SIDNEY POWELL IN HER OWN WORDS

What we are really dealing with here, and we are uncovering more by the day, is the massive influence of Communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely, through China and the interference with our elections here in the United States. The Dominion voting systems and the Systematic technology software, and the software that goes in other computerized software voting systems as well, not just Dominion were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after a constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out.

We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all worked. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of L. Lin Wood and the lawsuit he filed in Georgia. It is a stunning, detailed affidavit, because he was with Hugo Chavez while he was being briefed on how it worked. He was with Hugo Chavez when he saw it operate to make sure the election came out his way. That was the express purpose for creating this software. He saw it operate, and as soon as he saw the multiple states shut down the voting on the night of the election, he knew the same thing was happening here: that that was what had gone on.

Now the software itself was created with so many variables and so many back doors that can be hooked up to the internet or a thumb-drive stuck in it. But one of its most characteristic features is its ability to flip votes. It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes and take them from President Trump, and flip them to (Candidate) Biden.

We might never have discovered (this) had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm that had been plugged into the system, and that’s what caused them to have to shut down in the states in which they shut down.

That’s when they came in the back door with all the “mail in” ballots which they had actually fabricated. Some were on pristine paper with identically matching perfectly circled dots. Others were shoved in in batches, always the same batches, and people would rerun the same batch.

This corresponds to our statistical evidence that shows incredible spikes in the vote count at particular times. And that corresponds to eyewitness testimony of numerous people who have come forward and who said they saw the ballots come in the back door at that time.

Notably the Dominion executives are nowhere to be found now. They are moving their offices, overnight, to different places. Their office in Toronto was shared with one of the Soros entities. One of the leaders of the Dominion project, overall, is Lord Mark Malloch Brown, Mr. Soros’ number two person in the U.K. and part of his organization. There are ties of the Dominion leadership to the Clinton Foundation and to other known politicians in this country.

Just to give you a brief description of how this works, I’m going to quote from a letter that was written. This person was objecting to the United States’ acquisition of Sequoia voting systems by Smartmatic, a foreign owned company. “I believe this acquisition raises foreign ownership issues.” It is undisputed that Smartmatic acquired Sequoia (they just changed the names). Sequoia voting machines were used to record over 125,000,000 votes during the 2004 presidential election in the United States.

Smartmatic now acknowledges that Antonio Mugica, a Venezuelan business man has controlling interest in Smartmatic, But the company has not revealed who all the owners are. According to the press Smartmatic’s owners are hidden through a web of private offshore entities. And that is in fact true. Smartmatic has been associated with the Venezuelan government led by Hugo Chavez which is openly hostile to the United States, and of course as we all know, communistic, and really brutalizing its own people.

The same system continued there by Mr. Maduro and ensured his election. Smartmatic’s possible connection to the Venezuelan government poses a potential national security concern in the context of its acquisition of Sequoia, because electronic voting machines are susceptible to tampering, and insiders are in the best position to engage in such tampering. This letter expresses concern about the 2006 primary election, and it ends by saying the products and services that are of Venezuelan origin and evaluate Smartmatic’s ownership and to determine who could have influence and control over these and other Sequoia products are important to the national security of the United States.

This letter was written to Hank Paulson on October 6, 2006, by Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney. Senators Klobuchar and Warren have raised these concerns as recently as December, 2019. Why our government has not taken them seriously, is beyond my comprehension, unless some of the three-letter agencies have used them themselves, in other parts of the world. We know the technology was exported in order to affect an election in Argentina. That’s admitted by our friend who wrote the affidavit about Hugo Chavez and his interest in Smartmatic.

Again in 2006, Carolyn Maloney wrote the honorable John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury about the issues.

Speaking of Smartmatic’s leadership, one of the Smartmatic patent holders, Eric Coomer is on the web as being in a conversation with Antifa members, saying that he had the election rigged for Mr. Biden. Nothing to worry about here. And they were going to “f” Trump. His (Eric’s) social media is filled with hatred for the President and for the United States of America as a whole, as are the social media accounts of many other Smartmatic people.

