Website Forced To Issue Major “Clarification” In Mike Lindell Hit Piece

Palmieri Report ^ | August 12, 2020 | Jacob Palmieri

[Political Junkie Too]

This was predictable knowing the source of his data.

Who was the source of his data?

-PJ

[Dr. Franklin]

So far, no participant at the event seems to have been allowed to actually examine the files.

Obviously, you didn't read the story. Josh Merritt has plainly been able to review some file, and he doesn't disagree that the data he saw came from the 2020 election.

[Boogieman]

John Merritt was part of the staff of the symposium, not an invited outside participant. He was the one who told the outside participants that they would not be able to examine the files, lol.

[Dr. Franklin]

John Merritt was part of the staff of the symposium, not an invited outside participant. He was the one who told the outside participants that they would not be able to examine the files, lol.

So you agree that Josh Merritt was a participant at the event.

[Boogieman]

I don’t consider the staff of the event to be outside participants, no. I doubt they’d qualify to claim that $5 million prize, that’s for sure!

[Fury]

Obviously, you didn't read the story. Josh Merritt has plainly been able to review some file, and he doesn't disagree that the data he saw came from the 2020 election.

But the portion of the Symposium that deal with the packet captures wasn’t for the benefit of Josh Merritt. It was for the CISSP (at a minimum) credentialed attendees that were there at the invitation of Mike Lindell to examine the packet captures that he claims showed the election results were changed.

So far, no participant at the event has stated anything was fake.

Come on now. Is that the right statement to make? At least two attendees stated they did not get to review any of the 2020 election packet captures.

Asked another way - are there any attendees that claim they viewed and analyzed packet captures from the 2020 election as discussed by Mike Lindell prior to the Symposium?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Mr. Merritt is a cyber expert on the red team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, and does not work directly for Mr. Lindell.

Just so we're clear. There's more distance between Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign than Mike Lindell and Joss Merritt. ;-)

[Chewbarkah]

Isn’t Merritt’s statement just a “look squirrel” distraction? Seems to me that Merritt’s comment meant little, and has been magnified far out of proportion.

Let’s posit that Mr. Lindell’s 37 TB of data is chock full of real evidence of massive and strategic digital intrusions into US election systems, including foreign transmissions from China and other places, timing that exactly matches changes in US election tallies, etc.

Would all that necessarily prove with total certainty that CHINA was the actor behind it all? Can we disprove the possibility that the US Intel/CIA, Russian Intel, Soros, or others unknown, did the job and left trails to implicate others? Merritt is not in a position to know it was “China” (and what is meant by “China”? CCP? PRC government? PLA? Hunter Biden’s Business Partners?).

Step One: Does Lindell (or anyone else) have proof that votes were changed or election data and results manipulated in the US 2020 election via digital connections by non-official operators. If so, explain the facts so we can understand them.
Step Two: Who dun it. Leave that until Step One is in the bank.

[Robert DeLong]

Rightwing Conspiratr1 is trashing Lindell left & right, a solid conservative who is fighting the fight.

[Dr. Franklin]

Isn’t Merritt’s statement just a “look squirrel” distraction? Seems to me that Merritt’s comment meant little, and has been magnified far out of proportion.

Yes, it's a distraction. Merritt, apparently, hasn't seen the full 37 TB of government data. That doesn't prove anything wrong, and opinions may vary on who was responsible for hacking the election.

Let’s posit that Mr. Lindell’s 37 TB of data is chock full of real evidence of massive and strategic digital intrusions into US election systems, including foreign transmissions from China and other places, timing that exactly matches changes in US election tallies, etc.

Well, it's not really Lindell's 37 TB of data. The American taxpayer paid for it all. Since Trump obviously declassified this data, anyone who wants to see it should make a FOIA request to get it. Blaming Lindell for that is just plain silly.

Would all that necessarily prove with total certainty that CHINA was the actor behind it all? Can we disprove the possibility that the US Intel/CIA, Russian Intel, Soros, or others unknown, did the job and left trails to implicate others? Merritt is not in a position to know it was “China” (and what is meant by “China”? CCP? PRC government? PLA? Hunter Biden’s Business Partners?).

