two days after the election. So we got 20,000 National Guard that are out there arresting these people who rigged the election. Now, that obviously was not true. That wasn't going to go down that path. So we had all kinds of stuff but it was so many people even weeks after that uh when there was absolutely no evidence of any national guard troops or any

arrests or whatever they were still pushing that so i can imagine that somebody saying yeah we got pictures of i know personally about somebody's stuff in a ballot box uh that's going to be much more believable than the other stuff that people were fighting about and willing to go to the mat to say, yes, there is some secret war that is going on. Maybe in Germany, maybe some places in the United States where people are actually fighting and going to war over this. It really was a strange situation. One more thing I'd like to talk about before we start talking about how to reform this stuff. And that is the exit polls, which have kind of come in to play again with this Venezuelan election. The State Department has always used Edison Research, which is the exit polling organization

here in the United States. And they say that, and they use them in other countries as well. And they say that if the difference between Edison Research's exit polls and the official results are more than five points away from each other, that it looks like it's a rigged election. Now, it's just one particular company. And, of course, that company can be rigged as well. We don't know about their integrity. But it is the company that is used for the exit polls by all of the media organizations in the united states uh they typically don't give us i've never seen them give us a total and say well here's what they say the total is uh and compare that to what the

reported votes were they'll give you demographic cross tabulations you know how many men or how many women or this or that voted for this candidate but um was there ever any talk about looking at the exit polls? Anything about that? So I didn't know it at the time, but I learned of this about a year and a half ago. The Trump campaign commissioned their top pollster to conduct exit polls in the 2020 election in the swing states. That poll's name is tony fabrizio and just to just to be fully transparent i'm a two-time candidate for governor uh here in rhode island and in my uh run in 2014 as a republican uh fabrizio was my pollster as well so i just like to put that out there because i'm talking about him and I just didn't want to do that without disclosing that.

Fabrizio conducted a 30,000 interview exit poll across all the swing states. And he created an internal campaign document that leaked. And that document made its way to politico.com so anyone can find it there. But what he determined was that one out of six votes, voters that they spoke with, were disaffected Republicans who chose to vote against Trump in that 2020 race. Another one out of six voters were brand new voters motivated to vote against Trump because of covid uh so that's that's a full third of the voters that they uh had identified were strongly against trump for different sets of reasons uh so exit polls are typically take it to the bank type things right they're usually considered to be pretty accurate. And I've not ever heard of somebody manipulating the results of an exit poll. I don't know much, hardly anything at all about what's going on down in Venezuela right now, other than it's a mess. So, you know.

It's another one of these things, right? And so that kind of gets us a lead into some of the things that we do about how to how to fix this based on your insights. But I think that's very important. I think it's very interesting that the Trump campaign did its own exit polls and they didn't present that data. So presumably that data was not favorable to them. Didn't you? Am I mistaken? Did you debate Lindell on this, Mike Lindell? I did. He and I appeared on a YouTube channel about a month ago with a host named David Pakman. And yeah, we had about a 45-minute conversation about voter fraud and what is there, what's not there. And even we got into a little bit

the things that we need to do to fix things and i know that he held a press conference at one point in time and steve bannon was there and a whole bunch of people and steve bannon was just fed up he said well we were told that he had receipts and he goes he doesn't have any receipts he was really upset about does he have any receipts yet no it's evidence-free right uh that's very interesting it really is sad to see but let's let's talk about what we can do to uh to fix the election uh system based on what you have seen and your opinions about it yeah so i think this is the most important thing to talk about i mean 2020 is long gone and it's in the rear mirror. There's nothing that we can do at this point to alter the course of what's going to happen in 2024.

It's going to be very, very similar, I believe, to what we experienced in 2020. It may be almost virtually identical. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is exactly the same because the basic same setup is there that we had four years ago the way we conduct our elections in this country is the way we've done it for hundreds of years and it no longer makes any sense and it causes us some real problems and the biggest set of problems that we have is that different states and many times different counties in the same state conduct the same election differently. They have different rules, they have different regulations, they have different hardware. And

I'll give you just a simple example of how these differences can actually affect the outcome of a specific vote uh what do you think happens if you vote early but then die before election day does your vote count or does your vote not count i would think that it would count depends on where you live there you go it depends yeah yeah so in mich, it does not count. And in 2020, the state of Michigan invalidated about 3,500 votes by voters who voted early and then passed away before election day. In Pennsylvania, if you vote early and then pass away before the election, your vote does count. So some of the votes that people identified as deceased votes actually counted because in pennsylvania that's not an illegal situation as long as you cast the vote while you're alive

if you happen to then pass away before election day in pennsylvania the vote still counts so it becomes you can see how just that one scenario causes a voter that we imagine is in this situation to have a very different experience as a dead voter in michigan as it does uh opposed to pennsylvania let me ask you this question before we move on and because uh when you get these these ballots in i mean what what kind of records do you have to look at a vote an early vote by mail ballot uh to to know that this person voted that ballot and voted it at that date you know if they're going to count it um if the person is now dead but they you know to know that the person uh made this uh vote before they died how how do you do you have uh how do you audit? What kind of information do they have in terms of

auditability? Do they know the postmarked date and the person's name on the ballot? So they have postmarked dates. They have names and addresses on the ballot application, which also goes on to the envelope that your mail ballot gets put into as you mail it back in the trick is getting that information and being able to determine with certainty whether or not that voter is dead and alive or alive and most people who do these analysis don't aren't able to arrive at an answer that is rock solid for sure yeah uh big problem pennsylvania you know where it's that it's okay if they did it and then died how do you determine that that's that's tough right right well i pointed out to the state of pennsylvania uh through uh lawyers i was doing some work for in october of

2020 two registered voters who were dead clearly deceased uh identified them and because they had registered in the last month uh back in september of 2020 i said these will become very likely fraudulent votes the state didn't do anything about those voters they did in fact vote by mail as deceased voters and it was only after the election that the people behind those votes were contacted arrested uh and uh they pled guilty to election crimes for casting fraudulent votes uh it's really hard in fact it's so hard to identify whether or not someone is living or dead uh i think that that the only reasonable thing to do is to probably allow the votes as long as you're alive when you cast the vote i think that the vote should count because it's just so hard for states to determine otherwise inside a crazy

window of time where they're trying to do a lot of other things you know and again we only were able to do we what we did in terms of identifying deceased registered voters because the trump campaign basically provided an unlimited pile of money that we were able to spend to do so accurately uh i guess the real that's really the issue you know in terms of how do you validate that and i guess uh the key issue is that people have to have trust in the election. And so it seems to me like there needs to be different ways that they can have either transparency and have the ballots retained. I know that in Texas, it was kind of a standard procedure, even though it was in the Constitution that a facsimile image of the ballot had to be retained. You had the the guy who was in charge of the Board of Elections would send out a statement to all of the counties saying you don't have to retain it.

And they would not retain it in a lot of these counties. And so it made the auditing process really difficult. But I think maybe, you know, a lot of people are looking, let's just go simple. Let's go to hand counted ballots. We know that people can always stuff stuff, but if you got hand counted ballots and you got observers from both sides, it seems to me like you need to have something like that where people can have some confidence that, you know, the fraud has been kept to a minimum, that there's been eyes on this, that they have done it. What do you think about that?

What are your recommendations in terms of paper ballots? I know that's a big paper chase, but what would you say about that? Well, I think for sure when you vote, the vote should be on a paper ballot so that you have a physical representation of what happened, so that you can go back and analyze it. Any machine that allows you to vote electronically without paper ballot backup, have a physical representation of what happened so that you can go back and analyze any machine that allows you to vote electronically without paper ballot backup i think is a terrible idea and we shouldn't be there for sure uh let's use maricopa county arizona as uh sort of a proving

ground for whether or not it's reasonable to count by hand all the ballots. So Maricopa has roughly one and a half million voters that vote in its elections. On your typical Maricopa County ballot, there's anywhere between 20 and 30 different races on that ballot. It just depends on the year and where you are in the cycle of different things, which means that in your typical election year in Maricopa you have to if you're going to count by hand you have to tally up 20 to 30 million different distinct votes uh across all the different races that are there uh that is a phenomenally large amount of votes and no human counting effort will ever be anywhere near as accurate

as a machine count can be the problem and the the the worry about the machines is that they can be hacked that they can uh be programmed maliciously before the election, that kind of thing. And I look at what the casino industry does. And in my background, I've done a lot of work in the gaming industry over the years. Many, many, many casino management systems have defensive software built into every one of those slot machines so that they know if the software deviates from what it should be. And I won't get into the technical details of it, but it's something that you can absolutely do. And it's something that you can absolutely bring forward into the election

machine software. We have the ability to know with confidence what software is running on those machines. And we should be using it. And as I said to, you know, Mike Lindell is one of the big, big pushers of, we need to be counting by hand. We need to be counting by hand. And what I'll say is, first of all, there's just no way that you can count 30 million votes accurately by hand. First of all, it would take forever to do that, right?

