So i want to emphasize the difference between election interference and influence, so we know the election infrastructure was secure from interference, i want to turn to the issue of foreign influence campaigns. In your view does adversary proceeding the false succession that it was fraudulent, and can you explain how domestic actors amplify foreign disinformation campaigns and how that undermines confidence in our democratic process . So i think what we saw, i believe october 22nd, we did see some iranian efforts. Ive talked about this before where there were some emails that popped up on that day claiming to be reportedly from at least the proud boys that were talking about specifically to democratic voters it said, you need to change your registration to vote for President Trump, if you dont, we will find you and take care of business, i guess. The issue is the ballot secrecy, so we identify that issue and isolates it and put up a rumor control debunker, and you know, in the meantime in the ensuing 27 hours we overturned that that was in fact an iranian operation, and i think what was one of the true Success Stories of the protect 202020 effort in defending democracy this time around was the fact that rather than four months. In 27 hours we went from detection to sharing that information with the american people. There is one element that does not get a lot of play is that prior to making that assessment, following up on my commitment to our partners in the state and local election community, we held a call with the Election Services and said, this is what we are seeing. You need to know this, and then we went to the public. Mr. Krebs, i just have about two and a half minutes left, so i would like to yield the rest of my time to you, because he did take an oath to uphold the constitution when you are sworn as director of cisa, so i want you to address anything that you feel we have not already asked and give you an opportunity to speak in the last two and a half minutes please. Thank you for that courtesy. Look, i could not be more proud of the my team at cisa for the work they did, not just protecting the 2020 election, but in getting through with the last nine months of all the stresses that covid placed on the workforce and coming to work each day whether they are sitting at home, out in the field, or the limited folks that came into the office. 2 is i firmly believe that to this protect 2020 effort, working with our partners in the federal government, whether it is the Intelligence Community or the department of defense was the single best representation of a unified government effort. Everybody got it. There were no turf wars. There is no everybody was on the same page, so we were defending democracy. To the last thing i will say is that the real heroes here are the state and local election workers out there throughout the country. The hundreds of thousands of election workers that risked their lives, and that is not a joke, right, there is a Global Pandemic, there is covid spreading across the country, they went to work so that you and i can go vote and cast our decision, contribute to this process. They had to deal with incredible adversity, and then at the end of it, risking their lives, they get Death Threats. For doing their jobs. For standing up and speaking truth to power in putting country over party. Thats got to end. We are going to have to move past this somehow, and you know, ive said before that democracy, yeah, we survived it, i think. It was Strong Enough to survive, but democracy is struggling. It requires commitment and involves both sides of the party, if they fail to participate in the process and instead undermine the process, we risk losing that democracy. We have to come back together for a country. Again, i thank you for being here. I think you to you and your team around the country for keeping us safe and working so hard in this past election. Thank you. Thank you, senator rosen, senator scott is not back yet, senator portman, are you on webex . Senator hawley, are you on web webex . I will try senator sinema . Well, then i will pick up the slack. I want to explore a little bit further and one access you did not have to verify. I value the paper backups, i value the controls, but they are only as good as they are actually used, and the only provide confidence to the extent that it is a transparent process, so just speak a little bit to what you had access to, what you did not have access to, what you were denied, and then go ahead. Thank you, mr. Chairman, the very sad fact is that we were denied access to almost anything meaningful that would allow us to verify can you be specific . Absolutely, senator. Lets talk about the paper backups on the electronic machines. We were denied any access to those except for her from one machine in the entire state of nevada. We were denied that access i wish i could have quoted mr. Krebs when we were fighting our discovery fight at in nevada saying how important it was to get access to these. We did not see any paper backups, and on top of that, the printers on the machine were malfunctioning at such a high rate. The paper backups were actually not giving us anything of use anyhow. So the paper backups that are supposed to provide such transparency, we cannot use them. We cannot see them, we cannot use they provided us zero transparency at all except for one machine and the entire state of nevada. Another example is the fact that we were denied any meaningful discovery in the case in order to go and examine the full extent of the voter fraud. For instance, we were even when we were able to subpoena the records that led us to discover the 4,000 noncitizens who voted, we could not put that into evidence, because we did not get them until the end of the discovery period and the court said at that point its too late. The discovery. Mack essentially three days. And we were denied any meaningful opportunity to even use in our case the information that we got. And the court did not consider those things, unfortunately. We were denied we try to understand the code of these machines to find out as the chairman pointed out, whether the machines were hooked up to the internet, whether any of that happen. To be able to do a forensic review. We brought Forensic Experts all the way to nevada. People that could have discovered the information, people that could have told us what happened with these machines, and we werent allowed any Forensic Audit of it, nothing that could have given us any transparency, because transparency is not political. Thats what we are talking about here, thats what we were denied in nevada is any attempt to actually find out what happened. Heres the troubling thing is one of the reasons that they said that we could not get transparency on the machines was because they were proprietary. The information was proprietary. But we are talking about the accountings of boats and they are not going to let us see the code for how they actually coded the vote . You have to pick one, it is either opensource an end we exactly know the way that these machines are counting the votes, or you have to go back to a verifiable system to make sure that the results that are being reported are the results that we get from actual voters, because that is where democracy breaks down. That is really the fear that we have of losing democracy is one it is not to the peoples votes that are being counted, but fraud that is being counted, and we cant just pretend that the emperor has any clothes, when he doesnt. We cant pretend that we have a clean election when there is evidence to the contrary. In the way that we get that is through transparency, and we were denied that in nevada at every single turn. We had a clerk who a register of voters who literally dodged our subpoenas. We had the holiday over thanksgiving in order to serve subpoenas and they lock the doors of the offices, locked himself in his house and he refused to accept a subpoena, that same register of voters, we have a whistleblower that says he was wearing a biden harris pin to instruct voters at sites. We have to make sure that it is nonpartisan and we make sure that there is transparency and you cant deny transparency at every turn. Mr. Krebs, really quick, mindful that all of the testimony is under oath, so what you heard from mr. Binnalls testimony under oath, does that trouble you . This is im all for paper backups and all for those controls, i think that if used it works. We have a system of advocacy in terms of a legal system, and advocate for one side and it is it is competitive system. But both sides have to have information, does that trouble you in transparency that mr. Binnall is testifying under oath . I think and commissioner palmers Opening Statement he talked about the certification process and the voting systems guides, the certifications that have been at the front level and the accuracy of these machines, the parallel testing during the election process, the sampling of Forensic Audits. We saw georgia do that with the number of their machines to make sure that it matched what they expected. I do think that, yes, we need to make sure that working with these vendors that we have the appropriate insight and transparency through the process certainly. I would i think we need to have a conversation on what the appropriate auditing process looks like. Ive seen some auditing that is not up to this snuff. But we are talking about paper backups, but also paper ballots. But he just said they did not have access to the ballots. All i am asking, does that trouble you that there was not that kind of transparency, or are you challenging his testimony . Oh, of course not. This system is we only have confidence if it is completely transparent and somebody who is challenging the results has access to the information, the paper ballot backup and can have their Forensic Experts look at the computer systems, and i was not afforded. Does that concern you . I think that there are multiple controls in place throughout the system, and if there is a Legal Mechanism at the back end that allows for independent thirdparty auditing thats the problem, the legal system did not allow for the transparency. You talk about all these controls upfront, but in the end, where there are affidavits signed and people are making charges, when you can look at the evidence to try it in court and your evidence is denied in court, you understand how that frustrates people and that is again the problem. Thats why there is such suspicions, because this was not in so many cases the transparent process. With that i will turn to senator scott. Thank you chairman johnson, i want to thank chairman johnson for taking the heat for hosting a hearing like this. I think it is the right thing to do to give people a feeling that our elections are free and fair and if this one wasnt, the next one will be. Two years ago i got elected, and won of Election Night by 54,000 votes, and Chuck Schumer sent to a lawyer down and basically said, i dont care what the votes are, we are going to win through the court and we went through unbelievable number of lawsuits, we had i think Something Like 1,000 lawyers working with us, we went through two recounts, and he did not care what the votes were, Chuck Schumers goal was to win and his lawyer was just a win to the voice. Did not let me come to orientation, and so when i watch the stuff now, i do not remember one democrat in this entire country who said, thats not right, you should not be doing it that way, they were all in on this. And nobody complained. So we have to figure out how to do this where people feel comfortable. I can tell you, i live in naples, florida, every time i go out, people come up to me and then are frustrated with the unfairness of the system. These are people that wanted trump to win, they think he lost unfairly, but they are mad, because they hear about what happened in wisconsin, they hear about what happens in other states, and then they and then they are furious that they think that the whole system is rigged. So one thing i did was in september, i put out a bill called the voter i. D. We do absentee ballots in florida, you have to be a registered voter, your signatures have to match, you have to get your vote in early. You have to get your vote in on time. Its your problem if you dont, not somebody elses. You dont get to vote after the fact, your vote does not come in after the fact and somebody counts it, although two years ago, the democrat lawyer tried to do that. And we know that we have done it on time, we did it this time. So it seems to me that if we want people to feel comfortable in this country, that these elections are fair, you have to show your i. D. You can be doing save day registration, because how can you know if somebody is legal, illegal, do they live in that state . How would you know . You have to let people be able to watch ballot screens open. We had two election supervisors that were removed because of what they did in my election. And they completely violate a law and found and tried to count 95,000 ballots after Election Night. Not in my favor, in the democrats favor. So judge stark, what do you think about the need to have local elections, because i think what mr. Krebs said is right, but one of the reasons we have a good system is because we do not have a national system, we have a local system, but should we have National Standards . Should you cant register on the same day vote, all of these things like we do in florida where you have to get your ballot early in all these things and by the way, youre supposed announce how many ballots you have that night. You should know. So what do you think about this idea that we have to have some National Standards but still have local elections . I think that National Standards need to be seriously considered in light of these occurring issues. We have anecdotes, one of my friends and academic leader in the commonwealth of virginia where he used to live, here is an anecdote, one of his students, a registered voter in vermont studying in virginia, and she receives appropriately an absentee ballot from vermont, but she receives four unsolicited ballots from the commonwealth of virginia where she happens to not be registered to vote, but she is studying. And everyone is hearing these anecdotes and saying, are there control mechanisms in place, so the issue with the centralization is you will continue to have these varieties unless and until there is some enormous reforms in state government, or in congress using its powers under article two, under article 1 in this particular instance, so we need to step in and have regulations to ensure integrity. And a signature requirement is one of the bases. I would like to say senator scott, you have to show i. D. If you want to check into a hotel or get through tsa security, so dont we want to have those kinds of safeguards just to ensure that yes, this is going to be an honest election . Which i think we are all asking. So, mr. Binnall, if we have done these things that would be enforced in your state, would people feel comfortable that there was a Fair Election . Senator scott, i think it would absolutely go miles to make sure that people were constant in the results of the election if we put in simple methods to make sure that people who vote are who they report to be, that one person only gets one vote, that the weight of the ballots are counted and leads to an accurate total, these things should not be partisan. To these things should be exactly what we do to protect our republic and make it so that people know that the results are accurate. Because otherwise you end up where we are today. Senator, one of the fascinating things about wisconsin is we have a long history of Real Transparency in our process, in our recount process and all of the processes. So it is particularly odd here, and several of the justices called what the democrats had done in the majority of the court, the Supreme Court as absurd and bizarre, and the reason they refer to it that way is because they say the issue here is what confidence do people have in the election process . So if thats what we hear, and i have been hearing that all day here. Confidence in the election process, well, why when everything is teed up, i mean, i am a former judge, my cocounsel is of former president state bar, we had teed up everything, absolutely, the names, the presses, you had exact records, and what the Biden Campaign did not want the court to do is to actually address the substantive question. That is beholden to the court. We wont address the substantive question. And the chief justice, i mean, a great frustration and the chief justice when she said four members of this court throw the cloak of latches over numerous proper providences that will be repeated again and again until this court has the courage to correct them. It was all democrat talking points. This is the same thing. I heard something about justice paretskys comment, it was just a talking point. And i guess the frustration that you hear from those of us who are serious and have taken a serious is that when we pose these matters took courts, we expect them to address them. When they dont, it undermines the integrity of our system, thats whats going on here. The frustration that you hear even in good democrat circles is if the courts dont address these, who is going to . Arent they the ultimate arbiters . There is no dispute that the election would have turned out differently in wisconsin if according to the allegations in the proofs the court accepted those, that the Election Results would be different, but instead of addressing the substantive claims, the Biden Campaign argues dont talk about them, dont address them. Thats why i think senator johnson when he first called and asked if i would talk, because if you dont inquire here in the senate, and as ken starr said a minute ago, if you dont do this inquiry, there really isnt going to be any analysis, and there isnt going to be an opportunity to get the very integrity that we all want. I mean, as i said as a former judge, and this is a serious matter to me, and nobody suggested at any point in the process with the allegations