On November 12, 2020, just nine days after the 2020 Presidential Election, CISA, the Secretary of State, and the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council announced that the 2020 election was the “safest in American history.” Nine days later.
Of course, we’ve known and reported on vulnerabilities in our election systems, whether it’s a Michigan-based software company allegedly sending our data to China, Iranians hacking voter rolls in Florida, or Serbian programmers reportedly used to write code for voting machines , among other issues. All this while being called “conspiracy theories” and labeled by Establishment “fact-checkers” as “mis-, dis- and mal-information.”
BREAKING “Dominion CEO John Poulos directed his staff to hide the fact that Dominion has Serbian and Chinese employees operating out of Canadian offices and that these employees are directly involved in the US election, not only with programming, but in real time, administration… pic.twitter.com/WavgB2sgtr
— Peter Bernegger (@PeterBernegger) May 8, 2024
Michigan Lawyer Stefanie Lambert Arrested By US Marshals In DC After Court Appearance – For Sending “Evidence Of Multiple Crimes” Including Internal Emails From Dominion Voting System To Law Enforcement via @gatewaypundit https://t.co/vxzgFy2upK
— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) March 19, 2024
But now, after a “six-month investigation” conducted by Politico, they have learned that our election systems and infrastructure are vulnerable. In an oddly-timed article, Politico revealed that “software was misconfigured to connect to servers in Russia,” code that was “supervised by Russian computer engineers convicted of murder,” and even found that “programmers had hard-coded the Ukrainian national anthem .the database, as a sign of solidarity with Kyiv.
In the same article, in fact, in the very next paragraph, Politico laughably quoted a New Hampshire official as saying that ‘None of the findings are evidence of wrongdoing.’ Yes, that’s a serious statement.
From Politico:
The probe found some unexpected surprises: misconfigured software to connect to a server in Russia and using open-source code – which is available online for free – overseen by a Russian computer engineer convicted of murderaccording to a person familiar with the exam who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter.
…
New Hampshire officials say the scans show other problems: A programmer has hard-coded the national anthem of Ukraine into the databasein an obvious gesture of solidarity with Kyiv.
And in the next paragraph(s):
None of the findings constitute evidence of wrongdoingofficials said, and the company solved the problem before the new database came into use ahead of the presidential vote this spring.
It was a “preventable disaster,” said a person familiar with the probe. expressed the risk that hackers could exploit the first two issues to secretly edit the state’s voter rolls.or the use and presence of the Ukrainian national anthem to revive the election conspiracy.
It is difficult to take this type of “journalism” seriously. Why else would you “misconfigure” critical election infrastructure to connect to Russian servers? Just a convenient mistake to send our data to a “threat” country?
Politico later cited the lack of “a uniform or rigorous system for verifying what software was used on Election Day and whether it was secure.” He later claimed that federal and state officials “have tried to pay more attention to these flaws” but had to deal with “critics who reject the ‘federalization’ of state election processes.”
There it is. Push for ‘federalisation’ of our elections.
And in the most shocking statement in the Politico piece, he wrote:
Fear, current and former election officials said, is less hack away that flips enough votes to swing the election from small, local errors or attacks destroy confidence in the ballot – or empowering dishonest candidates to mount legal challenges to these results.
Let me answer directly: they are not worried about this hacking being used to vote and swing the election, but can it reduce confidence in the ballot or strengthen legal challenges by the candidates? Are you serious?
Gateway Pundit has previously reported on the ‘federalization’ of our elections through the Department of Homeland Security’s intrusion free contract with state and district election entities to provide security measures through the Internet Security Center, which is the umbrella for EI-ISAC. EI-ISAC is a critical component of the 2020 election censorship apparatus, as identified in The Long Fuse report from DFR Labs, the Stanford Internet Observatory, and the University of Washington, among others.
TLP-AMBER_EI-Subsector-Cyber-Risk-Summary (1)
Our voting machine software is currently being tested by two private entities, at least one of which has expired accreditation according to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) website. The two entities, Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, are not contracted by the government and/or election office whose equipment is being tested, but by the election machine vendors themselves.
One of the test companies clearly writes on their website:
Pro V&V exists to help clients comply with regulations in system and software testing in the most efficient and professional way, and will always be dedicated. to verify your product to your satisfaction.”
Who is satisfied? His customers. Who is the “client?” Not the government, but the manufacturer of the Election machine itself.
The EAC does not have requirements for voter registration databases and other electoral systems outside of tabulators and electronic poll books.
Therefore, the Politico article seems to focus more on voter rolls than voting machines:
If the last two elections are any indication, voter registration databases are one of the most vulnerable targets for foreign hackers because – unlike voting machines – they must be accessible via the internet in order to work.
…
In the worst-case scenario, hackers can falsify state voter lists, add fictitious people to the rolls, change real voter information or direct voters to the wrong polling place on Election Day.
Although election security expert and computer scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said that “Outsourcing, even indirectly, to international sources is just asking for trouble, the article ends with a quote from New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan:
“The biggest challenge facing election administrators in this upcoming 2024 election cycle is trying to create a climate where we can restore trust and confidence” in the electoral process, he said.
The work is challenging, he continued, because many of these systems now “use computer code and are very technical.” And, he said, “it can go wrong.”
Fitting. The biggest concern is not outsourcing programs that could directly lead to compromising elections. No, trust in the election system and believe the experts who say it is the “safest election in American history” and at the same time, hide the reports before the 2020 election about the vulnerability of our system.
TLP-AMBER_EI-Subsector-Cyber-Risk-Summary (1)