You would need an army of people conducting the count. And then, you know, human beings make mistakes in that whole thing. It is too big a job, I think, to do it manually. And as I said to Mike, I said, Mike, the problem is you're talking about squishy reasons to count the mallets by hand. But you actually haven't pointed out something that is an actual risk that's happened that justifies making such a big change. So should we harden our machines? A hundred percent. And we should have federal guidelines that all the machines have to adhere to so that we can have some confidence that they have not been hacked and that the software that

they're running has been vetted and is working the way it needs to and all that kind of thing. That's technology that's already in place. I just don't see how, I mean, if you or I were to sit down and start tallying votes on a ballot, maybe we could tally, if we were working really fast, 500 votes an hour, right? Maybe. I mean, you know, and now think about 30, getting to 30 million votes, 500 votes an hour at a time. It tells you how big the number is, right? The number is probably 60,000 hours

of work to get that done in Maricopa and I don't think going back to the stone age for how we count votes is a going to be a workable answer for us in this modern age yeah it's uh again you know when we look at um the electronic stuff and and i always talk about and i've shown several times the um an example going back to the late 1990s early 2000s we have uh local college professors bring some kids in they say well let's uh take over this machine here and they put a virus on there that tilts everything according to their predetermined ratios and then erases itself. And so, you know, the vulnerability there, I guess, is whether or not it's connected to the Internet and whether or not somebody

can reprogram it with, you know, by putting a thumb drive on there and installing some software. How do you guard against that type of thing, that kind of custody of the machine, for example? So, you know, the physical in the same way that slot machines have tremendous physical security around them in terms of surveillance, both uh electronic and and people watching uh it's the same thing with with voting machines the the sensitive areas of the voting machine should be in uh on the back of the machine where nobody is allowed right so i mean if you're putting a usb key in the front of the machine and someone can close the the you know they can close the curtains and plug something in. I mean, that's a violated rule 101 of physical security.

You know, it's, there are, for those who understand machine security and how to make sure that the software that should be in there is in there, it's all, that's all a solvable problem it really is and as part of your auditing did you have videotapes of the physical security situation to know we were strictly focused on the data okay the they wanted me on the hard data that was going that they were hoping was going to be able to go to court i didn't get involved in any uh one specific local issue uh and for sure i didn't get into any hearsay claims of any kind

there there was just there wasn't the time to get into that you know look there there are you hear a lot of people talk about election integrity and i am a huge proponent of election integrity and making sure that the data for our elections is as clean as it can be and one of the problems with having the states do their own voter registration maintaining their voter rolls differently from each other is you end up with some states that do a really good job at it and you do some you have some states that do an absolutely terrible job at it yeah uh and the terrible uh side of things i'm going to offer up two states uh new jersey and new york uh in new jersey in 2020 there were roughly 25 000 voters registered who had a year of birth of 1800 which if you do the math you realize that there's just no way that any human being in 2020 uh had a birth date of 1800 uh and of those 25 000 registered voters with a birth date of 1800

8 000 cast votes in 2020 now some of your listeners are going to be like holy moly that's voter fraud it's probably not. What happens in a lot of different computer systems, and this is happening in New Jersey's system, if they don't have a date of birth for a voter, they stick 1800 in there as a placeholder. They didn't have anything else. So 8,000 voters in New Jersey cast votes in 2020 that state election officials don't know when those voters were born okay now that's a problem all by itself and it's one that election officials in new jersey still haven't fixed they have really really dirty data right and you see all kinds of different ways

that dirty data can impact impact registered voters and ultimately can even impact whether people should be voting or not, right? I think in New Jersey, you might find maybe some of those 8,000 voters shouldn't have been voting for some reason, but the state can't identify who those voters are. You have to know someone's date of birth to be able to identify them using data. And New Jersey can't do that. New York has a very similar problem and some worse ones, and I don't want to get too far into it, but there are millions of votes that happened in New York state in 2020 by voters

that they cannot identify because those voters don't have a social security number or driver's license on file with election. That's an an extraordinary thing and it's a huge problem for new york election officials because they can't possibly maintain the data in their system without having that information that's just two examples when you move from one state to another some states are able to track down the movement and cancel the registration for when somebody moves from state to state. A lot of other states cannot. And so we end up with people with duplicate registrations. We end up sometimes with people with four or five duplicated registrations. There's all a manner of stuff like that that's happening. And for me as a technology professional,

I can't stand the fact that our elections depend on data that at times can be extraordinarily dirty. And we have the technology and the means to fix this. And I think it's criminal that we don't. And of course, we've got a lot of jurisdictions where they want to give the vote to even non-citizens. So that's like there's this whole spectrum of what is out there so uh in your opinion how do we what's the best way to fix this i mean do you have to have some kind of a national standard and some kind of inspectors i mean i think one of the reasons we have the kind of system that we've got is because there was an aversion to centralizing things. Because if you centralize things,

now you've got one point that you can corrupt or you can infiltrate, and now you've got the entire system. So there's a danger in centralization as well. How would this work out? So leaving any ideology out of my answer, as a technologist, the only sane way to conduct our federal elections is with a federal voter registration database uh if we got rid of the 50 different implementations

of the voter registration that we have right now in fact it's way more than 50 uh most large states make the responsibility of elections at the county level. And so in many ways, we have as many as 4,000 or 5,000 different election systems that all do things a bit differently from each other. Technologically speaking, the right answer, and we would eliminate most of the voter integrity issues that we suffer from if we had a federalized voter registry uh i understand with states rights and a whole bunch of either ideological arguments or even the uh security argument of well you know if you have just one you know what what happens i don't believe that the voting should happen on a federal level with just one system but i do believe that the voter registration should be done that way so if somebody hacks a voter registration system and by the way

how many counties do you know that have high quality data uh employees working for them technologists right right uh the lower down we push the conduct of our elections i believe the more likely it is that those uh the the county level is where it's most likely that you can see successful hacking because they just don't have the technological expertise that you need as you would, but as you move your, we've moved your way up the chain to state level technologists and ultimately federal level technologists. Uh, yeah. And of course we've also seen, we've also seen the CIA and the NSA and the FBI and,

uh, military hacked as well. So from the top to the bottom, it is vulnerable. So, you know, it's, it's a a real quiet it's a real quandary so you know voter registration in a lot of ways is less uh the the danger of a hack there is lower than the danger of a hack to an actual election system that conducts the process of our election right right so uh i don't believe i believe it would be wrong to have federalized voting. I only talk about the voter registration with an eye towards the cleanest data that we can have. where there probably isn't a computer system anywhere that's hardened well enough to prevent someone who's really determined to get at it to get at it. You have to watch it really carefully and you have to see what you have to have the surveillance systems in place to know when it's

happening and to stop it before it goes. You can put that sort of stuff in front of a system like the, if we were to do a federalized voter registration system. I think that that system should also have biometrics on it. You know, we use social security numbers as the most sensitive identifier we have, right? If you're working at a job, you have to supply your social security number. It's how you file your taxes, all this stuff. You have to give a social security number to any banks that you want to open up bank accounts with. And the problem is hackers have every one of our social security numbers, all of them, right? They've been hacked so many times, it's no longer secure. I think we should replace social security numbers with a new identifier.

We're the only first world country that doesn't have a national identifier well what happens if you do a biometric and somebody steals your database now they've stolen your face what do you do i mean if they steal your passcode or something you get a new one uh to go get plastic surgery to order or to vote again what are you what do you do with that to me that, that's a big issue. And of course, when we look at creating, a lot of us have very strong concerns about creating a centralized state where we have to have some kind of a centralized ID

that kind of flows into a CBDC type of scenario and other concerns about a global ID. And so that gets a lot of people to take the safety off their gun when you start talking about that type of thing. I get it. I get it. But if your concern is election integrity, the biggest threat to integrity is the way we currently conduct the election. I mean, that's just a simple statement of fact. Well, let me ask you this. As unwieldy as it is, when they ran elections in Iraq, what they did was they did it on one day.

And they couldn't tell if these people were legitimate or if they'd walked across the border, but they could keep them from voting multiple times. And so you would go in and you'd vote on paper and then you would get this indelible stain on your thumb. That's going to be there for the rest of the day. So you couldn't vote again. If we, if we go ultra crude like that,

I know it's a big hassle to, to count this stuff, but I mean, if people really wanted a, a, a, a system, they would invest the time in terms of maybe volunteering or something like that.

I know that's idealistic, but I mean, why not go ultra low tech one day and the purple thumb? I mean, how many, how many elections that way do you hear stories about a whole bunch of ballots being stuffed anyway, right? Even, even people have ink stained hands that doesn't doesn't handle the physical security of the actual ballot box sitting there uh you know look i i live in a state where it wasn't all that long ago where some elected officials were arrested driving around with a bunch of uh absentee ballots in the trunks of their cars yeah and we saw that going back to the 1960s the reports of people driving around with the voting machines in the back of their car and that type of thing you're always going to have that i guess the thing for me personally and i've talked about this i said well because what scares me about the computerized voting is that if you're able to hack

the actual voting system you know different from the from the id stuff but if you're able to hack the actual voting system that gives you access from a remote area to be able to manipulate things across the country, or you can manipulate from the top of the ballot to the bottom of the ballot. I mean, if you get in there, the payoff is so incredibly large that it really is a big honeypot

for people in terms of the allure, I think. No differently than casino systems right and in a lot of ways the you know rigging a casino machine to walk out the door with a million dollars in cash in a lot of ways is probably a bigger prize and then uh most other things and the industry has dealt with that threat uh we can deal with the threat of uh the the hacking and the cyber attacks on election systems we really can uh it really comes down to a question of will and money but i don't know how we don't insist that the same protections that go into slot machines aren't already in most of the uh machines that conduct our elections i know some of the machines that conduct our elections do have this in there they all should have it and

if we have that i think we can all rest a bit easier about it well that is a good analogy i guess we'll end on that i think that there's many analogies that could be drawn between the electoral system and a casino the house always wins i think uh in both cases so uh but that is very interesting and i'm sure i haven't had a chance to read your book i didn't get a copy of it yet because i wanted to get drawn quickly uh but i'm sure it is very interesting. I think people will be interested to see what you found in 2020 that people are still talking about. And more importantly, what does that portend for the election that's coming up now? And I guess maybe about 90 days or something like that. And what can we do?

Certainly, there's not going to be anything that we can do to fix it between now and then. But it gives us some idea of what we can still expect. But then we really do need to take, I think, one thing everybody agrees, that we need to do something to make the electoral system more trustworthy, that people have confidence that their vote is counted and counted accurately. I think that is of paramount importance. And so it's very, I'm glad to see that you wrote a book about your experience with that. And again, the book is Disproven, My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump Campaign

and the Data That Shows Why He Lost and How We Can Improve Our Elections. And by the way, you can find this at KenBlock.com. There's a link there to buy the book, and you can get information about it there. Anything else you'd like to tell us about the book before we run out of time? Yeah, I mean, look, the back of the book is the most important part of the book. Fixing our elections is patriotic. It's mission critical. It's the most important thing. Mike Lindell and I disagreed

about the outcome of the elections, but we were in sync on the need to make changes to make things happen better. I've spoken to Republican secretaries of state. I've spoken to Democratic secretaries of state. There is a lot of over agreement, overlapping agreement on some of the things that we should be doing to make our elections better. And we need to move beyond where we're at in terms of our discussions of elections and looking backwards and dealing with whatever happens here in November to move forward. We need to have an adult conversation about making our elections better and getting to it and taking this moment in time to really improve things. Yeah, I agree. And it's not just that we would like to get the right answers. But I mean, in this time of polarization, if we don't have trustworthy elections, I'm very concerned that they, you know, be civil war over it or something like that. A lot of talk about that

on both sides. And so it's having something that you trust that you can audit that is really key. So again, you've got the second half of your book is about your recommendations for how to do that from somebody who is an expert on auditing it. And you've seen the tricks that can be pulled. And so that is, no system is going to be perfect. Any system can be infiltrated and has its own flaws. And so the question is, what do we do to try to minimize that

and mitigate those risks? So thank you so much for the work that you do. And again, you can find this at KenBlock.com and the book is Disproven. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Ken. False news has become all too common on social media. More alarmingly, some media outlets have published policies that we think are true without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. And this is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. Break free from the usual script with The David Knight Show, a fresh perspective bringing you genuine insights on current events. But if the show is going to stay on the air, we'll need your continued support. Sharing the show, subscribing, and even just hitting the like button all help.

And if you found our show helpful, please consider donating and becoming a part of a community that values the truth. Because independent, listener-funded news, untouched by corporate globalist agendas, is extremely important to our liberties.