There has been widespread use of this, Dominion itself is utilized in 2,000 jurisdictions in 30 States, it has been uncertifiable in multiple States who realized all the problems it had, including Texas. Experts have described it across the board, including a Princeton group of three professors, to experts that we have talked to about its end-user vulnerabilities. People can go in and admittedly change what they want. They can set the ratio of votes from one thing to another. They can say that a Biden vote counts for 1.25 and a Trump vote counts as .75. And those may be the actual numbers that were used here. It’s not just the swing states that were affected, the algorithm was likely run across the country to affect the entire election. We only discovered it this year because of the overwhelming number of votes for President Trump in the swing States that caused the machines to have to shut down for them to backfill for adding votes.

We have evidence of different numbers of votes being injected into the system―the same identical unique six-digit number multiple times in at least two States that we’ve analyzed so far, and I’m talking about, like, 341,542 for Biden and 100,012 for Trump. There’s not logical explanation for those same numbers being injected twenty minutes apart into the machine.

The software manual itself you can download it from the internet, and I would encourage you all to read it, because it specifically advertises some of these things, as features of the system. Why it was ever allowed into this country is beyond my comprehension, and why nobody has dealt with this is absolutely appalling.

The machines were easily accessible to hackers, there’s videos on the net that will explain to you how a kid with a cellphone can hack one of these voting machines.

There’s been no oversight of Dominion or its software. Workers in each county were trained by Dominion, but there’s no evidence of monitoring, otherwise. We have testimony of other workers admitting they were trained how to dispose of Trump votes and add to Biden votes.

The software has a feature pursuant to which you can drag and drop any number of batches of votes to the candidate of your choice, or simply throw them away, so we have mathematical evidence in a number of States of massive quantities of Trump votes being trashed. Just simply put in the ‘trash’ like you would in your computer with any file, and Biden votes being injected. That’s in addition to the flipping. It happens in two ways. There is the algorithm that runs that automatically flips the votes, and then each operator has the ability to go in, override settings, they can ignore a signature, they can ignore the top line of the ballot, they can go down-ballot and select who they want to change the results. There is video of Mr. Mugica on the internet explaining that, yes, on at least one occasion he admits they changed a million votes with no problem.

Many of the jurisdictions that have this problem might not have known of the issue, but many did. And I think a full-scale criminal investigation needs to be undertaken, immediately by the Department of Justice and by every State’s equivalent, Attorney General’s office, or State Investigatory Unit, because there is evidence of different benefits provided to the people who spent a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money at the last minute for their State to get the Dominion voting systems put in in time for this election. There are different ways. One lawyer told me got “election insurance,” meaning he would be able to make sure he was elected. I am sure they explained that feature in detail to many people who expressed interest in putting this voting system in.

Texas denied certification of the Dominion voting system in 2019, but there are no doubt issues with the software that Texas did use, unbeknownst to Texas, I would imagine, since they went to great trouble to examine the Dominion systems and reject them, but other software in the source-code that does the alterations is imbedded in the software, is embedded, we have been told, in the source-code all across the country and all the voting machines.

There is no doubt it has been used to alter elections in other countries. We know specifically that Venezuela exported it for that purpose to Argentina and other Latin American countries to make sure that the corrupt rulers who were willing to pay the highest price for being in office were allowed to rig their elections.

This is stunning, heartbreaking, infuriating, and the most unpatriotic acts I can even imagine in this country for people to have participated in, in any way, shape, or form. And I want the American public to know right now, we will not be intimidated. America patriots are fed up with the corruption from the local level to the highest level of our government, and we are going to take this country back, we are not going to be intimidated, we are not going to back down. We are going to clean this mess up now. President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it, and we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom.

Sidney Powell

 

 

 

This is a message to those who support Mario Murillo’s message to America.

