An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.

Justice Alito and Plaintiff Janus Saved Free Speech

Excellent!

Related reading: Tom Perez, Chairman of the DNC is not happy

There are an estimated 5 million government employees in 24 States. Mark Janus is a Illinois State employee that has been forced to pay $600 per year to the public sector union known as AFSCME. In a 5-4 ruling with the opinion written by Justice Alito, no more forced dues are required even when not a member of a union. Of course, Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion stating that ‘its crusade by the majority is turning the First Amendment into a sword’.

AFSCME President Lee Saunders had argued that strong labor unions are needed because they give “the strength in numbers [workers] need to fight for the freedoms they deserve,” including retirement plans and health care.

The repercussions could affect unions nationwide. Union membership nationwide is less than 11 percent of the American workforce, but about a third of government employees are members. More here.

As a condition of employment, a person is forced to pay up to keep their job while they have no voice in lobby efforts, where money is spent or in collective bargaining.

Supreme Court hears major challenge to government unions ... photo

The Janus case started in the 7th circuit and the union fee case has been going on for an estimated 40 years. Janus was represented by Mark Mix, the president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The basis of the argument is being forced to pay union fees of any sort is coerced political speech. Part of the Alito decision includes:

Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they
find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional
command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be
universally condemned. Suppose, for example, that the
State of Illinois required all residents to sign a document
expressing support for a particular set of positions on
controversial public issues—say, the platform of one of the
major political parties. No one, we trust, would seriously
argue that the First Amendment permits this.
Perhaps because such compulsion so plainly violates the
Constitution, most of our free speech cases have involved
restrictions on what can be said, rather than laws compel­
ling speech. But measures compelling speech are at least
as threatening.

When speech is compelled, however, additional damage
is done. In that situation, individuals are coerced into
betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent
individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is
always demeaning, and for this reason, one of our land­
mark free speech cases said that a law commanding “in­
voluntary affirmation” of objected-to beliefs would require
“even more immediate and urgent grounds” than a law
demanding silence.
The 82 page opinion is found here. It is compelling reading.
Open Secrets, a site for money in government published this in part:
2018 $13,352,634 80% 19%

That number above represents union money to legislators where 80% went to Democrats and 19% went to Republicans.

Since 1989, public sector unions have contributed $385 million to federal elections, and Democrats have received the vast majority of that money. In the 2016 election those groups pumped $63.8 million into races, 90 percent of which went to Democrats. So far in the 2018 cycle, $13.4 million has gone toward races, with 80 percent benefiting Democrats.

The top 20 politicians to receive money from public sectors since 1989 have been Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.

In this election cycle, Democratic senators in hotly contested races have benefited from union support.

In the past 10 years, public sector unions also spent nearly $160 million on lobbying.

Overall, 28 states have passed so-called “right-to-work” laws, which ban requirements for union membership or fees. The states include Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana, former union strongholds where average hourly wages and union memberships have slipped since the laws passed.

A dip in union membership would likely bring a significant drop in funding for big union political spenders like AFSCME, which has spent $114 million on federal elections since 1989.

Other top spenders that would see their funds potentially slashed include the National Education Association, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

7-2 SCOTUS Decision, Jack Phillips Wins

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD.,
ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
ET AL.
Justice Ginsberg and Sotomayer were the dissenting opinions.
This is a decision that upholds the freedom of religion and the dedication to practice that religion. Frankly, it was never about the wedding cake, if the truth be told.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor today of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who declined to bake a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding because of his religious beliefs.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a historic case involving religious liberty, LGBT rights, and the First Amendment.

In the 7-2 ruling, the high court said the Colorado Commission of Civil Rights, which had ruled against Phillips, demonstrated “clear and impermissible hostility” toward the baker and cake artist’s Christian belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

“The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, in 2014 Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner Diann Rice compared Phillips’ not making a cake to slavery and the Holocaust. Rice apparently didn’t know that Phillips’ father fought in World War II and was part of a group that helped liberate Buchenwald concentration camp.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor today of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who declined to bake a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding because of his religious beliefs.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a historic case involving religious liberty, LGBT rights, and the First Amendment.

In the 7-2 ruling, the high court said the Colorado Commission of Civil Rights, which had ruled against Phillips, demonstrated “clear and impermissible hostility” toward the baker and cake artist’s Christian belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

“The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, in 2014 Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner Diann Rice compared Phillips’ not making a cake to slavery and the Holocaust. Rice apparently didn’t know that Phillips’ father fought in World War II and was part of a group that helped liberate Buchenwald concentration camp.

“For her to compare not making a cake to the Holocaust, knowing what my dad went through, is ludicrous, and personally offensive,” Phillips, 62, told The Daily Signal.

“This is a big win for the religious liberty of all Americans,” says Ryan Anderson, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “The Court held that the state of Colorado was ‘neither tolerant nor respectful’ of Jack Phillips’s beliefs about marriage. But as the Court also noted ‘religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.’”

“Americans should be free to live their lives, including at work, in accordance with their belief that marriage unites husband and wife. Congress and the states should make this crystal clear by passing legislation, such as the First Amendment Defense Act, which explicitly prevents the type of government intolerance that took place in Colorado,” Anderson added.

**

Meet the Lawyer Who’ll Argue at Supreme Court for Christian Baker’s Right to Free Speech

As far back as grade school, Kristen Waggoner’s father taught her to seek God’s purpose for her life.

This paternal counsel, after much prayer, resulted in her knowing her calling at age 13.

But growing up in a small mill town in Washington, she could not have guessed that, little more than 30 years later, she would be a lawyer arguing a widely known case in the nation’s capital before the nation’s highest court.

“My hope is that the court will use this case as an opportunity to say, ‘We’re protecting the liberty of both sides,’” Waggoner says.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Talk about culminations.

Waggoner will stand Tuesday before the nine justices of the Supreme Court and ask them to protect a Colorado baker’s constitutional right not to be forced by the government to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex marriage—or any other occasion or sentiment that would violate his traditional Christian faith.

Waggoner, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, the prominent Christian legal aid organization, represents Jack Phillips. The owner of a family business in Lakewood, Colorado, Phillips became famous for declining to make a cake in July 2012 for two men for a local celebration of their upcoming marriage in Massachusetts.

One way or another, Waggoner has been at Phillips’ side since shortly after he politely turned down the couple’s order of a wedding cake while offering to sell Charlie Craig and David Mullins virtually any other baked good made by his Masterpiece Cakeshop.

The two men left in anger and soon filed a formal complaint, triggering hateful phone calls, death threats, and legal proceedings in Colorado against Phillips.

Those events eventually would intersect with the calling heeded by Waggoner, 45, when she was barely a teenager: defending the rights of religious individuals and institutions in America.

Now, Waggoner finds herself on the verge of making her first arguments before the Supreme Court, on behalf of Phillips, 61, and those she describes as countless other creative professionals committed to living, working, and expressing themselves in line with their faith—or lack of it.

Room for a Different View of Marriage

Phillips and other people of faith are defending their freedom as radical activists and government officials across the country wield nondiscrimination laws on the local and state levels in ways never intended by legislators, Waggoner says:

They’re being used to silence and to punish people who have a different view of marriage. It’s no longer about a government affirming a right and a recognition of same-sex marriage. It’s now about requiring private citizens to affirm that as well—which violates the core convictions of millions of Americans who subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths. It’s not just Christianity, it’s Judaism, Islam.

When the Supreme Court was weighing whether to recognize same-sex marriage in the landmark 2015 case Obergefell v. Hodges, Waggoner reminds, advocates told people of faith that they had nothing to worry about, that their rights would be protected:

I think what’s so alarming is how we’ve gone so quickly from this concept of liberalism to, really, illiberalism. From tolerance to intolerance. … From ‘live and let live’ to … you either affirm my view or you’re branded as a bigot and you lose your business.

How is forcing Phillips to create a cake in violation of his conscience different than forcing an atheist singer to perform at religious service, she suggests, or requiring a Jewish artist to glorify the Holocaust?

Friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, show that “tons of people” who support same-sex marriage also support Phillips’ right to decline an order, she says.

“And that’s the right position, because that’s freedom for everyone, even those we disagree with. So it does an injustice to the case to suggest this is about same-sex marriage. It’s not. It’s about the right to live and to work and to speak consistent with your convictions, and not have the government tell you what to say.”

