CISA aware of mail-in voting risks in 2020, but posts censored

The Federal Government’s Censorship Operations Admitted Risks of Mail-In Voting

The nerve center of ‌the federal government’s censorship operations⁢ acknowledged the ​risks associated with mass mail-in voting before the 2020 election. Despite this knowledge, they still flagged online ⁣posts highlighting ⁤these concerns ⁤for censorship ⁢by Big Tech companies.

Internal documents obtained ‌by America First Legal (AFL) through open records requests reveal that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was aware ‌of the⁣ risks associated ‌with unsupervised mail-in voting. However, during the same period, they classified social media posts⁢ discussing these risks ⁤as “disinformation” and flagged them for censorship.

Challenges and Compensating Controls

The communications uncovered by AFL ‌show that CISA officials knew there ‍was no evidence to support claims that in-person voting increased the spread⁤ of ⁤COVID-19.‌ They⁤ were also aware of the difficulties presented by mass mail-in voting, such as the process of mailing and returning ⁣ballots, high numbers of improperly completed ballots, and the shortage of personnel to process them promptly.

By October 2020, CISA​ had compiled a list titled⁤ “Mail-In Voting Risk: Infrastructure and⁤ Process,” which outlined the‌ insecurities in mass mail-in voting operations. They also provided ⁢”compensating controls” that election⁤ officials ⁣could use to manage these ⁤risks.

Delayed Results and Media Tour

One of the risks highlighted by CISA was that the tabulation of results would occur⁤ more slowly due to ⁣the longer⁢ processing time for inbound mail-in ballots. ​They acknowledged that it would take days, if not weeks, to determine the outcome of many races. This prediction proved accurate, as it ‍took several days ‍after the election for Joe Biden to be declared the winner.

An email ‍from October 30, 2020, indicates ‌that CISA shared their​ concerns‌ about mail-in voting ⁤with members of the corporate press during an “unclassified media ‌tour.” However, instead‍ of reporting ‌this information to the public, news organizations like The Washington ‌Post published articles dismissing⁤ the liabilities of mail-in balloting⁢ and praising CISA for its independence from President Donald Trump.

Censorship‌ and Disinformation

Despite‍ acknowledging the challenges and hazards of mail-in voting, CISA‍ actively worked to compel Big Tech platforms ​to censor posts that highlighted these points before the 2020 election. They contracted consulting firm Deloitte to report on social media trends ​related to the U.S. Election,⁣ including narratives about “Vote-By-Mail,” and flag specific posts ‍for CISA’s attention.

One of the flagged posts was a tweet ⁣from President Trump, in⁤ which he raised concerns about⁢ problems and discrepancies with mail-in ballots. Deloitte also highlighted a post from a conservative pundit accusing Twitter of suppressing a story about the ⁤Democratic presidential nominee’s son to⁣ influence the election.

This censorship was further confirmed ⁣by an interim ‌report released by House Republicans, which revealed that CISA colluded ⁢with Stanford University ⁢and the ‍State⁢ Department’s Global Engagement Center to pressure‍ Big​ Tech companies into censoring what they deemed as “disinformation” during the 2020 election.

Overall, these​ findings expose the extent of government censorship and manipulation of online‍ speech ‌during the 2020 election, ‌raising concerns about the integrity of⁣ the democratic process.

How did the large volume of mail-in ballots⁢ contribute to delays in counting and reporting election⁣ results in several states?

Large volume of mail-in ballots. This prediction proved to be accurate, as several states experienced significant delays in counting and reporting their​ election results. This delay created uncertainty and fueled speculation, leading to increased tensions and challenges to the legitimacy of the election.

Despite their recognition of these risks, CISA ⁤participated in ⁢a media tour with the goal of ‍promoting the safety and security of the election. During this tour, they downplayed concerns regarding mail-in voting and emphasized⁢ the⁢ steps taken to‌ secure the‌ process. This contradiction between their internal knowledge⁢ and public statements raises questions about the transparency and integrity of their actions.

Political Bias and Censorship

The ‍most concerning aspect ⁢of these revelations is the censorship of online posts discussing the risks associated with mail-in voting. CISA, a government agency tasked with maintaining the security and integrity ⁤of the election, actively flagged and labeled⁣ these posts as “disinformation.” This action not only silenced legitimate concerns but also⁢ demonstrated a clear bias and lack of commitment ‍to transparency.

By collaborating‍ with Big Tech companies to censor these posts, ‍the federal government effectively limited the public’s access to ⁤information and stifled the free exchange of ideas. This infringement on freedom of speech is not only unconstitutional but also undermines the democratic principles upon which our nation ⁢is founded.

The Importance of Transparency and Accountability

The federal government’s censorship operations and admission of⁣ the risks associated with mail-in ⁤voting highlight the need for ⁢greater⁤ transparency and accountability. It is essential that government agencies act in a manner consistent with their mandate ​and maintain the public’s trust. The manipulation and suppression of information erode this trust and jeopardize the ⁢democratic process.

Furthermore, the ‌collaboration between government agencies and Big Tech companies raises concerns about the concentration of power and⁤ influence. Whether intentional‍ or ‌not, the​ censorship ⁢of certain viewpoints undermines the⁣ democratic ideals of open debate and ⁢critical thinking.

In conclusion, the federal government’s admission of the risks associated with mail-in voting, followed by the censorship of online posts discussing these risks, is deeply troubling. It reveals a lack⁢ of transparency, accountability, and a potential⁢ political bias within our ‍federal agencies. Moving forward, it is crucial that we demand greater accountability and protection of our democratic‍ values to ensure the integrity of our elections and the preservation of free speech.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases