HOW ELON MUSK RIGGED THE TRUMP ELECTION, IN HIS OWN WORDS, HE ADMITS HE COMMITTED ELECTION FRAUD
Ashley St. Clair, the mother of one of Elon Musk’s children who worked on his political operation through the 2024 election cycle, posted a video this week alleging that in October 2024, while they were alone together, Musk told her he was ready to release what he called his “anomaly in the matrix”. He described it as 10,000 lasers in space referring to his Starlink satellites, and that whatever this was would be “not a piece they’ll see on the chessboard.” She says she stopped asking questions because she did not want to be deposed later and Musk told her “very wise.”
She also says he sent her what she called “real-time delta vote metrics” from his America PAC, data so detailed and so fast that she could not understand how any campaign operation could possibly have it. On election night at Mar-a-Lago she says Musk told her over text that he knew hours earlier Trump had won. “My team has the best real-time data anywhere.”
The New York Times, reported by Kirsten Grind and Megan Twohey, published actual text messages in which Musk wrote to a confidant on October 5, 2024 after appearing on stage with Trump: “I’m feeling more optimistic after tonight. Tomorrow we unleash the anomaly in the matrix.” About an hour later he added: “This is not something on the chessboard, so they will be quite surprised. ‘Lasers’ from space.”
That phrase “anomaly in the matrix” came up for me while I was doing what I do best, digging through the Epstein files. I found Epstein talking about a very specific kind of mathematician it seems he spent quite a few years trying to recruit from the NSA, and combined with what other investigators have documented about the physical connections between Musk’s satellites and American vote counting equipment, I think I may have found a gap in this country’s election security so fundamental that it changes what every piece of evidence in this story means.
What “anomaly in the matrix” actually means
There is a mathematical technique called wavelet analysis that the NSA uses regularly, and it’s used to take a massive amount of data that looks like noise, like chaos, like a wall of sound where you cannot make out anything individual, and separates that data into layers so you can find a hidden signal that was completely invisible when everything was mixed together.
Imagine you are standing in a stadium where 50,000 people are all talking at once and to your ear it is just a roar where you cannot make out any single voice. Now imagine you have a tool that separates that roar into layers, all the deep voices in one layer and all the high voices in another and the music from the speakers in a third and the hum of the air conditioning in a fourth, and suddenly you can listen to any single conversation because it has been pulled apart from everything around it.
That is what wavelet analysis does to data. The NSA uses it to find one meaningful communication hiding inside millions of intercepted signals, seismologists use it to isolate earthquake signatures from the constant background vibration of the earth, and medical imaging systems use it to clean the noise out of MRI scans so that what is actually there becomes visible. The underlying math is the same in every case because the technique does not care what the data represents, it separates noise into layers and finds whatever is hiding inside.
When using this specific discipline, the data you are analyzing gets organized into a grid of numbers with rows and columns, and in mathematics that grid is called a matrix. This means that when you have vote counts from thousands of precincts you would organize them exactly this way with each row a precinct and each column a candidate and each cell a number.
When you apply wavelet analysis to that matrix and you find a hidden signal in the data that does not belong to the natural pattern, that signal is called an anomaly.
“Anomaly in the matrix” is the literal textbook name for what wavelet analysis produces when it finds a hidden signal inside a grid of data.
That is the technical term. The one that would appear in an NSA training manual or a graduate-level signal processing textbook for the output of this specific mathematical technique applied to this specific type of data structure and Musk used that exact phrase.
And “not something on the chessboard” is an accurate description of a technique that the people who analyze American elections have never used, have never considered using, and as far as I can determine from searching every published academic database I could find, have never once thought to look at. But why does it matter? How does it impact the actual votes? Let me explain what I found…
How American votes actually get counted and where the blind spots are
Most people have never thought about what happens between the moment you fill in a bubble on your ballot and the moment a winner gets announced on television because we are taught to trust the process. But understanding how that process actually works is essential to understanding why what I found in the Epstein files matters so I am going to explain it simply so it makes sense.
When you walk into a polling place you fill out a paper ballot. That ballot goes into a counting device, a computer that reads the bubbles you filled in and adds your votes to the running totals. These counting computers run certified software that has been tested and approved through a formal process before every election.
But those counting computers do not sit alone on a table. One of the pieces of equipment they are connected to is a battery backup unit, which is known as a UPS. It’s the same kind of thing you might have under your own desk so your computer does not shut off when the power flickers. In election offices across the country these battery backup units are made by a company called Tripp Lite, and they are physically connected to the counting computers through USB, serial port, or Ethernet cables. They provide power but they are programmable devices with their own software and their own modems that can receive updates.
The counting software on the vote tabulation computer is certified, meaning it has to go through formal testing and approval before it can be used in an election, and any changes to it are regulated and monitored. But the software on the battery backup unit connected to that same computer is classified as an “optional component” in the election system documentation. That classification means updates to it do not go through the certification process. Nobody is required to test them, monitor them, or approve them. It is a programmable device with a modem that can receive updates, physically connected to the counting equipment, whose software changes are completely invisible to the election certification process.
After the votes are counted there is a second layer of protection that is supposed to catch problems, and it consists of statistical tools that researchers use to check whether the numbers look like they occurred naturally or whether something seems wrong.
The first is called Benford’s law, and it is based on a pattern that shows up naturally in large sets of real world numbers. In any naturally occurring dataset the digit 1 appears as the first digit of a number far more often than the digit 9. If you look at the population of every city in a country or the dollar amounts on every check a company writes or the vote counts from every precinct in a state, the number 1 will be the leading digit about 30 percent of the time while the number 9 will be the leading digit less than 5 percent of the time. If a set of numbers does not follow this pattern it can be a sign that someone made the numbers up or tampered with them.
The second tool was developed by Peter Klimek and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. It looks for a specific relationship between how many people voted in a precinct and what percentage of those votes went to one candidate. When someone literally stuffs ballot boxes, when fake ballots are physically added to the count, it creates a distinctive pattern where turnout and vote share become correlated in a way that does not happen in honest elections. Klimek’s method was designed to catch this.
Both of these tools share a blind spot that the Heritage Foundation, a conservative institution with no interest in undermining Trump’s 2024 victory, documented in a paper published November 2024. Their chief statistician Kevin Dayaratna surveyed every statistical method available for detecting election fraud and wrote that if someone switched votes between two candidates by a fixed percentage across all precincts, that manipulation would be, in his words, “almost surely rendered undetectable by Benford’s law.” He also noted that other standard detection methods share this limitation.
If someone shifted 3 percent of the votes from one candidate to the other evenly across the board, every precinct’s numbers would still follow Benford’s law perfectly. Klimek’s method would see nothing wrong either because turnout was not artificially inflated and the correlation pattern was not disturbed. A smooth uniform percentage shift preserves every statistical property that the existing tools check for.
One of the mathematical techniques specifically designed to catch exactly this kind of hidden signal is wavelet analysis. When you vote, you are filling out one piece of paper that has the presidential race at the top and your senate race and your congressional race and your local races further down, and that one piece of paper goes through one counting device that produces totals for every race at the same time.
If the counting equipment is honest, the results for the president and the results for the senate and the results for congress should all follow similar patterns because they came from the same voters in the same precincts on the same day through the same equipment.
If someone added something to the presidential count without adding anything to the other counts, wavelet analysis can find it, because it compares those streams against each other layer by layer and can see when one of them is carrying something the others are not.
Like recording two microphones in the same room and one of them picks up a sound the other does not, you would know that sound did not come from the room, that it came from somewhere else and only entered one channel.
I searched Google Scholar, JSTOR, arxiv, IEEE signal processing journals, election forensics surveys, and conference proceedings. Wavelet analysis has been used on election data exactly once in the published literature and it was applied to multi-decade trends studying how political alignments shift over generations. I could not find a single published paper that applies wavelet analysis to precinct-level vote counts from a single election for the purpose of detecting manipulation, and I could not find a single instance of anyone even proposing it.
But why does it even matter? What does it have to do with Epstein? Wavelet analysis works in both directions. If you understand how it finds hidden signals you also understand how to design a signal it would take to find, and more importantly you understand what every other detection tool can and cannot see. Someone trained in this discipline would know that the one technique that could catch their work has never been applied to the data that decides American elections. They would know exactly where the blind spots are and exactly how to stay inside them. The NSA trains people who think in exactly these terms, because finding signals and hiding signals are two sides of the same mathematics, and Jeffrey Epstein was recruiting those people by name.
What Epstein was building and who he was building it with
Between November 2009 and March 2010 Jeffrey Epstein ran a recruitment operation across five separate channels in five countries, all pursuing mathematicians trained by the NSA.
In November 2009 he emailed Peter Mandelson, the First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom and the second most powerful person in the British government, a man with direct access to GCHQ, Britain’s counterpart to America’s NSA. Epstein wrote casually: “The signal processing that you use, like NSA for decoding and interception, should be tasked with unmasking the hidden biological codes.”
As Ryan Grim, Murtaza Hussain, and Emily Jashinsky reported at Drop Site News, Epstein was running the same request through American channels at the same time. He asked Daniel Dubno, who had worked with DARPA, to “find me the top hacker codebreaker, NSA type.” He asked Danny Hillis at MIT for an “NSA quality code theorist.” He asked Boris Nikolic, Bill Gates’s science advisor, for NSA contacts and Nikolic said yes. He asked Kathryn Ruemmler, former White House counsel, to find him “a guy from NSA that can think about signal intelligence applied to DNA.”
And in March 2010 he emailed John Brockman, the president of the Edge Foundation and the most important recruiter in his intellectual network. Brockman was trying to understand what kind of person Epstein wanted. Are you looking for biologists? Cybersecurity people? Tech industry employees? Epstein rejected every option and gave an answer so specific it changed what I understood about everything else I had been reading.
“No, in essence someone who is familiar with signal processing, wavelet analysis, more like NSA types, no biology experience necessary. Theorists on codes. Experts in Alice and Bob communication.”
“Alice and Bob” is the standard framework used in every cryptography textbook to describe secure communication between two parties. Alice sends a message to Bob and Eve tries to intercept it. When Epstein said he wanted experts in Alice and Bob communication he was asking for people trained in the mathematics of hiding and finding secret signals, which is what the NSA does.
In Epstein’s personal notes recovered from his Apple device he kept a running list of priorities and contacts. On one list alongside names like Thiel, Elon, Brockman and Ehud he wrote the words “signal intelligence” as a standalone item. On another he wrote “wyler sat ligt”, his shorthand for Greg Wyler’s satellite project.
Greg Wyler was building the satellite constellation that eventually split into two competing projects, one of which became OneWeb and the other Starlink. As Bloomberg reported, Epstein was advising Wyler on this, and in October 2014 Epstein emailed Wyler asking: “If elon is not funding how are you getting it done?”
On May 22, 2014, Tren Griffin emailed Epstein with a technical analysis of Greg Wyler's satellite pitch deck, describing a constellation of 70 satellites in polar orbits costing $3.5 billion, and noting a critical legal distinction: "An allocation to a service by the ITU is not ownership." Epstein responded at 3:25 in the morning wanting to set up a call. That legal principle, that an ITU spectrum allocation is permission to operate rather than property you own, is exactly what Musk used when he split from Wyler in January 2015 and filed his own satellite paperwork to create Starlink.
Four months later, on September 17, 2014, someone else in Epstein's circle emailed him with the subject line "Greg came by," reporting that Wyler had personally visited to pitch the project, writing "I loved loved loved him, and his satellites are amazing," and asking Epstein directly: "Is elon musk really in?"
In September 2012 Epstein emailed his assistant about arranging a massage for “elon MUSK.”
In a recorded conversation with the scientist Richard Axel, Epstein revealed how he thought about hidden signals. “You have encrypted that signal to protect yourself from your competition,” he said. “The signal cannot be broken from the outside. So everyone’s signal is different.” When Axel said he did not know how you would break such a signal Epstein replied: “But then you can.”
Epstein was simultaneously recruiting NSA mathematicians who specialized in the technique whose output is literally called “an anomaly in a matrix,” advising on the satellite technology that became Starlink, while in direct personal contact with Elon Musk, and telling scientists that he believed hidden signals could be broken even when they told him it was impossible.
The physical path from orbit to the counting room
The investigation that This Will Hold has been building establishes the physical chain that connects Musk’s satellites to vote counting equipment and makes everything from the Epstein files operationally relevant today.
In March 2021 Barre Seid, a secretive Chicago electronics magnate who had run Tripp Lite (remember the voting machine battery packs?) for more than fifty years, donated 100 percent of his company shares to the Marble Freedom Trust, a dark money nonprofit run by Leonard Leo, the conservative legal strategist who helped install six of the current Supreme Court justices.
The Marble Freedom Trust then sold Tripp Lite to Eaton Corporation for $1.65 billion and the entire proceeds flowed tax-free to Leo’s organization. The New York Times, ProPublica, and The Lever all reported on this in August 2022 and described it as among the largest single political contributions in American history.
Eaton now owns Tripp Lite, the company whose battery backup devices sit on vote counting servers across the country. In May 2024 Eaton deepened its partnership with Peter Thiel’s Palantir for AI and data services.
Starlink uses something called DTC which means Direct-to-Cell, and it is the technology that lets Starlink satellites talk directly to a device on the ground without going through any cell tower, wifi network or internet service provider, just satellite to device with nothing in between.
On September 26, 2024, Hurricane Helene made landfall and devastated communications across western North Carolina and parts of Georgia. By September 28, 74 percent of cell towers in North Carolina’s disaster areas were out of service. The FCC authorized Starlink’s Direct-to-Cell service on October 6 and SpaceX confirmed its satellites had “already been enabled and started broadcasting emergency alerts to cellphones on all networks in North Carolina.”
The emergency was real and the people who needed communication restored were real, but the DTC network that was activated to help them was also, according to Musk’s own verified text messages sent the day before that authorization, the network through which he planned to “unleash the anomaly in the matrix.”
On October 30, six days before the election, SpaceX activated 265 new V2 Mini satellites equipped with Direct-to-Cell capability. If those satellites can reach the modems inside the battery backup devices connected to vote counting servers, and if the software updates to those backup devices bypass election certification, then you have a direct line from orbit into the counting room through a device nobody audits, right?
What may have happened in 2020 and why 2024 was different
When I look at everything together, it appears to explain several things about the last two elections that have never made sense otherwise.
In January 2021, the day after the Capitol riot, a tech firm paid by attorney Sidney Powell’s nonprofit went into the Coffee County, Georgia elections office and copied virtually every component of the Dominion voting system. The software, the hard drives, the memory cards that store votes, the files from the ballot scanners. Security cameras recorded the whole thing. The data was later distributed through file-sharing websites. Powell and Scott Hall, a bail bondsman who participated in the breach, both pleaded guilty to charges related to the incident.
If you have a complete copy of the voting software you can study everything about how it works from the inside. You can see what it checks for and what it does not check for, and where the gaps are between the certified software and the other devices connected to it. You would know exactly how to design something that enters the system without triggering any of its protections.
