David Rutherford Show: The U.S. Election System Is a National Security Threat | Colonel Shawn Smith

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

Episode: David Rutherford Show: The U.S. Election System Is a National Security Threat | Colonel Shawn Smith
Date: January 26, 2026
Host: David Rutherford
Guest: Colonel Shawn Smith (Ret.), election cybersecurity expert

Episode Overview

This episode features a deep-dive interview between David Rutherford and retired Colonel Shawn Smith, a leading voice in election cybersecurity and operational testing for national defense systems. The discussion centers on the vulnerabilities of the U.S. election system, particularly the 2020 election, and why these election security lapses are not just technical oversights but a significant national security threat. Colonel Smith draws from his career in national security and his more recent hands-on investigations into election systems to argue that foreign adversaries, especially China, have exploited supply chain and testing weaknesses—problems compounded by a lack of transparency and resistance from U.S. institutions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Understanding Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs)

• Colonel Smith explains APTs:
  • APTs are highly-resourced, nation-state or affiliated actors (mainly China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) who methodically infiltrate Western technology systems.
  • These adversaries are “advanced” (high expertise and tools) and “persistent” (operate over years, even decades, inserting assets into supply chains and organizations for eventual exploitation).
  • China, in particular, manufactures electronics with built-in vulnerabilities, giving their intelligence and military institutions “tools and access in western technology” ([04:40]).
  • Notable Quote:

    “There’s some nation states like China that are doing a lot of manufacturing of electronics and computers and they have intentionally woven compromises into the supply chain...so the intelligence and military communities are being essentially delivered tools.”
    — Colonel Smith ([06:15])

2. Colonel Smith’s Background and Entry to Election Security

• Smith’s Department of Defense experience:
  • Spent 25+ years as a space and missile operator and special technical operations officer.
  • Responsible for operational testing of defense systems with a focus on realism and survivability.
  • Led adversarial assessment teams evaluating the extent of foreign state cyber-penetration into U.S. defense systems.
  • Saw firsthand the “massive amount of theft”—trillions in IP and vulnerabilities.
• Transition to investigating elections:
  • After reading unusual voter turnout articles post-2020 election, began researching voter rolls and voting systems ([20:30]).
  • Quickly found the voting systems’ test plans and reports did not follow rigorous threat testing standards found in military systems.
• Notable Quote:

  “What I saw in there was foreign nation had penetrated and exfiltrated massive amounts of intellectual property...weapon systems that I said should be called coffins, because of how thorough the compromise was.”
  — Colonel Smith ([15:10])

3. Supply Chain Vulnerabilities in U.S. Election Systems

• U.S. election equipment’s dependence on foreign manufacturing:
  • Nearly all voting system components, from mainboards to authentication modules, are built in China, giving adversaries ample opportunities to introduce security risks.
• Minimal supply chain checks or security protocols:
  • No effective mechanisms exist at federal or state levels to ensure hardware integrity or to mitigate foreign infiltration risks.
• Notable Quote:

  “Every single voting system component used in the United States is using one or more sub components that are manufactured entirely in the People’s Republic of China...imagine if you had security cameras at your house and the thieves were the ones that provided the cameras.”
  — Colonel Smith ([33:03])

4. Complicity and Failures of U.S. Institutions

• Media and government as obstacles:
  • Smith asserts that both entities have failed to inform or deliberately obscured the reality and scope of election vulnerabilities.
  • Election Assistance Commission standards do not adequately test for cybersecurity or supply chain threats.
  • Both Republicans and Democrats have, at times, acknowledged risks, but action is rare or misdirected.
• Historical moves that increased systemic risk:
  • The Obama DOJ forced major voting system providers to divest technology to Dominion, a Canadian company with controversial connections and vulnerabilities ([37:15]).
  • No major U.S. voting system vendor has truly “clean hands”—all have histories of vulnerabilities or misrepresenting security.

5. Grassroots Team Formation and Citizen Involvement

• Smith’s coalition-building journey in Colorado:
  • Connected first with other concerned citizens, legislators, and veteran experts—especially data professionals, mathematicians, and computer scientists.
  • Emphasizes the necessity for collective action:

    “You can’t do this alone...our objective was to connect grassroots groups and share for success, to try to win together, to try to restore together.”
    — Colonel Smith ([65:09])

• Practical advice to listeners:
  • People from all backgrounds (technical, legal, civic) must work as teams to diagnose and remedy election vulnerabilities—no “lone hero” will fix this ([40:37]).

6. Governmental Resistance, Media Suppression, and Personal Risk

• By mid-2021, Smith realized that telling the truth to authorities was insufficient—officials often lied to his face, and media actively worked to discredit him and his peers.
• Notable moment:

  “I thought this was going to be just exposing the truth. It’s not going to be exposing the truth because we were being opposed, suppressed, targeted by media, by institutions, by the government, the federal government at that point, state government...I was effectively...an enemy of my state and of the state at that point.”
  — Colonel Smith ([56:02])

7. The Tina Peters Case: Retaliation Against Whistleblowers

• Clerk Tina Peters of Mesa County, CO, faced intense legal retaliation after preserving election system backups before a “trusted build” update—which Smith and others argue was required under federal rules.
• Smith characterizes Peters’ prosecution as a warning to other officials and a sign of system-wide corruption.
• Notable Quote:

  “They really had to set an example. That was a message to every other election official: the federal government won’t protect you...if you oppose the elections or even question or try to do your job, we’re going to come after you.”
  — Colonel Smith ([84:04])

8. The Threat Going Forward (2026)

• Smith insists the window for action before the upcoming midterms is extremely short—the integrity of the entire system is at stake.
• He’s pessimistic about Congress meaningfully intervening, describing the issue as “the bedrock” and “the issue above all others.”
• Notable Quote:

  “If we don’t get some transparency and integrity restored to our elections, then the last two years of the President Trump’s administration are going to be either frustration or rollback...I earnestly believe that.”
  — Colonel Smith ([86:09])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "[When I saw the extent of the vulnerabilities,] the phrase that immediately just popped into mind was enemy inside the wire... That’s the worst case" — Col. Smith ([34:58])
• "This is our last election. If we don't get some transparency...then the last two years of the President Trump's administration are going to be either frustration or a rollback." — Col. Smith ([86:09])
• “There’s no citizenship happening on your couch. You have to engage. If not now, then when?” — Col. Smith ([90:09])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction to APTs and Chinese involvement: — [03:40] to [08:18]
• Colonel Smith's national security background: — [09:26] to [15:10]
• Smith's first look into the 2020 election issues: — [20:30] to [26:11]
• Examination of supply chain vulnerabilities: — [31:43] to [34:58]
• Systemic obstacles and government/media failures: — [36:42] to [40:37]
• Description of building citizen teams: — [41:48] to [65:09]
• Resistance from institutions and officials: — [55:06] to [56:02]
• The Tina Peters case in depth: — [73:02] to [84:04]
• Call to action and final reflections: — [86:09] to [90:30]

---

Further Resources

• Cause of America: causeofamerica.org — A digital library and network for election transparency, with thousands of documents, guides, and links to other state groups

---

Tone & Closing Thoughts

The interview is sober, detailed, and at times urgent—combining technical expertise with a military mindset focused on duty, national security, and persistence in the face of institutional resistance. Both the host and guest maintain a serious and direct style, with Smith offering vivid analogies and cautionary tales.

Final Message:
Anyone concerned about U.S. election integrity must get involved—whether through technical analysis, advocacy, or simply by getting informed and supporting verified grassroots efforts. The episode closes with a call to reject “citizenship on your couch,” urging listeners to take meaningful action.

---

Transcript

[Homes.com Advertiser]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

Guaranteed Human support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It's IT screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like EFTs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures available at public.com disclosures what.

[Homes.com Advertiser]

Kind of programs does this school have? How are the test scores? How many kids do a classroom? Homes.com knows these are all things you ask when you're home shopping as a parent. That's why Each listing on Homes.com includes extensive reports on local schools, including photos, parent reviews, test scores, student teacher ratio, school rankings and more. The information is from multiple trusted sources and curated by Holmes.com's dedicated in house research team. It's all so you can make the right decision for your family. Homes.com, we've done your homework.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? Business software is expensive and when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting. All linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at o d o o.com that's o d o o.com hey.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

This is US Olympic gold medalist Tara.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Davis Woodhull and I'm US Paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

As athletes, our lives are about having.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

A clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

So when it came to getting the best mortgage, we chose PennyMac. PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA and you.

[PennyMac Advertiser]

Learn more at pennymac.com pennymac loan services llc/housing lender nmls id 35953 licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Conditions and restrictions may apply.

[David Rutherford]

Today I dig Deep with Colonel Sean Smith, 2020 Elections Cyber security expert and analyst today on the David Rutherford Show. Colonel Smith, it is a real privilege and an honor to welcome you you to the show today. I'd love to just jump right in and can you explain what advanced persistent threats are in relation to what you've Learned from the 2020 election fiasco?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Sure. An advanced persistent threat is a characterization of an adversary typically nation state, almost exclusively nation state or nation state affiliated because of the resources required to to generate that kind of expertise and focus and support it. You see some of that expertise in international and non governmental like criminal organizations. But by and large the advanced persistent threats are nation state owned, operated or sponsored. You know, sometimes they'll use a cutout for plausible deniability. An advanced persistent threat. So you've got two aspects to it there. There's two adjectives. One is advanced. This means these are not, you know, what we would call like strip kitties. This is not somebody messing around like war games. This is not accidental. These are people with years and sometimes decades long nation state campaigns that are intended to penetrate, compromise and exploit vulnerabilities in western technology. Not just as if they come upon them, you know, as if they had nothing to do with them, but also they're involved in the supply chain frequently. So there's some nation states like China that are doing a lot of manufacturing of electronics and computers and they have intentionally woven compromises into the supply chain. So they work hand in hand between their sort of research institutions like CACA or casc, cacc. Those work alongside the advanced persistent threat elements from their intelligence and military communities. So that the intelligence and military communities are being essentially delivered tools and access in western technology and it's across all elements of national security. So it's the diplomatic realm, informational realm, it is financial realm as well as military or defense industrial. And so an advanced persistent threat is advanced in terms of their expertise, skill set and tools. And then the persistence is the part that most people don't understand. So you can't you know, we talk about red teaming. People sometimes have heard the term red teaming. Red team just means pretending to be the adversary. What we used to do in the military even, which is probably the most well developed and capable among US national security institutions in terms of its cyber defense and offensive capability, in particular the cyber defensive. I mean, Department of defense spends 8 to 12 billion dollars per year on cyber, primarily on defense, but also on offensive capabilities. You know, the, the military understands that you cannot emulate a persistent threat, one that has been preparing for that battlefield or for their execution of particular vulnerabilities and compromises in. You can't emulate that with somebody who just shows up on site. You have to have a persistent operation where you are inserting people into companies five years before you want to take advantage of that insertion in an operational sense. So there's two elements to the threat, advanced and persistent. There are from a public open source standpoint, there are more than 30 advanced persistent threats. There are far more than that. Most of them are clearly associated with a particular nation state. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, there are a few others like there are some in India, but the lion's share of resources in terms of manpower and other facilities and that kind of thing. China and then Russia and then probably Iran and North Korea. North Korea's was focused more on sort of financial exploitation. China's was focused and has been. Russia has been focused sort of on their own defense in a sense, as well as financial exploitation. China has been focused for at least 20 years on defeating the west, which, which makes it, you know, unfortunate and in a sense tragic that we offshored so much of our manufacturing and sourcing of electronics and computers to the People's Republic of China because it, it's just an open door for them to exploit all of that access.

[David Rutherford]

I, and that's what's fascinating to me. You know, everybody, I think, has been incredibly comfortable with acknowledging that, you know, one, China has been a, an advancing and growing threat over the last 20 plus years. We've seen that with relationships with, you know, within our own hemisphere. We saw that recently. There's an extensive relationship with Venezuela, with Brazil. We've seen it in all over Africa. And so it's interesting to me that people can grasp that level of persistent threat that's growing and advancing, you know, advanced, as you described. How come you believe, and you've been in this from the beginning, maybe you could start with your own story, is how come it's so difficult for the American public to not be able to Acknowledge that what happened in 2020 elections is indicative of that level of global threat.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Well, so, yeah. So the first thing I would say about that is the institutions that they would depend upon, which would be, first of all, government and second, media to inform them, were at best derelict, and I would say, at worst, complicit. So what I saw. So I'll go back into my background. I'm not really a cyber guy. I'm a. I'm a space and missile operator. That's what I did. But I also did a lot of special technical operations, which is the compartmented sort of, you know, secret. We call it jokingly secret squirrel. I did a lot of that within Department of Defense from the tactical level all the way through. Planning for new systems and requirements and writing orders for national defense authorities, writing orders for the President, writing white papers to inform the President about things that were happening and what should be done, that kind of thing. So I got that full experience, including doing the testing on the systems. When you do the operational testing, you have to be aware of the threats because you're supposed to represent those threats accurately within the testing to make sure that those systems are survivable and can fight and are reliable in the operational environment with typical operators. And then. So I did that. I was on active duty for a little over 25 years. And then when I retired, my boss, who, you know, I had a lot of respect for. At Department of Defense under osd, there's a directorate called the Director of Operational Test Evaluation. This is a presidential appointee who's Senate confirmed, who nominally reports through the Secretary of Defense, but really just reports to House and Senate Armed Services Committee. This is the guy who's the truth teller. So his job is oversight over operational testing of weapons systems. But as part of that, he gets to decide what he exercises oversight on. And so if they're testing, if they're developing, if they're modifying, he can decide he's going to have oversight. And because of that, he gets insight into what's happening in those programs. And then he does independent reporting to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees because all the incentives in that defense procurement environment are set up. You know, I could mince words, but it's set up to incentivize all the people involved to lie. Because if they. If they tell the truth about problems in their program, they might lose funding, lose. They might have to replan. And most of those are, you know, they're capabilities that the military believes they need or want. And so they're very way to do that. And so there's this whole structure where you end up, you know, you're familiar with the story of like policy. Somebody up at the top makes a stupid decision and down at the bottom they say this is, you know, this is garbage. Right. This is trash. And by the time it gets back up to the top, it's reaffirming for them, telling them how great it is. That's the. And it's that system. And so the Director of Operational Test Evaluation. I never wanted to go to the Pentagon, but I took this assignment to the RAND Corporation to do some research that I wanted to do very late in my career, realizing that they were going to then make me go to the Pentagon, which I had never wanted to do. And of all the jobs at the Pentagon, none of them really was I well suited for because I'm allergic to anything. But just naked truth.

[David Rutherford]

Yeah.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

And in The Pentagon and D.C. are not the environment they don't embrace. People who just tell the truth. Especially, you know, unvarnished, the way I'm. I'm in the habit of doing. Especially because I spent so much time with operators and tactical units. When something's bad, you know, I'm. I'm just critically aware that stupid decisions by higher headquarters kill people and break national security objectives. And so anyway, I got brought because of my operational testing background with the Air Force Operational Test Evaluation center, which by the way, I had tried to hide. So I had taken a bunch of defense acquisition courses and I got them successfully removed from my record because I never wanted to go do that in my career again. But they looked back at my assignment history and they pulled me into this office. And probably any other office would have killed me, like literally tried to kill me because.

[David Rutherford]

But when I met first, you were the disruptor man. You were the guy who came in.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

That's messed up. That's messed up. That's messed up. And the other thing is the director, when I got there was Dr. Gilmore. And he didn't care about anything but the truth either. So my first meeting with him, you know, usually you have an introductory meeting. My first meeting with him literally went like this. Sir, I've, you know, I've read all your policy documents. I read your remarks. I understand your intent. I believe I can execute it. If I can't, I'll let you know and you can relieve me. And we shook hands and that was it. And. And that's how it went. And he was a. So Dr. Gilmour was like a four star plus equivalent within the Department of Defense. And, you know, if the President wanted to fire him, he had to tell the Senate why. And so this was a guy who just cared about the truth. So that's what I got to do. And then when I retired, my boss asked me to stay on and help with a project called Adversarial Assessment, where we were looking at what I think. I still can't say who, but we were looking at what specific foreign adversaries had exfiltrated, penetrated and exfiltrated from U.S. defense and national security establishment, including government and non government, so including contractors. This was a massive, massive amount of data. And what became clear as we looked at this, we had a team. I was part of a team looking at it. And it went so well that we wrote a couple reports that went. One went right to the President. The second one, the direct. The new director would not sign because he thought it was embarrassing to the military services. That's when I walked away and said, I'm not going to. I only did this as a favor to my old boss. I really don't want to be in D.C. anymore. That was. I had gotten up one day in 2015 and wanted a jeep. And then driving it home, I realized it's because I don't ever want to come back here. I want to go to the mountains and stay there. And. And. But I had agreed to stay. And I said, I'll give you a year. And I did. And we did this analysis. And what I saw in there was foreign nation had penetrated and exfiltrated massive amounts of intellectual property, had had access to. To defense and national security and weapon system design and technology. US Government leadership was aware of it and didn't stop it. And like, there was no. There was no mistaking it. It was clearly a massive amount of theft. I'm talking about trillions of dollars of national sort of jewels, including information that compromised weapon systems that were fielded and weapon systems that were in development. So our reports identified specific weapon systems that we believed based on what had been exfiltrated and the corresponding changes in the national security objectives and technology objectives of the adversaries. We believe they understood the vulnerabilities of our weapon systems to the point where they would not be combat effective. So in other words, we would send people, you know, to war with them, and they would just be slaughtered. You know, there were. I won't say the specific programs, but there were programs that I said should be called coffins. Oh, my gosh. Because of. Because of how thorough the compromise was. And there Were there were weapon systems, including very expensive weapon systems, that were canceled. The programs were canceled because we identified that they were no longer going to be effective in a threat environment. And so that's what I saw. And part of that was seeing how thoroughly the adversaries had penetrated all these national security and defense establishments, the techniques they had used, the tactics they employed. If you look at mitre, which is a federally funded research and development corporation, if you look at their attack ATT and the ANN symbol ck, if you look at their ATTCK framework for cyber threats, we saw all of the elements of that taking place and being exercised against US national security and defense establishment. And I understood that capability level of our national security establishment in terms of cyber defense, how much resources and effort was being put towards it, and then the flip side of that coin, how thoroughly it had been penetrated and compromised because of these gaps and shortcomings, mostly from a policy standpoint, a great example is how the Department of Defense decided to go to cloud. So cloud was cheaper, civilian communications infrastructure was cheaper, both of them critically vulnerable. And I could, in a different forum, I could go on about some of the vulnerabilities we identified because they were vast and dramatic threats to defense capabilities, including within continental United States. So anyway, that's the background. And then I got away from that. So the Director refused to sign the second report. It got it to the President anyway. Kind of a backdoor. It's a long story, but that's when I said, I'm, you know, I'm done. And let me know if the Director locates. I named a body part, but imagine it being associated with courage. And so, so I, you know, I never intended to have anything to do with government again. That was my hope and intent. And then 2020, November, I election Day, I voted. I'm sitting at home. I read an article about turnout in my. Here in my state of Colorado. And I thought, that doesn't seem right. And it just triggered in me what I had been trained to do, which was research. I'd done research at Naval Postgraduate School, research with the RAND Corporation. I'm a trained, experienced researcher with a lot of expertise in some specific areas. I know a lot about cyber threats. I'm not a keyboard guy. I know a lot about the threat. And so anyway, I went to do some research, and the more I read, the more concerned I got. I started downloading data from the Secretary of State, doing some regression analysis to see if there were deflections in turnout and in voter roll status compared to prior years. And then looking for the reasons for those. And then I found out that they had the voting system manuals, test reports and test plans online, as well as the standards. And up to that point I knew nothing, Literally had never read a single.

[David Rutherford]

Nothing, never thought about it, never even, even back. You weren't like when there was nothing about Clinton's response in 16 that didn't trigger like none of it.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

I was busy. I was busy even when I was in D.C. which was probably the easiest I'd had in 10 years in terms of workload. I was still, you know, 50 to 60 hour week was pretty normal. And I would usually work at home, you know, at nights and on weekends. If there were things I couldn't get done at work, I was doing them at home to kind of bring myself up to speed on especially technical issues. But prior to, prior to election day 2020, I couldn't have named a single voting system vendor. I couldn't have told you what the standards were, how they were tested, nothing. I knew none of it. All I knew was I had a ballot. You know, I'd always voted on paper ballots, never on a computer. I'd had no choice but to vote by mail or absentee because military, away from my home state. You know, I'd done that for my whole career, my, basically my entire adult life. You know, I came on active duty at, I was 21 years old. And you know, I, I had, after that point I was, I was almost never in my home state. So, so yeah, you see, so you.

[David Rutherford]

See it that day you start doing the research where, what, what was guiding your intuition at the time? What, what aspect. Was it the voter rolls? Was it the, the, the, the seemingly expansive turnouts that they were talking about? What was those, the trigger for that deep, that research?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

There was an article, there was an article in some, I can't remember the news source in Colorado, it's probably station or something. And it said, it made a comment about, about high turnout and, and I had been, you know, I'd voted in person. I didn't drop it in a box. I went and voted in person. I didn't try even then. I didn't trust the drop boxes or mail and voting and. But when I read that article, I thought that doesn't seem right. And like it, you know, it feels like a rabbit hole that I fell down and have never come out of because I started, you know, I, I had done statistical research. I knew how to do statistical research. Not, not very advanced, but I could do regression anal that I Had done that for my first master's thesis and that was pretty easy. And I just started assembling data from different sources. But, and I thought this data doesn't look right, these significant. You know, you don't see massive changes in turnout in developed countries. You just don't. You know, you see them after the end of wars or the, after the end of a regime or when there's a periodic change in sort of the society. Like you go, like Japan, you know, you go from Meiji Japan into, you know, a modern era or something like that. But you don't see them in, in developed nations, you don't see a 20% change in like elections. It just doesn't happen. But it happened. And when I, so I saw it first in Colorado and then I started looking at the, the turnout data in other states, but I was really focused at that point on Colorado. I didn't realize what I was going to be doing. I just, something looked wrong. I started researching. It was just a pattern that I'd been involved in. But then when I started reading the voting system technical data and especially the test report, so I said I'm not a cyber expert and I'm not, not like somebody like Clay Parikh or Dr. Daugherty. Dr. Daugherty is, you know, he's a real computer scientist. Clay is a real serious forensic expert for cyber forensics. You know, very experienced, both of those, very experienced in different aspects of it. I know a lot about the threat, but I'm, I haven't done keyboard work, at least not much of it in a long time. I did some, a long time ago in the military. I almost got court martialed for it because it was. That's a whole other story. That's one of the many times that, you know, general officers have yelled at me in my career, probably for good reason. I mean, I was well intentioned, but so were they. And, but when I started reading, what I am, is an expert in testing. And so when I started reading the test plans for the weapon, for the voting systems, I thought this can't be right. This can't be how they're testing it. And that's what led me to go back and read all of the federal and state statutes, the documentation out of the Election Assistance Commission, the voting system testing lab manuals. I started reading report after report looking for evidence that they were doing adequate testing because I knew, you know, I just got done in 2016 or 17, I had wrote essentially a prescriptive standard for threat representation for Department of Defense Space System testing because it was inadequate. It wasn't being adequately represented in operational testing and it had to change because we were fielding systems that couldn't survive first contact with the enemy.

[David Rutherford]

Right.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

And you know, so I under, you know, I'd helped the National Cyber Range walk through what they needed to do to develop. I had worked through with the developmental test side at OSD, what they needed to do to develop the resources and capabilities. I'd written some of the requirements for hypersonic testing. I understood what needed to happen, and I didn't see any of that in our election system and voting system testing requirements. And so that.

[David Rutherford]

And was that was that. I'm sorry to interrupt. Was that at your local level, the county level, the state level? Where are you analyzing initially?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

So originally I was reading the plans and reports that were associated with Colorado state voting systems.

[David Rutherford]

Got it.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

They were test plans and reports that were executed by the Election Assistance Commission's accredited, not actually accredited, but they were supposed to be accredited voting system testing labs. So at that time, 2020, there were only two accredited voting system testing labs. One of them was Pro VMV out of Huntsville and the other was SLI in Colorado. Most of the ones I read were Pro VMV because that's who tended to do the majority of Dominion voting system testing. And from 2014 and 15 onward, Colorado Secretary of State had implemented this project called Uniform Voting System, where they had selected a single voting system for the state. And it was Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite. Except for a couple counties which had essentially had to fight the state to get a different voting system. They won in court. And because of that they had selected clear ballot systems. So there were two voting systems in Colorado, but Colorado, luckily for me, put a lot of the documentation online. And so I did the same thing I did when I was doing oversight of weapon systems operational testing in Department of Defense. I would go read all of the technical data. I read every single thing I could find. And by the time I got done with that, once I saw how the systems were built, I was intimately familiar at that point because of both the operational testing oversight and and adversarial assessment project. I knew what our adversaries were doing and how, and I knew the threat to supply chain, which most Americans never have to deal with or consider. You don't think about it, but the defense establishment does. And at that point, by 2020, it was pervasive. There was very few computers and electronic systems that were manufactured in some cases even in part, but let alone in whole in the United states. Most of it was overseas and the majority of the overseas was in People's Republic of China. So when I saw the composition of our voting systems and the the equipment and components they were using, I thought, well, there's a lot more testing they have to be doing. And then I found out they weren't doing any of it.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like EFTs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors, llc SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosure [e-mail] disclosures you don't just.

