Sidney Powell gives details about the election fraud Kraken

By Andrea Widburg, AMERICAN THINKER

A few days ago, Sidney Powell said the Trump team would release the Kraken (a mythical giant squid that shatters sailing ships) against the election results that claim that Biden won.  On Sunday, Powell spelled out what this Trump Kraken looks like — and she vouches for its existence.  Based on the details she imparted, the Biden dinghy (for it’s certainly not a ship of state) isn’t just going to take on water; it’s going to a long deserved rendezvous with Davy Jones’s locker.

Powell, who has been working to save General Flynn from the morass his first attorneys, who were compromised, led him into, is now part of President Trump’s post-election team.  On Friday, she appeared on the Lou Dobbs show and memorably said, “I’m going to release the Kraken.”

The problem is that we Trump-supporters have been hearing many promises to expose election fraud.  And yes, there has been a lot of fraud shown: in myriad jurisdictions, people are testifying about absentee ballot dumps, banned poll-watchers, cemetery votes, etc.  But there’s always been the worry that these actions, while true, may not convince a judge (or nine justices) to overturn the election.

Then word started leaking out that statistics could prove that the enormous Biden surges after the polls shut down were statistical impossibilities.  American Thinker authors have written about some of those problems before, so I won’t rehash them.  If you’re curious, you can find some examples here, here, here, here, and here, all of which are written in easy-to-understand English rather than statistician or programmer English.  Nevertheless, it was not entirely clear that the Trump team understood the immensity of what happened.

On Sunday morning, however, Sidney Powell appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s show and revealed that the Trump team understands exactly what happened.  The statistical analyses are right on the money, and Powell claims she has detailed evidence about the people who committed election fraud and how they did it.  According to her, the evidence is ready to be shown before the certification date, and it may mandate an entirely new election — only one without fraud.

The culprits are Dominion Voting Systems, which makes election software, and Smartmatic, which makes the voting machines on which the software runs.  Neither company is American, so our elections are being run through Europe, not America.

You’ve already heard a lot about problems with Dominion.  It’s so unreliable that Texas refused to certify it, and there may be evidence that one of Dominion’s vice presidents is a Trump-hater and Antifa-supporter.

Meanwhile, over at Smartmatic, which three Venezuelan engineers created, there are all sorts of questionable connections.  First, the company is incredibly cagey about its overseas ownership — and it may still be tied to Venezuela (that would be Maduro’s Venezuela).  In 2014, Smartmatic became a subsidiary of SGO Corp. Ltd., a London-based holding company, with Lord Mark Malloch-Brown as chairman of the board.  Brown, who came up through the British Labor Party’s ranks, has close ties to George Soros.

There are also questions about Peter Neffenger, chairman of the Board at Smartmatic.  He’s a retired admiral who worked as the head of the TSA under Obama.  Since the election, Neffenger has joined the Biden transition team!  Yes, the man from the company whose computers were at the heart of fraud allegations in the allegation is helping Biden move into the White House.

Powell alleges that these companies designed the software and machinery specifically to support voter fraud, that they’re in league with corrupt American politicians, and that they switched hundreds of thousands, even millions, of votes away from Trump in the various contested states (and, one assumes, in others as well).  Moreover, Powell says she has firsthand testimony about the fraud and that there’s a veritable “fire hose” of corroborative evidence coming in.

The most crucial line in the entire interview (I think) is what Powell said what Bartiromo asked if she could prove any of this: “I never say anything I can’t prove.”

Here’s the interview, and you’ll want to hear every word:

Additionally, after the interview, Powell tweeted that Trump has given her team the go-ahead to expose the fraud:

<
>

Do you hear the sound of Biden and Co. running for the lifeboats?  I’d like to think I do.

November 17, 2020 | 2 Comments »

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. “KRAKEN” is a CIA Hacking Program
    Wikileaks has dumped 8,761 CIA Documents on Tuesday revealing CIA base in Frankfurt #Germany which was used to hack elections incl “malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems and associated docs.->

    The leaks purportedly revealed that a top secret CIA unit used the German city of Frankfurt as starting point for numerous hacking attacks on Europe, China & Middle East.

    German daily “Süddeutsche Zeitung” reported the building was known to be home to a vast network of intelligence personnel including CIA agents, NSA spies, military secret service personnel, Department of Homeland Security employees & Secret Service employees.

    “It reported the Americans had also established a dense network of outposts and shell companies in Frankfurt.
    It appears the CIA was using the same foreign data center to hack the US elections… and got caught.”

    “This may be why, as the Gateway Pundit reports, the CIA was kept completely out of the server raid operation rumored in Germany. The raid was likely leveled against the CIA’s own server farm that ran the remote Dominion-Scytl hacking operation the night of the election!”
    CIA Hacking Tools Revealed

    Wikileaks: Vault 7

    Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named “Vault 7” by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

    The first full part of the series, “Year Zero”, comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

    Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized “zero day” exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

    “Year Zero” introduces the scope and direction of the CIA’s global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of “zero day” weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple’s iPhone, Google’s Android and Microsoft’s Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

    Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force — its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency’s hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA’s hacking capacities.

    By the end of 2016, the CIA’s hacking division, which formally falls under the agency’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other “weaponized” malware. Such is the scale of the CIA’s undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its “own NSA” with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.

    In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA’s hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.

    Once a single cyber ‘weapon’ is ‘loose’ it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

    Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that “There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber ‘weapons’. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such ‘weapons’, which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of “Year Zero” goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective.”

    Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the “Year Zero” disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of ‘armed’ cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA’s program and how such ‘weapons’ should analyzed, disarmed and published.

    Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in “Year Zero” for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in “Vault 7” part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.

    https://gellerreport.com/2020/11/kraken-is-a-cia-hacking-program.html/

  2. I have been studying the text of the Election Law governing the election of the president, as it was most recently revised in 1948. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/1, and subsequent entries). The election law provides several grounds for disqualifying the electors in states where fraud or other violations of state election law have occurred. It provides that the electors must be “appointed” on election day, unless state law specifically provides for court challenges and reviews of the election results. However, if these court challenges or other “due process” proceedings are not resolved by six days before the day when the electors are scheduled by Federal law to meet and cast their votes, then the electors are disqualified and the state’s electoral votes should not be counted by the Vice President, presiding over a joint session of Congress. However, there is a contradiction in this law, in that it also says that the Congress should accept a signed declaration by the Governor of the state that the slate of electors he certifies have been chosen in complete accordance with the laws of the state. Congress can then overturn the governor’s declaration, but only if both houses of Congress agree to do so.

    The very complicated rules for debating each challenge to the governor’s declations allow the congressmen and Senators to debate the certified results for up to two hours before voting on the issue can last up to two hours , with each member of both houses allowed five minutes to speak. All challenges to the electors from every state must be voted on within 24 hours, and the Congress must remain in continuous session, with only very brief breaks allowed. If the President persists in contesting the election, this could make for an incredibly dramatic joint meeing of the two houses.

    I think it is imperative that the Supreme court hold a session in which it advises the Congress as to the meaning of each point in very complex, convoluted and ambiguous election law. It should then send its guidance to every congressperson and Senator. The court has the right to make advisory as well as mandatory rulings, and frequently does so. It cannot dictate to Congress what electoral slates it will approve. But it can “declare what the law is” to guide them in their choices.

    If Trump persists in fighting this election, and adopts the right strategy, he has a good chance of prevailing before January 20 (Inauguration Day). But only if he and his team make a direct appeal to the Supreme Court to clarify the law and advise Congress and the state governments how tocomply with it. Without a definitive interpreation by the u.S. Supreme Court, I don’t think Biden’s purported election can be overturned.