Trump spent months before the 2020 election attacking mail-in voting and telling his supporters to vote in person, and the standard explanation is that he was setting up an excuse to challenge the results if he lost. But think about what that messaging actually did to the electorate. It sorted voters into two streams. Trump voters went to the polls and their votes went through the counting equipment on Election Day. Democratic voters disproportionately voted by mail and their votes were counted through a completely different process at a different time.
If a manipulation was designed to work on the in-person counting equipment on Election Day, the massive unexpected surge in mail-in voting caused by COVID would have overwhelmed whatever margin that manipulation was supposed to deliver, because those mail-in ballots went through a pathway the manipulation could not reach.
I’m grateful to have friends that I can talk to about these things and when I showed up in sami sage’s DMs with my beginnings of my theory, she said something that made all of the lightbulbs and alarm bells go off at once.
they needed a way to know where they were “missing” votes
“i just need to find 11,780 votes...”
On January 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and said “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” That number is the margin of Biden’s Georgia victory plus one, the exact number needed to flip the state. That call sounds very different if you read it as someone who expected an automated system to deliver a result and is now calling to manually close the gap because an unprecedented flood of mail-in ballots came through a pathway the system could not reach.
And the Coffee County breach, copying the entire voting system the day after the Capitol failed to stop certification, reads as getting the blueprints so the next attempt could account for what went wrong.
So if I am understanding this all correctly then by 2024 they had something they did not have in 2020. Starlink’s Direct-to-Cell satellites that can reach devices on the ground without going through any monitored infrastructure, an emergency authorization to operate them in swing states, and a complete understanding of how the voting software works from the inside courtesy of Coffee County.
What the data actually shows
The Election Truth Alliance led by Nathan Taylor has been analyzing 2024 precinct-level election data across swing states, and what they found is exactly the pattern this theory would predict.
In North Carolina, Trump received 5.5 percent more votes than the other Republican candidates running on the same ballot. Harris received 1.8 percent fewer votes than the other Democratic candidates running on the same ballot. And this gap was bigger in votes counted on Election Day than in early votes.
The presidential race and the other races on the same ballot all went through the same counting equipment on the same day from the same voters. If the equipment counted honestly the presidential results and the other results should follow similar patterns, but they don’t. Something shows up in the presidential count that does not show up in the other counts.
In Pennsylvania, Walter Mebane at the University of Michigan, one of the most respected election forensics researchers in the country, flagged between 25,374 and 225,440 votes as statistically anomalous, though Mebane has been careful to note that most may be false positives from voters who genuinely split their tickets.
The pattern the Election Truth Alliance found has a name. When votes show up for one race but not for the other races on the same piece of paper those are called bullet ballots. If a manipulation added presidential votes for Trump without adding corresponding votes for other Republicans further down the ballot, the result would look exactly like a large number of people walked in and voted for Trump and then left every other race on their ballot blank.
The early voting distinction matters because early votes are counted through a different process at a different time than Election Day votes. If the manipulation was only active on Election Day when the live count was running and the real-time data feed was flowing, you would expect the gap to appear in Election Day counts and not in early vote counts. That is exactly what the data shows.
What they said out loud
I keep coming back to the pattern of what has been said publicly about all of this because it is a pattern and it extends well beyond St. Clair and the NYT texts.
Two days after he texted about the “anomaly in the matrix” Musk told Tucker Carlson in a recorded interview on October 7, 2024: “If Trump loses, I’m fucked. How long do you think my prison sentence is going to be?”
On election night, November 5, 2024, Musk appeared on Tucker Carlson’s livestream from Mar-a-Lago with his young son X. Musk asked the child on camera: “Should we help President Trump win the election?” The child said yes and Musk said “straight from the mouth of babes.” Then the boy grabbed his father’s microphone and said the kind of sentence that children put together from phrases they hear their parents say at home: “We’re in SpaceX and we quietly do just whatever we want.” And then he laughed.
On January 19, 2025, the day before his inauguration, Donald Trump stood at a rally in Washington and said “he knows those computers better than anybody, all those computers, those vote-counting computers, and we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide,” but Trump has never explained.
