Mike Lindell: 19 Cyber Attacks From China Flipped 5 States To Biden

They need to create a website and post the precise sources of all of the data. By precise, I mean actual links to the official sources or precise instructions on how to extract the data from official databases.

Does it occur to you that the problem is that our government will not make the data available in simple form? If you read the brief from the lawyer in MI, you would understand that simply getting the data is the issue. As Jovan Pulitzer notes, once the ballots get scanned by the machines it creates data, and that data is what determines the election. Thus, the ballots get hidden, lest anyone prove how the data got manipulated. The fact that they are hiding the ballots, and the resulting data, itself is evidence, from which a reasonable person can draw a conclusion of fraud. You missed the plot here.

Why do we pay millions of dollars for voting machines that take longer to count the ballots than traditional hand counts? Why is it that the ballots can't be seen or audited after the election to determine how well the machines worked?

The government is hiding the data, while demanding that people who want to see it prove their was fraud. Dr. Frank makes his case by using three data points, 1) county population (from the U.S. Census), 2) county voter registration, and 3) the county list of who voted in the 2020 election. It was then graphed by age, which shows a clear pattern that the registrations are at, or over 100% of the population. (Over 125% in Antrim County MI.) This created a near infinite “universe” of phantom voters to manipulate, and it was. The long delay counting the ballots in places like AZ was due to the algorithm being used to synthesize the election results.

“Why?” -do you ask? Its the entire Fed.gov complex...

The coup, (the real “insurrection” in DC) and the “impeachment” is because Donald Trump upended THE largest, multi-trillion dollar industry in America.

The selling of American Congressional Legislation. The primary industry in DC.

THE issue that binds Red and Blue together in the UniParty (R) and UniParty (D) is the issue of electoral fraud.Its why certain precincts have voted Red or Blue for over 100 years. Its the means by which Congress and K St lobbyists can guarantee “product delivery” to interests that pay enough.

Various “intelligence agencies” are the enforcement arm. Different ones (there are 17 of them after all!) support different “service lines”

Its mutually assured destruction if either side starts to betray the long-standing inter-generational process.

Whenever the issue starts to bubble too close to the surface we all start getting entertained with “pizza parties” and “SRA” issues/trafficking stories/illegal immigration/war in Europe or southeast Asia etc.-and other Red-Blue “trigger issues” intended to distract us-but these are only incidental to the business at hand-the selling of the votes and legislation of the most powerful legislative body in the world.

These “trigger issues” are intended to remove our eyes from what is going on right before our very eyes!

These “trigger issues” are the stick the Deep State uses to marshal the votes they need to deliver product.

The contemporary information-digital communications technology has the ability to put an end to all of this -which is why the “information war” on the American electorate. Why “us” versus “them” is finally crystallizing.

Its why they barricaded Capitol Hill, The White House and The Supreme Court. They now can’t quite yet believe that they’ve gotten away with it so easily under the cover of COVID

Correct. Without the raw data, a video showing what they have is incomplete. It’s almost as if they are afraid to release the data that they have.

They need to “show me the money” or it’s just more ‘jackassin’.

Does it occur to you that the problem is that our government will not make the data available in simple form?

Yes, it occurs to me. It would greatly help research into the election numbers if there was a standardized format in which all states would report their election data.

If you read the brief from the lawyer in MI, you would understand that simply getting the data is the issue.

I don't have the time or desire to read the brief from the lawyer in MI (which you failed to provide a link to). Yes, the availability of quality data is a widespread problem. But how can Lindell and his followers complain about that and fail to provide precise sources for his claims? At 8:03 into the video titled "Scientific Proof" at https://lindelltv.com/, Lindell's guest, Dr. Douglas Frank, states, "Everything here, anyone can do. You can download it and confirm". I attempted to do that and was unable. To my knowledge, neither Lindell nor Frank have posted links to the precise sources by which "anyone can confirm". I understand that it may not be possible to find all of the exact numbers due to states updating their sites. Still, Lindell and/or Frank should make a serious attempt to provide links to the sources or to archives of those sources or to explain why they are not able to do so. Like many people making claims on both sides of the aisles, they don't appear to be trying to convince serious researchers. They appear to be aiming their claims chiefly to people who will buy a good story, especially if it agrees with their existing beliefs.