‘Part of a Bigger Story’

The Daily Signal’s interview with Waggoner occurs in her final week of preparing in Washington, D.C., for her Supreme Court appearance with fellow ADF lawyers defending Phillips. Among them are Jeremy Tedesco, who has logged many hours on the Phillips case, and her co-counsel, Jim Campbell.

Waggoner’s husband Benjamin is also a practicing attorney back home in Scottsdale, Arizona. Historically, his wife is a Seattle Seahawks fan, but these days relies on their three children—ages 9, 15, and 17—to keep her current with the football team’s progress.

In about an hour, she plans to be on a nightly 7:30 session on FaceTime with her third-grader son, a commitment while she is away.

Waggoner grew up as Kristen Kellie Behrends in Longview, Washington, about two hours south of Seattle and an hour north of Portland.

What she treasures most about her upbringing, Waggoner says, is that she was steeped in consistent values at home, church, and school that shaped her worldview without sheltering her.

Her father taught her from Scripture about “being an Esther, being a Deborah, used by God,” she says, and that “joy and fulfillment come from having a purpose that’s bigger than ourselves.”

“It’s not about us, we’re a part of a bigger story that has to do with helping human flourishing. And that just shaped my whole life, even now.”

A Defining Moment

Clint Behrends, a Christian pastor and educator, was principal of the school his elder daughter Kristen attended from first through 12th grade.

Waggoner has two younger brothers and a younger sister, two of them adopted but born brother and sister. Her mother, Lavonne Behrends, “thrived” at being a stay-at-home mom for the most part, but also worked part time in accounting-related jobs.

Once a teacher in public schools, today her father is a licensed minister in the Assemblies of God denomination. He is associate pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, Washington, and superintendent of an affiliated school system.

Young Kristen would go to the principal’s office to visit her father three or four times a day, sometimes because she got into trouble. In these encounters, he urged her to find and develop her talents, and apply them in a way that would honor God.

And one day, Waggoner recalls, she saw clearly that defending ministries and religious freedom should be her path. Although her “rebellious teenage years” were not yet behind her at 13, she never really looked back, Waggoner recalls in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“That’s what I thought God was impressing on me to do, and it matched with my skill set,” she says. “And it worked out.”

Waggoner’s father was the first college graduate in the family, and she became the second.

By choice, her entire education was in Christian schools. She ran cross country and played volleyball and basketball in high school, where she continued to be a good student and graduated as valedictorian in a class of 21.

She won a drama scholarship to go to Northwest University, a school outside Seattle affiliated with the Assemblies of God. She ended up doing debate, winning some tournaments and “best speaker” awards. She also played volleyball. (“That and the law are my two loves.”)

Then it was on to law school at Regent University in Virginia Beach, where she won “best oralist” and the Whittier Moot Court Competition.

What grabbed her about law?

“I think that the pursuit of justice is something that really motivated me, and taking stands on principles,” she says, adding: “But once you start working with clients and you experience being able to help individuals, when most of the time they’re at their low point, it’s very fulfilling.”

‘On the Tough End’

Right after law school, she clerked for Richard Sanders, a member of the Washington state Supreme Court. She first sought a summer job with him two years earlier because he practiced constitutional law, not knowing he was running for a seat on the court.

“The day I called him to follow up on the status of my resume was the day he was elected to the [state] Supreme Court,” she recalls. “He picked up the phone and talked to me for about 45 minutes.”

Nearly two years later, a few weeks out from graduation and planning to clerk for a federal judge in Virginia, she got a call from the law school saying a justice on the Washington Supreme Court had been looking for her for weeks. Sanders was hiring; she interviewed and got a clerkship there.

The law school graduate proved to be “up for the challenge,” Sanders, now back in private practice, recalls, and she worked hard to “get better and better.”

“This is exactly where she should be, and this is what she does best,” the former judge says of Waggoner’s current role. “I think she realizes that she’s on the tough end of those arguments.”

Sanders, knowing his law clerk’s  interests, proved instrumental in urging her to look into the law firm where she would stay for 17 years.

Ellis, Li & ­­­­­McKinstry had a good reputation for its work in constitutional law in Seattle, not exactly a conservative bastion. It represented many large churches and religious organizations.

Sanders “consistently encouraged” her to go to work there, Waggoner recalls, rather than at a public interest law firm, to gain broader and deeper experience.

“My very first case was a religious liberty case,” Waggoner recalls, “which I don’t think is coincidental.”

