DHS Issues Report: “Patrick Byrne was right again. Again.”
It was issued on June 3, 2022, and it acknowledges that Dominion systems have nine major security “vulnerabilities” that make them inappropriate for use without remedy. To the nine vulnerabilities, DHS-CISA respectively attaches these nine warnings:
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to install malicious code, which could also be spread to other vulnerable ImageCast X devices via removable media.”
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to disguise malicious applications on a device.”
- “…which could be leveraged by an attacker to gain elevated privileges on a device and/or install malicious code.”
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges on a device and/or install malicious code.”
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to spread malicious code to ImageCast X devices from the EMS.”
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges on a device and/or install malicious code.”
- “An attacker with physical access may use this to gain administrative privileges on a device and install malicious code or perform arbitrary administrative actions.”
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to gain access to sensitive information and perform privileged actions, potentially affecting other election equipment.”
- “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to print an arbitrary number of ballots without authorization.”
According to the DHS-CISA, the “vulnerabilities” have had cases open at the National Institute of Standards & Technology (“NIST”) where they are all, “awaiting analysis”:
And so on, for nine vulnerabilities.
The DHS asserts that, “Exploitation of these vulnerabilities would require physical access to individual ImageCast X devices, access to the Election Management System (EMS), or the ability to modify files before they are uploaded to ImageCast X devices.” In other words, Exploiting these vulnerabilities would require someone to stand near or hack into the machines.
So the DHS has explained that these systems have nine remarkable vulnerabilities which could allow an attacker to visit the parade of evils upon election systems listed above (any one of which would compromise an election), has explained that NIST has each vulnerability “under analysis,” and until then can only advise the clever remedy of Don’t let anyone stand near or hack into an election machine. And of the past, the DHS-CISA will now only say, “While these vulnerabilities present risks that should be mitigated as soon as possible, CISA has no evidence that these vulnerabilities have been exploited in any elections.”
Call me a stickler, but that is a a far cry from, “the most secure election in history,” which is how 18 months ago the DHS-CISA described the election of November 2020.
I congratulate the DHS-CISA for having reached an understanding that was my own, on approximately October 30, 2020.
The truth is, as a fellow who built a $2 billion e-commerce company, I can promise that these machines are riddled with nine technology failures that are not “vulnerabilities” so much as “failures”. They are beyond remedy. That is why the DHS sounds so hapless in their proposed remedies: they have the issues “under analysis” and in the meantime suggest that no one be allowed proximity to a machine or an opportunity to hack into one. What kind of “remedy” is that?
In sum, DHS-CISA acknowledges that the machines used in 300 counties out of 3,000 (but holding far higher than 10% of our population) was run on machines riddled with nine security “vulnerabilities”.
It gets worse. In one place only in the USA was access to the systems granted, and that was done legally, by the county official in charge of keeping the country records of Mesa County, Colorado (i.e., Grand Junction). That was Tina Peters. My understanding is that Ms. Peters is non-political, ran for office in 2018 over a matter having to do with parking tickets, but in May, 2021 found herself in a situation where she suspected the Secretary of State of Colorado (Soros Goon Jenna Griswold) was forcing her to comply with a cover-up by acquiescing to a smash-down of the evidence on Ms. Peter’s county computers (a major federal felony). This caused Ms. Peters to order that a forensic backup of her county’s election computer be done (as was her right to do: in fact, given her title of “County Recorder,” I would say it was her duty). The resulting Before Image was done by a competent certified white hack security professional. After the technicians and representatives from Secretary of State Griswold’s office had left, an After Image was also made. The two images found the way into the hands of a CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Jeff O”Donnell, and his collaborator, Dr. Walter Daugherty, a Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at Texas A&M. They wrote this Mesa County Colorado Voting Systems Forensic Report #3″:
This report shows two stunning findings:
- Comparison of the Before and After images should that there was, in fact, a complete smash-down, and the data behind Election 2020 was wiped out. My understanding is that every destroyed file is a felony, and there were roughly 100,000 such files destroyed.
- The Before Image confirm our worst suspicions: three days into the counting, a new Election Database was created, 29,000 votes were swept into it, and the provenance of at least 6,000 votes (and possibly the full 29,000) became impossible to establish. In other words, precisely what the DHS – CISA report warns could be done on a machine, was in fact found to have been done on the election computers of Mesa County, Colorado. This event could have been done in one of three ways:
- The county employees did it. But the county employees agree the new database was illegal, deny they did it, deny they knew about it, and deny they have the skills to have accomplished what was accomplished. The authors of Mesa Country Forensic Report #3 believe them. They do not believe the county employees did it.
- An outside hacker could have done it. But they find no evidence of that and say that it would have been a a remarkable hacker who could have masked the penetration and covered tracks so thoroughly.
