This article appears in the November 13, 2020 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
[Print version of this article]
DEFEATING ELECTION PSY-OPS
Hammer, Scorecard and
Speaking the Truth
The following are excerpts taken from the LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat of Nov. 5, 2020 with guests Kirk Wiebe, a former senior analyst with the National Security Agency, and LPAC’s Barbara Boyd. The full video is available here.
Kirk Wiebe: If you understand the seriousness of the nature of what the other side is doing, none of it is happenstance. This is all planned, orchestrated, and was planned a long time ago. I would also tell you there are some new aspects to it, because they’re hidden from the open source information that most of us are privy to. But there are some parts that have been well known, but not used in the public domain. Let me refer to something called psy-op; PSY, standing for psychological, and OP standing for operations. Some people say psy-ops. Psy-ops, I’m going to read to you the military, Department of Defense definition; it’s not long. But where I use the word “foreign,” audience, I want you to substitute the word “Republican” or “conservative,” whichever one you’d like. Here’s what it says:
Psychological operations, or psy-op, are intended to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences [again, conservative audiences] to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments [read Trump administration], organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce attitudes or behaviors favorable to the originator’s objectives.
That is precisely what we’ve been seeing going on in the media. Some people call it propaganda. But this is directly extrapolated from the Department of Defense definition. Now a component of psy-ops is information operations, and that is the media. So, just to put all that into context, so that people can get a sense of just how diabolical and purposeful all of this—all of it during Trump’s last four years—has been purposeful.
Another point. I just mentioned that some of the efforts being used by the other side are clandestine or hidden from public view. One very important effort that people are working on right now to bring to the attention of the Trump administration, is an information technology capability that operates via the internet, called the Hammer, and an application that works with the Hammer, called Scorecard. Hammer does a lot of things, including calling up computers and downloading files without a user ever knowing it. But the part I want to emphasize to you tonight is Scorecard, because it was designed with the express purpose of changing vote totals on the fly. Meaning, not pre-loaded anywhere in a computer, but actually targeting the reporting of precinct data upward to the state level over the internet. There’s no way to air-gap it at this point. This is the way data is transmitted; we all use the internet.
When the packets are recognized, and the packets are little bits of information that make up a report of voting between two candidates, or a group of candidates. It can be defined as small, large, whatever. The packets that make up that transmission over the internet can be opened, looked at, recognized for who they’re going to and what they contain. The data inside each packet can be switched; it can be changed, in microseconds! Zipped back up, so to speak—imagine putting a jacket on and zipping it up—and sending it on its way. So that the receiver never really perceives a delay. There’s always a little delay. Somebody sends you an email; it takes a few seconds before it gets to your computer. So, nobody’s the wiser. But the data has been changed.
Scorecard works based on an algorithm that needs a 3 percent or less disparity or difference between two candidates. So that if there is a 20-point difference, or a 10-point difference, it’s not going to function. Why? The designer of this did not want to be obvious. If you go around instantaneously changing totals from 10 percent to nothing, or even losing, people are going to notice that and say what the heck is going on? But if I open that window to just a little bit, a 3 percent difference, then any change that comes in is more acceptable to observers and less suspect, if you will.
This is the way Scorecard works. Scorecard is working right now in Georgia, in Nevada, in a number of these states. And it’s not the only tool that’s being used. Another one is that fake logon authorities have been implemented in the counting control systems, which are Windows computers, where the votes are counted. So that a remote user having the right password, can log on and change data that way as well.
What I’m trying to say is, yeah, ballots are being dropped off at the Post Office, and backdated to 3 November, even though they arrived on 4 November. A lot of that ballot manipulation is going on, but this [the computer manipulations] is the less-visible aspect that I want people to be aware of. It is extremely powerful, and it needs to be stopped.
The good news is, it records data, and if we can bust this open with the help of the administration and the tools of some agencies, we will find the evidence that votes were changed. So, it’s another great boon to the team of lawyers if we can get this available.
And finally, I’d like to read to you some wisdom that I came across earlier today by Dick Morris, who happened to show up on Newsmax. I ran across an article—by the way, for those of you who do not know, Dick Morris is a former advisor for former President Bill Clinton. He’s been appearing on Newsmax on our side, so to speak, and he reminds us of this important Constitutional fact: The people who are in charge of elections are not governors, they’re not even Secretaries of States. Secretaries of States are just supposed to carry out election law in a state. The actual laws are defined and laid out and implemented by the legislature of each state. I’m going to read you what he suggests,—an action point—and I just think it’s very clever and it’s very important that you hear it. Here it is:
We have to move the fight from the Executive branch of the states to the Legislative branch of the states. In all of these four key battleground states [and he lists North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin] there are Democratic governors interfering in the process. But both houses of the legislature in those states are Republican! Those guys need to wake up!
And if you live in those states, you need to call your State Representative and your State Senator—not Federal, but State—and say, “Get on the ball! Get your butts in gear! Get to the state capital; demand that the legislature be called into session and take over the counting process in your state for which you are ultimately responsible.”
Question: I want to ask this question on behalf of two different people. How does Trump prove in court, that (1) Scorecard exists? and (2) is manipulating this election?
And then the other person put it, how do you know that it’s currently being used?
So those were the questions that were directed at you first.