[Homes.com Neighborhood Guide Advertiser]

Live in your home, you live in your neighborhood as well. So when you're shopping for a home, you want to know as much about the area around it as possible. Luckily, homes.com has got you covered. Each listing features a comprehensive neighborhood guide from local experts. Everything you'd ever want to know about a neighborhood, including the number of homes for sale, transportation, local amenities, cultural attractions, unique qualities, and even things like medium lot size. And in Noisescore homes.com, we've done your homework.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? Business software is expensive, and when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting. All linked and talking to each other. Check out odoo at O D O O dot com. That's O D O O dot com.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

Hey, this is US Olympic gold medalist.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Tara Davis Woodhull and I'm US Paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

As athletes, our lives are about having.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

A clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

So when it came to getting the best mortgage, we chose PennyMac. PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA.

[PennyMac Advertiser]

And you learn more at pennymac.com pennymac loan services llc/housing lender nmls id 35953 licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Conditions and restrictions may apply.

[David Rutherford]

Wow. All right, so let me back up with the supply chain because obviously after Covid, which you know, I think was a component of the conditioning for the election for sure, but that's a whole nother story. We'll other story but all connected.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Right.

[David Rutherford]

I, you know, think people finally were recognized. Oh the, our vulnerabilities right. In terms of if we need some right. Antibiotics became one. Right. Then it was all right the chips from Taiwan, but it kind of petered out there. And so when you say supply chain and you say the components, you're talking about every board that's in every voter roll processing unit of every check in station of every router that's involved and then the Dominion Machine. Like you're talking about the nut, the literal nuts and bolts of how these systems were built, where they were built, and then the, in the, the complete, complete breakdown in the evaluation that our adverse, our foreign enemy are the, that's where these things are coming from. That, that's what you're describing, correct?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Exactly. That's exactly. Okay, so there's, there's no industry in China yet. You know, it's just like their telecommunications. If something comes out of China on the Internet, it's because it was allowed by the, by the Chinese Communist Party and the government. There's no industry or manufacturing that is not accessible to, if not accessed by elements of the national government, including principally Ministry of State Security and especially when it is any kind of national security critical infrastructure or component for a Western nation, in particular the United States. So yes, every single voting system component used in the United States is using one or more sub components that are manufactured entirely in the People's Republic of China by Chinese nationals with access of the Ministry of State Security, which is sort of like a combination of our CIA and NSA in terms of their Capabilities and breadth of responsibility, but in some cases it's the whole computer. It's every single component in it, including trusted platform modules that are supposed to be authenticating the other hardware. So imagine if you had security cameras at your house and the thieves were the ones that provided the cameras.

[David Rutherford]

Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. And I would imagine with the work you had just completed about that threat assessment and how vulnerable we were, that you put in multiple reports, you see this and are reading this, and it's, I mean, it must have been kind of not only, I mean, shocking, too little of a descriptive word, but like, probably to the point, like, oh, we're, we're under attack, like we're at war. Was it, was it that guttural when you recognized the level of vulnerability?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

It was, yeah. The, the phrase, and I've used this in a couple presentations, the phrase that immediately just popped into mind was enemy inside the wire. So that's a, that's a, you know, the, in that, that that originates with like the fence wire around the perimeter of a garrison or an operating location. And when you have an enemy inside the wire, that's worst case because now you don't have a safe direction. Now you have to watch in every single direction. You know, you've got sabotage, sapping, assassination, all happening inside. That's the worst case. And, and when I saw what our, what was being done with our voting and election systems and just how poor, honestly, just how poor the security was. And, and not just. It's not just the security itself, it's the mentality or culture, like it wasn't even being questioned. So at that time, in 2020, despite. So the, so there's a. Within the Election Assistance Commission, according to the federal statute, there's a technical guidelines Development committee that develops the voting system standards. They're voluntary, but a lot of states require them by statute, require compliance for their systems. Colorado was one of those. And the statutory advisor to the Technical Guidelines Development Committee for the Election Assistance Commission is nist. The director of nist. And NIST had advised the federal government, all agencies, including EAC in 2012 and then again in 2015, that the risk from supply chain compromises was severe.

[David Rutherford]

Because it was. The fact was that Dominion had been flagged multiple times prior to that over the course of their ability to penetrate and become the overarching, you know, voting Mississippi.

[Homes.com Advertiser]

Right.

[David Rutherford]

It wasn't new like this. What people had from, from California to all over the country had already realized the vulnerabilities. And including the Democratic Party we saw in 19 and when you know Kamala Harris was making her speech like these votes and you know they did a big documentary. I mean it's, it's wild.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Yeah, they. And this is. So I'll go back to a comment I made about the. The winning government officials allowing the exploitation is worse than that with our voting system. So when you look at our voting systems so you have to remember 2010 Dominion Voting Systems practically didn't exist in the United States by the end of 2012. They had a huge market share and access and the reason they had that is because of the Obama administration's Department of Justice. So Obama administration Department of justice forced ESNS to divest the Sequoia technology and the Premier technology both to Dominion Voting Systems which really just a year before, a year and a half before was a Canadian voting system company. So they could have. And they did it under antitrust principles. So in other words to enforce competition or ensure competition. That was the stated reason. But they didn't force ESNS to divest to an approved company like Hart Inner Civic. They forced them to divest to Dominion which really wasn't a U.S. they had registered at that point but they weren't a US company. First they registered in Delaware, then they established a second headquarters in Denver but their headquarters was Toronto. Right. They were, they were co located with with non governmental organizations that were very hard leftist leaning. They had already been associated with compromised elections in the Philippines. Their relationship with Sequoia which was really a relationship with smartmatic out of Venezuela which was already identified by US Department of Justice as being involved in corrupt elections in Venezuela. So. So the Obama Department of Justice wittingly and deliberately forced intellectual property associated with the ability to manipulate elections from both Premier, which was the old dbold, which was the old AES or GEMS system as well as the Wynn EDS stuff and Sequoia is all towards Dominion voting systems.

[David Rutherford]

Wow.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

And I don't, you know I have this, I have to say this sometimes because some people think that there is a voting system you can trust. I don't trust any of them. You know ESNs fielded voting systems that had undisclosed telecommunications capabilities. Hard InterCivic had to be sued by a whistleblower Keytam under Fraudulent Claims Act. It was the singer versus Hard intercivic because they were lying about their security and the integrity and reliability of their election results and processes. And then you get into a Clear ballot which basically is a derivative from ESNs. Same software designer went from Premier to ESNS to Clear Ballot Tab Iredale Unison is wholly and completely owned by International Lottery and Totalization, which is owned by Berjaya, a Malaysian registered company whose CEO has close ties to People's Republic of China Communist Party leadership. So there is no. And That's. That's our five top voting system vendors. That's 95, 96%. Yeah. Of all.

[David Rutherford]

Yeah, All Election Market. All right, thank you for outlining the. That. That complex issue. All right. So you are now doing the research. One of the things that I love that you talk about in your videos on your channel, on. On Rumble Cause of America is the necessity to team up. And I really just. That just hit me constantly, like, you can't do this alone. And I love how you're guiding people to find people, maybe lawyers that have a skill in that, or accountants or, you know, to really kind of bring people together. At what point in your journey in 2020 did you recognize. I've got something that I'm seeing. I need to be able to confirm this as well as tap into some of, you know, somebody that has similar skill sets or even better forensic skill sets or whatever it might be, like Dr. Daugherty or. Or. I'm sorry, I forgot Clay's last name. When did that moment hit for you? And. And then what. Were you developing a tactical approach at that point yet?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

No, I. So what happened was, at that point in time, on election day, I was still involved with convention estates, so I was volunteering with Convention of States, and we had a weekly call, volunteer call, and we were waiting for everybody to show up for the call. There are some of us on there. And this was right after the election day. It was probably the Monday afterwards. And I was just telling people some of the things I had found, and one of the people on the call said, essentially, oh, my God, would you talk to my state legislator? And I said, sure. And it. It was Ron Hanks in Colorado. And so Ron, I talked to him for a couple hours, and I could tell he was kind of shocked when I was done. And he's another, you know, another veteran Air Force veteran. And he said, let me. Let me get another legislator on. It's Dave Williams. Well, Dave Williams was my state representative, so I knew him because I had spoken to him already. And so then I talked to the two of them, and they said, would you come and speak to the. The Legislative Audit Committee in the Colorado General Assembly? And I said, okay, because, you know, I. I back in D.C. i'd spoken to, you know, I've dealt with general officers, briefed Everybody, yeah, Congressional delegations, they're all the same to me. You know, I've got. No, I don't. I'm never starstruck. You know, I've got. I appreciate anybody doing their duty who's a faithful public servant, and I have no use for politics. And so anybody who wants to hear what's true, if I know it, I'll tell them. And so I agreed to go do that. And then we got on the phone with. Prior to that point, I had made contact with a guy named Harvey Branscomb, who's a lifelong Democrat, and he was an election integrity researcher for 20 years in Colorado before I had ever even thought of looking at anything. But I had read an article that was written by he and someone that I had worked with that I knew and respected. And I said, hey, will you introduce me? I want to talk to him about some of these things. So then Ron Hanks and. And Dave Williams put. Got together with us on a call with Lori Sain. And Lori Sane was the chair of the Legislative Audit Committee. So unbeknownst to me, actually, they didn't do it. It was another citizen activist and she asked me to talk to Lori Sane. She just brought her up on the phone. And Lori Sane, well, talked to Harvey and I and said, will you guys be a panel at this hearing? And Harvey and I said, sure. And so he. I was in person, he was remote. We showed up and. But the committee turned in because it was a bipartisan. It happened to be chaired because they rotate it even though there's a super majority in Colorado with the Democrats. It was at that point shared by Lori say, who was Republican. And so without that, they never would have had the hearing, but they had the hearing. I didn't even know how the hearing had come about. The hearing had come about at the request and with sort of pressure from other citizens who I didn't know and didn't meet until I was at the hearing. And the reason I met them is because inside the committee room, they had chairs for the presenters as well as witnesses or audience. And they were, you know, all six feet apart in this kind of diamond pattern. And I was standing in there and the closest guy to me was a guy I'd never met before. His name was Dennis hall. And. And he. And I started talking and. But I didn't have a mask and had no intention of wearing one. He didn't. He wasn't wearing one. But the sergeant at arms came and told us both to put them on and. And I said that that's not going to be happening. I'm not going to be doing that. And so they made me leave the room. And so I had to stand out in the hallway. I stood out there, I don't know, eight, nine hours while the hearing was going on, waiting to testify. Dennis was so pissed off because they, they basically used all the front time for the people who were telling them what they wanted to hear, which is that everything was great and fantastic and looked how good we, we graded ourselves and we got an A. And Dennis, so Dennis was another retired Air Force officer. He was a mathematician and he was a computer scientist in earnest. He had, he had helped design some of the original 386B, sitting literally next to Intel's Andy Grove. And so Dennis was the first guy I met who had a technical perspective that was complementary to mine. And he and I started talking, but then out in the hallway, I started meeting the people who had been responsible for pressuring to get the committee hearing to begin with. And that was people from Colorado's uscip, which was a citizen grassroots organization. And that was Ash Epp, I think, Tom Bjorklund. There were some other, you know, some people I didn't, I didn't even know who any of them were. And until that point, I wasn't connected to anybody. And then later on, some of the people from El Paso county that Dennis had introduced me to, and El Paso county is the largest county in Colorado, population wise, it's like neck and neck with Denver, but I think it's ahead now. And growing more than Denver is for good reason. Right. Denver is a, they turned it into a, just a disaster. It's Venezuela up until this last week. So anyway, so I was talking to those guys, and Dennis was connected to the USCIP group, which I had not really followed up with or talked to, and Dennis said, hey, will you go talk to their data people? And that's how I got involved with USCIP. That was February of 2021. So I had no intention when I started of doing anything. I was curious, and that led to concern. And then when I expressed my concerns, other people said, wait, this guy knows something. And then we started working together. So that's how I got involved in the whole thing. And I've never, I'm still down that rabbit hole. I've never gotten out of it. So.

[David Rutherford]

Oh, I, I, I mean, if, if you, if you love the country, regardless of what your politics are, and you give yourself an honest opportunity to listen to what you and a lot of these other Experts are saying there's quantifiable proof that our entire country is compromised right now. And we saw the outcomes of that within the last administration to just, you know, as in a smaller capacity than what it ultimately could be. I, you know, I mean, you, you list to Elon Musk on Rogan. He said, this will be the last election if we lose. And, and I think anybody who had been paying attention since 2020 and put all that together, even I, even back, I think you can argue that the, the Trump's first term was like, what is going on? Like, this is, this is it. This is bizarre, right? What's happening internally? What's going on with his directives not manifesting overseas, you know, and I had a lot of friends do it, still doing work overseas. And like, you know, for me, the big one was finding out that when he had said, all right, get everybody out of Syria, and then my friend Scott Wirtz got blown up, you know, in, in, in the winter with Shannon Kent, you know, Joe Kent's wife at, at the time, and a couple other people. I was like, wait a minute, that's not right. Like, they were, they were ordered to be out. We shouldn't have been in there, but they were still in there, you know, And I was like, all right, this has gotten out of control. But then 2020 obviously was just like, all flags go up in the air when, obviously from, from November to February, a lot of other things were taking place, obviously. I mean, from January 6th to Rudy Giuliani and Bernie Carrick trying to bring these, to do these town halls, to get in front of these boards, to present evidence. Sidney Powell and, And, you know, this other group that was like, something'. And then, you know, Bernie told me this great story that they went in after the couple nights and they called an emergency meeting with Trump's team and he and Juliano showed up at the main offices in D.C. thinking there'd be, you know, standing room only. And there was a one attorney showed up and was like, we're done. It's over. What are you trying to do? And they're like, wait, what are you talking about? And, and that was kind of another, you know, heads up, like, oh, this is something deeper, right? Did, did all, all of those external things because now you're, you're realizing something's afoot. It's, it's deeper, it's more, it's systemic in nature, in a, in a, in the most malevolent, Machiavellian way known. How did you start to, like, how did you start to come up with a tactical approach? Right. I remember my buddies that were a part of the red teams back in the 80s and 90s at damn would talk about, right. We would just find a thread right, on a base or wherever we were, and we would just pick at that thread until we couldn't pull any more on it. And if there was vulnerability, we just kept going and go, what were some of the threads that you identified quickly, like, all right, this is where it's obvious and I'm just going to go down that route.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Well, so the first thing I had seen was the voter roll, so I knew there was an issue there. But I'm not a data guy. I mean, I can do some data work, but I'm not a pro at it. So at that point, USCIP already had a data professional, a guy who was a serious data professional. He's, I won't say the company, but he's a, you know, he's the principal data guy for a major healthcare company. And those guys live and die by their data.

[David Rutherford]

By data, for sure.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

And, and so he was the one principally that was digging into voter rolls. And I had already seen some things that I knew could not be true, but I was, I didn't have the tools that he had, but I understood how to dig into computer systems. I knew what kind of. And so once I saw what was going on with the voting system, testing labs and how corrupt, how that was like Kabuki theater, right? That was a placebo for people. Oh, it's federally tested. Well, but they don't have any cyber capability. They're not, they're not experts, they're not forensic cyber people. And they're restricted in what they look at. And they're not even looking at the commercial. You know, most of the software on a voting system is commercial software. They're not examining the commercial software because they have an assumption and assertion that that is already tested and those issues are evaluated. Well, then you look at cyber vulnerabilities that have been publicly identified in those software products and you start asking, well, did they mitigate? Have they addressed those vulnerabilities that are already known in the commercial products? And the answer is no. And then when I found out, you know, they had no supply chain security whatsoever, literally, it wasn't even mentioned in any standard in 2021. Standard, which means none of the voting systems in the United States had any security or mitigation whatsoever against supply chain vulnerabilities. And again, there were elements of the federal government that were aware of that. And so that was, you know, I was focused on that aspect. But I have to say, you know, Doc Frank has talked about this. Dr. Has talked about this. I think Clay has talked about it, Mike's talked about it, Dave Clements has talked about it, all of us. And this is. I call this the. The blinders of morality. So I've done Red team work, I've done Red Team work for physical penetration. I've directed red teamwork for cyber and for other threats so I can think like an enemy. And there are times when I haven't thought like an enemy. And it's an embarrassment to me because I have the background that should have prevented that. And J6 is a perfect example. So I wore a plate carrier on the plane when I flew to J6 without plates in it because I thought, that's going to really alarm these people. And when I got to dc, I stayed with a friend the night before. I fabricated expedient plates for the plate carry out of ceramics and metals because I assumed we were going to be attacked. But at that point, I still, even though I had concluded in 2017, based on. In late 2017, early 2018, based on some of the work that I was doing for the Adversarial Assessment Program and some other support work, I had concluded that by that point that there were elements within the US Intelligence community that were committing treason against the President. And I can't go into detail about that, but. But it was not a. Not a natural assumption for me. And when I became aware of, you know, it was a little bit.

[David Rutherford]

Shook me a little bit, of course, of course.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

But even at that point, I wasn't looking domestically. I did just didn't have that. You know, that's not where I had looked my entire career. I'd been focused on overseas, the, the away game. But anyway, so I started to connect some of those dots and see some of the. Not just negligence among public officials, but deliberate decisions to allow or look the other way, neglect to prosecute, neglect to mitigate. So I wouldn't say it was a complete picture, but we were hampered at that point because all of us, I think, to the last thought, well, we'll just tell leaders, public officials, what's true and then they'll do the right thing. That's how naive I was.