BREAKING NEWS! MARIO MURILLO’S TWO MOST POWERFUL BOOKS TOGETHER. PERFECT READING FOR STRENGTH, POWER, AND DIRECTION IN THESE EXPLOSIVE TIMES. NOT ONLY THAT BUT YOU WILL HELP WIN SOULS IN CALIFORNIA.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is the-dynamic-duo.jpg

That is why we must make this stunning book offer to you. Now in its fourth printing, Vessels of Fire and Glory keeps reaching the top of its category on Amazon.  Critical Mass has now sold over 150,000 copies and remains an international classic on awakening. Both books are still in high demand. So why are we making this amazing offer to you? California is the reason why.

We need to act fast in California for two big reasons. First, Fresno was a shocking breakthrough. Fresno is a sign that tens of thousands of Californians hunger for the Gospel. Second, the battle for America will be won or lost in California.

You get both books for just $20. Not only that—Mario will autograph your copy of Vessels of Fire and Glory. On top of that…you get free shipping.

This is a double win for you. You get these choice books at an excellent price and the proceeds go to win lost souls in California.

And there is still more. If you order 10 or more sets of the Dynamic Duo, your cost is $18 a set. Click on link below to order now!

https://mariomurillo.org/product/dynamic-duo/    

 

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives

CIA copy

Ex-CIA Directors: Interrogations Saved Lives

The Senate Intelligence investigators never spoke to us—the leaders of the agency whose policies they are now assailing for partisan reasons.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released its majority report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation in the wake of 9/11. The following response is from former CIA Directors George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes :

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation of terrorists, prepared only by the Democratic majority staff, is a missed opportunity to deliver a serious and balanced study of an important public policy question. The committee has given us instead a one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation—essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America after the 9/11 attacks.

Examining how the CIA handled these matters is an important subject of continuing relevance to a nation still at war. In no way would we claim that we did everything perfectly, especially in the emergency and often-chaotic circumstances we confronted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As in all wars, there were undoubtedly things in our program that should not have happened. When we learned of them, we reported such instances to the CIA inspector general or the Justice Department and sought to take corrective action.

The country and the CIA would have benefited from a more balanced study of these programs and a corresponding set of recommendations. The committee’s report is not that study. It offers not a single recommendation.

Our view on this is shared by the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Republican minority, both of which are releasing rebuttals to the majority’s report. Both critiques are clear-eyed, fact-based assessments that challenge the majority’s contentions in a nonpartisan way.

What is wrong with the committee’s report?

First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:

• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.

• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.

• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it.

A powerful example of the interrogation program’s importance is the information obtained from Abu Zubaydah, a senior al Qaeda operative, and from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, known as KSM, the 9/11 mastermind. We are convinced that both would not have talked absent the interrogation program.

Information provided by Zubaydah through the interrogation program led to the capture in 2002 of KSM associate and post-9/11 plotter Ramzi Bin al-Shibh. Information from both Zubaydah and al-Shibh led us to KSM. KSM then led us to Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, East Asia’s chief al Qaeda ally and the perpetrator of the 2002 Bali bombing in Indonesia—in which more than 200 people perished.

The removal of these senior al Qaeda operatives saved thousands of lives because it ended their plotting. KSM, alone, was working on multiple plots when he was captured.

Here’s an example of how the interrogation program actually worked to disrupt terrorist plotting. Without revealing to KSM that Hambali had been captured, we asked him who might take over in the event that Hambali was no longer around. KSM pointed to Hambali’s brother Rusman Gunawan. We then found Gunawan, and information from him resulted in the takedown of a 17-member Southeast Asian cell that Gunawan had recruited for a “second wave,” 9/11-style attack on the U.S. West Coast, in all likelihood using aircraft again to attack buildings. Had that attack occurred, the nightmare of 9/11 would have been repeated.

Once they had become compliant due to the interrogation program, both Abu Zubaydah and KSM turned out to be invaluable sources on the al Qaeda organization. We went back to them multiple times to gain insight into the group. More than one quarter of the nearly 1,700 footnotes in the highly regarded 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 and a significant share of the intelligence in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on al Qaeda came from detainees in the program, in particular Zubaydah and KSM.

The majority on the Senate Intelligence Committee further claims that the takedown of bin Laden was not facilitated by information from the interrogation program. They are wrong. There is no doubt that information provided by the totality of detainees in CIA custody, those who were subjected to interrogation and those who were not, was essential to bringing bin Laden to justice. The CIA never would have focused on the individual who turned out to be bin Laden’s personal courier without the detention and interrogation program.

Specifically, information developed in the interrogation program piqued the CIA’s interest in the courier, placing him at the top of the list of leads to bin Laden. A detainee subjected to interrogation provided the most specific information on the courier. Additionally, KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi—both subjected to interrogation—lied about the courier at a time when both were providing honest answers to a large number of other critical questions. Since other detainees had already linked the courier to KSM and Abu Faraj, their dissembling about him had great significance.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, shown in an undated photo from the FBI.ENLARGE
Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, shown in an undated photo from the FBI. ASSOCIATED PRESS

So the bottom line is this: The interrogation program formed an essential part of the foundation from which the CIA and the U.S. military mounted the bin Laden operation.

The second significant problem with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is its claim that the CIA routinely went beyond the interrogation techniques as authorized by the Justice Department. That claim is wrong.

President Obama ’s attorney general, Eric Holder , directed an experienced prosecutor, John Durham, to investigate the interrogation program in 2009. Mr. Durham examined whether any unauthorized techniques were used by CIA interrogators, and if so, whether such techniques could constitute violations of U.S. criminal statutes. In a press release, the attorney general said that Mr. Durham “examined any possible CIA involvement with the interrogation and detention of 101 detainees who were alleged to have been in U.S. custody” after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The investigation was concluded in August 2012. It was professional and exhaustive and it determined that no prosecutable offenses were committed.

Third, the report’s argument that the CIA misled the Justice Department, the White House, Congress, and the American people is also flat-out wrong. Much of the report’s reasoning for this claim rests on its argument that the interrogation program should not have been called effective, an argument that does not stand up to the facts.

Fourth, the majority left out something critical to understanding the program: context.

The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. This was a time when:

• We had evidence that al Qaeda was planning a second wave of attacks on the U.S.

• We had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons.

• We had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City.

• We had hard evidence that al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.

It felt like the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario—every single day.

In this atmosphere, time was of the essence and the CIA felt a deep responsibility to ensure that an attack like 9/11 would never happen again. We designed the detention and interrogation programs at a time when “relationship building” was not working with brutal killers who did not hesitate to behead innocents. These detainees had received highly effective counter-interrogation training while in al Qaeda training camps. And yet it was clear they possessed information that could disrupt plots and save American lives.

1998 al Qaeda Press Conference

The Senate committee’s report says that the CIA at that point had little experience or expertise in capture, detention or interrogation of terrorists. We agree. But we were charged by the president with doing these things in emergency circumstances—at a time when there was no respite from threat and no luxury of time to act. Our hope is that no one ever has to face such circumstances again.

The Senate committee’s report ignores this context.

The committee also failed to make clear that the CIA was not acting alone in carrying out the interrogation program. Throughout the process, there was extensive consultation with the national security adviser, deputy national security adviser, White House counsel, and the Justice Department.

The president approved the program. The attorney general deemed it legal.

The CIA went to the attorney general for legal rulings four times—and the agency stopped the program twice to ensure that the Justice Department still saw it as consistent with U.S. policy, law and our treaty obligations. The CIA sought guidance and reaffirmation of the program from senior administration policy makers at least four times.

We relied on their policy and legal judgments. We deceived no one.

The CIA reported any allegations of abuse to the Senate-confirmed inspector general and the Justice Department. CIA senior leadership forwarded nearly 20 cases to the Justice Department, and career Justice officials decided that only one of these cases—unrelated to the formal interrogation program—merited prosecution. That person received a prison term.

The CIA briefed Congress approximately 30 times. Initially, at presidential direction the briefings were restricted to the so-called Gang of Eight of top congressional leaders—a limitation permitted under covert-action laws. The briefings were detailed and graphic and drew reactions that ranged from approval to no objection. The briefings held nothing back.

Congress’s view in those days was very different from today. In a briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee after the capture of KSM in 2003, committee members made clear that they wanted the CIA to be extremely aggressive in learning what KSM knew about additional plots. One senator leaned forward and forcefully asked: “Do you have all the authorities you need to do what you need to do?”

In September 2006, at the strong urging of the CIA, the administration decided to brief full committee and staff directors on the interrogation program. As part of this, the CIA sought to enter into a serious dialogue with the oversight committees, hoping to build a consensus on a way forward acceptable to the committee majority and minority and to the congressional and executive branches. The committees missed a chance to help shape the program—they couldn’t reach a consensus. The executive branch was left to proceed alone, merely keeping the committees informed.

How did the committee report get these things so wrong? Astonishingly, the staff avoided interviewing any of us who had been involved in establishing or running the program, the first time a supposedly comprehensive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence study has been carried out in this way.

The excuse given by majority senators is that CIA officers were under investigation by the Justice Department and therefore could not be made available. This is nonsense. The investigations referred to were completed in 2011 and 2012 and applied only to certain officers. They never applied to six former CIA directors and deputy directors, all of whom could have added firsthand truth to the study. Yet a press account indicates that the committee staff did see fit to interview at least one attorney for a terrorist at Guantanamo Bay.

We can only conclude that the committee members or staff did not want to risk having to deal with data that did not fit their construct. Which is another reason why the study is so flawed. What went on in preparing the report is clear: The staff picked up the signal at the outset that this study was to have a certain outcome, especially with respect to the question of whether the interrogation program produced intelligence that helped stop terrorists. The staff members then “cherry picked” their way through six million pages of documents, ignoring some data and highlighting others, to construct their argument against the program’s effectiveness.

In the intelligence profession, that is called politicization.

As lamentable as the inaccuracies of the majority document are—and the impact they will have on the public’s understanding of the program—some consequences are alarming:

• Many CIA officers will be concerned that being involved in legally approved sensitive actions can open them to politically driven scrutiny and censure from a future administration.

• Foreign intelligence partners will have even less confidence that Washington, already hemorrhaging with leaks, will be able to protect their cooperation from public scrutiny. They will cooperate less with the United States.

• Terrorists, having acquired now the largest haven (in the Middle East and North Africa) and string of successes they have had in a decade, will have yet another valuable recruitment tool.

All of this means more danger for the American people and for our allies.

Anyone who has led a U.S. intelligence agency supports strong congressional oversight. It is essential as a check on leadership judgment in a profession that deals constantly with uncertainty, crises and the potential for surprise. We have all experienced and benefited from that in our careers, including at times when the judgment of overseers was critical.

When oversight works well, it is balanced, constructively critical and discreet—and offers sound recommendations. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is disrespectful of that standard.

It’s fair to ask whether the interrogation program was the right policy, but the committee never takes on this toughest of questions.

On that important issue it is important to know that the dilemma CIA officers struggled with in the aftermath of 9/11 was one that would cause discomfort for those enamored of today’s easy simplicities: Faced with post-9/11 circumstances, CIA officers knew that many would later question their decisions—as we now see—but they also believed that they would be morally culpable for the deaths of fellow citizens if they failed to gain information that could stop the next attacks.

Between 1998 and 2001, the al Qaeda leadership in South Asia attacked two U.S. embassies in East Africa, a U.S. warship in the port of Aden, Yemen, and the American homeland—the most deadly single foreign attack on the U.S. in the country’s history. The al Qaeda leadership has not managed another attack on the homeland in the 13 years since, despite a strong desire to do so. The CIA’s aggressive counterterrorism policies and programs are responsible for that success.