Second Whistleblower: Receipts Attached. The NSA Audited the 2024 Election. Kamala Won.

Exposing the real reason behind Trump's war on mail-in voting.

Part II: A follow-up to our previous whistleblower article—the completed NSA audit results have been submitted, yet they have still been met with silence. According to messages exchanged between team members, deliverables were handed over to multiple agencies—and on December 21, 2024, the NSA and CISA agreed that a “recount” was necessary.

“We logged everything… it’s DISA ticket recorded—then we took it to the Pentagon lawyers and they raided Coplan. There’s a lot more to it—logs were collected and sent to the Atlantic Council… and there’s a backup of the [indecipherable word] database.”

These deliverables included NSA intelligence provided by an election security expert with prior involvement in the Jan 6 prosecutions. Then, on January 3, 2025, team members discussed CISA and NATO, noting their “green light to fix this problem.”

Considering the timing—just three days before the Jan 6 certification—and the nature of their dialogue, it is reasonable to infer that the team believed the “problem” would be addressed to prevent certification of the illegitimate election results.

It’s likely no coincidence that Tulsi Gabbard is suddenly revoking the security clearances of former national security officials. We will continue reporting as more team members come forward. It has become increasingly clear to them that those with the authority to release the NSA-authorized audit are not “waiting for the right time.”

Which brings us to the present. As previously outlined, the NSA authorized a covert, compartmentalized forensic audit—conducted entirely outside public election offices and beyond state oversight. This separation proved essential in light of our recent findings involving the EAC, Pro V&V, ES&S, and Dominion.

From Part I:

“In December 2024, I was personally involved in an NSA‑authorized forensic audit of the 2024 election. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz won—by a wide margin. Trump lost dramatically. There are multiple layers of complexity to this cover‑up, including transnational organized crime syndicates that extend far beyond the United States and our elections. To that point, I work in the human trafficking sector, which intersects with the stolen election(s) and has ties to Trump and Epstein—not to President Biden, Vice President Harris, or Governor Walz, but to the Democrats and other allied interests responsible for burying the audit.” — Adam Zarnowski, ex-CIA agent and author of Jörmungandr

It’s important to distinguish between public hand-counts and cyber forensic audits: the first verifies paper ballot accuracy, while the second examines digital pathways that could compromise election outcomes.
Again, this was not a “hand-count”—it was an NSA-authorized audit involving:

• Malware forensics

• Signals intelligence (SIGINT)

• Chain-of-custody breach detection

• Satellite monitoring (DTC uplinks, data exfiltration)

• Parallel tabulation testing

• Other classified data collection

Forensic audits are often conducted outside the public purview as a safeguard designed to protect both the process and its findings.

Yes, The NSA “Works On Elections”

The NSA—active in election security efforts during 2016 and 2017—later partnered with U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), which includes Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) as a subordinate component, to jointly defend U.S. elections in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. By 2022, this collaboration was formalized through the Election Security Group (ESG), a joint task force created specifically to secure the midterms.

In 2024, the ESG’s work escalated.

Within this framework, the NSA and Army Cyber Command—working jointly under U.S. Cyber Command—share leadership, intelligence, and infrastructure to safeguard election security.

Rolling Out The Красный Carpet

On August 15, 2025, Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin in Alaska in what was billed as a ceasefire negotiation over the war in Ukraine. To be clear, Russia continued bombing, and Trump has since reversed his position on the ceasefire—further underscoring his alignment with Putin.

Two things from that meeting are clear: peace was not achieved, and mail-in voting was on the agenda.

Still insisting the 2020 election was ‘stolen,’ Trump now claims Putin agrees, alleging that President Biden’s victory came through ‘rigged’ mail-in ballots.

“He [Putin] said, ‘No country has mail-in voting—it’s impossible to have mail-in voting and have honest elections.’ And he said that to me. It was very interesting, because we talked about 2020. He said, ‘You won that election by so much, and that’s how he [President Biden] got it… you lost it because of mail-in voting. It was a rigged election.’”

Why the war on mail-in voting? Because it’s significantly harder to hack:

• Mail-in ballots require extra steps: envelope opening, signature verification, and sometimes “curing” if there’s an error.

• Not counted at polling places: voters can drop them off at polling sites, but the ballots are then transferred to central facilities for verification and tabulation.

• Timing: slower and safer due to centralization—43 states begin processing before Election Day, this process has more layers of checks and balances including bipartisan teams, chain of custody logs, and audit trails.

Although election equipment is certified before Election Day, cybersecurity experts caution that malware can be inserted in advance, programmed to remain dormant through logic-and-accuracy tests, and then activate once polls open—leaving early and mail-in ballots untouched while altering in-person votes.

Which explains why the 2024 election data we’ve been circulating over the past eight months shows significant anomalies only in the swing states and Texas, and only in Election Day voting.
**With exception to Nevada

Not His First Rodeo

The current mail-in ballot controversy is not new. It is important to recall just how aggressively Trump worked to dismantle mail-in voting during his first term—well before his loss to President Biden in 2020.

In a 2020 Fox News interview, Trump openly admitted to blocking funding for the U.S. Postal Service in order to slow down the processing of mail-in ballots during the Covid pandemic, which he feared would cost him the election:

“If we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money… that means they can’t have universal mail-in voting—they just can’t have it.”

Trump’s appointment of political ally and major donor Louis DeJoy as Postmaster General was likewise widely seen as an attempt to obstruct mail-in voting.

DeJoy quickly instituted hiring freezes and eliminated overtime, which had been essential for carriers to cover additional routes. He also ordered the removal of mail-sorting equipment and mailboxes—measures that caused widespread delays and raised serious concerns about interference with the timely processing of mail-in ballots—actions that ultimately triggered a Senate investigation.

Project 2025 was originally Project 2021

As previously reported, we maintain that the 2016 and 2020 election data exhibit patterns consistent with algorithmic manipulation favoring Trump. We also know that Russia infiltrated VR Systems and gained access to voting equipment in 21 states, assurances that everything has been remedied are far and few between.

In fact, Trump was so confident of winning the 2020 election that on October 21, 2020, he signed Executive Order 13957. This order reclassified federal civil service positions into a new category—'Schedule F'—enabling him to purge career officials and replace them with political loyalists.

If that framework sounds familiar, it should—it reemerged as Executive Order 14171: “Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions within the Federal Workforce,” a cornerstone of Project 2025. Trump fully intended to be back in the White House in 2021 to move forward with Executive Order 13957.

The Silence Heard Around The World

On July 17, 2025, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi was asked about the delayed release of the Epstein files, which she dismissed as “a distraction”—a comment widely read as an attempt to deflect attention from a politically volatile issue.

Days later, on July 21, 2025, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was pressed on polling showing that 41% of Democrats believe the 2024 election was stolen. His response revealed the party’s broader strategy for addressing—if not downplaying—growing doubts within its own base.

"As you’ve pointed out, during the opening day of this Congressional session, I congratulated the new president on winning the general election, and not a single Democrat, as far as I can tell, challenged the certification — because we’re not election deniers. Obviously, we’ve seen very different behavior from the other side of the aisle. Thank you.”

It became evident that this was not simply a matter of “waiting for the right time,” and Zarnowski was given authorization to come forward—publicly revealing, for the first time, the existence of the NSA-authorized forensic audit and its findings.

What We Can Do Together

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was written for precisely this moment—a stolen election is a rebellion against the Constitution. It’s time for pro‑democracy legislators to act. We don’t need a Democratic majority. We have the authority and the obligation to remove this entire unelected, illegitimate regime. It’s up to us to compel Congress to act.

We can: call, email, and tag state attorneys general and members of Congress on social media. They don’t have to be your own—it only takes one to get this process moving.

You can: Fund The Common Coalition campaign—to continue critical investigations, data analysis, and public education efforts on the 2024 election. Click here to donate.

You can: circulate this Substack series to everyone, ask them to do the same. We the People are the media until they decide to step up.

Hold on to your hope. Because again—we don’t need permission to enforce the Constitution. We just need courage.

Want the truth they’re not telling you? For fearless reporting and expert-backed research, read The Common Coalition Report. And if you believe in funding real, independent work—support our all-volunteer team here.