Wiebe: The reason I know is that I have communication with the guy that invented it, for the government. It was invented in the early 2000s, to be used in the war against terrorism. A copy, at least, was taken out of authorized usage, moved to a clandestine location, and used for political purposes: namely, the gathering of information that could be used to help people who wanted to blackmail other people. We know that the Trump family was surveilled by this illegal surveillance mechanism. We know that many members of Congress, the Supreme Court, members of churches, synagogues, various religious organizations all over the country; over 400 law firms; over 5 million businesses worldwide. It’s just extensive and the list goes on and on.
So, the question is, how do we get it, such that the data, or the evidence of what it is doing can be presented in court? And therein lies the challenge. We’re trying to inform the administration about the existence of this capability. In order to position it so that it can be used, we need to get the inventor, who at one time did work for the Department of Defense, the intelligence community—get his clearances reinstated, and brought back into government quickly. This can be done in one day. This is not a long process. The President could order and make it happen very, very quickly.
He will need a team of technical people, to help him put together the right information in a form that a lawyer can understand and present in court. And then there’s the data from the device, the storage of its operational history, a log, if you will, a log of its activities would be part of that evidence. And it would show, without a measure of doubt, the proof that numbers were changed, and where they were changed, in what state, what precinct, all of that.
So this is a work in progress, and something we’re trying to do. And wish us success in getting it done.
Question: I’ve got a question for Kirk on this Scorecard. I guess Wisconsin is one of the states that’s supposed to have a recount. Could that Scorecard be used on that? And would it be noticeable right up front?
Wiebe: On the issue of—can Scorecard be used during the recount process?—and I can think of no reason that would stop it, because a recount is going to be just that: It’s a simple recount, and totals again are going to be sent up, somewhere. And as they travel over the internet, the Scorecard can pick ’em off, change ’em, and let ’em go on their merry way.
So, yeah! It’s a concern, it’s a worry. And we’ve got to disable it. Stop it.
Barbara Boyd: Let me raise just one issue, where I think it becomes kind of interesting: There’s this kind of screen shot from the Secretary of State of Wisconsin during that critical four hour period, reflecting precincts and wards in the black areas of Milwaukee, about 14 or 15 wards, in which the screen shot that was taken by people of what was on the Secretary of State’s website showed that in those wards you had many, many, many more votes than you had registered voters, sometimes by a quantity of over 200-400 percent more votes than voters. In other words, registered voters in this ward is 200 people, you had 400 votes.
That obviously is extremely problematical and probably was an open admission of what was going on, in terms of stuffing the ballot box. There was a great deal of outrage: People noticed it, they called up the Secretary of State; they said, “What the hell is going on here?” And by the morning, in fact, the numbers were altered, to bring the vote in line with the registered voters. The figures were completely changed.
Do you think that Scorecard could have been used in that particular instance, to sort of make everything “add up”?
Wiebe: It doesn’t sound right to me. Someone would have to show me that that would be feasible. But because the system is not programmed to work in that way, which is kind of a reversal rather than an add, it’s kind of subtraction.
Question: This is Karen from Columbus. I want to know why it’s so difficult to get ahold of the Trump organization, because I would think that if you’re going to the people who have his ear, there certainly are a lot of them. Why is it so difficult?
Wiebe: I’ve lived it for a year and a half. We have been trying to get the attention of the administration for a year and half. I am not personally, or wasn’t until recently, in a communications path that would get me close to the White House inner circle. I have spoken to Sidney Powell a couple of times. We have her attention. But who she has to go to, I don’t know. And I don’t know if there’s yet another inner, inner circle that she has to break through.
So it’s kind of like the Temple Mount: How do you enter the gate? How many guards are there? I’ve noticed this. Even in my career at NSA, I would tell you that the higher you go up in any organization, there are guards built in, to prevent you from getting there. And then you have secret agendas and personal agendas, because people in the midway might be afraid of something you might say to the Big Guy, and pretty soon you have people even filtering what the Big Guy hears, because they don’t want him to get too excited—so you get humans interfering with communications at so many levels. It is just difficult!
I don’t have a simple answer for that.
Question: How do we overcome the psy-op and how do we boost the morale of people, particularly conservatives, right-wingers, pro-Trump people, Republicans—how can we improve the morale of those who have been affected by it? I notice that a lot of this is going on in social media, especially Facebook and Twitter.
Wiebe: Thank you for the question. To me it surrounds the word truth. Morale, I think comes from people who are being told the truth. It derives from that, because people then have a sense of confidence and well-being. People can’t deal with intangibles and obscure things, and things that aren’t quite right, because you never can explain what the motive is.
So, Bill and I and a couple of other people, have talked about the need for a truth outlet. It would be a kind of a news organization, that would filter, measure the quality of organizations putting out information, and then filter—kind of like what Facebook is doing, but we would do it with a public algorithm, which would expose how we’re doing it. As long as we stay ahead of the bad guys, you know, information has got to be in the public sphere.
So I think LaRouche is trying to be just such an organization, and it’s why they’re holding these events such as tonight. There’s so much bad information out there and so many hidden agendas, as you know. Morale, I really believe, if a result of getting the truth. And then, also, connecting to organizations, or people who form organizations, who value the truth as you do. Then you can build camaraderie, trust; you can have conversations that you know feature 99.9 percent truth. That builds morale. We need to come together. We’re too fragmented. And LaRouche is helping to get that done.