She Won. Or Did She? Analysis of New Viral "CIA Whistleblower" Revelations

Did NSA 'authorize' a forensic audit that found Harris won?

Author's note: I really tried to lie low on this one, but my inbox is flooded with people asking what I think, and it seems to have gone viral not just on Substack but all over Reddit and X. So here’s my take on it.

A new post from This Will Hold has gone viral, claiming that an ex-CIA whistleblower, Adam Zarnowski, participated in an "NSA-authorized" forensic audit of the 2024 election—and that the audit found Kamala Harris and Tim Walz actually won in a landslide. I am on record as saying that I appreciate the work being done by This Will Hold and, especially, Smart Elections and Election Truth Alliance as they focus on possible election irregularities and push for more secure elections in the future, so I approached this with an open mind, appreciative of the prior efforts to shine a light on this topic. Here is my assessment. At the end, I will also link to several other assessments I believe are on target.

Breaking Down the Claims

The post essentially contains two intertwined sets of claims:

1. That a former CIA operative was involved in a secret, suppressed "NSA-authorized audit" of the 2024 election that found Harris/Walz the true winners.

2. That recent changes to voting machine software (specifically ES&S’s ECO 1188 update) created dangerous backdoor vulnerabilities that could be exploited to alter vote totals without detection—and that ES&S is cozy with republican elites, making it more likely something foul happened.

I’m going to take these in reverse order, for reasons that may become apparent. Let’s start with the voting machine claims.

The Electronic Vote Manipulation Allegations

This portion of the post largely repackages prior reporting from This Will Hold and other sources on the vulnerabilities in ES&S systems, including the ECO 1188 update that allegedly moved a key config file outside the cryptographic hash check.

That said, they do deserve credit for adding greater specificity and technical clarity than in previous iterations. Here's a breakdown of the key claims, what’s new, and how credible each appears:

Claim 1: ECO 1188 introduced a vulnerability by moving config.ini from the static to the dynamic hash list

• What it means: Cryptographic hash lists are meant to flag unauthorized changes. By reclassifying config.ini as a "dynamic" file, changes to it would no longer trigger a warning. This file controls how vote totals are formatted and reported.

• What's new here: This is the most detailed public explanation yet of the specific functional impact of ECO 1188. Prior reports noted the existence of the change, but didn’t make as clear the implications for vote tabulation and report generation.

• Credibility: The existence of ECO 1188 and its reclassification of the file is real and documented by the EAC. The specific interpretation—that this allows for undetected tampering—is speculative, but not implausible. It remains a theoretical vulnerability, not proof of exploitation.

Verdict: Technically valid concern, well-explained, and deserving of attention.

Claim 2: The EAC and testing labs rubber-stamped the change with minimal scrutiny

• What it means: The post alleges that both the Voting System Test Laboratory (Pro V&V) and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) approved the ECO 1188 update without adequate review, treating it as a minor change ("de minimis").

• What's new: This post links that approval to specific individuals and past controversies (e.g., Pro V&V founder Jack Cobb's prior role at CIBER, a lab previously decertified for unethical behavior). It also cites the EAC’s alleged uploading of a falsified accreditation letter.

• Credibility: The oversight failures described have a factual basis. Pro V&V did continue certifying systems during an accreditation lapse from 2017 to 2021. The claim about a falsified accreditation letter is serious but unproven in court.

Verdict: Partially substantiated history of poor oversight; the core concern is valid even if some surrounding claims remain speculative.

Claim 3: ES&S has a long and checkered history of technical failures and questionable practices

• What it means: The post provides a timeline of ES&S's history, from its origins through a series of missteps, including unauthorized software installations (California 2007), malfunctioning scanners (New York 2009), and cellular modem controversies (2018–2020).

• What's new: The timeline is one of the more coherent and detailed presentations of ES&S’s corporate trajectory and regulatory run-ins. It contextualizes why trust in this vendor is a legitimate issue.

• Credibility: These events are all publicly documented and were reported by mainstream news outlets and state audits.

Verdict: Credible and informative. This historical framing is a strength of the post.

Claim 4: The U.S. voting infrastructure is dominated by a small vendor circle with overlapping personnel, supply chains, and weak oversight

• What it means: The post argues that even if one vendor fails, jurisdictions often move laterally to another vendor within the same ecosystem, with the same testing labs and supply chains.