And on June 5, 2025, Musk said it himself: “Without me, Trump would have lost the election.”
Any one of these alone could be explained away as Musk joking or Trump rambling or a child babbling or a bitter ex-girlfriend seeking attention, but taken together they describe a consistent understanding among every person in the room, down to a four-year-old repeating what he hears at home, that something was done quietly through SpaceX, that it involved the voting equipment, that no one was supposed to see it, and that it worked.
What would prove or disprove all of this
The paper ballots should still exist in every state. A hand count of those physical ballots compared to the electronic totals would show immediately whether the counts match. If they match the theory is wrong and I will say so. If they do not match the gap between the paper and the electronic count is the measure of what was done. Every election forensics researcher from Mebane at Michigan to the Election Truth Alliance has identified this as the only definitive test, and no state has conducted one.
The precinct-level data from 2024 is publicly available. An independent team of signal processing mathematicians, people trained in frequency-domain analysis the way NSA cryptographers are trained, could apply wavelet decomposition to that data and compare the presidential count to the down-ballot counts layer by layer. If a hidden signal is present in one and absent from the other, wavelet analysis will find it. Nobody has done this that I can find.
The battery backup devices connected to tabulation servers in every swing state could potentially be forensically examined to determine whether their firmware was modified during the election window and what those modifications contained. Nobody has done this either.
SpaceX has the Starlink Direct-to-Cell connection logs from October and November 2024 that could show which devices connected from which locations during the election window but so far nobody has asked for them.
Congress should be investigating all of this immediately.
Who authorized the Eaton partnership with SpaceX in September 2024 and what does “integration with Starlink’s emerging low-orbit DTC infrastructure for secure operational continuity” mean when the devices in question are physically connected to vote counting servers?
Were any firmware or driver updates pushed to Tripp Lite or Eaton battery backup devices connected to election tabulation equipment in any swing state between September and November 2024, and if so who authorized them and what did they contain?
What do the Starlink DTC connection logs show from the election window, and will SpaceX make them available?
Why has no state conducted the paper ballot hand count that would definitively resolve whether the electronic totals match the physical ballots?
And will Congress commission an independent signal processing analysis of the 2024 election data using wavelet decomposition, performed by mathematicians who have the training to detect the kind of manipulation that every existing tool has a documented blind spot for?
Jeffrey Epstein spent significant time recruiting NSA-trained mathematicians who specialized in the technique whose output is literally called “an anomaly in a matrix.” He was advising on the satellite constellation that became Starlink while in direct contact with Elon Musk and his personal notes list “signal intelligence” and “wyler sat” as priorities alongside names like Thiel and Elon. His recorded conversations show him insisting that hidden signals can be broken even when scientists told him otherwise.
Someone copied the entire Dominion voting system out of Coffee County Georgia the day after January 6, Musk activated 265 Direct-to-Cell satellites six days before the 2024 election in swing states under hurricane emergency authorization and he texted a confidant that he was about to “unleash the anomaly in the matrix” through “lasers from space” that it was “not something on the chessboard.” His own son repeated on live television what he could potentially hear at home: “We quietly do just whatever we want.”
Trump praised Musk for knowing “vote-counting computers better than anybody.” And the data shows exactly the pattern this theory predicts, a signal in the presidential count that is absent from every other race on the same ballot, larger on Election Day than in early voting, consistent with a manipulation that targeted one channel and left the others untouched.
The people who break codes and the people who count votes have never been in the same room that I know of, at least not to benefit the people. I think it is time they were.
This connects to my earlier reporting on the election tool pitched to Epstein in 2016 and to the Barr family’s fifty-year project of building sovereign infrastructure while blocking the investigations that would expose it. I don’t have proof that this is exactly what happened or what is planned again, but I know it needs to be asked about."
----
By Kait Justice, see comments for sources and to support her work.
See less