Why do we pay millions of dollars for voting machines that take longer to count the ballots than traditional hand counts? Why is it that the ballots can't be seen or audited after the election to determine how well the machines worked?

With this, I agree. It may interest you to know that there are people on the other side who are arguing that the "red shift" in many of the Senate and Congressional races provide evidence of election fraud by Republicans. See the book "Code Red" discussed at this link. They are at least not claiming to have "absolute proof" and pushing to overturn those elections. One thing that this last election has made clear is that, lacking a full confession by Biden or Trump, there is nothing you can do after a federal election but recount the ballots. And you have to have a system that can do that before the election is declared final. The consensus of experts on both sides tends to be the use of hand-marked paper ballots (HMPBs) and risk limiting audits (RLAs). We can start by replacing the remaining digital-recording electronic machines (DREs) and ballot marking devices (BMDs) shown in the following map (generated at this link):

Polling Place Equipment in the United States, 2020

I don't have the time or desire to read the brief from the lawyer in MI (which you failed to provide a link to).

Actually, I did. I just forgot I posted them in a similar, but different thread!:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3949367/posts?page=52#52
The link for the court brief is here: https://www.depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/collective_response_to_motions_for_protective_order_040921.pdf
Frank's report is in Exhibit 4 here: https://www.depernolaw.com/uploads/2/7/0/2/27029178/ex_4.pdf

Yes, the availability of quality data is a widespread problem. But how can Lindell and his followers complain about that and fail to provide precise sources for his claims? At 8:03 into the video titled "Scientific Proof" at https://lindelltv.com/, Lindell's guest, Dr. Douglas Frank, states, "Everything here, anyone can do. You can download it and confirm". I attempted to do that and was unable. To my knowledge, neither Lindell nor Frank have posted links to the precise sources by which "anyone can confirm". I understand that it may not be possible to find all of the exact numbers due to states updating their sites. Still, Lindell and/or Frank should make a serious attempt to provide links to the sources or to archives of those sources or to explain why they are not able to do so. Like many people making claims on both sides of the aisles, they don't appear to be trying to convince serious researchers. They appear to be aiming their claims chiefly to people who will buy a good story, especially if it agrees with their existing beliefs.

From page 7 of the brief pdf (page 4 of the brief itself):
"The data is particularly challenging because in the fall of 2020, Michigan changed the way it reports data to the Qualified Voter File ("QVF") before, during, and after the election. Michigan presents data in the QVF in two files: 1) in a database of everyone registered to vote and 2) through a database of ballots received for the entire state. The files contain gigabytes of data because it is every citizen for every election. Interestingly, nothing is in order. The data is deliberately tangled up. Presumably, this is not an accident. The state intentionally makes it difficult for the average person access and uses the data. Most likely, our elected officials have never seen their own database. We challenge any elected official in Michigan, including all of the clerks, representative, senators, and even Defendant Benson to tell us that they have looked at the actual raw data. Rather, they pay to access the database through a third party application or program. They don't actually look at the real data. Indeed, you can't look at this in Excel. You need to be a programmer to pull out data. And it is a good strategy if you want to hide information. They charge for access. Then they mix it all up so that even if a person gets in they can't find data. It makes it muddy instead of transparent. For example, imagine the state took all the data from every election in paper form and put it in a gymnasium. Common sense would dictate that they put each year in a separate bin. But the state doesn't do that. They throw it all in a pile and then they mix it up. That is how the database looks."

Again, those running the election muddled up the data to avoid transparency, just as they did when they put the shield up on the windows so poll watchers couldn't see what happened in that room. From that a reasonable person can draw an inference that the fraud was intentional and systemic. Dr. Frank and Lindell's teams was able to sort through the data, but not everyone can do it themselves. It was a task requiring skills in database management. There was no Excel file.

***If the data is valid and they give the precise sources, they might get some serious researchers on their side. Otherwise, those researchers will ignore it, knowing that none of the data can be verified. If they have or do create such a website, please reply with a link to it***

Let me put your mind(s) at ease about Mike Lindell and proof. First, the second link is listed as the proof. There are other 'proofs' at the first link.

Second, your own mind should offer compelling proof. Our Constitutional Republic has been overthrown; isn't it obvious? A razor thin margin is changing the laws by executive order and appeasing the populace with continuing 'stimulus checks'. With a razor thin margin in both houses of Congress they are planning on adding two states and packing the Supreme Court.

The borders are becoming non-existent and at least a hundred thousand 'undocumented' immigrants are pouring in every month. Those non-citizens are being guaranteed financial support and voting rights. This travesty alone signals the end of our Republic.

By adding two states and packing the SCOTUS the Dems can freely do what they are slowly doing now: take complete and permanent control of the government.

Third, why would a businessman like Mike Lindell risk his business and everything to try to alert a public that is being lied to and put to sleep? Why does every major media outlet that tries to tell the story of the stolen election get sued by Dominion and its co-conspirators for billions of dollars? Even if truth is on their side it is obvious that our courts will no longer support reporting the truth.

If you believe that there is still no proof, when they take your children and your house and the dollar collapses so that a loaf of bread cost $100, perhaps then you will consider what Mike Lindell and others have been trying to report... of course then it will be far too late.

See you in the camps!

Smokin’ Sidney’s Kracken

Smokin’ Sidney’s Kracken

At her age, I am sure she must be flattered that you still think she looks smokin'. A younger woman might think that's sexist, but I think she is more a traditionalist.

Ha! Well, he’s smoking something: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3949753/posts

Again, those running the election muddled up the data to avoid transparency, just as they did when they put the shield up on the windows so poll watchers couldn't see what happened in that room. From that a reasonable person can draw an inference that the fraud was intentional and systemic.

And again, I think that you are jumping to conclusions. It may well be that those running the election have no motivation to make the data more accessible than legally required. But it may be simply that they do not want to deal with any problems turned up by people examining the database. In the same way, that may be why Lindell and Dr. Frank seem oddly hesitant to give links to any data that could verify their calculations. They may well believe their calculations but like anyone who has done serious data analysis, they know that they may have made a few mistakes, regardless of whether or not those mistakes seriously affect the results. Better to not provide the links and thereby have fewer nosy researchers double-checking your work and pointing out any errors. To keep governments from hiding their numbers, you need regulation. To keep private researchers from hiding their numbers, you should just treat them with great skepticism (or even ignore them) unless and until they provide their sources and/or work.

One way that Lindell and Dr. Frank seem to be jumping to conclusions is the unspoken assumption that any irregularity in the numbers must have been done by Democrats. The whole problem with insecure computer systems is that anyone could potentially have hacked the system. Even if a change favored a Democrat candidate, it could be a false flag operation. Either party which was able to hack the system could place irregularities into the database or election equipment and pretend to find it only if their candidate lost. The only solution is to make the system as transparent and secure as possible. That likely means removing computers and machines as much as possible from the election process.

I noticed that at the bottom of page 6 of the brief pdf (page 3 of the brief itself) states that the algorithm was implemented in at least Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Ohio and Florida, of course, went to Trump. Both Florida and Ohio show up on the following map that shows the so-called "red-shift" in all states that flipped from the 538 prediction to the final result and/or where either of those vote margins were within 3 percent.

Margin Vote Share from 538 to Actual Results Flipped or Within 3%, 2020

As you can see, they include the 6 states that Trump narrowly lost (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) but also ones that flipped to Trump (Florida and North Carolina) or that were projected to be close (Iowa, Ohio, and Texas). You can read more about this red shift at this link. This is why we need to have mandatory RLAs (risk-limiting audits) of all elections. Otherwise, you will tend to always have the loser demanding recounts in only those states that they narrowly lost.

And again, I think that you are jumping to conclusions. It may well be that those running the election have no motivation to make the data more accessible than legally required. But it may be simply that they do not want to deal with any problems turned up by people examining the database. In the same way, that may be why Lindell and Dr. Frank seem oddly hesitant to give links to any data that could verify their calculations. They may well believe their calculations but like anyone who has done serious data analysis, they know that they may have made a few mistakes, regardless of whether or not those mistakes seriously affect the results. Better to not provide the links and thereby have fewer nosy researchers double-checking your work and pointing out any errors. To keep governments from hiding their numbers, you need regulation. To keep private researchers from hiding their numbers, you should just treat them with great skepticism (or even ignore them) unless and until they provide their sources and/or work.

