Earlier this week, The Gateway Pundit published a report from CISA regarding the buildup to the 2020 Election. The report, titled “Election Infrastructure Subsector Cyber Risk Summary”, was incredibly damning. For starters, it was not meant for “us” to see. “Us” meaning tax-paying citizens who are compelled to ‘trust us’ (meaning the Feds and NGOs) when it comes to our elections.
The disclaimer adorning the bottom of the report’s cover page is a chilling reminder about how much “transparency” there actually is in our elections. This report wouldn’t have been discovered had it not been for a Freedom of Information request conducted by a private citizen, Yehuda Miller.
The disclaimer states:
This document is distributed as TLP:AMBER: Limited disclosure, restricted to participants’ organizations. Recipients may only share TLP:AMBER information with members of their own organization, and with clients or customers who need to know the information to protect themselves or prevent further harm. Sources are at liberty to specify additional intended limits of the sharing: these must be adhered to.
The report went on to outline numerous known vulnerabilities that were assessed in the buildup to the 2020 election, as well as CISA’s own findings during their analysis of Election Infrastructure entities:
Then-CISA Director Chris Krebs famously testified before Congress that “on November 12th, 2020, government and industry representatives from the election security community issued a joint statement reflecting a consensus perspective that the 2020 Election was the most secure in US history.”
This hidden report would strongly suggest otherwise. The report can be read here. I also covered the report on the Why We Vote podcast on Friday night with a reading of the report and commentary here. It’s worth the watch as we tie in known instances of these vulnerabilities existing during and after the running of the 2020 Election.
On Tuesday, Krebs joined CNBC’s The Squawk Box to talk about the 2024 election. Right out the gate, host Andrew Ross asked Krebs, “what is the single biggest security risk you see at this moment?”
Krebs replied:
“I got to say its the overall degrading information environment and the incentive structures that are in place to continue to push these fantastical claims about the election system itself and just politics in general right now.”
Krebs goes on to outline “three sets of focused actors that we need to be thinking about.”
“First is state security services. Again, Russia, China, Iran and a handful of others. Then you’re going to have domestic political groups that are doing what they’ve always done. Electioneering and propaganda and, really, FUD, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Then, I do think we have an emerging group of domestic actors that are less on the political, you know, grifting side and more on just seeking to undermine and upend confidence in public institutions.
And that last bit is probably the second group I’m most worried about.”
Co-host Joe Kernen then asks Krebs about mail-in balloting and, specifically, about a recent poll regarding mail-in balloting. Kernen is most likely referring to the Heartland Institute/Rasmussen poll that shockingly disclosed that one-in-five voters who voted by mail in 2020 committed some form of voter fraud among those who voted by mail. He described the admitted voter fraud as “they had done some things that weren’t totally above board”, admitting that “we were coming out of COVID so maybe we didn’t have the safeguards because we needed to do it.”
Kernen then asked Krebs how much mail-in voting is there going to be in 2024 and “can we trust it completely?”
While Krebs doesn’t specifically answer whether or not we can “trust it completely”, he does claim that “states are starting to go back to their regular voting administration process.” In the very next breath, Krebs says “2020, again, the most litigated, the most scrutinized, I could go on and on with the various ways that 2020 elections has been looked at and again there has been no evidence to suggest that mail in balloting was compromised or exploited to flip an election one way or the other.”
Just seconds before Krebs spewed up that propagandistic slop, Kernen referenced a Heartland Institute and Rasmussen poll, a reputable polling organization, that found 1-in-5 mail-in voters committed fraud. The Heartland Institute ran 29 scenarios regarding 2020 Presidential outcomes based on those findings. In their report, which utilized extremely conservative parameters based around the poll results, they determined that President Trump would have won the 2020 election in 26 out of 29 scenarios when factoring in varying levels of mail-in fraud in the 2020 election in congruence with the poll results.
Let’s rip this band-aid off together…most of our readers already have:
The 2020 Election was not the most secure in US history.
It was not the most litigated election ever. Almost all cases were thrown out on procedural grounds (standing, laches, etc).
And if you tried to scrutinize the 2020 Election with factual evidence, open-records requests, research data, video evidence, etc, the Mockingbird Media and the conglomerate of “fact” checkers would refer back to the absurd statement Krebs made on November 12th, just five days after the very same Mockingbird Media declared Joe Biden the winner. That the 2020 election was “the most secure in US history.”
They determined this in just five days. More than three years later and with hundreds of researchers across the country, we are still finding more and more evidence that 2020 was not only not secure, but it was impossible to validate the results in numerous locales.
And if you spoke about this, shared it on Facebook, or Twitter, or YouTube, they would simply silence you. You would either get outright banned or your posts would reach precisely no one. The censorship apparatus was in full swing as has been disclosed in the Twitter Files and admitted to in the Election Integrity Partnership’s “The Long Fuse Report”. The EIP report admits outright that:
(pg13) In this election cycle, the EI-ISAC served as a singular conduit for election officials to report false or misleading information to platforms. By serving as a one-stop reporting interface, the EI-ISAC allowed election officials to focus on detecting and countering election misinformation while CIS and its partners reported content to the proper social media platforms. Additionally, the Countering Foreign Influence Task Force (CFITF), a subcomponent of CISA, aided in the reporting process and in implementing resilience efforts to counter election misinformation.
The evidence wasn’t scrutinized. It was censored. And it was done so in an egregious violation of the First Amendment by a consortium of governmental officials, non-profits, and NGOs. They admit to it. Hell, TIME Magazine bragged about it.
The report continued on page 13:
Content reported by election officials to the EI-ISAC was also routed to the EIP ticketing system. This allowed analysts to find similar content, ascribe individual content pieces to broader narratives, and determine virality and cross-platform spread if applicable. This analysis was then passed back to election officials via the EI-ISAC for their situational awareness, as well as to inform potential counter-narratives.
The Election Infrastructure Information and Sharing Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) referenced above is a non-governmental organization (NGO) subsidiary of the Center for Internet Security (CIS). The CIS is an NGO that contracts with the Department of Homeland Security to provide, for free, election security services to local election jurisdictions at the expense of the Federal government (or the taxpayer).
On one hand, you have a non-governmental organization contracting with the Department of Homeland Security, for free, to “secure” our elections. On the other, that same organizations subsidiary is censoring anyone who questions it. Orwell just sat up in his grave.
That’s right: we the taxpayer funded our own illegal censorship operation.
I covered this massive conflict in the move towards the federalization of our elections and the governmental censorship that followed for The Gateway Pundit in August 2022.
Krebs, the environmental science lawyer-turned-cybersecurity guru and inaugural CISA Director, would go on after the 2020 election to partner with former Facebook Chief Security Officer, Alex Stamos, who is also the founding director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, which was also one of four members of the EIP referenced above. The two would form the Krebs Stamos Group. Their first customer? SolarWinds. Yes, that SolarWinds.
Credit: Source link
