DHS Issues Report: “Patrick Byrne was right again. Again.”

Well, not actually. The DHS report has a title that was rather more prosaic: ICS Advisory (ICSA-22-154-01)

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:

1. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to install malicious code, which could also be spread to other vulnerable ImageCast X devices via removable media.”
2. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to disguise malicious applications on a device.”
3. “…which could be leveraged by an attacker to gain elevated privileges on a device and/or install malicious code.”
4. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges on a device and/or install malicious code.”
5. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to spread malicious code to ImageCast X devices from the EMS.”
6. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges on a device and/or install malicious code.”
7. “An attacker with physical access may use this to gain administrative privileges on a device and install malicious code or perform arbitrary administrative actions.”
8. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to gain access to sensitive information and perform privileged actions, potentially affecting other election equipment.”
9. “An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to print an arbitrary number of ballots without authorization.”

According to the DHS-CISA, three of the “vulnerabilities” have had cases open at the National Institute of Standards & Technology” 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 don’t let anyone 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 compromises an election), and 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.

However, the DHS-CISA now acknowledges having reached the state of understanding that I would claim was my own… on October 30, 2020.

The truth is that these machines are riddled with nine technology failures that are beyond remedy. These are not “vulnerabilities” so much as “failures”. And now DHS-CISA acknowledge that the machines used in 300 counties out of 3,000 (but with far higher than 10% of the population in them) was run on machines riddled with these problems.

Please remember that since November 3, 2020, those of the Election Integrity movement have been seeking to determine if any of these nine exploits were visited upon the 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 one county, Maricopa (containing Phoenix), the state Senate received an order from the Senate Judiciary to conduct an investigation, and received a subpoena which a State court held to be valid. When the Maricopa county officials lost all efforts to prevent having to do so, 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. The five other counties, whose machines could each be examined in an hour or two, have also blocked all such inspections. And in some inexplicable twist of American history, for the first time citizens were blocked and vilified for wanting to conduct examinations to find… precisely the things DHS-CISA now acknowledges may exist.

Fortunately, that does not end the matter. Because in one place only in the USA was full access to the reluctant systems granted, and that was done legally, by the county official in charge of keeping the country records in question. That was Tina Peters, of Mesa County, Colorado (which holds Grand Junction, with about 90,000 votes). My understanding is that Ms. Peters is rather unpolitical, ran for office in 2018 over some 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 the computer be done (as was her right to do: in fact, given her title of “County Recorder,” I would say it was her duty). This 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 made. The two images found the way into the hands of a CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Jeff O”Donnell, and his collaborator, a Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at Texas A&M.

This report shows two stunning things:

1. Comparison of the Before and After images should that there was, in fact, a complete smash-down, 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.
2. The Before Image confirmed 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. It could have been done in one of three ways:
   • The County official 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 come in and 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, something buried within the machine, lurking. When it saw the election was not turning out as hoped, when 1/3 of the way in the numbers viewed outside some per-determined guardrails, it woke itself up and executed this quite complex task of creating a new Election Database within the machine, shifting 24,000 votes, and doing something else with another 6,000 votes.

For an 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.

https://rumble.com/v17r5m3-jeffery-odonnell-colorado-dominion-election-forensic-report-3-the-poison-wi.html

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). 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 ireemediably 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 were 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.

For 18 months we have faced frivolous assertions that our claims are “baseless” and that anyone who holds our suspicions is falling for “The Big Lie”. Given that 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), and that Mesa County Colorado Forensic Report #3 has found precisely the aforementioned “malicious code insertion” creating databases and moving votes around, unknown to the county officials involved, I now take the bold step of saying that anyone who claims that our assertions are “baseless” is under 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 the 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 the rules of logic and convention discourse. That is not a journalist with whom I will engage. But those who are willing to so engage, are journalists for whom I have time.

This story was first published on Deep Capture. Deep Capture features original investigative reporting on the all-too-cozy relationship Wall Street has with regulators, media, government and the intellectual establishment.