reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Civil society, including the press, academia, special interest groups, and NGOs, plays a crucial role in addressing election security and countering malign influence. It is not enough for just the federal government, states, or tech and social media companies to tackle this issue. We need a collaborative effort from all sectors of society to understand and address the threats. This synergy is still a work in progress.

We have Chris Wray, director of the FBI, along with Chris Krebsch, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, and Bill Avenina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, discussing the importance of the integrity and security of the 2020 election. They assure us that safeguarding our votes is a top priority and that they will not tolerate any criminal activity that threatens the sanctity of our vote or undermines public confidence. They are also working with technology and social media companies to prevent the spread of disinformation. They acknowledge that due to COVID, the election process may take longer, but they urge us to be patient until official results are announced.

Jen Easterly, director of the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, asserts that foreign adversaries cannot change US election results. While it's difficult to claim anything is impossible, the built-in checks and balances make it highly unlikely. The resilience of the voting system, including oversight from both parties and the use of paper ballots for audits, enhances integrity. Despite concerns about misinformation, the US election infrastructure is robust and secure. Voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and state and local officials continuously work to improve security. The dedication of these officials ensures that the election process remains fair, accurate, and trustworthy, deserving our gratitude for their ongoing efforts.

We have created a comprehensive voter fraud organization, which is the most extensive and inclusive in American political history. This was done by our administration, as well as the previous administration under President Obama.

We do not view this situation as a full security threat to the state. The actions of our office did not pose an insider threat to elections. In 2021, when Mesa County's voting system passwords leaked, we acknowledged that it was a serious breach of security protocols. However, that incident involved unauthorized access and occurred in a different context. Since then, our security measures have significantly improved, including 24/7 surveillance and enhanced access controls. The laws governing these protocols have also been strengthened. We have implemented multiple layers of security to prevent incidents like Mesa County from happening again, and that is not the case here.

An investigation was launched after the 2018 midterm elections to look into irregularities in the US election results. In November 2020, multiple groups came together to launch a full-scale investigation led by former members of the US Intelligence Community, the Department of Defense, NASA, and other organizations. The investigation revealed that the entire US election system is under the control of private equity firms and foreign money. It also found evidence of election anomalies and vulnerabilities in the system. The investigation's findings are being discredited by the US media, but the people involved represent all political parties and are deeply concerned about the future of the nation.

I have witnessed a remarkable collaborative effort among various agencies, reminiscent of the post-9/11 era. Multiple agencies have been working together tirelessly, gathering intelligence globally and providing real-time information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The DHS and FBI have taken appropriate action, including working with social media platforms to remove content. Additionally, they have undertaken critical offensive measures worldwide. This has been an incredibly significant role in my career, and I am immensely proud of our achievements. Over the past few months, we have undertaken daring actions, both publicly and privately, and I believe they have all been successful.

Christopher Krebs, the former head of CISA, is described as having weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in relation to a presidential memorandum involving the Department of Justice and other areas of government to investigate some “malign acts” he participated in while at CISA. The other speaker responds, saying he does not know Krebs well, but notes Krebs appeared after the election and characterizes the election as rigged. He asserts the country’s problems followed from that election, including open borders with millions entering the country, and references broader geopolitical and security events such as Russia and Ukraine, the October 7 incident, and Afghanistan, describing the withdrawal as resulting in 13 dead and many others killed and injured. He contends Krebs claimed the election was great, but he argues it was not, citing lawsuits and lawyers signing hundreds of millions of dollars in support, and claims that legislative processes and various schemes demonstrated a corrupt election where COVID was used to cheat. The speaker claims that Krebs asserted the election was the most secure in history, which he calls a disaster. He advocates for paper ballots, same-day voting, voter ID, and a citizen certificate or piece of paper proving citizenship prior to voting. He argues for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting, and claims that delays in ballot boxes and air-conditioning changes affected election processes. The speaker asserts that the election was not safe and that the press has been dishonest, describing the press as not free. The speaker adds that Krebs sat back as a member who appeared to be a Republican and claimed the election was safe from the start, but the speaker believes daily papers report increasing fraud. He states that Krebs is a fraud and a disgrace and asserts there will be an investigation into whether Krebs was right, with Krebs facing consequences if the election was not safe. He concludes that Krebs is a bad guy. The final remark notes that the last two points are very important for the country, emphasizing the questions around Krebs’s role and the integrity of the election, and indicating a determination to determine whether Krebs was correct about the election’s safety.

The speaker states that, regarding election security, everyone must acknowledge egregious behavior and foreign influence, of which there is direct evidence. Other foreign partners also have evidence and were watching attacks on the election system on November 3rd. They are willing to provide that evidence directly to the president, and this evidence was received today. These foreign partners and allies are willing to help. The speaker concludes that foreign influence against election security and the SolarWinds system is dangerous, and more must be done.

In 2016, it was known that hacking could occur during the presidential election. The election results were surprisingly close compared to the polls, indicating possible interference. However, no US states examined enough paper ballots to determine if the computers were hacked. This revealed a significant gap in our system. With a deadline approaching for states to finalize their electoral college votes, there was a need to expose any fraud that may have occurred. Election integrity advocates struggled to find a solution to ensure the examination of physical evidence that could detect cyber attacks.

The speaker discusses the establishment of an election integrity partnership (EIP) at the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). They mention an email from Graham Brookie of the Atlantic Council, confirming the setup of the partnership. The speaker also highlights the connection between the Atlantic Council and the National Endowment for Democracy, which is linked to the CIA. They point out the involvement of various organizations with ties to intelligence agencies, such as Stanford, UW, and Graphika. The speaker asserts that EIP was not a secret operation and was formed due to funding and legal limitations of CISA. They express personal satisfaction in discovering and sharing this information.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of partnership between the federal government, state and local colleagues, and social media and tech firms in securing elections. They acknowledge the valuable information and opportunities that these firms possess, which the government does not have. The integration of these relationships has been a critical step forward since 2016. Speaker 1 expresses pride in the accomplishments of the past 2 years, particularly in the last 6 to 9 months, as a collaborative effort between the government and social media and tech firms. They believe this partnership will serve as a model for the future.

The transcript presents a broad, multi-voiced warning about the vulnerability of U.S. voting systems and the ease with which they can be hacked, hacked-stopping demonstrations, and the security gaps that remain even as elections continue. Key points and claims: - Virginia stopped using touch screen voting because it is “so vulnerable,” and multiple speakers argue that all voting machines must be examined to prevent hacking and attacks. Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and others emphasize systemic vulnerability across states. - Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that ballot recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering, with examples that even hackers with limited knowledge can breach machines in minutes (Speaker 2, Speaker 3). - In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas allegedly deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another (Speaker 4). - The largest voting machine vendors are accused of cybersecurity violations, including directing that remote access software be installed, which would make machines attractive to fraudsters and hackers (Speaker 5). - Across the country, voting machines are described as easily hackable, with contention that three companies control many systems and that individual machines pose significant risk (Speaker 2, Speaker 6). - Many states use antiquated machines vulnerable to hacking, with demonstrations showing how easily workers could hack electronic voting machines (Speakers 7, 2). - A substantial portion of American voters use machines researchers say have serious security flaws, including backdoors (Speaker 5). Some states reportedly have no paper trail or only partial paper records (Speaker 5, various). - Aging systems are noted as failing due to use of unsupported software such as Windows XP/2000, increasing vulnerability to cyber attacks (Speaker 9). An observed concern is that 40 states use machines at least a decade old (Speaker 9). - Specific past intrusions are cited: Illinois and Arizona in 2016 had election websites hacked, with malware installed and sensitive voter information downloaded (Speaker 4). - There is debate about whether votes were changed in the 2016 election; one speaker notes that experts say you cannot claim—without forensic analysis—that votes were not changed (Speaker 17, 18). - The existence of paper records is contested: some jurisdictions lack verifiable paper trails, undermining the ability to prove results are legitimate (Speaker 5, 9). - Some devices rely on cellular modems to transmit results after elections, creating additional avenues for interception and manipulation; vendors acknowledge modems but vary in how they frame Internet connectivity (Speakers 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). The debate covers whether cellular transmissions truly isolate from the Internet or provide a backdoor, with demonstrations showing that modems can be connected to Internet networks and could be exploited. - The “programming” phase of elections—where memory cards are prepared with candidates and contests—can be a vector for spread of rogue software if an attacker compromises the election management system (Speaker 11, Speaker 10). - A scenario is outlined in which an attacker identifies weak swing states, probes them, hacks the election management system or outside vendors, spreads malicious code to machines, and alters a portion of votes; the assumption is that many jurisdictions will not rigorously use paper records to verify computer results (Speaker 10). - A Virginia governor’s anecdote is shared: after a hack demonstrated off-site by experts, all machines were decertified and replaced with paper ballots (Speaker 16). Overall impression: the discussion paints a picture of pervasive vulnerability, aging and diverse systems, reliance on modems and networked components, potential for targeted manipulation in close elections, and the need for upgrades and robust forensic capabilities, while noting contested claims about the extent of past interference.

I have witnessed a remarkable collaborative effort among various agencies, similar to what happened after 9/11. This time, multiple agencies are working together tirelessly, collecting intelligence, sharing real-time information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The DHS and FBI are taking appropriate action, including working with social media companies to remove content and conducting offensive measures globally. I believe this is the most significant role I have had in my career, and I am proud of our current success. We have taken bold actions, both publicly and privately, and they have all been successful.

The commission successfully balanced national security and transparency in investigating foreign interference in recent elections. While some information is classified, the public report highlights that our electoral system remains robust despite acts of interference. The commission will continue its work to shed more light on government responses to foreign interference. Preliminary findings suggest no impact on election outcomes, but communication issues and lack of understanding were identified in combating interference.

We have created an extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization, similar to what we did during President Obama's administration. This organization is the most comprehensive in American political history. We want to ensure that the communication during the Trump election is secure. It is important to note that this election is considered the most secure in American history. We appreciate all the volunteers who worked at the polls.

We at Governance and Nations in Action have conducted extensive research on election integrity. Recent events have revealed orchestrated election theft in America, involving individuals uploading software to manipulate results. This information has been documented in an affidavit presented in a federal court in Italy. Foreign interference in the election has been confirmed, and those involved must face prosecution. Italy did it, and the truth is coming to light.

After finishing a book just before the election, Speaker 1 was approached by Democratic state AGs to address concerns about the upcoming election. This led to the formation of a bipartisan group, including governors, former DOJ officials, US attorneys, prosecutors, sheriffs, law enforcement, and state AGs, aimed at defending the election against anticipated attacks. The group was active in 25 states leading up to the election. Speaker 1 believes the election was free and fair, the votes were freely and fairly counted, and the margins in key states are clear. While acknowledging potential turbulence, disinformation, and litigation, Speaker 1 assesses that the election results will withstand challenges, in part because the margin of victory will be sufficiently large. Speaker 1 expresses hope that the country will return to normal and anticipates remarkable achievements.

A cross-agency effort was launched to enhance coordination and collaboration for protecting the 2020 election within the national security framework. As a result of these initiatives, on November 12, 2020, representatives from both government and industry in the election security community released a joint statement. This statement reflected a consensus that the 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history.

All votes in The United States Of America are counted in The United States Of America. There is no evidence that any machine has been manipulated by a foreign power. Recounts are consistent with the initial count, confirming that the systems used in the twenty twenty election performed as expected. The American people should have 100% confidence in their vote. A lawyer representing the president claimed that Dominion voting machines ran an algorithm to take votes from President Trump and flip them to President Biden. Votes in Georgia were cast on paper, counted by a machine, and recounted by hand, with consistent outcomes. If there was an algorithm flipping votes, it didn't work. The more likely explanation is that there was no algorithm and that security controls protected the systems from misbehavior.

America's election infrastructure is more secure than ever, thanks to extensive work by state and local officials. Voters can trust that their votes will be counted accurately. Voting machines are not connected to the Internet, 97% of ballots are paper, and there are multiple safeguards in place, including cybersecurity measures and audits. However, foreign adversaries like Russia and China are spreading disinformation to undermine confidence in the system. As the election approaches, it's crucial for Americans to recognize the potential for increased disinformation. To navigate this, they should rely on information from trusted sources, specifically state and local election officials, who are the experts on election matters.

The speaker states that there is no dispute: the conduct of our elections, the way government comes into power, is a national security issue, and the security of our elections is incredibly important. The speaker says they are comforted as a citizen and as someone at the Department of Justice by the fact that national security eyes are on this, as well as criminal and civil rights review. They add that, at the end of the day, as a voter themselves and someone involved in politics before taking the job, they like every citizen to vote. They note that a lot of people don’t vote, don’t have confidence, and don’t care. It is important that people have confidence in, accept the outcome of the elections, and also be more likely to vote. The speaker concludes that this is a very good thing, whoever they’re voting for.

Suzanne, welcome. We need to discuss election security as we approach election day. Early voting has already begun in many states. It's crucial for Americans to recognize that election officials have been preparing for this moment for years, ensuring the safety and security of voting locations. Voters should feel confident about their safety and the integrity of the voting process. While there are concerns about the political climate and potential threats, it's important to emphasize the efforts made by state and local officials to protect the election process.

A cross-agency effort was implemented to enhance coordination and collaboration in protecting the 2020 election. As a result of these initiatives, on November 12, 2020, representatives from the election security community, including government and industry officials, issued a joint statement. This statement reflected a consensus that the 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history.

Before the 2020 election, a coordinated censorship campaign was launched. This involved the Department of Homeland Security, NATO, and the DNC, leveraging institutions like Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council—many with ties to the Pentagon. These groups, many staffed by former intelligence officials, worked together to suppress discussion questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. They used a multi-step plan to pressure social media companies into adopting a new policy banning content undermining public confidence in the election process. This involved threats of government action and leveraging media allies. Millions of posts across multiple platforms were censored or suppressed. The goal was to prevent questions about the election outcome, anticipating a potential crisis if initial results appeared to favor Trump before shifting to Biden.