[David Rutherford]

Right, right, right, right.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

I call that, you know, I think back to the verse. You know, when I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child. There's a naivety to that, which was surprising. To me, after a career of dealing with threats, I just didn't have that mindset yet. But once we started talking to public officials, by probably April, May of 21, I bet I had talked to 60 election officials in different counties or at the state level. I'd had state level officials in multiple states lie to me about questions, you know, in answering questions I was asking, watch them lie to legislators. I heard county level officials lie. I'd had them lie right to my face. In some cases, they didn't know what they were saying. They were just saying what they had been told to say. They didn't know the difference, but they were still, they knew that they were being told something they did. Had no ability to verify, you know, or determine any of the answers to what they were saying themselves. Like, they would say things to me that they got away with saying to the general public or to media that didn't have the skill set, the background or the will to question them. But I knew better with some of the things that they were saying already. Like, you know, I had the elections director in Colorado tell me, oh no, there's no connection to this system. And he said that to me on the phone. And at the time he was saying that to me, I was looking at the technical documentation from the vendor that said they required that application programming interface connection to the statewide registration database. So an API or application program interface is a machine to machine interface. He lied to me directly. And I then saw him lie in many other. You know, his name's judge. I don't mind calling him a liar because he is one. He lied in a criminal manner. And I had seen so many of those by late April, early May. At that point I knew, okay, this is not going to be the. I thought this was going to be just exposing the truth. It's not going to be exposing the truth because we were being opposed, suppressed, targeted by media, by institutions, by the government, the federal government at that point, state government. You know, I was effectively, you know, an enemy of my state and an enemy of the state at that point. And I got it, you know, I got it mild. Other people were getting it. You know, they were getting around. I was at J6, you know, I was on the Capitol steps. I saw some of those things go down there. And, you know, I thought our. I thought what I had to worry about was the leftists. What I had to worry about there was my own government. So when I saw what my own government was doing, how it tried to make that into something that it wasn't and then colluded with media to describe it inaccurately to lie about what was happening. You know, that's when I think I realized first then that it was going to be a very different fight.

[Public Investing Advertiser]

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On Public you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index with AI. It all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year, you can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like EFTs with infinite possibilities, completely customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member finra SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures [e-mail] disclosures you don't just.

[Homes.com Neighborhood Guide Advertiser]

Live in your home, you live in your neighborhood as well. So when you're shopping for a home, you want to know as much about the area around it as possible. Luckily, homes.com has got you covered. Each listing features a comprehensive neighborhood guide from local experts. Everything you'd ever want to know about a neighborhood, including the number of homes for sale, transportation, local amenities, cultural attractions, unique qualities, and even things like medium, lot, size and a noise score. Homes.com, we've done your homework.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? Business software is expensive, and when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing, slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting. All linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at o d o o.com that's o d o o dot com.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

Hey, this is U.S. olympic gold medalist Tara Davis Woodhull.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

And I'm U.S. paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

As athletes, our lives are about having.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

A clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust.

[Tara Davis Woodhull]

So when it came to getting the best mortgage, we chose PennyMac. PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA.

[PennyMac Advertiser]

And you learn more at pennymac.com PennyMac Loan Services, LLC equal housing lender NMLS ID 35953 licensed by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. Conditions and restrictions may apply.

[David Rutherford]

Oh, for me, J6 was the, the, the recognition of that, you know, we were in a color revolution. That, that's, that's, that's when I, what was confirmed to me. Right? Yeah, the lead up from the year before with COVID you know, one, just the Russiagate stuff. I was like, this is, this is a soft coup for sure. And then Covid and then the BLM stuff, you know, and then when I, all myself and a lot of other guys just start getting throttled and shut down and the cancellations ramped up to just shut all of our voices down, all the military guys down. Right. You know, and I was like, this is what. Effectively the intelligence community's been running all over the world for the last, you know, since probably Bosnia or you can argue in different forms prior to that too. But this was the playbook. This was the Maidan revolution. This was the whole thing. And, and so for me, by that time, like, I, I'd lost my career, I'd lost everything. So I was in this dark, dark, depressive state and I, every time I'd get excited about someone like you or one of your other compatriots out there that were making these advancements and discoveries and, and presenting them as. We've been narrowed down to Rumble and Parlor and you know, the other places.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

At that time, smaller s. Yeah, yeah.

[David Rutherford]

Just narrowed us down to what, just a few available deliver delivery places. I was just like, okay, how is this going to break through and what are we going to do? And, and, and, and it was, it was a very, it was probably one of the darkest experiences I've ever had in my life other than the Afghan pull out. That was depressing for me. Obviously, the bin Laden raid followed by extortion 17 was brutal for me. You know, when you realize, wait a minute, how is this? You know, and you start to question all this stuff and I think that's, that's the great challenge for the American Public and has been as. As. Obviously, one of the things that really impressed me about David when he came on. And you can. You know, there's just the way he speaks, right. The sentiment that's in his voice of that all in tone, but it's calm. It's like. It's like. No, this, like, it's. I imagine this is what the guy. You guys feel like, the guys at the Alamo, right? Or you feel like what some of the Knights of Malta on that island where they, you know, like. Like, it's just.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

This is it.

[David Rutherford]

This is where we're at. Did you. In. In that April time frame, was there any place where you felt like, momentum, like, from other people, like you were gaining traction, or was it just because that's. I think what people want to understand is how do you stay invested in this for so long when nobody's listening and it's the biggest issue in the world? Like, how do you keep going?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Well, a lot of. I mean, a lot of people, you know, I would say we're inspirational, but, you know, remember, I'm an officer, so my job is that, you know, your emotions don't matter. It doesn't matter whether you're encouraged. Your job is to be that. To, you know, to execute the mission. Once you see it, it's a. You know, it's a mission I didn't want. It's a blessing and a curse. Right? But once you see your duty, if you can. If you can ignore it, then you're just not that guy. I'm. I'm not the guy that can ignore my duty. I might misinterpret it sometimes, but I can't ignore it. So once I saw it clearly, but. But there were. I mean, Dave Clements was one of the people who helped. You know, it was again, Dennis ha. Introduced me to him. So Dennis, unfortunately, they killed him with the. You know, he. He and I had some discussions before he took the first jab. Is. His company required it. He ended up having a heart attack on. On stage. We lost him that way. As far as I'm concerned, our government killed him. And. Which is, you know, not just considering what he gave to the nation, but he had told me about David Clements, and it was because David Clements had had, I think, Josh Merritt on. And then they were talking. The three of them were talking, and I, working with uscip, the Colorado Grassroots group, we had realized some things. We had, you know, identified some techniques. Our objective was to connect everybody and then to share what was working and what we knew. If we developed a tool. We wanted to share it. If somebody else had a tool, we wanted to use it. And our objective was to link grassroots groups and share for success, to try to win together, to try to restore together. And so I had reached out to Marilyn Todd in New Hampshire because I saw a Facebook post from her. And so I tracked her down and said, hey, what do you need? And she told me what she needed, and we didn't have it. But I reached out to David Clements and asked, hey, could you. Will you talk to her and help? I did actually the same thing with Joe Von Pulitzer. When they were looking for somebody to help with their audit. I had. So again, through Dennis. Dennis was connected to somebody down in Arizona. And when State Senator Fan was sort of leading the Senate audit effort there, she was in charge, in effect, from the Senate. They didn't have cyber expertise. And so they had asked for some recommendations for some things, including who could look at ballots. And I had done a lot of work and research looking at what question document examiners did, what tools they use, what capabilities they had, what their throughput was, looked at the problem set in Maricopa. And, you know, part of my recommendation to Center State, Center Fan was this was all sort of, you know, behind the scenes. We were talking about this with our people. It was sort of considered. I wouldn't say, you know, secret or anything like that, but it was, you know, it was.

[David Rutherford]

You wanted to have some opsec for sure.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Well, because I'm sure.