• What's new: The degree of emphasis on the shared infrastructure (e.g., Pro V&V certifying both ES&S and Dominion; common use of Eaton/Tripp Lite hardware) is laid out more plainly than in most mainstream coverage.

• Credibility: Verified Voting and other watchdogs have long echoed these concerns. The critique of concentrated vendor power is well-supported.

Verdict: Sound and useful synthesis of systemic concerns.

Bottom Line on These Claims

This section of the post doesn’t contain a smoking gun, but it does present a technically literate and well-sourced critique of the ecosystem surrounding ES&S. It highlights genuine vulnerabilities, oversight lapses, and structural risks.

Where it stops short—and where readers must be cautious—is in leaping from those vulnerabilities to conclusions about actual vote tampering in 2024. No such proof is offered.

Still, this section is stronger than typical viral election content and deserves credit for adding detail, nuance, and new public attention to critical but under-reported technical issues.

About the CIA Whistleblower Allegations

Obviously, what made this post go viral wasn’t the rehash of voting machine concerns. It was the explosive claim from an alleged former CIA officer who says he was involved in an “NSA-authorized” forensic audit that proved Trump lost.

Let’s start by quoting the most important part directly from the post:

“In December 2024, I was personally involved in an NSA-authorized forensic audit of the 2024 election. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz won—by a wide margin. Trump lost dramatically. There are multiple layers of complexity to this cover-up, including transnational organized crime syndicates that extend far beyond the United States and our elections. To that point, I work in the human trafficking sector, which intersects with the stolen election(s) and has ties to Trump and Epstein—not to President Biden, Vice President Harris, or Governor Walz, but to the Democrats and other allied interests responsible for burying the audit.”

There’s a lot there: For example “NSA-authorized” could mean a number of things; “multiple layers of complexity to the cover up”; “transnational organized crime”….”human trafficking…intersects with stolen elections…..ties to Trump and Epstein…..[and] to the Democrats and other allied interests.” To link all of that together in one paragraph is … well, it’s a lot. It triggers “conspiracy theory” alarm bells but I intentionally suppressed those alarms and tried to analyze this with an open mind.

Let’s take an open-minded approach and examine this in three parts:

a. Could the NSA authorize or conduct an election audit?

There is no obvious path for NSA to become involved in a US election audit. US Election tabulation is de-centralized and the states control it. At the federal level there is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) who would investigate long before NSA. But, at least in theory, the NSA could become involved in U.S. elections if there were credible evidence of foreign interference or cyber intrusion from abroad. In such cases, the NSA might conduct foreign signals intelligence operations or coordinate with CISA, the FBI, or the Department of Homeland Security. But that is very different from conducting or authorizing a domestic election audit, which is what the claim here is. So this is a very “out there” claim and there is no public record, policy precedent, or legal mandate authorizing the NSA to conduct or commission a full forensic audit of a U.S. election result. That authority rests with state election officials, with technical and advisory support from CISA or the EAC.

Conclusion: While it's not completely impossible to come up with a scenario where the NSA could play a background technical role under national security auspices, the idea of the agency “authorizing a forensic audit” in the way the post describes is outside its statutory lane and the TWH post, as written, does not present any credible supporting evidence. Zarnowski just makes the statement, unchallenged, and without providing supporting details or anything that could help a reasonably open-minded but “show me the evidence” type analyst to become convinced it’s true.

b. Could a CIA or ex-CIA paramilitary officer be involved in such an audit?

Paramilitary officers in the CIA are part of the agency’s Directorate of Operations. Their training and function is in covert action and military-style operations, not digital forensics, election systems, or audit procedures. They operate primarily overseas, not domestically. Even if the NSA had conducted an audit, there’s no logical reason for a CIA paramilitary officer—especially one no longer in service—to be part of it—unless his being part of it was unrelated to his past history as a CIA officer.

Conclusion: It is difficult to conceive of a plausible pathway that puts a former CIA paramilitary officer at the center of an NSA-run forensic audit of U.S. elections — unless his CIA background is purely coincidental and not directly relevant to his role in the alleged forensic audit.

c. Who is Adam Zarnowski?

According to the post, Adam Zarnowski is the source of these claims. A search reveals that he is the self-published author of a book titled Jörmungandr, available on Barnes & Noble, about human trafficking.

Regarding his CIA background, there is no publicly verifiable evidence that he worked for CIA, but that in itself would not preclude the possibility he did, in fact, work undercover for CIA. In his LinkedIn profile he idenfies himself as follows: “Abolitionist / Tertia optio / Author: Jӧrmungandr: A Study in Global Human Trafficking and Abolitionist Strategy”. He then goes on to say: “I use my background in intelligence, psychology, and social work to protect and aid vulnerable populations. In full disclosure, most of my work is not a matter of public record. I am more than happy to consult for both organizations and private individuals. I am additionally very interested in pro-democracy efforts and initiatives at home and abroad, as well as consciousness studies.”

No mention of CIA, and then he provides a work history with 17 jobs, none of which mention CIA. Most of the work he cites took place in Kentucky, Ohio, and San Angelo Texas. He does cite a period of three years doing volunteer work in Falls Church, Virginia, which is in greater Washington DC. (Comment: If someone works undercover for CIA and then resigns or retires, they would typically do so under cover and whatever cover job they had would remain in their resume until/unless they receive approval to convert to “overt” status, whereupon they could claim CIA employment and list it in their resume. In this case, he appears to be claiming overt status when citing his relationship to the NSA audit, but not claiming overt status in his resume. That’s not conclusive of anything, and could just be an oversight, but typically a former CIA officer who publicly claims that status has permission to do so and his resume reflects the CIA service.)

Of perhaps more interest is this, from his linked in, where he promotes another book he has written:

Hello, my name is Adam Zarnowski. I used to work for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). I am a #whistleblower. We need to talk. This is the beginning of the longest, saddest, and most unsatisfying I-told-you-so in all of history.#Journalists, pay attention. There’s a huge story here.

Would you like to know about the NSA forensic audit of the #2024election? How about the finer mechanics of #HavanaSyndrome and how it connects to #Covid? Are you curious about the existence of #eugenics based #bioweapons, or the#AI coordinating hashtag#Russian missile strikes in hashtag#Ukraine? Do you have questions about Jeffrey #Epstein’s network, or what we were really doing in #Afghanistan? What about #spacelasers,” the identity of the man who personally gave the order to attack the consulate in#Benghazi in 2012, and how it all relates to #humantrafficking in the #UnitedStates and #genocide occurring around the world?

Do you want details on the coming redux of #OperationGladio planned on American soil? The making of that whole #MiddleEast thing we’ve been enduring? The origins of the Trump regime’s #massdeportation plot, and how it was tested during the hashtag#AfghanEvac? How #transgender and#LGBTQIA were targeted in America to normalize the widespread violence, war, and genocide both at home and abroad that we’re experiencing? How about the #Russian and Isra*li #OrganizedCrime alliance and how it connects to #ICE? The real story behind how we got #BinLaden’s phone number?

If any of the above interests you, then there’s a book you should read. And the best part? It’s all free: with extensive citations in APA format. Buckle up and get a strong drink, because this is going to suck for all of us.

I leave it to readers to draw whatever conclusions you might wish to, based on that self-produced presentation by Mr. Zarnowski.

None of the foregoing conclusively proves or disproves anything about his possible prior employment with CIA. Simpy put, there is no publicly verifiable evidence that he ever worked for the CIA but this would not exclude the possibility that he did. Zarnowski presumably could provide some documentation, independent verification, or corroborating witnesses to confirm either his CIA background or his involvement in any audit. To date, he hasn’t done that. His claims rest solely on personal testimony presented in a single Substack post. He could easily clarify and provide confirmatory evidence if he wishes to.

Bottom Line on the Whistleblower Allegations

I approached this section with an open mind. I considered whether such an audit could conceivably occur, whether someone like Zarnowski could be part of it, and whether his claims are verifiable.

After going through each of these questions carefully, the conclusion is that this part of the post lacks the kind of details and supporting documentation it would need to offer in order for it to be considered credible. If such details and supporting documentation exist, it is puzzling why none of it was offered in the original post, but in any event I would urge that it be offered subsequently, given the viral reaction.

Bottom line, though, is that as of now there is no verifiable evidence of an NSA audit. There is no credible reason presented that would explain why Zarnowski was involved in one. And there is no documented connection between him and the CIA. In sum, this part of the post is a highly speculative and unsupported personal claim that should not be mistaken for fact until or unless credible substantiation is offered.

I mentioned I would link to some other assessments:
Erik Vreland: Did NSA Audit the 2024 Election? Did she win?

Quadzilla: CIA Whistleblower