The “Most Secure Election” Claim Gets Another Hard Look
Americans were told again and again that the 2020 election was the “most secure” in U.S. history, a line pushed by former CISA Director Chris Krebs after President Trump fired him and repeated across much of the press like it had been printed on cue cards. Krebs testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on December 16, 2020, and stood by that message. Now, records discussed in recent reporting are raising a very different question: what did top officials know about Iranian election interference before Election Day, and why was the public not given the full picture? That is not some small paperwork issue. When foreign actors target election systems, Americans deserve straight answers, not polished talking points wrapped in government seal-approved confidence.
FOIA Records Point To A Hidden Iranian Threat Report
According to the reporting, investigative work by Yehuda Miller through a FOIA request helped uncover a CISA-related report dated October 30, 2020, just days before the presidential election. The material reportedly tied back to an October 22, 2020 CISA and FBI cybersecurity advisory warning that Iranian advanced persistent threat actors were trying to influence and interfere in the election, spread propaganda, spoof media sites, and shake public trust. That public warning was serious enough on its own, but the newly highlighted issue is what was allegedly left out: claims that Iranian-linked hackers had already gained access to one state’s voter roll database. If federal officials knew that detail before Election Day and kept it quiet, then the “nothing to see here” routine looks less like public reassurance and more like the political version of sweeping glass under the rug before company arrives.
The Reported Breach Involved Identities And UOCAVA Ballot Registrations
The most troubling claim is that Iranian hackers accessed voter information from one state and used names, Social Security numbers, and driver’s license numbers to fill out UOCAVA registrations, the system used for military and overseas voters. The original reporting says the stolen data involved roughly 100,000 identities and that a video was posted online showing the stolen information being used. That is a major allegation because UOCAVA voting is supposed to help citizens serving or living abroad, not become a playground for hostile regimes. Nobody should need a PhD in cybersecurity to understand the problem here. If a foreign adversary can get into voter data and then demonstrate how that data could be used in ballot-related registrations, that is not a “most secure” victory lap moment. That is a red siren moment.
Wray, Krebs, And The Public’s Right To Know
The criticism aimed at Krebs, former FBI Director Chris Wray, and other officials is direct: the public was told one thing while key details about Iranian activity were allegedly buried, softened, or omitted from later summaries. The Gateway Pundit report argues that CISA’s later Cyber Risk Summary did not tell Americans about the alleged successful access to a voter database or the reported use of personal data in UOCAVA registrations. Former Attorney General Bill Barr is also criticized in the report for not putting this information in front of the public. To be clear, raising these questions is not the same as proving every ballot was changed or every result was altered. But election security is not just about the final count. It is also about whether citizens can trust officials to tell the truth when foreign enemies target the system. On that score, this story leaves a lot of powerful people with questions to answer, and the old “trust us” script is aging about as well as gas station sushi.
WE’D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS! PLEASE COMMENT BELOW.
JIMMY
Find more articles like this at steadfastandloyal.com.
Having trouble? If your comment doesn’t post, submit another comment right after it that says: Jimmy, please approve my comment that didn’t post.
Leave a Reply