At a Pennsylvania hearing on the election, retired Army Col. Phil Waldron said that voting machines used in the United States were built for manipulating elections. He alleged that up to 1.2 million votes could have been altered in Pennsylvania and that a forensic analysis would be needed to determine the exact number.

“The voting systems in the U.S. and in Pennsylvania were built to be manipulated,” Phil Waldron, a cybersecurity expert dealing with intelligence and information warfare for some 30 years, said in the hearing.

Waldron told the committee that he personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who was told by Hugo Chavez’s family members “not to worry about the populist threat against Maduro’s election in Venezuela” because “it was guaranteed, their father invested the money to build the SGO voting machine system.”

Independent attorney Sidney Powell told Fox News on Nov. 16 that President Trump’s legal team has a sworn affidavit from a high-ranking official from Venezuela testifying that the SGO voting system is a tool for manipulation.

Waldron said U.S. election systems like Dominion have “similar code and similar function.”

“Our experts and other academics believe that up to 1.2 million Pennsylvania votes could have been altered or fraudulent, this is what we discovered in the last 22 days,” but that only a detailed forensic analysis would show how many Pennsylvanian votes had been manipulated, Waldron said.

“There are many, many more teams like ours, small teams that are joined in this fight, and they are throwing the flag left
and right, so there’s a lot of folks who are recognizing anomalies,” Waldron said.

After the allegations were made, Dominion released a statement late on Nov. 25, saying that “Dominion has no ties to Smartmatic or Venezuela. ”

Dominion said that “Vote counts are conducted by county and state election officials, not by Dominion. Our systems support tabulation by those officials alone” and the “servers that run Dominion software are located in local election offices, not overseas. Data never leaves the control of local election officials.”