If you read what I quoted, they actually changed how the data was reported to hide it, and outsourced the state's access to its own data. That's not good government. People in the MI legislature should be demanding answers and passing laws to fix the transparency issues. Lindell and Dr. Frank aren't government officials. They have no obligations to make their research accessible. When it hits the courts, the counter experts will try to "debunk" what they wrote, their data, sources and methods, etc. It's how the system works.

One way that Lindell and Dr. Frank seem to be jumping to conclusions is the unspoken assumption that any irregularity in the numbers must have been done by Democrats. The whole problem with insecure computer systems is that anyone could potentially have hacked the system. Even if a change favored a Democrat candidate, it could be a false flag operation. Either party which was able to hack the system could place irregularities into the database or election equipment and pretend to find it only if their candidate lost. The only solution is to make the system as transparent and secure as possible. That likely means removing computers and machines as much as possible from the election process.

When all of the irregularities benefit one party or one candidate the conclusion becomes obvious. I don't have the link handy, but the statistical analysis I read was that Biden had a sizable advantage in counties that used Dominion or Hart voting machines compared to those which did not, even when in neighboring jurisdictions. That's all evidence that gets cited in court.

I noticed that at the bottom of page 6 of the brief pdf (page 3 of the brief itself) states that the algorithm was implemented in at least Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Ohio and Florida, of course, went to Trump. Both Florida and Ohio show up on the following map that shows the so-called "red-shift" in all states that flipped from the 538 prediction to the final result and/or where either of those vote margins were within 3 percent.

Polls in the 2020 Election were usually wrong. So, saying that states "flipped" from the polls is simply propaganda. The more compelling analysis is differences in results from different voting systems, particularly when they are adjacent with similar demographics.

As you can see, they include the 6 states that Trump narrowly lost (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) but also ones that flipped to Trump (Florida and North Carolina) or that were projected to be close (Iowa, Ohio, and Texas). You can read more about this red shift at this link. This is why we need to have mandatory RLAs (risk-limiting audits) of all elections. Otherwise, you will tend to always have the loser demanding recounts in only those states that they narrowly lost.

What it means, is that Trump won those states by more than the algorithm could steal. Trump won in a landslide, and we as a country are being gas lighted.

But it may be simply that they do not want to deal with any problems turned up by people examining the database. In the same way, that may be why Lindell and Dr. Frank seem oddly hesitant to give links to any data that could verify their calculations. They may well believe their calculations but like anyone who has done serious data analysis, they know that they may have made a few mistakes, regardless of whether or not those mistakes seriously affect the results. Better to not provide the links and thereby have fewer nosy researchers double-checking your work and pointing out any errors. To keep governments from hiding their numbers, you need regulation. To keep private researchers from hiding their numbers, you should just treat them with great skepticism (or even ignore them) unless and until they provide their sources and/or work.

I appreciate your comments.

Unfortunately, unless they make the dataset(s) available on which they base their claims, I don't believe they will be successful in their efforts. Their claims cannot be tested by you, me, anyone. It's not not possible to take them (or anyone) at their word. Not in this environment.

Agreed. I don't take anyone at their word in this environment. That's especially the case when they refuse to provide precise, usable sources. In fact, I think that those who make such claims need to show the computer code by which those claims were obtained. The language used should be a freely available one like Python or R. For example, I would like to see the code by which Dr. Frank comes up with his near perfect correlations.

I don't know how courts handle such claims but I would suspect that they would demand reproducible code. I don't see why the public should pay for computer experts to figure out and reformulate the code that plaintiffs claim to already have. Perhaps that's why these cases never seem to go anywhere.

Lindell and Dr. Frank aren't government officials. They have no obligations to make their research accessible.

Yes, and we have no obligation to pay any attention to them. In fact, I would suggest that no responsible publication should pay any attention to their claims unless Lindell and Dr. Frank can provide their research and the means to reproduce its conclusions. At the very least, publications should specify that those items were requested but not provided. I would apply that to claims by either party.

When all of the irregularities benefit one party or one candidate the conclusion becomes obvious. I don't have the link handy, but the statistical analysis I read was that Biden had a sizable advantage in counties that used Dominion or Hart voting machines compared to those which did not, even when in neighboring jurisdictions. That's all evidence that gets cited in court.

I'm sure that you've heard of a "false flag" operation. If everyone believed but you state above, we would likely see more of them. In addition, there's no way to know who was helped by any irregularities since the votes were secret. It could be that Republicans created votes for Trump but only enough to win in North Carolina and Florida.

Polls in the 2020 Election were usually wrong. So, saying that states "flipped" from the polls is simply propaganda. The more compelling analysis is differences in results from different voting systems, particularly when they are adjacent with similar demographics.

All that we know is that the polls differed from the official vote count in many states. And, as with several prior elections, the differences nearly all favored Republicans. What was that you were saying about "[W]hen all of the irregularities benefit one party or one candidate the conclusion becomes obvious"? In fact, it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this red shift proves voter fraud. Some have pointed out that much of it could indicate voter suppression. A voter is polled and says that they intend to vote for Biden but they are unable to due to unreasonably long lines at the polls or they are wrongly removed from the voter rolls and cast a provisional ballot that is not counted. Of course, it's possible that there were were errors in the polls but repeating errors in the same direction should be investigated.

As far as voting systems, look at the table at this link. It lists the 19 Congressional districts that flipped from the 538 projections to the actual results. Out of the 10 with the highest red shifts, 7 of them used ES&S DS200 or similar optical scanners. Security problems with those are described here and here. As I mentioned before, most security experts suggest that the best solution is to move to hand-marked paper ballots (HMPBs) and risk limiting audits (RLAs). You could probably find plenty of Democrats who would help in this goal. After all, there are many who believe Bush stole the 2004 election in the way described at 17:20 in this video. Most people refused to believe that a single state was stolen as described. Yet Lindell and Dr. Frank would have us believe that at least 6 states were stolen in some similar way.

What it means, is that Trump won those states by more than the algorithm could steal. Trump won in a landslide, and we as a country are being gas lighted.

The following plot shows the shift in the vote margin in each state from the 2016 election to the 2020 election.

Shift in Margin Vote Share from President_2016 to President_2020 Race in U.S. (Percent)

States above the x-axis are those where Democratic support increased from 2016 to 2020. Hence, all but 8 states moved away from Trump. That seems much more likely than a conspiracy that included the pollsters and 42 states plus D.C.

Yes, and we have no obligation to pay any attention to them. In fact, I would suggest that no responsible publication should pay any attention to their claims unless Lindell and Dr. Frank can provide their research and the means to reproduce its conclusions. At the very least, publications should specify that those items were requested but not provided. I would apply that to claims by either party.

By all accounts, the cheating in the 2020 elections benefited one party, and especially one candidate. A credible news service would ask the appropriate government election bureau to provide the data from the election. It is the government that has the obligation to be open and transparent about elections. You disagree with that basic premise. So, the proper reporting is "Dr. Frank's contentions can't be proved or disproved because the government refuses to make the election data available for review."

By all accounts, the cheating in the 2020 elections benefited one party, and especially one candidate. You can spin that any way you want, but won't find many takers here.

By all accounts, the cheating in the 2020 elections benefited one party, and especially one candidate.

What are you talking about? The following is from a November 12th analysis in the conservative Washington Times titled "Winners and losers from the 2020 election":

Winner: Republicans in the states. In what the media and pollsters predicted would be a massive blue wave, the GOP held onto legislative majorities across the country and added new majorities in the New Hampshire House and Senate, and the Alaska House. Republican governors won by incredible margins, and a Republican governor was elected in Montana for the first time in 16 years (hat tip to RSLC, RGA and NRRT).

Further on, the analysis adds:

Winner: Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Despite the media and pollsters saying they would lose five to 15 seats, and despite an incredible financial disadvantage, House Republicans actually gained seats. Congratulations to Mr. McCarthy for recruiting outstanding candidates — including dynamic women and people of color. Plus, state legislative majorities will help draw maps that will be competitive for strong candidates in 2022.

The conservative New York Post ran a November 8th editorial titled "Republican women roar with unprecedented wave of victories in the House". Yes, Donnie boy lost the Presidential race where 42 of 50 states voted a smaller percentage for him than they did in 2016. But the rest of the Republican party did very well. Some would say, suspiciously well.

The conservative New York Post ran a November 8th editorial titled "Republican women roar with unprecedented wave of victories in the House". Yes, Donnie boy lost the Presidential race where 42 of 50 states voted a smaller percentage for him than they did in 2016. But the rest of the Republican party did very well. Some would say, suspiciously well.

No, "Donnie boy" didn't lose the presidential race. What is suspicious is that he had coattails, but had his coat stolen. You are just here spreading propaganda. Enough with feeding the troll.

No, "Donnie boy" didn't lose the presidential race. What is suspicious is that he had coattails, but had his coat stolen.

So you believe that Democrats stole votes from Trump but left the down-ballot votes untouched, allowing Republicans to almost take the House? You're free to believe what you wish. I would just suggest that you and Lindell and Dr. Frank focus on the reform of our election system so that any sort of hacking of elections is not possible in the future. Most security experts suggest that the best solution is to move to hand-marked paper ballots (HMPBs) and risk limiting audits (RLAs). As I mentioned, you could probably find plenty of Democrats who would help in this goal. After all, there is evidence that Karl Rove and Bush stole the 2004 election and attempted (but failed) to steal the 2008 election as described in this video. Kerry did not contest the 2004 election, likely knowing that it would be nearly impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the country as a whole. Because the ballots are all secret, the only thing that you can really do is recount the ballots according to a set of rules that is fair to all parties and before the election is declared final. Later investigations are fine but they can only be used to reform the system such that the irregularities that were detected are not possible in the future.

So you believe that Democrats stole votes from Trump but left the down-ballot votes untouched, allowing Republicans to almost take the House?

No, I believe that they stole Senate seats in AZ, GA, MI and maybe a few other states, and a few House seats as well. They couldn't steal seats everywhere, and there were establishment Republicans who were in on the steal, like in AZ and GA. It was bipartisan, and McConnell is now the most powerful Republican in D. C., and people like Romney, Collins, and Murkowski are also in powerful positions as swing votes as well. They wanted Trump out.

You're free to believe what you wish. I would just suggest that you and Lindell and Dr. Frank focus on the reform of our election system so that any sort of hacking of elections is not possible in the future. Most security experts suggest that the best solution is to move to hand-marked paper ballots (HMPBs) and risk limiting audits (RLAs). As I mentioned, you could probably find plenty of Democrats who would help in this goal.

If we don't fix this fraudulent election, we may not have another honest election. The Dems who once said they wanted to end using the voting machines have all gone quiet. Trump Derangement Syndrome results in an emotional response devoid of reason, or patriotism.

After all, there is evidence that Karl Rove and Bush stole the 2004 election and attempted (but failed) to steal the 2008 election as described in this video. Kerry did not contest the 2004 election, likely knowing that it would be nearly impossible to prove to the satisfaction of the country as a whole.

According to Bobby Pitton's analysis of AZ's voter rolls, Dubya and Rove likely stole AZ in 2000:
https://www.scribd.com/document/491822278/12112020-AZ-
Had Gore won AZ, FL wouldn't have mattered. Pols like Gore and Kerry who didn't want to appear as "sore losers" just made the problem worse because the fraud issue was never addressed.

Because the ballots are all secret, the only thing that you can really do is recount the ballots according to a set of rules that is fair to all parties and before the election is declared final. Later investigations are fine but they can only be used to reform the system such that the irregularities that were detected are not possible in the future.

People like Jovan Pulitzer are able to analyze the ballots themselves to determine if they are fraudulent. In the last election there is also the issue of "adjudicating" ballots, as well as Internet hacking to flip votes. That is all being discussed now, and hopefully those kinds of cheating will get addressed now.