‘A Lot Has Changed’

Ellis, Li & ­­­­­McKinstry also happens to be perhaps the nation’s largest private law firm made up of Christian attorneys, partner Keith Kemper tells The Daily Signal.

Kemper describes Waggoner as a tenacious but gracious advocate whose “incredibly strong work ethic” drives her to study up on the case at hand to learn more than her colleagues or opponents.

“She will be better prepared,” says Kemper, who supervised Waggoner in her early years with the firm. “She will know the material backward and forward.” More here from The Daily Signal.

Whining Congress on Election Security Really Doesn’t Care

On March 21, 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing after much whining from Democrats on the topic of election security. It was quite the hearing where aggressive and snotty questions were put to current DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.

Since that hearing, the Department of Homeland Security has reached out to almost every state and collaborated on issues of security of voter databases, ensuring security of voting machine software and held sessions of advise on what had transpired during the election year of 2016. Many states have taken substantial steps to ensure integrity of all systems.

The Senate Intelligence Committee members met in closed session to discuss their findings with former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA director John Brennan, and former National Security Agency director Adm. Mike Rogers. None has wavered from the conclusions about Russian interference in the election, according to senators who were in the room.

Former FBI director James Comey had also been invited to testify about the findings to the panel, but did not attend.

4 out of 5 House members skip classified briefing on ... photo

So, in a classified setting both the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Department of Homeland Security hosted a briefing on the facts of Russian intrusion into the U.S. election infrastructure where all 435 members of Congress were invited. Those that were whining back in March were on the invitation list. How many did finally show up to assuage their concerns? Less than 50 and by most estimates, it was 30.

The Department of Homeland Security — which found evidence of Russian hackers targeting systems in 21 states ahead of the 2016 vote — is taking the lead on helping states secure their digital election assets. Meanwhile, the FBI is working to counter foreign influence operations. Coats was present to provide lawmakers with an overall threat picture.

“Americans’ votes must count, and they must be counted correctly,” Nielsen said.

Officials provided lawmakers with an unclassified resource guide of the services Homeland Security is offering to state and local officials who request aid, which range from simple cyber “hygiene” scans that can be done remotely to more rigorous risk and vulnerability assessments that require federal officials to be on the ground in states to test their systems.

Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns that Russia or other foreign adversaries would look to sow discord in future elections — fears that were echoed on Tuesday.

***

DHS is offering states voluntary cyber services, including remote checks of their election systems and on-site vulnerability assessments. It’s also granting security clearances to election officials, though they haven’t all been finalized.

States are now deciding how to use their share of $380 million in federal election security grants that came with the omnibus spending package earlier this year. But it’s hardly enough to update aging voting equipment in most states ahead of the November polls, and many state officials are hoping Congress will approve more dollars. More here.

List of Participants for Fusion GPS and Smear Mission

Senator Grassley is on the case. He listed names asking for all communications from the following people: For the period from March 2016 through January 2017, please provide all communications to, from, copying, or relating to: Fusion GPS; Bean LLC; Glenn Simpson; Mary Jacoby; Peter Fritsch; Tom Catan; Jason Felch; Neil King; David Michaels; Taylor Sears; Patrick Corcoran; Laura Sego; Jay Bagwell; Erica Castro; Nellie Ohr; Rinat Akhmetshin; Ed Lieberman; Edward Baumgartner; Orbis Business Intelligence Limited; Orbis Business International Limited.; Walsingham Training Limited; Walsingham Partners Limited; Christopher Steele; Christopher Burrows; Sir Andrew Wood, Paul Hauser;4 Oleg Deripaska; Cody Shearer; Sidney Blumenthal; Jon Winer; Kathleen Kavalec; Victoria Nuland; Daniel Jones; Bruce Ohr; Peter Strzok; Andrew McCabe; James Baker; Sally Yates; Loretta Lynch; John Brennan. Details here.

Image result for fusion gps hillary What happened? Hey Hillary how about you tell America who coordinated all these people and who was the architect and save a LOT of misery and resources….

*** The political wheels go round and round and given the anti-Trump envoy that has been mobilized, this operation and army of people will continue through the 2020 general election. AG Jeff Sessions and his Justice Department along with his Inspector Generals and Congressional committees are not likely to complete all these investigations any time soon….so remember these names as we head into the mid-term election and to the general election. And we have not even gotten to the whole FBI equation….

1. Shall we start with Kamala Harris? The sister of Sen. Kamala Harris, the California Democrat who has been floated as a potential presidential candidate in 2020, and the political director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are also involved with the group.

The Democracy Forward Foundation, a D.C.-based 501(c)3 nonprofit with a 501(c)4 arm called Democracy Forward, describes itself as a “nonpartisan” group that “scrutinizes Executive Branch activity,” according to its mission statement. Anne Harkavy, the group’s executive director, was a senior legal advisor to the general counsel of Obama for America, Obama’s former campaign committee. Corey Ciorciari, its policy and strategy director who oversees Democracy Forward’s policy, research, and communications teams, was a policy advisor for Clinton during her 2016 campaign.

Javier Guzman, the legal director, came from the Department of Justice. Alex Hornbrook, Democracy Forward’s operations director, served as director of scheduling and advance for Hillary for America, Clinton’s campaign committee.

Democracy Forward’s board of directors also features a number of liberal power players.

Elias chairs the board that includes Podesta. Maya Harris, Sen. Kamala Harris’s sister who helped craft Clinton’s agenda for the failed campaign and is a political analyst for MSNBC, is also a member of its board.

Faiz Shakir, who became the national political director of the ACLU in January; Ronald Klain, a Democratic operative who was President Obama’s “Ebola Czar”; Matthew Miller, an MSNBC justice and security analyst; and Scott Nathan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which was founded by Podesta, also sit on the board of directors. More here.

2. Congressional documents and recently leaked texts between Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and a registered foreign agent for a Russian aluminum oligarch indicate that Daniel J. Jones is intimately involved with ongoing efforts to retroactively validate a series of salacious and unverified memos produced by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, and Fusion GPS. Jones, a former Feinstein staffer who wrote a controversial top-secret report on alleged torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), currently runs the Penn Quarter Group, which bills itself as a “research and investigative advisory” and is inconspicuously named after the downtown Washington DC neighborhood where its office is located.

3. How about Shailagh Murray, a former journalist who served as senior adviser to Obama and as former Vice President Joe Biden’s deputy chief of staff? Murray’s husband is Neil King, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who worked at the newspaper at the same time as Fusion GPS’s three co-founders, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, and Tom Catan. Murray also worked at The Journal until 2005. She joined the Obama administration in 2011. Devin Nunes also sent a letter and questionnaire to Colin Kahl, who served as national security adviser to Biden.

4. Okay, what about CNN ad Evan Perez? Perez covers the Justice Department for CNN. Glenn Simpson, the Fusion co-founder most often associated with the dossier, is used to working on stories with Perez. As reporters at The Wall Street Journal, Perez and Simpson regularly co-authored stories on national security. Another Fusion founder, Tom Catan, worked as a reporter for the Journal at the same time as Perez and Simpson. The third Fusion co-founder, Peter Fritsch, worked above Perez and Simpson as the senior national security editor. Details and evidence is here.

5. Seems Marc Elias as the chair of Perkins Coie’s Political Law Group, was/is the grand marshal of this operation. Marc served as general counsel to Hillary for America, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. He served in the same role for John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004. His political committee clients include the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Associations, National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Priorities USA, Senate Majority PAC, House Majority PAC and EMILY’s List. He currently serves as the chair of two organizations: Democracy Forward and We the Action. He serves on the board of directors of Priorities USA and on the advisory board of Let America Vote and Access Democracy. Marc is the former co-chair of the bipartisan Committee to Modernize Voter Registration. Marc served on the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Election Law and as an adviser to two American Law Institute projects: Principles of Government Ethics and Principles of Election Law: Resolution of Election Disputes.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer Marc Elias, allegedly denied media reports that the Clinton campaign had any connection to the controversial Russian Dossier.  After the Washington Post ran an extensive story on how the Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee hired controversial research firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Donald Trump in Russia in the “Russian Dossier” matter.  Reporters at the New York Times have accused Elias of lying in past categorical denials of any connection to Clinton or the DNC.  The reports indicate that not only did the Clinton team fund the opposition research but that Elias may have been the person handling much of the arrangements.  Now Elias’ position has worsened after a report out of Congress that he was present in an interview when campaign chairman John Podesta denied any campaign role in the funding or acquisition of the dossier.

Here is the nut of the report:
“Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources. Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.”
If this and the earlier report is true, Elias not only falsely denied any connection between the Clinton campaign and the dossier to two New York Times reporters but sat silently as Podesta gave false information to congressional investigators.

 

Do the Russians have the Voting Machines Source Codes?

On February 28th, the Senate asks what NSA and Cyber Command are doing about Russian election interference. Admiral Rogers’s answer, in brief, is that his organizations lack the authorities to do much (that he can openly discuss, that is).

US senator grills CEO over the myth of the hacker-proof voting machine
Nation’s biggest voting machine maker reportedly relies on remote-access software.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two Democratic senators on Wednesday asked major vendors of U.S. voting equipment whether they have allowed Russian entities to scrutinize their software, saying the practice could allow Moscow to hack into American elections infrastructure.

The letter from Senators Amy Klobuchar and Jeanne Shaheen followed a series of Reuters reports saying that several major global technology providers have allowed Russian authorities to hunt for vulnerabilities in software deeply embedded across the U.S. government.

The senators requested that the three largest election equipment vendors – Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart Intercivic – answer whether they have shared source code, or inner workings, or other sensitive data about their technology with any Russian entity.

They also asked whether any software on those companies’ products had been shared with Russia and for the vendors to explain what steps they have taken to improve the security of those products against cyber threats to the election.

The vendors could not immediately be reached for comment. It was not immediately clear whether any of the vendors had made sales in Russia, where votes are submitted via written ballots and usually counted by hand.

“According to voting machine testing and certification from the Election Assistance Commission, most voting machines contain software from firms which were alleged to have shared their source code with Russian entities,” the senators wrote. “We are deeply concerned that such reviews may have presented an opportunity for Russian intelligence agents looking to attack or hack the United States’ elections infrastructure.”

U.S. voters in November will go to the polls in midterm elections, which American intelligence officials have warned could be targeted by Russia or others seeking to disrupt the process.

There is intense scrutiny of the security of U.S. election systems after a 2016 presidential race in which Russia interfered, according to American intelligence agencies, to try to help Donald Trump win with presidency. Trump in the past has been publicly skeptical about Russian election meddling, and Russia has denied the allegations.

Twenty-one states experienced probing of their systems by Russian hackers during the 2016 election, according to U.S. officials.

Though a small number of networks were compromised, voting machines were not directly affected and there remains no evidence any vote was altered, according to U.S. officials and security experts.

Related reading:

Top intel official says US hasn’t deterred Russian meddling (Fifth Domain) “I believe that President (Vladimir) Putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there’s little price to pay and that therefore, ‘I can continue this activity,‘” Adm. Mike Rogers, director of both the U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, told Congress.

Senators: Cyber Command should disrupt Russian influence campaigns (Fifth Domain) Senators pressed Cyber Command on how they can use their national mission force to combat Russian cyber intrusions.

Rogers: CyberCom lacks authority, resources to defend all of cyberspace (FCW) The outgoing NSA and U.S. Cyber Command chief told lawmakers CyberCom is not sitting on its hands when it comes to potential Russian cyber interference, but it lacks the authority to do more absent additional presidential direction.

NSA: Trump’s Lukewarm Response on Russia Will Embolden Putin (Infosecurity Magazine) NSA: Trump’s Lukewarm Response on Russia Will Embolden Putin. Expect more election interference, Cyber Command boss warns

Decoding NSA director Mike Rogers’ comments on countering Russian cyberattacks (Washington Examiner) It’s not as simple as ‘I’m not authorized to do anything.’

*** Footnotes:

Electronic Systems and Software:

1. In 2014, ES&S claimed that “in the past decade alone,” it had installed more than 260,000 voting systems, more than 15,000 electronic poll books, provided services to more than 75,000 elections. The company has installed statewide voting systems in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. ES&S claims a U.S. market share of more than 60 percent in customer voting system installations.

The company maintains 10 facilities in the United States, two field offices in Canada (Pickering, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia) and a warehouse in Jackson, Mississippi.

2. Dominion Voting Systems is a global provider of end-to-end election tabulation solutions and services. The company’s international headquarters are in Toronto, Canada, and its U.S. headquarters are in Denver, Colorado. Dominion Voting also maintains a number of additional offices and facilities in the U.S. and Europe.

Dominion’s technology is currently used in 33 U.S. states, including more than 2,000 customer jurisdictions. The company also has 100+ municipal customers in Canada.

3. Hart InterCivic Inc. is a privately held United States company that provides elections, and print solutions to jurisdictions nationwide. While headquartered in Austin, Texas, Hart products are used by hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide, including counties in Texas, the entire states of Hawaii and Oklahoma, half of Washington and Colorado, and certain counties in Ohio, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Hart entered the elections industry in 1912, printing ballots for Texas counties. (Side note: As Republican and Democratic state legislators hustle to pass a law moving Georgia toward paper ballot voting technology, election integrity advocates said they’re concerned a bill that already cleared the state Senate could lead to a new vulnerability in Georgia’s next voting system, if it becomes law.

One way a new system might work is through a touchscreen computer similar to those currently used in Georgia. It would print a paper ballot with a visual representation of a voter’s choices so they themselves can check for accuracy.

In some systems, counting the votes means scanning an entire image of the ballot that may include a timestamp and precinct information.

In other systems, barcodes or QR codes on a ballot would correspond with the voter’s choices, which can make counting easier and faster for election officials, said Peter Lichtenheld, vice president of operations with Hart Intercivic, one of several election technology companies that hired lobbyists at the statehouse this year.)

*** The text of the letter to the three vendors is below:

The full text of the senators’ letter is below:

Dear Mr. Braithwaite, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Poulos:

Recent reports of U.S. IT and software companies submitting to source code reviews in order to access foreign markets have raised concern in Congress given the sensitivity of the information requested by countries like China and the Russian Federation. As such, we write to inquire about the security of the voting machines you manufacture and whether your company has been asked to share the source code or other sensitive or proprietary details associated with your voting machines with the Russian Federation.

The U.S. intelligence community has confirmed that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential elections. As a part of a multi-pronged effort, Russian actors attempted to hack a U.S. voting software company and at least 21 states’ election systems. According to the Chicago Board of Elections, information on thousands of American voters was exposed after an attack on their voter registration system.

Foreign access to critical source code information and sensitive data continues to be an often overlooked vulnerability. The U.S. government and Congress have recently taken steps to address some cyber vulnerabilities, including by banning the use Kaspersky Lab, a Moscow-based cybersecurity firm that has maintained a relationship with Russia’s military and intelligence sectors, from all U.S. government computers. Now, we must also ensure the security of our voting machines and associated software.

Recent reports indicate that U.S. based firms operating on U.S. government platforms gave Russian authorities access to their software. In order to sell their software within Russia, these companies allowed Russian authorities to review their source code for flaws that could be exploited. While some companies maintain this practice is necessary to find defects in software code, experts have warned that it could jeopardize the security of U.S. government computers if these reviews are conducted by hostile actors or nations. U.S. tech companies, the Pentagon, former U.S. security officials, and a former U.S. Department of Commerce official with knowledge of the source code review process have expressed concerns with this practice.

In addition, Russia’s requests for source code reviews have increased. According to eight current and former U.S. officials, four company executives, three U.S. trade attorneys, and Russian regulatory documents, between 1996 and 2013 Russia conducted reviews for 13 technology products from Western companies, but has conducted 28 such reviews in the past three years alone.

As the three largest election equipment vendors, your companies provide voting machines and software used by ninety-two percent of the eligible voting population in the U.S. According to voting machine testing and certification from the Election Assistance Commission, most voting machines contain software from firms which were alleged to have shared their source code with Russian entities. We are deeply concerned that such reviews may have presented an opportunity for Russian intelligence agents looking to attack or hack the United States’ elections infrastructure.  Further, if such vulnerabilities are not quickly examined and mitigated, future elections will also remain vulnerable to attack.

In order to help the security and integrity of our systems and to understand the scope of any potential access points into our elections infrastructure, we respectfully request answers to the following questions:

  1. Have you shared your source code or any other sensitive data related to your voting machines or other products with any Russian entity?
  2. To your knowledge, has any of the software that runs on your products been shared with any Russian entity?
  3. What steps have you taken or will you take in order to upgrade existing technologies in light of the increased threat against our elections?

The 2018 election season is upon us. Primaries have already begun and time is of the essence to ensure any security vulnerabilities are addressed before 2018 and 2020.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with you to secure our elections.

Sincerely,