[David Rutherford]

I'm sure there were people trying to penetrate you guys at that time by.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

For. Yeah, there were. There were. You know, you know, we would get them all the time. In fact, some of them were media that then went on to. To write false, fraudulent stories that then led to us being targeted by some of the civil rights NGOs that came and sued us and accused of us of violating KKK Act, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act. We beat them in federal court, although the appeal is ongoing right now. But that's another story. But anyway, I had recommended Jovan Pulitzer for the paper audit to assist Marilyn Todd in New Hampshire. Not. And, you know, I have a different perspective about him now. But. But at the time, I thought, well, he's the only one who's. Who's described any kind of technical capability to produce ballot examination at the throughput level required, you know, for the periods of these audits. So. So there were a lot of people like that. I mean, they're just coming out of the woodwork. You know, we were not all connected at that point, at this point, I would say they're. It's very rare that I hear a name that I'm not familiar with. If they're doing something significant, election integrity, not because they, you know, come to me or anything like that, but just because we try to help people. And if there's somebody doing something that we don't know how to do or that we're not the best, we try to get them connected to them. So that's fantastic. So there are a lot, you know, David Clements, I'd say, was one of the first people to be doing any kind of long format discussion about election integrity issues. And so he became known for that, right? He was. He took an interest. It wasn't something he had a background in either. But at this point, you know, and he and his wife, and he'd probably say this too, but, you know, Aaron's the. Aaron's the smart one in that couple, and David's pretty smart, but Aaron's a smart one. So, you know, we talked with them about some of the work in New Mexico, which I, you know, I'd lived in New Mexico before. I understood some things about New Mexico politics and political environment. So there were a lot of people, you know, I. There were including some of the sort of, I would call them like original gangsters. Intellectual integrity. I wasn't even aware of it. You know, I didn't know the Collier brothers. I didn't know Bev Harris. Now, I'm great admirers of those people who were doing that work. I would say they, you know, they tried to warn us. You know, Sheila parks in her 2012 book, While we still have Time, you know, she was another Democrat educator. So there were a lot of people that just weren't well known because the legacy media, mainstream media, did all it could after 2019, especially after mid-2020, to just shut down any discussion. It was like the end of history, you know?

[Jacob Goldstein]

Yes.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

They didn't want to even acknowledge what, you know, what Wyden and Harris and all those people, Ron Wyden, you know, what they had said in congressional hearings about the threats and vulnerabilities.

[David Rutherford]

Thank you for that context. That's fantastic. Because what I want people to know is that there is a significant group that have dedicated thousands and thousands of hours in this collective effort to categorically disprove that that was the safest election in history. And I think the more people understand the technical expertise, the patriotic commitment to the country, your services, where people are coming from, what they've sacrificed, I Mean, for God's sake, look at Tina Peters, you know, staring at nine years of incarceration for doing her job. You know, I just, I think, you know, that's one of the things that is finally breaking through as well. Here's this gold star mother, you know, mother of a team guy too, you know, and was willing to just go against the system and the system is still in place where they can incarcerate her. Can you describe her case just briefly, because I'd love, I'd love to have you back on in the near future so we can go down the legal aspects of the whole thing as well. But just to kind of wrap up this first show with you, can you describe Tina's case, why it's relevant in the grander context and what it means for the, the, the, the proverbial chokehold on, on the system, if you will, that's hanging on by the threads now before this thing just explodes.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Yeah, I would say so. Let me start with something that'll, that'll, you know, you'll see it right away. Other people maybe realize at the end. So, you know, at one point, I'm trying to remember the year, but Saddam Hussein is still in control of his entire country. You know, he's got a chokehold, it's a iron. He can kill anybody he wants. His sons are murderous little bastards. You know, it's just, it, it's just a, it's a, it's a death, it's a death camp. The whole country is a death camp. And who dies is. Whoever Hussein decides dies. And, and then, you know, a couple weeks later, he's in a spider hole. And that's, that's, that is the, you know, modern day and same thing with Maduro, right? Big talker. And, you know, it's like Tyson said, everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the face. And next thing you know, you know, Maduro's on a U.S. plane headed to the United States, drinking U.S. water, surrounded by U.S. people. And, and that's what the phrase sick semper tyrannis means.

[PennyMac Advertiser]

Right.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

They abuse, they exceed, and at a certain point it's just not sustainable. Something breaks, they lose control and it's all downhill. You know, there's occasionally where if they're smart and not too egotistical, they have some sort of an escape route.

[David Rutherford]

Right, right.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

But anybody who holds on, a tyrant that holds on eventually is, you know, they all meet the same fate in some sense. So I think it'll be that way in Colorado. I think the tyrants. And it is to. It is tyrannical. And now the specifics on. On Clerk Peters. So Tina Peters, you know, as she's described herself, she was just, you know, like most of us, derping along, doing, you know, private business, commerce, whatever, her own life. And then she, you know, like, happens with so many of us. She got irritated by. By the long lines at the DMV in her county. And she thought, yeah, I guess I should do something about it. You know, her son was gone, and she thought, okay, I've got a civic response I can do. I can fix this. I got a civic responsibility. So she ran for clerk with no idea. She wasn't. She wasn't a political insider. She had no idea the kind of ire that she would incite among the political insiders. But at that point, the election, you know, that particular office was not something that the. The individuals and organizations that really were controlling the voting systems and election systems. It wasn't something they were trying to secure. And so she got into office, but they immediately, the institutions immediately arrayed against her. You know, her. The former clerk partnered up, colluded. A Republican nominally colluded with the Democrat Secretary of State to try to recall her from office. They tried to blame her for some ballots they found left over in a ballot box before she even came into it was the election. They elected her her, right? She had no responsibility or capability to affect it. So that was the environment. And then. But she really went into that clerk's position to try to fix some of the things she saw. She wasn't an expert in election. She was probably like me, you know, in 2020, she didn't know anything about him before she went in, right. But then citizens started coming to her and saying, hey, this isn't right. And, and I think the, the may, you know, they saw some things in the 2020 election, but really it was the municipal election, Grand Junction, in the spring of 2021, where is nominally a nonpartisan election. But every one of the individuals that were elected or selected, as the movie says, every one of them was proponent or espoused really very strong leftist perspective about government, collectivist perspective in a town in a county that really leaned heavily Republican and conservative. So these are people who are not fans of government. And yet you have every one of these public officials in this election gets elected. None of them were the kind of people that the population was likely to select if you just had an open, transparent vote. And so she started looking into some of these things without really the tools or much support a discussion. You know, she thought she was doing her job. Then she found out for the first time there's a trusted build coming. She didn't know what a trusted build was. Most of the public doesn't know what a trusted build is. Trusted build. You know how most bills in Congress are named something that's the exact opposite.

[David Rutherford]

Of what they do? Yeah.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

So I don't know who trusts a trusted build. The population Supposed to trust them. The theory is that it's, you know, that's something that, that the public should have trust in. But the way they conduct them is such a violation not only of federal and state law because they're destroying election records when they do them, but of the public trust. But anyway, she hears about this trusted bill. She knows that her ballot marking devices on her county election systems are printing a QR code. She's been told that that QR code is what the optical scanners actually read in order to tally the votes from those ballots. And she's told that this trusted bill that the Secretary of State and the vendor Dominion Voting Systems are going to implement is going to modify her voting system so that her voting system no longer reads QR codes. And her, her first thought or, or at some point, her thought is, well, how am I going to verify if I have to do an audit what was on the ballot? Violence. And the truth is she wouldn't have had a capability. So she's worried at that point. She's connected to citizens. Those citizens are connected to Dr. Frank. Dr. Frank is connected to Mike Lindell. And Mike Lindell is connected to some cyber people who were connected to him because he wasn't, he didn't have cyber people. He didn't know anybody who did that until the 2020 election. So, you know, Mike Lindell's attorney at that point who's doing a lot of the election work is Kurt Olson. Kurt Olsen doesn't know a lot of cyber people. They know one cyber guy that, you know, was, was recommended to them. And, and what Clerk Peters knew was that she didn't. She had asked for support from the Secretary of State, they wouldn't help. Had asked for support from her own IT department in her county. They would not help back up the records because she was afraid she would not have the ability to look at those ballots again. She wanted to back up. There wasn't like, oh, Trump won. I've got to prove it. It wasn't. There was fraud. I've got to prove it. It was. How am I going to be able to do an audit on records. And also at that point, by that point, I personally and other people were advising her, you have an obligation to preserve all the log files and artifacts off those systems because they're necessary to the audit trail. It's literally described right in the federal voting System Standard, the 2002 Voting System Standards, which is a statutory minimum requirement for that voting system in Colorado. And so she was aware of all that, yet couldn't get any help from any of the other election officials or state officials. So she asked, is there some. Do you have somebody who can help me? The first person they had was Jerry Wood. And Jerry Wood was not a forensic guy. So he didn't have experience or like an intuitive, innate understanding of how to preserve those records in accordance with federal rules for digital evidence that the FBI and Department of justice published. So she asked for help. Dr. Frank didn't know the guy. He asked Mike, he asked Kurt. And they had a guy that, you know, was the only, really the only guy they knew or one of the only people they knew. So that's how the cyber guy, that's how Conan got. And I, and I was on a phone call with them, you know, with Conan. I didn't know his name, they didn't say his name. Just trying to help them evaluate whether he knew what he was doing. I was asking questions about what he knew about the voting system itself, whether he knew what he was going to be doing in order to, you know, make a backup of the records for her to preserve, which is, you know, that, that process of preserving those records, it wasn't just her. She wasn't just authorized. She was obligated by statute. And if you look at the 2021 DOJ guidelines for post election audits, it's very explicit about the obligation of every election official to preserve the records that are within their control and domain, and explicit that they had the authority to provide them to someone to retain on their behalf as long as it remained within their administrative control. None of what she did for that process was any violation of any state statute or a rule. The only thing that she violated, apparently was not telling the Secretary of State about the specific name of who would be present during the Trusted Build process. So that was the background for her. That was what got her to that point of making the backup. Up until that point, the Secretary of State didn't know. Not for the pre Trusted Build backup, which documented the system that was left over, I would say the residual from the 2020 and 2021 election, nor for the post trusted build, which was the new version, which had overwritten the act of partition on the hard drive of the voting system. Totally unnecessary, absolutely against normal practice and a violation of state and federal law to do that. And remember, Secretary of State Griswold directed that trusted bill in every county. Right. There are literally thousands of voting system components on which her direct guidance and mandate overwrote election records. She violated state and federal law. You know, Clerk Peters only violated a rule of the Secretary of State, which, by the way, was illegal in the first place. That's right. That's right. So this is where the Supremacy Clause comes in. And this is why the absolute refusal of the judge to allow the affirmative defense of her intent to comply with a federal law and the role of the Supremacy Clause. That's why that judge's actions are so corrupt in the Peters case and then especially in her sentencing, where he not only talked about her intent, which was false, he talked about his fear that she would say things basically that he didn't like. I can't even imagine the corruption involved in allowing a federal judge or a state judge to sit on the bench when they think it's okay for government to restrict or police or imprison someone to prevent them from speaking.