- It was a script, a process buried within the machine, lurking. When it saw the election was not turning out as hoped, when 1/3 of the way into counting the ballots the numbers veered outside some per-determined guardrail, the process woke itself up and executed this quite complex task of creating a new Election Database within the machine, shifting 29,000 votes of which at least 6,000 have no provenance.
For discussion of this report, please see my recent 90 minute interview with Jeffrey O’Donnell. It slips into more dolphin-speak than the public may be use to, but it is 95% clear of dolphin-speak.
The reader who gives 10 minutes to the DHS-CISA report, and who will either read the Mesa County Report #3 (or see my 90 minute interview thereon with Jeff O’Donnell), will have a state of knowledge roughly equivalent to my state of knowledge on October 30, 2020.
Let us now revisit the last 18 months. In November 2020, myself and a group of merry patriots began claiming that the election of 2020 was hacked, and said we could prove it by looking at the equipment in six communities in the USA. The DHS – CISA opposed us, declaring the election of 2020, “the most secure in history.” Two weeks ago, however, DHS – CISA came out and acknowledged nine major security flaws in the systems “…which could be leveraged by an attacker to gain elevated privileges on a device and/or install malicious code” (as DHS-CISA put it). Thus in the one machine in the USA that citizens were able to examine, they discovered the mid-count creation of an election database (unknown to and admitted illegal by county employees) wherein 29,000 ballots were manipulated (and 6,000 irremediably so). The only working hypothesis for that stunning event is the action of a “malicious code” insertion, such as the DHS-CISA now makes clear is possible nine ways from Sunday, and for which they have no remedy other than the matter is under analysis, until then don’t let anyone physically come near or otherwise hack into your systems. And in the six counties we really wanted to look, we were blocked in five and in the sixth (Maricopa) they deleted the election database the night before complying with the subpoena.
Since November 3, 2020, the Election Integrity movement has been seeking to determine if any mischief was visited upon machines in use in the USA. We wanted to look at machines in six key counties in the USA, those holding Las Vegas, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. In five of the six counties, citizens were blocked from doing so by extraordinary efforts of the Establishment. In one county, Maricopa (containing Phoenix), the Arizona Senate received an order from the Senate Judiciary to conduct an investigation and received a subpoena which a court held to be valid, yet when Maricopa officials lost their efforts to block it, they delivered their subpoenaed materials having deleted the election database: that is to say, precisely what one could check to determine whether or not any of the nine evils of the DHS-CISA report had, in fact, been undertaken. In some inexplicable twist of American history, citizens have been vilified and blocked for wanting to conduct examinations to find… precisely the things DHS-CISA now acknowledges may exist, and which the Mesa County, Colorado Forensic Report #3 has actually found.
For 18 months we have faced assertions that our claims are “baseless” and that anyone who entertains our suspicions is falling for “The Big Lie”. DHS-CISA has now come out with its report (which I will hereinafter refer to as it’s “Patrick Byrne was right again. Again” report) admitting the possibility of “malicious code,” and Mesa County Colorado Forensic Report #3 has found precisely such aforementioned “malicious code insertion” (unknown to the county officials involved) creating databases and moving votes around.
So the assertions that our claims were “baseless” and “The Big Lie” turned out to be false. Not just false: frivolous. Constant blind repition of a mantra based on no actual knowledge and a confidence that has now proven to have been false.
I feel thus entitled to take the bold step of saying that anyone who claims that our assertions are “baseless” shoulders an intellectual duty to explain why.
Thus, to the journalists who are coming out of the wall to contact me, I now propose this filter:
Please write me an email acknowledging it would no longer be appropriate to use the words “Big Lie” or “baseless” to describe my assertions. Or, if you still hold that it would be appropriate, write me your explanation why, in the face of this DHS-CISA report and Mesa County #3, it would still be appropriate. A journalist not willing to do one or the other is a journalist who feels unbound by rules of logic of conventional discourse, and is not a journalist with whom I will engage. Henceforth, only those who are willing to so engage, are journalists for whom I have time.
Mesa County’s response to this situation has been remarkably hapless. There was one explanation given in a courtroom, under oath, but only when the county had gotten its way the no members of the public could be in attendance, and nothing but a speaker phone was in the courtroom. There they explained (presumably with straight faces, but one never knows) a Barney Fife explanation, that could have been verified if the cameras had been activated, but (so they explained) at that precise moment all motion in the room ceased. Work in the room continued but with no movement at desks, so the motion-activated cameras turned off for 2:43. For two minutes and forty three seconds, perfect stillness, which created a 2:43 second gap in the relevant video that could confirm or falsify their explanation.
Jeffrey O’Donnell has debunked the Mesa County replies: