1) Dominion is a Member of Council That Disputed Election Integrity Concerns in DHS Statement
Dominion Voting Systems used statement, which obscured company’s council membership, to dispute concerns over voting systems theepochtimes.com/dominion-part-…
2) On Nov 12 CISA issued a statement disputing voting irregularities saying “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.”
The statement noted “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”
3) What the agency failed to disclose, however, is that Dominion Voting Systems, along with Smartmatic, is a member of CISA’s Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council - one of the two entities that authored the statement put out by CISA.
4) The joint statement was issued through CISA by the Executive Committee of the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1…
5) However, both Dominion & Smartmatics are listed as members of CISA’s Sector Coordinating Council and appear to be actively involved as they are named as “Organizing Members” of the SCC.
6) On Nov. 12, this publication published an article detailing a number of concerns raised about the integrity of Dominion Voting Systems in a sworn Aug. 24 declaration from a poll watcher and acknowledged expert on electronic voting security. theepochtimes.com/pre-election-c…
7) On Nov 11, we asked Dominion Voting Systems for comment about the allegations and received no response.
Our article was published on the morning of Nov. 12.
That afternoon CISA published the statement denying any problems with the voting systems.
8) On Nov. 13, Dominion sent us an email titled “SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT” which cited the joint statement published by GCC and SCC.
Dominion cited the CISA statement as exoneration but failed to disclose that the statement was written by a Council of which it was part.
9) Additionally, while it remains unclear whether CISA and the GCC/SCC have evaluated concerns raised in the Georgia lawsuit, their public statements categorically deny any problems with the systems.
10) On Oct 11, Judge Totenberg wrote that the case presented “serious system security vulnerability and operational issues that may place Plaintiffs and other voters at risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote that is accurately counted.”
11) We've reached out to CISA for comment on these matters but have not received any replies as of this writing.
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Under FEMA's Emergency Food & Shelter Program is a section called Humanitarian EFSP for Organizations Assisting Migrants
Included is a table which lists yearly funding of humanitarian relief for illegals at the border. The numbers are huge: $715 million fema.gov/grants/emergen…
Unlike the other grants that we found, there are no links to final recipients or a breakdown of how the amounts are spent. We do get a link to FEMA’s actual Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) - but it takes us to a password locked site.
A site that shows what must be the recipients of this portion of FEMA’s funding: United Way; The Jewish Federation, Catholic Charities USA; Salvation Army; The National Council of the Churches of Christ, and; The American Red Cross. efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/i…
The above referenced amounts are separate from grants provided under FEMA’s “Shelter and Services Program”.
The amounts designated for illegals under FEMA's S&S Program (just between the years 2024 and 2023) are again huge: $650 million and $364 million respectively.
Drop down on FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program page to “Annual Funding” in order to see the amounts we’re referencing. fema.gov/grants/shelter…
1) Mark Zuckerberg made some huge admissions in his recent letter to the House Judiciary GOP.
Zuckerberg admitted that the Biden-Harris Administration "pressured" Facebook to censor stories on the origin of Covid. He admitted that the FBI pressured Facebook to censor the Hunter Laptop story. And he admitted that Facebook did what the government asked - censor Americans.
Zuckerberg also, sort of, addressed his personal contributions during the 2020 election. He appeared to be contrite for his actions, but is that in any way correct? Or is he simply worried because he got caught? A closer look at Facebook's actions over the years may answer that question.
2) The efforts of Zuckerberg and Facebook on behalf of Democrats and the DNC goes back to at least 2012 when Facebook shared their user data with the Obama campaign.
Obama’s Election Team was given full access to Facebook’s data in 2012. Access that was not - and would not have been granted to Conservatives.
As a result, any time people used Facebook’s log-in button to sign on to the campaign’s website, the Obama data scientists were able to access their profile as well as their friends’ information. That allowed them to chart the closeness of people’s relationships and make estimates about which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote.
“We ingested the entire U.S. social graph,” Carol Davidsen said in an interview. “We would ask permission to basically scrape your profile, and also scrape your friends, basically anything that was available to scrape. We scraped it all.”
Davidson also highlighted the favoritism Facebook gave to Obama’s campaign, noting that Facebook “came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
Which raises an important question. If Facebook gave the Obama Campaign access to valuable data worth millions of dollars to bolster Obama’s chances of winning the election, why wasn’t it counted as in-kind political contributions by the Obama Campaign?
3) We’ve all heard how Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg infamously privatized elements of the 2020 presidential election when he sent nearly half-a-billion dollars to local election boards in key states to turn out likely Democratic voters.
To put that into perspective, Zuckerberg alone spent almost as much money funding government election offices as the entire federal government spent on the 2020 election.
Zuckerberg’s payments were supposedly made to fill so-called funding gaps from the federal government but the reality is that the Zuckerbucks – as they have come to be known – were distributed on a highly partisan basis with the aim of electing Biden and other Democrats.
Zuckerberg claimed in his recent letter that his efforts were non-partisan, but this is simply not true.
Zuckerberg essentially mounted a private takeover of government election offices. And it affected all of the key states that helped Biden “win” the election. In Wisconsin, the Zuckerbucks payments were later found to have violated bribery laws. A study also found that without those payments, Trump would have prevailed in Wisconsin.
Facebook later confirmed that it also provided the Biden White House with censorship assistance routinely on a variety of crucial issues.
On July 23, 2023, Eisen published a far longer 264 page report, titled "Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes Second Edition" justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
Eisen: This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election.
Solomon went to WH on evening of Jan 19, 2021 where he reviewed docs.
Plan was to fully disseminate to public on morning of the 20th.
But Solomon received a call late that night from someone w/in WH asking for their return for "additional redactions."
Here's what happened next
"On his initiative and without the President’s knowledge or consent, one of the President’s subordinates decided that redactions consistent with the standards of the Privacy Act should be applied to the binder before it was publicly released, the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion notwithstanding."
We know from an email sent by George Kent, deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, that a $7mm bribe was paid to the office of Ukrainian chief prosecutor Vitaly Yarema some time in latter part of 2014.
Yarema's office issued a Dec 25, 2014 letter to the UK Courts - who had been investigating Zlochevsky - stating there was no longer an active Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky.
This letter forced the UK Court to drop case.
Yarema and his staff were fired ~one month later.
Yarema's replacement was Viktor Shokin - who reopened the Ukraine investigation into Zlochevsky & Burisma.
At the time of the bribe, Hunter was — per Burisma — in charge of Burisma’s legal affairs. docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU…