Center for Internet (In)Security

Once upon a time...

There was a startup tech company that set out to build an actual secure, censorship free platform for content creation, distribution and monetization.

They were doing some really amazing things.

Then BigTech targeted them... Biggly...

Total digital deplatforming across everything...

They were BLACKLISTED by BigTech and by the Center for Internet Security.

The coordinated efforts of Mark Zuckerberg, Cheryl Sandberg, Jack Dorsey, George Soros, David Brock, Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others…

They were called Russian Collusion, Russian Bots, Click Bait Farms, Election Interference Operations, Mis/Dis Information, and Inauthentic Activity…

It was a digital assassination / mass murder event…

They (the Open Society Operatives) said it was necessary to secure “Critical Infrastructure”

This shadowy non-profit was key in online censorship and key in rigging American elections via cyber security vulnerabilities.

SOON TO BE NAMED CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS

All part of the treasonous election corruption cartel coup.

Let's look at one of the players..

A DEEP STATE - DOMESTIC ENEMY OF THE CONSTITUTION

2005–2018: Board of Directors, Center for Internet Security (CIS), a nonprofit providing cybersecurity benchmarks. Served as Chairman (2009–2018).

Obama-Biden Transition Team (2008–2009): Served on the team reviewing IT for the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community. He led analyses of defense IT acquisition processes and Air Force cyber strategies, advising incoming President Barack Obama (44th President) on reforms to enhance efficiency and security.

Gilligan has testified before Congress on cybersecurity (e.g., 2018 Senate hearing on election integrity, 2020 House hearing on secure elections) and contributed to policy discussions. (Is it a crime to give false testimony before Congress?) Perhaps, we can get a professional legal opinion on this from Pam Bondi and Kash Patel.

October 2018–Present: President and Chief Executive Officer, CIS. Under his leadership, CIS expanded election security initiatives (e.g., post-2016 election protections) and developed resources like the Elections Infrastructure Security Handbook.

As of 2025, CIS remains a key player in multi-state cybersecurity, partnering with CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency).

Ever hear about the

Albert Sensors?

Albert Sensors Played A Role In The Theft of Our Elections

Where does The Center For Internet Security obtain it's funding from?

FRAUD PAYS VERY VERY WELL...

On August 4, 2020, Gilligan testified before the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Innovation in a virtual hearing titled "Secure, Safe, and Auditable: Protecting the Integrity of the 2020 Elections." This session, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, focused on securing mail-in voting, voter registration databases, and countering disinformation while addressing expanded voting access. Witnesses included officials from CISA and the EAC; Gilligan represented CIS and EI-ISAC. The hearing built on 2016-2018 lessons, stressing federal support for state-led elections.

Key Points from Gilligan's Written Testimony:

• Introduction and Context: Gilligan opened by affirming elections' role in democracy and noting the U.S.'s decentralized system (8,000+ jurisdictions). He contrasted 2016's "breadth and depth" of threats (e.g., Russian probing) with progress since, crediting DHS's 2017 critical infrastructure designation for elections. The pandemic added challenges like remote administration and mail ballots, increasing cyber exposure.

• CIS and EI-ISAC Roles: He detailed MS-ISAC's support for SLTT governments (nearly 10,000 members) and EI-ISAC's election-specific functions (over 2,600 members). EI-ISAC delivers threat intelligence, incident response, and tools like Albert sensors (deployed at all state election offices and 270 local ones), endpoint detection (thousands of sensors), and malicious domain blocking. Since 2018, these have detected and mitigated threats, including phishing and ransomware attempts.

• Progress Since 2016: Improvements include enhanced awareness (via webinars, exercises, and courses reaching thousands), better collaboration (with CISA, NASS, NASED, EAC), and technical upgrades (e.g., two-factor authentication, firewalls, virtualization).

Gilligan stated 2020 elections are "more secure" than 2016 or 2018, with no evidence of successful vote-tampering.

• Pandemic-Specific Challenges: Increased mail voting raised risks to tracking systems and disinformation; Gilligan advocated for secure ballot processing and public education.

• Best Practices and Resources: CIS provides free tools like the Elections Infrastructure Security Handbook and guides for governors/legislators on cyber governance. Benchmarks secure common election software (e.g., voter databases).

His Three Recommendations:

1. Sustain federal funding for EI-ISAC and SLTT cyber tools to address resource gaps.

2. Promote innovation in secure voting tech (e.g., end-to-end verifiable systems) while avoiding untested online voting.

3. Combat misinformation through media literacy and a proposed reporting portal for officials.

It is a federal crime to give false testimony before Congress or the Senate?

This falls under two primary statutes in Title 18 of the U.S. Code:

Perjury: (18 U.S.C. § 1621): If the testimony is given under oath (which is common in congressional hearings, where witnesses are typically sworn in before testifying), knowingly making a false material statement constitutes perjury. This applies to proceedings before Congress, the Senate, or any federal tribunal. Penalties can include up to five years in prison and fines.

False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001): Even if not under oath, knowingly and willfully making a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the U.S. government is illegal. This broadly covers submissions or statements to Congress, including unsworn testimony or written materials. It also carries penalties of up to five years in prison and fines.

Which Potential Federal Crimes Are Involved in Misusing Government Grant Funds by a Non-Profit CEO?

Misusing federal grant funds—particularly by intentionally failing to comply with grant terms and actively pursuing objectives contrary to the grant's purpose—can constitute serious federal crimes. This scenario typically involves fraud, theft, or false representations to the government, as federal grants are awarded based on assurances of proper use for specified purposes (e.g., under the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200). Non-profits receiving over $1 million in such funds are subject to strict oversight by agencies like the Office of Inspector General (OIG), which can lead to investigations by the FBI or Department of Justice (DOJ).

The exact charges depend on specifics like the grant's source (e.g., DHS, EAC, or CISA), the nature of the misuse (e.g., diversion of funds, false reporting), and evidence of intent (e.g., knowledge of terms and deliberate opposition). Below, I outline the most relevant federal criminal statutes, based on common prosecutions in similar cases.

These are drawn from U.S. Code Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) and related enforcement actions. Penalties can include imprisonment, fines (often up to $250,000 per count for individuals), restitution, and forfeiture. Civil remedies (e.g., under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) may also apply but are not criminal.

1. Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds (18 U.S.C. § 666)

Description: This is one of the primary statutes for grant misuse. It criminalizes the intentional misapplication or theft of federal funds by agents of any organization (including non-profits) that receives $10,000 or more in federal benefits annually.

Specifically:

• Knowingly converting grant funds (valued at $5,000 or more) to unauthorized uses, such as personal benefit or purposes opposing the grant's objectives.

• Intending to defraud the organization or the federal program by diverting funds.

• Accepting bribes or gratuities in connection with the funds.

Application to Scenario: If the CEO directs the non-profit to use funds for activities contrary to the grant (e.g., a cybersecurity grant funding actions that undermine security), this could be "conversion" or fraud on the federal program. The $1M+ threshold far exceeds the $10,000 applicability limit, and intent is key—evidence like internal communications showing deliberate non-compliance would support charges.

Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment, fines, and restitution. In cases involving over $1M, sentences can reach 10 years or more if combined with enhancements.

Examples: Prosecutions often involve OIG investigations leading to DOJ charges, such as a non-profit CEO sentenced to 18 years for funneling millions in health grant funds to private companies.

2. Wire Fraud or Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343)

Description: Wire fraud covers schemes to defraud using electronic communications (e.g., emails, wires for fund transfers); mail fraud involves U.S. mail or interstate carriers. Both prohibit executing a scheme to deprive the government or others of money/property through false pretenses.

Application to Scenario: Submitting grant applications, progress reports, or reimbursement requests that falsely claim compliance—while internally pursuing opposite goals—constitutes a fraudulent scheme. For grants over $1M, this often involves interstate wires (e.g., electronic fund transfers from federal agencies). "Honest services" wire fraud (under § 1346) could apply if the CEO breaches fiduciary duties to the non-profit or donors.

Penalties: Up to 20 years imprisonment (30 years if affecting a financial institution); fines up to $1M. Aggravated cases (e.g., over $1M loss) trigger higher penalties.

Examples: A non-profit founder and CEO was charged with wire fraud conspiracy for misusing grants in a bribery scheme.

3. False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims (18 U.S.C. § 287)

Description: Criminalizes knowingly presenting false claims for payment or approval to the U.S. government.

Application to Scenario: If the non-profit submits invoices, reports, or certifications attesting to proper use of funds while violating terms (e.g., claiming progress toward grant goals but working against them), this triggers the statute. It's often charged alongside the civil False Claims Act for grant fraud.

Penalties: Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

Examples: Used in grant fraud cases where non-profits overstate compliance to secure continued funding, as seen in OIG summaries of misapplied federal funds.

4. Theft of Government Property or Embezzlement (18 U.S.C. § 641)

Description: Prohibits embezzling, stealing, or knowingly converting U.S. property (including grant funds) to one's own use or another's, with intent to defraud.

Application to Scenario: Grant funds are "government property" until expended per terms. Diverting them to opposite purposes (e.g., funding adversarial activities) qualifies as conversion, especially if over $1M is involved.

Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment if value exceeds $1,000 (which it does here); fines and restitution.

Examples: Applied in cases of non-profit executives embezzling grant money for personal uses like weddings or crypto investments.

5. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)

Description: Criminalizes conspiring with others to defraud the U.S. or violate federal laws, even without overt acts beyond the agreement.

Application to Scenario: If the CEO collaborates with staff, board members, or external parties to misuse funds (e.g., falsifying records to hide non-compliance), this applies. It's a common "umbrella" charge in grant fraud schemes.

Penalties: Up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000.

6. Major Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1031)

Description: Targets fraud in government contracts or grants exceeding $1 million, including schemes to obtain funds through false representations.

Application to Scenario: Directly applicable if the total grant value is over $1M and involves intentional deception about intended use. The "opposite objective" element strengthens proof of fraudulent intent.

Penalties: Up to 10 years imprisonment (or more for defense-related grants); fines up to $1M or twice the gain/loss.

False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001): If the CEO lies in grant-related communications (e.g., certifications of compliance), this adds charges (up to 5 years). It's often a predicate for other fraud counts.

Tax-Related Crimes (26 U.S.C. § 7201 et seq.): Misusing tax-exempt funds could lead to evasion charges if personal benefits are involved, as in cases where CEOs used grants for personal taxes or luxuries.

Bank Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1344) or Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A): If funds are routed through banks fraudulently or identities are misused in transactions.

Enforcement Process: Investigations start with the granting agency's OIG (e.g., DHS-OIG for grants), often leading to FBI involvement. Prosecutions require proof of knowledge and intent, not just negligence. Non-profits must report misuse under grant terms, but CEO concealment can escalate charges.

In summary, the core crimes revolve around fraud and theft statutes like §§ 666, 1343, and 287, with potential for multi-count indictments resulting in decades of prison time. Real-world cases show sentences from 2–18 years for similar misuses.

The Center for Internet Security via Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS- ISAC) .

The 2023 agreement provided not less than $43,000,000 to be awarded to the MS- ISAC to sustain and continue to expand and invest in the program's capabilities and expertise, to include:

(1) SL TT election security support via the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center;

(2) mis- and disinformation mitigation capabilities; (CENSORSHIP ONLINE)

(3) enhanced support and additional licenses for Endpoint Detection and Response;

( 4) expanded malicious domain activity blocking and reporting services;

(5) expansion of the MS- ISAC cyber incident response team and its capabilities;

(6) additional Albert sensors; (ELECTION FRAUD DIRECT CONNECTIONS)

They have no ethics...

Someone should pass this along to DHS, FBI, DOJ...

America needs prosecutions...

Tell us what your thoughts are below in the comments…