Right, using a Chinese IP address doesn't necessarily prove that the Chinese government was involved. However, China has the most reason to have hacked the election, and being a nuclear power, it is less likely than other rogue states to face severe consequences for the attack. The word on the street is that Obama used skimmed Iranian money to hack the election. Some of the servers where in Europe, and the CIA directed the operation from the embassy in Rome. So, if China was involved in the hack, they acted in concert with others.

[Dr. Franklin]

Just so we're clear. There's more distance between Fusion GPS and the Clinton campaign than Mike Lindell and Joss Merritt. ;-)

Really? The Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS disagreed on their propaganda campaign that Russia hacked the 2016 election? BS!

[Georgia Girl 2]

Trump won get over it. 😆

[Dr. Franklin]

But the portion of the Symposium that deal with the packet captures wasn’t for the benefit of Josh Merritt. It was for the CISSP (at a minimum) credentialed attendees that were there at the invitation of Mike Lindell to examine the packet captures that he claims showed the election results were changed.

Since you aren't a CISSP and you didn't attend the event, you have no standing to object to anything Lindell did. Nor are you a competent witness to testify about anything that happened there. BTW, I haven't read anything supporting your assertions either.

Come on now. Is that the right statement to make?

Yes.

At least two attendees stated they did not get to review any of the 2020 election packet captures.

Name them.

Asked another way - are there any attendees that claim they viewed and analyzed packet captures from the 2020 election as discussed by Mike Lindell prior to the Symposium?

Well, again, Josh Merritt obviously attended the event and analyzed Pcaps. The fact that the corporate media isn't reporting on what actually happened, doesn't prove it didn't happen.

[Dr. Franklin]

Step One: Does Lindell (or anyone else) have proof that votes were changed or election data and results manipulated in the US 2020 election via digital connections by non-official operators. If so, explain the facts so we can understand them.

Trump ordered the election returns watched. He stated they caught them rigging the election. Lindell was at the WH after the election. Draw your own conclusions where he got the 37 TB file.

Step Two: Who dun it. Leave that until Step One is in the bank.

[Fury]

Since you aren't a CISSP and you didn't attend the event, you have no standing to object to anything Lindell did. Nor are you a competent witness to testify about anything that happened there. BTW, I haven't read anything supporting your assertions either.

Unfortunately, that is intellectually dishonest. Whatever certifications a poster may or may not have is irrelevant.
Moreover, such declarations are an attempt to steer discussion away from the main points being discussed.
And my comments are based on what attendees are reporting and also by virtue of watching the Symposium. Also, Mike Lindell was no longer stating during the third day of the Symposium that cyber experts were reviewing packet captures provided to Lindell.

Name them.

Robert Graham
Harri Hursti
Bill Alderson

Well, again, Josh Merritt obviously attended the event and analyzed Pcaps. The fact that the corporate media isn't reporting on what actually happened, doesn't prove it didn't happen.

But media is reporting on what has happened. That it is not "corporate" media is not really relevant is it? Either the reporting is accurate or it is not. Here's some coverage from Wednesday:

https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2021/08/12/cyber-expert-claims-mike-lindell-does-not-have-election-data-eligible-5-million-award/

[Dr. Franklin]

Unfortunately, that is intellectually dishonest. Whatever certifications a poster may or may not have is irrelevant.

So, you admit that you have no qualifications to render an expert opinion on the matter. Thanks!

Moreover, such declarations are an attempt to steer discussion away from the main points being discussed.

The point being discusses is the expert analysis of the 37 TB of data from the election, which you aren't qualified to discus...

And my comments are based on what attendees are reporting and also by virtue of watching the Symposium.

I watched much of the broadcast as well. However, the techs had break out sessions in another room, which wasn't broadcast live. Again, obviously, you weren't there.

Also, Mike Lindell was no longer stating during the third day of the Symposium that cyber experts were reviewing packet captures provided to Lindell.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, or perhaps it had been completed by then?

Robert Graham Harri Hursti Bill Alderson

Hmmmm... and how many hundred attended? Did they actually attend the break out sessions, or where they there only for the free food? If this goes to court, it becomes a classic "battle of the experts". Obviously, Alderson is either incompetent or will serve as a paid expert for Joe and the Ho.

