[Fury]

1) I never lied about my Cyber Symposium stream being hacked when it was my own team's incompetence.

Yes, was pretty bad when "Col". Phillip Waldron announcing on Day 3 that there had a security breach of the "data streams":

"Mike and Phil are not able to release the promised packet captures due to “finding a credible threat within the data streams, a poison pill inserted into the data”, and not wanting to release that to the public"

-see https://electionfraud20.org/in-detail/cyber-symposium-mike-lindell/#day-3-summary

So, Lindell and Waldron had incredibly poor OPSEC over the packet captures they possessed. BTW, no further updates on what occurred.

4) I never lied about having network packet captures after promising to present them at my Cyber Symposium.

One attendee documented the three day event, specifically, the eventual failure to provide the packet captures:

- see https://twitter.com/ErrataRob/status/1425283795364818946

And, according to some one poster on FR, only the people at the Symposium know for sure about the packet captures. People that were not there cannot comment authoritatively on the packet captures - that's what Dr. Franklin was alluding to earlier this year. Even through three people who attended the Symposium all stated that they were not provided the packet captures to analyze.

I believe Lindell to be a good man. But I also believe that he has been used by the likes of Mary Fannnig, "Col". Phillip Waldron, Dennis Montgomery, etc. The result is an event which failed to produce what Lindell promised.

The fact that this thread has not even made it to 100 posts is a potential sign that more and more people consider Lindell to not be a credible source regarding election fraud claims.

[Dr. Franklin]

Yes, was pretty bad when "Col". Phillip Waldron announcing on Day 3 that there had a security breach of the "data streams".

The full quote is below. Not ready for public release included the possibility of needing to redact names and email addresses in the data. If I were the lawyer advising Lindell's group, I would have told him not to release that data before including it in a court case. As much as people want to see it, there is no reason to release it early.

"Mike and Phil are not able to release the promised packet captures due to “finding a credible threat within the data streams, a poison pill inserted into the data”, and not wanting to release that to the public. It’s not clear whether this “poison pill” was some kind of intentional corruption of the data or some form of malware, or possibly just the presence of government passwords and email addresses embedded inside the IP packets that were deemed as not ready for public release."
https://electionfraud20.org/in-detail/cyber-symposium-mike-lindell/#day-3-summary

And, according to some one poster on FR, only the people at the Symposium know for sure about the packet captures. People that were not there cannot comment authoritatively on the packet captures - that's what Dr. Franklin was alluding to earlier this year. Even through three people who attended the Symposium all stated that they were not provided the packet captures to analyze.

What you've heard or read so far is legally only so much hearsay. Lindell says he expects 20 state AGs to join their states as petitioners for the writ of quo warranto and I believe him. They wouldn't be doing this unless they had some very compelling evidence.

The fact that this thread has not even made it to 100 posts is a potential sign that more and more people consider Lindell to not be a credible source regarding election fraud claims.

Well it's early yet, and the trolls have stopped bumping the thread...