Posted on

I’ve been doing more digging around the Hammer (HAMR) and Scorecard, and what they might be. From what I’ve heard & read about Scorecard, it appears to have the ability to alter election results. It is usually mentioned in conjunction with The Hammer. A CIA whistle-blower called Dennis Montgomery was the first person to mention these tools, which he says he developed for the CIA. He refers to the Hammer as a supercomputer which holds masses of information on everybody. Scorecard is a function of the Hammer. He goes on to say that John Brennan was responsible for funding both projects under Obama, and they have been used to alter the outcome of foreign elections. The Hammer was also allegedly used to spy on US congress and journalists. The lawyer Sydney Powell (who is representing Gen Flynn) said in an interview recently that the Hammer and Scorecard have both been deployed during the 2020 election to alter the outcome in Joe Biden’s favour.

HAMR is also mentioned in the Wikileaks drops concerning Vault 7, which refer to a raft of CIA spy tools for monitoring mobile phones, PCs and Smart TVs. There is no detail on what HAMR is exactly, but it is referred to as a command and control ‘framework’. In simple terms, it is the tool used to deploy all the spyware modules. Chris Kreb, the director of CISA (responsible for election security) weighed into the argument earlier this week and said that the Hammer and Scorecard don’t exist. As we’re talking national security and a CIA covert program, he has to say this. It’s his job. However, the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether he is in fact telling the truth when it comes to the 2020 election.


Dominion Systems own the election software which is in use in all the swing States. It’s also used elsewhere. They are not the only supplier of election software though. There are around a half dozen companies doing this.

If you want to see a presentation about Dominion and all the security holes that were found by a team of cybersecurity experts have a look here:


One of the other pieces of software in general use is the GEMS Election Management System. This was where the use of fractional voting was first discovered. If you want to see fractional voting in action, have a look here:…/fractional-voting-exposed-we…/

Fractional Voting

What we see in the GEMS presentation is that the most important software feature for vote rigging is the ability to pre-set the maximum % of votes a candidate is allowed to receive. Once that maximum figure is reached, the votes are allocated elsewhere. It’s not clear if they are discarded, given to another candidate or hidden. The second feature of GEMS that we see is the use of fractional voting. To my mind, fractions have no place in a voting system. You can have 1 or 10 or 100 votes, but not 57.76. GEMS hides the fractions by only displaying its results as pure integers by default. Hence you’d see 58. The fractions come about for one of two reasons. Firstly, if you configure the software to only allow Donald Trump to receive 45.81% of the vote, you’ll end up with a fraction. Secondly, and this is the really insidious part – it’s possible to give a fractional value to a voter or a voting group / precinct. For instance, a Democrat voter could be assigned a value of 1.4 and a Republican voter a value of 0.7. Both will show as ‘1’ on the display. In the final calculations, Democrat votes will count much higher than Republican votes, even if the same number of ballots are cast for each candidate. This is disguised within the display features and menu options.

GEMS is clearly able to screw around with votes and so is Dominion. However, the software is doing this by design. It’s a feature. Scorecard is nowhere to be seen. This led me to wonder whether Scorecard might actually be a set of design requirements used to build the voting software rather than a piece of Malware or a virus, as claimed by Montgomery. This would mean that the ability to set a maximum % of votes for candidates and apply a fractional value to a voter / vote group is also present in Dominion and all the other voting packages out there. In a previous article I mentioned Aggregation Servers. This is where the voting totals are held and manipulated. The Dominion security presentation above suggests that the aggregation servers can be fiddled with from a central source. Given the reports of people locked in server rooms and election count freezes, along with the general mayhem on the ground I suspect that the vote manipulation was done at a local level in real-time. I expect that Dominion is able to do everything that GEMS can (now confirmed – I saw screenshots of the Dominion Config Manual earlier, and these features are discussed along with the ability to manually alter/transfer votes between candidates).

Election Night

I think that what we saw on election night was a carefully crafted set of vote manipulation algorithms get blown out of the water by the sheer volume of votes for Trump. Whatever values were set initially were based on the polls, which as we know favoured Biden and were plain wrong. The vote-riggers panicked. They had to take the Aggregation Servers down for a few hours to deploy ‘software updates’ (i.e. modified manipulation algos) whilst at the same time searching behind the sofa for extra votes for Biden. All of these fixes to the vote rig were applied at speed and under pressure. They’ve since caught the attention of the forensics guys.

As to the Hammer, I can see no reason why a surveillance framework might be used to alter election results. It makes no sense. However, if you’re going to rig an election you definitely don’t want to get caught. I’ve read previously that if an election result varies by +/- 5%, then the forensic folk will be alerted. The other thing you don’t want to do is break long-term voting trends, as this will also raise a red flag. My best guess is that the Hammer is a centralised trends database which is there to ensure that any tweaks which are deployed are so small as not to be noticed. In other words, the manipulators use trends to craft a believable win by a narrow margin which doesn’t trigger the ‘within 1%’ recount rule. On election night the trend for Trump was organic, hence totally believable. In order to rig the vote, the manipulators had to override what the trends database was telling them. This was their undoing..The only way to get to the bottom of exactly what happened is to do a full election AUDIT. A recount is no good, as all this will do is re-total the good and bad ballots. A full audit will weed out the fake votes, reveal the real totals and expose what went on with electronic rigging. Georgia is going there. For the first time in their history they are auditing the result.

If it was me in charge I’d audit ALL the swings States and then take a solid blue State and a solid red State as my baseline for elsewhere in the country. Say California and Texas. In my opinion (and it is just an opinion) massive vote rigging has been going on in Cali for years. It would be poetic justice to take the battle to the heart of Dem country and the gates of Silicon Valley, prove the vote there is fake and turn the State RED from top to bottom.

Phillip Legard

5 Replies to “Scorecard and The Hammer”

  1. Absolutely great information. I’m contacting my state representatives to demand audits in all swing states and California. Thank you.

  2. Assuming the voting machines have been manipulated in favor of Biden how can this be determined by investigators?

    1. This is where forensic investigators come in. There are videos that show votes being switched in real-time between the two candidates. They only ever go in one direction: Trump -> Biden. The transaction logs and voter return records will show when this happened. An examination of the Dominion audit logs should then show which user did this. From what I’m seeing, the security was really lax so it may not be possible to pinpoint the exact user. The only way to be absolutely sure of numbers is to carry out a full audit of the suspect result. This means checking all the returned ballots for fakes and then recounting what’s left. A recount will not weed out the fakes.

  3. Great article but one question. If algorithms are assigned to votes, as in your example 1.4 for 1 Biden vote and .7 for one Trump vote wouldn’t the hand recount in GA catch this? If each received 10,000 votes in a precinct Biden would show 14,000 votes to Trump’s 7,000. But a hand recount would prove each really received 10,000.

    1. Yes, you’re right. I suspect that this feature is designed for use in local elections / state elections where a recount isn’t likely. In a Blue State which always votes Democrat no-one would question the outcome and if it’s just outside the margin of error for a recount the fraud will never be spotted. In the swing States during this election I doubt it was used. I’m highlighting the fact that this feature exists and it shouldn’t do! From the evidence that’s piling up, I’d say that the election was stolen for Biden electronically from bad guy central. Fake ballots have then had to added later, to make up the difference.

Leave a Reply to Stephen Gellman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *