Replies

I don't believe I contradicted Anderson. There was some other data provided regarding server images on Wednesday. Here is what the article said

In the law, this is called "totem pole hearsay". The newspaper article is hearsay, and in it, they quote Alderson about what other people said. More to the point of you contradicting him, he was quoted as stating, "They thought they had those p-caps, and they were in such a format: encrypted, decrypted, et cetera and they came out as gobbly goo, no conclusive evidence that I could analyze." So, he got some data, but couldn't understand it. So, Alderson's "I can't decrypt it", doesn't prove that the data wasn't from the 2020 election. No $5 million for him...

I would suggest that no reward was going to be collected if the packet captures were not available or were so limited in quantity that a judgement could not be rendered by cyber experts who attended the Symposium.

Right, and Lindell knew that in advance. The man is no fool.

Not sure what the purpose of his $5 million dollar challenge was then. And again, unfortunately, all we are left with is a theory that is yet unproven.

The purpose was publicity. Trump himself says no publicity is bad publicity. He always thinks he can spin things to his favor. Lindell must think the same. He went on Jimmy Kimmel's show knowing he would be mocked, but he just wanted to do something to get the word out. Did he get more people to watch with that offer? I'm sure he did. There was a lot of other good things done at that forum, and information was disseminated.

Oh, the court action that people are talking about. We shall see...I don't think he has done his claims any favors with the problems encountered with the Symposium including data captures not being provided. I'm not sure I missed the big picture. But perhaps.

The best evidence that the election was hacked, is the ballots themselves. When the audits show that hundreds of thousands of ballots are missing, and they are required to be kept for 22 months after the election, things like P-caps and denied access to the routers allow courts to conclude the election was hacked and stolen. Maybe the argument can be made with just the P-caps, but any good lawyer would want to wait to audit the ballots first.

Again I’m sorry Lindell did not make his pcaps available for expert or public review. I believe his heart is in the right place, and that he was poorly served by his staff and those who did his pcap research. It's unfortunate he apparently is unable or unwilling to make some more all of the data public for the claims he has made. No one should get a pass on proving their claims on such an important issue. Including Lindell. I don't think he yet has proved his claims. But we shall see.

Not proving the claim at present doesn't mean that it is false, or it can't be proved later. Ultimately, this is all political. Things will play out. They have a plan. The audits are most important.

Right, and Lindell knew that in advance. The man is no fool.

You know that how (that he knew in advance)?

Think about what you are claiming.

You are claiming that Lindell had no intention of paying the $5 million, as he knew IN ADVANCE that the packet captures were not available or were so limited in quantity that a judgement could not be rendered by cyber experts who attended the Symposium.

Think about what your assertion says about Mike Lindell. That he deceived people to attend the Symposium? I don’t believe that was his motive or plan - to have people attend knowing IN ADVANCE that the packet captures were not available. It’s unfortunate that apparently you do.

There’s not much more to write about if you’re suggesting the motives/actions decided in advance by Lindell. As you write, we’ll see how the legal activities go.

Good luck.