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
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…
Two days after Joe Biden's newly disclosed Dec 4, 2015 conference call w/Hunter & Burisma owner Zlochevsky, Biden's staff crafted answers to potential questions Joe might get re: Hunter's involvement w/Burisma
One of those questions:
Do you think Zlochevsky is corrupt?
Biden's defenders like @RepDanGoldman have claimed Joe Biden didn't know these individuals - or anything about them.
But Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine wrote to Biden's staff on Dec 6, 2015, "I assume all have the DoJ background on Zlochevsky."
It's beyond any doubt that Joe Biden knew exactly who Zlochevsky was - and the significance of participating in a conference call w/Zlochevsky.
Biden's staff was obviously worried - and it's unlikely they even knew of the conference call w/Zlochevsky less than two days prior.
Here, Kent describes UK Investigation - and how it ended in late Dec 2014 because Yarema told UK Courts "there was no active case open on Zlochevsky"
Kent also mentions the $7mm bribe paid to Yarema's office.
Yarema resigned shortly after on Feb 9, 2015. Shokin replaced him.
There's another big problem as well. Goldman makes crazy claim that Shokin was an asset to Burisma - therefore Joe Biden's actions to fire Shokin ran counter to Burisma's interests:
"as Goldman articulated it...Shokin’s ouster put Burisma and Zlochevsky at more risk, not less."
2) Most are familiar w/sequence of events leading to the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Víctor Shokin - as the direct result of political and financial pressure from then-VP Joe Biden.
This thread, which focuses on Shokin timeline, is a good refresher: