Disgraced Trump Cybersecurity Expert: Election Skeptics ‘Need to Be Prosecuted’

Disgraced Trump Cybersecurity Expert: Election Skeptics
‘Need to Be Prosecuted’ 1

Chris Krebs, the former Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, appeared to claim that skeptics continuing to dispute the outcome of the Nov. 3 election “need to be prosecuted” for posing a danger to the country.

Krebs was fired in November after undermining the valid concerns and evidence that point to widespread fraud issues.

He has since claimed he had received serious threats for his vocal, public criticism of the Trump campaign.

Democrats and Biden allies have pointed to Krebs’ “rumor control” efforts via Twitter and a CISA website to substantiate their demands that the allegations be dropped and ignored.

“People need to be held accountable for the claims that they’re making,” Krebs said while testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

In response, committee chair Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., called on Trump supporters to refrain from any violence targeting civil servants. He noted that committee member Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had been the victim of violence from left-wing radicals.

“Anybody listening to this hearing—do not engage in that,” he said. “… But that’s what this hearing is about.”

Countering accusations from Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer that the hearing itself was a “dangerous” attack on American institutions, Johnson noted that having ideas presented in the marketplace of ideas was the very pinnacle of a functional American democracy.

Others at the hearing testified that the failure to have access to information and to have their evidence heard in courts due to political pressure and factors had directly led to the breakdown of the process.

Trump attorney Jesse Binnall said the failure had happened at the court level, where partisan influences compelled judges to avoid taking the cases and ultimately to dismiss them on technicalities instead of merit.

“We were denied any meaningful opportunity to even use in our case the information we got,” Binnall said during questioning from Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla.

Binnall warned of the danger in those efforts to use a lack of transparency to prevent information from being unveiled.

“We can’t just pretend that the emperor has any clothes when he doesn’t,” Binnall said. “… We can’t pretend that we had a clean election when there’s evidence to the contrary.”

James Troupis, a former circuit court judge in Wisconsin who filed a recount petition on behalf of Trump’s campaign, said the suppression effort had been the reason that he agreed to act.

He noted that intimidation efforts had forced many attorneys to refuse to work with the campaign or face the wrath of cancel-culture.

“We need to acknowledge that the court system has been deeply intimidated by the Left, just as the lawyers have been intimidated,” Troupis said.

He said the suspicious, apparent bad-faith effort to block information had only increased public demand for the truth to emerge.

“One of the reason that people are doubting the election is because the other side here—Biden’s primary defense, is ‘don’t hear the evidence,’” he said.

“It’s not about the president,” he continued. “It’s about what the other side is doing to intimidate and force people not to hear it.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., also warned that a lack of answers could exacerbate the polarization, acrimony and distrust that continued to rise.

“Seventy-four million Americans are not gonna shut up,” he said, referencing the number who voted for Trump according to the official vote tally. “And telling them that their views don’t matter … and they should just be quiet is not a recipe for success in this country.”

Hawley said being lectured by Democrats who spent the entire Trump presidency actively undermining the president with demonstrably specious claims would not sway any minds toward examining the valid evidence of fraud during the recent election.

Some of the expert witnesses suggested a standardized federal system may be necessary to regulate the disparate state-based systems.

Inconsistencies in enforcement and interpretation of laws allowed Democrat election administrators at the state and local levels to modify longstanding rules to fit their own purposes, said former independent counsel Ken Starr.

“We’re really talking about down in the boiler room, so to speak, of American elections,” he said.

Starr said that there should “absolutely” be a set of national standards in the wake of the disastrous, corrupt election tabulation.

But Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, expressed concern that such measures might “usurp” state authority.

Starr agreed with Portman that a bipartisan commission would be a positive step toward raising awareness of the issue.

“It would absolutely go miles to make sure that people were confident in the results of the election,” he said.

“These things shouldn’t be partisan,” he continued. “These things should be exactly what we do to protect our republic.”

But Johnson noted that—despite the lack of cooperation from corrupt Democrats— that was precisely what he had intended by holding his informational hearing.

“This isn’t something where we’re trying to attack officials,” he said but rather to explore issues of election integrity that both sides should support.

Troupis agreed, commending Johnson for holding the hearing—his last as committee chair—to bring the issue to light in a meaningful way.

“If you don’t do this inquiry, there really isn’t going to be any analysis,” he said.

Read the Full Article

WATCH: Vote for the Best Liberal Meltdown Video of 2020
CNN’s Parent Company Rejects Trump Campaign Ads About Voter Fraud

You might also like