But media is reporting on what has happened. That it is not "corporate" media is not really relevant is it? Either the reporting is accurate or it is not. Here's some coverage from Wednesday:
https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2021/08/12/cyber-expert-claims-mike-lindell-does-not-have-election-data-eligible-5-million-award/

Bias is always an issue. In this case the above link is from KSFY-TV, part of Gray Television, Inc., which is based in Atlanta, GA of all places. The establishment elite in Atlanta don't have a bias in your humble opinion? Simply hysterical!

[Fury]

So, you admit that you have no qualifications to render an expert opinion on the matter. Thanks!

Actually, I believe I am qualified to render an expert opinion. But this is not about me. It’s about the attendees who were there and what they reported.

The point being discusses is the expert analysis of the 37 TB of data from the election, which you aren't qualified to discus...

See previous answer. And as noted, the only cyber experts who have reported re: the Symposium have reported that none of the pcaps (mentioned by Lindell in his two videos) were made available. So please pass along any of the attendees (not Joshua Merritt) that did report analyzing the pcaps in question and that they verify/confirm what Lindell claims.

As far as bias with the media, that’s a legitimate issue de: the media. But Alderson was being quoted in the article, so unless he is lying or the person that interviewed him made up his quotes, I’d say what Alderson said is consistent with what the two other attendees reported. The rest of your comments can be answered by referring to my above responses and my previous post.

Pretty obvious we’re not going to agree re: Lindell’s pcaps. I doubt he brings them up much any more with the claim they show election fraud.

I’m sorry Lindell did not make his pcaps available for expert or public review. I believe his heart in in the right place, but was poorly served by his staff and those who did his pcap research.

[Fury]

Please see the few posts to get a better idea of the challenges facing research re: the 2020 Election

[Dr. Franklin]

And as noted, the only cyber experts who have reported re: the Symposium have reported that none of the pcaps (mentioned by Lindell in his two videos) were made available. So please pass along any of the attendees (not Joshua Merritt) that did report analyzing the pcaps in question and that they verify/confirm what Lindell claims.

Well, you just contradicted Alderson there, because he said he did have access to P-caps, but he couldn't make sense of them. So obviously, he did get to review something. Perhaps not enough to decrypt them, but something was provided for analysis. Then you conflate him with two other guys you allege never saw anything. Why did Alderson get to see P-caps, but the two others you cite never saw anything? Something doesn't sound right there. Maybe someone like Bannon can get people who were there to give an account of who got to see the P-caps, who didn't and why?

Again, Lindell offered a reward if someone could prove that his data didn't come from the 2020 election. No one present has offered proof that it didn't. "I can't decrypt it", or "I never saw the data" proves nothing.

Actually, I believe I am qualified to render an expert opinion. But this is not about me. It’s about the attendees who were there and what they reported.

On the Internet, everyone is an expert on everything. Again, if you weren't at the event, legally, all you offer is so much hearsay. Even if you were to be qualified as an expert on interpreting P-caps, since you never saw the data, you can't analyze the data. You just repeat so much hearsay and speculation, and as noted above, contradict your alleged sources.

I’m sorry Lindell did not make his pcaps available for expert or public review. I believe his heart in in the right place, but was poorly served by his staff and those who did his pcap research.

More likely, Lindell only offered a very small sample for analysis, which was too little for those present to decrypt or conclusively analyze. That doesn't disprove his theory. Expert analysis from strangers wasn't his purpose in calling the forum. It was simply a method of drumming up interest for the event like a carnival barker. Ultimately, the matter should get decided by SCOTUS, not guys commenting on the Internet. Lindell did state that he had 12 different experts from across the U.S. confirm the data, including two government employees. When the court action is filed, that's the main event, not what happened this week.

Pretty obvious we’re not going to agree re: Lindell’s pcaps. I doubt he brings them up much any more with the claim they show election fraud.

Since Lindell has no standing to bring a petition for a writ of quo warranto, he would not be the one to use them in court. He's just the PR man working for more audits to produce conclusive evidence of the hack, i.e., the ballots themselves. You've missed the big picture here.

[Baynative]

Help me understand what that means, please! (I’m trying to follow the symposium when I can)