[David Rutherford]

That's what the whole thing was. She's, she's the biggest threat. Right.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Well, it's that and they, they really had to set an example.

[David Rutherford]

Right.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

That was a message to every other election official. Federal government won't protect you. The law won't protect you. Doing your duty won't protect you. If you oppose the, you know, elections or challenge or even question or even try to do your job, your, you know, your actual duty under the law. We're going to come after you with.

[David Rutherford]

Everything that, and the defamation cases. Right. That, the ridiculous rulings on all of that. I, you know, I, I, you know, we're an hour and about 20 minutes in. We've given the audience a lot to think about. Thank you so much for the deep dive. If it's okay, I would love to bring you back on. We'll go into the legal framework and the technical framework of how it actually took place from a technological perspective. And then that way people can have, you know, both of those, because those are, those are really the nuts and bolts of, of, of how the steel was conducted, I think, for sure, legally through Mark Elias and the preparation that they did PR and how are they going to knock down anything that arose. And then also, I think, you know, the technical aspect of, of how they were able to get into those machines and manipulate them. But we'll do that again to wrap up this particular show. Colonel, as you're sitting in that seat right now, and it's, it's beginning of January 26th, obviously the news cycle is as kinetic as I've seen it, and what's going on on the streets and overseas is actually becoming kinetic as well. How would you assess the necessity for this issue to be addressed prior to the 26 midterms?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Well, really, we've got till the end of March because that's when the midterm primaries begin. It's the issue. And the reason it's the issue is because it's the bedrock. You know, you see how I would say derelict. Congress is in implementing any kind of election integrity support to follow the President's executive orders. There's no question about the reason, necessity for them. And yet Congress refuses to act. Right. They've refused to act to remove judges that are acting, you know, complete contravention to their own oaths of office. Right. Just absolute nonsense coming out of the judiciary. Even the Supreme Court, you know, has not recommended censure. Even when they're just, just 90 destroying lower court judicial decisions, you still have an activist judiciary, and Congress is doing nothing about it. The reason they're doing nothing about it is because, you know, many of them are, are likely not elected and they're not accountable to the people. There will be no accountability. I mean, the executive branch will do what it can. But even that is, you know, severely infiltrated. There are a lot of holdovers and a lot of people who have conflicts of interest and other loyalties, which is pretty evident when they execute what looks like poorly executed. Oh, where it's real hard. It's real hard. Tigers, until they get into office, and then lambs, right? Lions to lamb. So from my perspective, and this is why I've been doing this since 2020, is why, you know, and in earnest since 2021, and why I can't, I can't lay down the responsibility is because I, I think this is just like the last one. This is our last election. You know, if, if we don't get some transparency and some integrity restored to our elections, then the last two years of the President Trump's administration are going to be either frustration or a rollback. You know, it doesn't matter what they do from the executive perspective up until the midterms, it'll all be reversed and worse. Right. I, I mean, I earnestly believe that. So from my, from my Perspective. It's the. It's the issue above all others.

[David Rutherford]

Well, I appreciate your, your. Your honesty. I appreciate your dedication, the work you've done for this country, both in service and now in the real service, as we're in this definite war for the future of our children and our country and our children's children. I just commend you, sir, and what you've been doing. Where can people follow you? And then how can they get educated themselves?

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

So I'm part of cause of America.org and so you can go to cause of America.org and, and there's a huge digital library there. I was going to say that earlier. You know, when you looked at the 101 videos. Those are not me, though. I mean, though I'm talking on a lot of them. But what, really? Again, a team. You need a team. I'm not the data guy. We've got a chief analyst. He runs all the data ops. We've got a digital librarian. Amy does all the video editing. If she wasn't doing that, you know, it'd just be me blabbering. You know, Trina, you know, whatever came into my head, she makes those coherent so that people can digest them. We have a digital library. I don't know how many, nine, ten thousand docs or something in it now. Everything we can find from forensic reports to the documentation for the voting systems, statutory interpretations, everything, you can find that there. And we also have links to other organizations. You know, we're not. Not. We're agnostic about where people get their information as long as it's accurate and helpful to them. And so we'll connect people to their own state organizations if they're not already connected, so that they can get in the fight. There's no, I like to say there's no citizenship happening on your couch. You know, you have to engage if you. And if not now, then when, you know, I'm not. This isn't for me. My, you know, this is for my kids and, and honestly, for the, the, you know, people. I can't repay.

[David Rutherford]

That's right. That's right. Amen. Thank you, sir. God bless you.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

My privilege. Thank you.

[Homes.com Advertiser]

Homes.com knows having the right agent can make or break your home search. That's why they provide home shoppers with an agent directory that gives you a detailed look at each agent's experience, like the number of closed sales in a specific neighborhood, average price range and more. It lets you easily connect with all the agents in the area you're searching so you can find the right agent with the right experience and ultimately the right home for you. Homes.com, we've done your homework.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? Business software is expensive, and when you buy software from lots of different companies, it's not only expensive, it gets confusing. Slow to use, hard to integrate. Odoo solves that because all Odoo software is connected on a single affordable platform. Save money without missing out on the features you need. Odoo has no hidden costs and no limit on features or data. Odoo has over 60 apps available for any needs your business might have, all at no additional charge. Everything from websites to sales to inventory to accounting, all linked and talking to each other. Check out Odoo at o D O O.com that's O-O-O.com Discover a spectacular island.

[Baja Mar Advertiser]

Destination with crystal blue seas, endless sunshine and the cool Bahamian breeze, Baja Mar, located in Nassau, Bahamas, offers your choice of three luxury hotels the richly refined Rosewood, the playfully hip SLS, and the stylish modern Grand Hyatt. With over 45 restaurants, bars and lounges, Baja Mar serves up delicious dining from world renowned chefs like Daniel Boulud and Marcus Samuelson, nightlife venues like the new Jean Baptiste Jazz Club and the Caribbean's most luxurious casino. At Baja Mar, you'll find every pleasure under the sun and one of a kind experiences for the entire family like Baja Bay, our 15 acre lush tropical water park, interactive wildlife experiences including our daily flamingo parade, world class golf, tennis spa and so much more. Visit bajamar.com today and discover a vacation destination where memories are made for a lifetime. Baja Mar Life Spectacular Owning a home.

[PennyMac Advertiser]

Is full of surprises. Some wonderful, some not so much. And when something breaks, it can feel like the whole day unravels. That's why HomeServ exists for as little as $4.99 a month.

[Hunter Woodhull / Colonel Sean Smith]

Month.

[PennyMac Advertiser]

You'll always have someone to call, a trusted professional ready to help, bringing peace of mind to four and a half million homeowners nationwide. For plans starting at just $4.99 a month, go to homeserve.com that's homeserve.com not available everywhere. Most plans range between $4.99 to $11.99 a month. Your first year terms apply on covered repairs.

[Homes.com Advertiser]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.