Is The Boy Who Cried Wolf Now The Pillow Guy Who Cried PCAPS?

Michael J. Lindell exposes massive election fraud ...

Mike Lindell’s recent Cyber Symposium did not deliver what he promised–i.e., conclusive forensic PCAPS evidence that China stole the election through machines made to steal elections. While there were some speakers who gave excellent presentations on circumstantial evidence that the 2020 Presidential Election was pilfered, the “terabytes” of evidence promised by Lindell was never presented. Please consider the public record.

Mike Lindell told Brannon Howse on 5 July 2021 that as a result of the “proofs” presented at his August Symposium, Donald Trump would be restored as President on 14 August 2021:

Mike Lindell with Brannon Howse

Mike Lindell double downed with Steve Bannon on Monday, 19 July 2021 insisting he had the “evidence” proving the theft of the 2020 Presidential Election by Chinese Government hackers who breached voting machines, such as those sold by Dominion Voting Systems:

“All the cyber guys, I don’t care if it’s media; they can dig into all this data. If they can prove [that] it’s not all valid data from the 2020 election, the November election, we have it all,” Lindell said. “We have 37 terabytes of information.

Mr. Lindell went as far to offer $5 million to any expert attending his symposium who could prove the data was not valid.

I have argued for some time, along with Joe Hoft and Mike Zullo and others, that Mr. Lindell was the victim of a con. The man he relied on to supply the “37 terabytes of information” is a talented fraudster who buffaloed the CIA and the Maricopa County Sheriff. The man is Dennis Montgomery the alleged inventor of a super computer dubbed HAMMER.

HAMMER is a hoax, and the man peddling the story about this computer or computer program has a documented history of fraud. Those who have embraced the Dennis Montgomery fable may take umbrage that I dare challenge this narrative. But the evidence is clear, and the discrepancies are critical:

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Is The Boy Who Cried Wolf Now The Pillow Guy Who Cried PCAPS?

  1. Deap says:

    Two matters of confirmation bias in action at the same time – (1) one wanted to believe Trump in fact won. (2) Democrats winning are really as bad as predicted. One is proving false; one is sadly pathetically true. There is no nightmare to wake up from because waking up is also a nightmare. Time to unplug.

  2. Teddy says:

    Lindell also bought into some of the Qanon garbage that Ron & Jim Watkins are peddling.

    • Larry Johnson says:

      Yes. The question is “why”? Is he gullible? Witting?

      • Sam says:

        He should have stuck to selling pillows. He was making good money and living the good life. Then he decides to jump in the shark tank and became chum.

      • Eric Newhill says:

        He is not a well balanced person. He used to be a seriously messed-up drug addict. He openly admits that. Once an addict, always an addict. It’s a personality trait with a lot of ramifications. Not saying he’s a bad guy or anything like that, just he has certain weaknesses.

      • longarch says:

        Why? Patriotism.

        Lindell saw an election being stolen and had the presence of mind to object to it. He is not entirely vitiated by cynicism.

        Many Americans knew the election was stolen but were too depressed, too self-absorbed, too pessimistic to try anything disruptive. Lindell made a disruption. You can call that irrationality; I call it proactive courage.

  3. Babeltuap says:

    Forget the machines and the ballots. Federal election laws were broken. There is no arguing that fact. No standing and latches does not mean they were not broken either. They were broken. Ignoring they were broken just means one accept they were broken.

    We are not living under the laws of the Constitution. We are living under something else.

  4. mathias alexander says:

    This guy has been fielded as a distraction from the real issues.

  5. Fred says:

    “The goal is to get people fixated on ….. ignore the paper ballets.”

    There are quite a few other things to fixate people, such as polling and Qanon stories.

  6. Serge says:

    I’ll give him one thing: the man makes excellent pillows, made in the USA . Bought mine in 2015.

  7. Barnacles says:

    He gave something better, a snapshot of Mesa Colorado machine hard drive image. Then the subsequent panic of the secretary of state. Furthermore Seth Keshel’s analysis shoes Mesa county Colorado having 10 k phantom voters from inflated voter roles (the insurance policy). There’s no doubt that Trump won. It’s just a matter of time for the proof to come out in the forensic audits. The greatest success of Lindell’s event is the collaboration (and having the images hard drive from Mesa county).

  8. John Merryman. says:

    As other comments suggest, things like this and qanon seem like they are designed to distract.
    Given the 2016 election was subjected to a total rectal examination, because the chosen one didn’t win and this was declared the cleanest election in history by the day after, it seems logical there would be efforts to discredit any issues.
    It’s like waning, you don’t have to look much beyond the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts, let alone Epstein to know there are creeps in high places.
    In 2020, I couldn’t bring myself to vote for either the deranged clown, or the demented puppet, so I wrote in Assange/Manning.
    If we end up with the same two in 2024, I think there should be movement to make them the write in candidates. Especially if there is an Assange trial in progress.
    Sooner or later, this scab will peel away.

  9. Candus Larkin says:

    Antifa infiltrating the event kinda put a wrench in the gears folks. Antifa exchanging press passes in the parking lot, antifa hackers in the parking lot trying to hack everything inside. Antifa infiltration made inside and the were coming up behind people on their phones and laptops and stealing their private info. 2 antifa infiltrators tried to gain access to the hacker room. And then of course there’s the poison pill. Black hat antifa scum made sure if those pcaps got released they would immediately be corrupted in a chain that would infect everyone it touched. THEY COULDNT RELEASE IT. It was being manipulated if they did. Those pcaps will either eventually come out when it’s safe or it was a trap to keep the enemy busy while we get info to the public

  10. Peter+VE says:

    Grifters gotta grift.

  11. Deap says:

    Pre-emptive prevarications?
    Looking back, your conclusions definitely have a history.

    The Left does insert new vocabulary words first, which quickly become short-hand for their later agendas.

    Look how many words and negative connotations for previously neutral words just from Occupy Wall Street alone, that are now in common currency and do not even need fact-checking: The 1%, Wall Street; Banksters; income disparity; loss of the middle class; etc……… t

    These bumper sticker words were chanted mindlessly with no context by the ginned up OWS crowds. And then later became legitimized, with no further explanation, in every Democrat policy and platform.

    BLM created new and very dogmatic vocabulary – no justice, no peace. The Sensitive Snowflake agenda created new vocabulary – safe spaces, hurtful words. CRT is devouring us as we speak with new meanings for everything – white privilege, white fragility.

    All of the above weaponized vocabulary used to close down any and all opposition. Thanks for the heads up. I long assumed any of these “audits” risked egg on our face as much as finding corruptions – internal or external. Verdict still out.

    Lindell while charming in his enthusiasm, was never close to matching facts to hype including his 9-0 SCOTUS nonsense. The first reveal was also a disconnect when it came to his scrolling numbers – no linkage, just claims. Did not follow his latest cyber conference because he was becoming more like a re-run of It’s A Mad Mad World, with no real punch line, but in interesting cast of characters.

    However, agree we like his pillows, towels and mattress toppers – he is a good salesman and does have a good product. Was that part of the con too – because little dweeb Camera Hogg could not beat him at that game.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Yet fixing an election has been easy, peasy now for decades.

    LJ writes:
    “I believe the HAMMER and SCORECARD claims have been introduced as a meme to discredit anyone who embraces them as true in order to challenge the fraudulent activity in the 2020 presidential election.

    The goal is to get people fixated on a mythical CIA computer controlled by foreigners and ignore the paper ballets.

    When the proof promised by Lindell is not presented, the MAGA haters use this as a foundation to claim that all other evidence of electoral fraud also is a hoax.

  12. Deap says:

    What role did Sidney Powell play in all of this? She was the most articulate and believable spokesperson for Hammer and Scorecard in the early days. What ever did happen to Gina Haspel.

  13. Razumov says:

    “Flood the zone with bullshit”
    -Steve Bannon

  14. David Habakkuk says:

    Having watched several strands of the ‘Russiagate’ story quite closely over the years, something which has become clear to me is that among those whose pretensions to be honest investigators are most loudly ‘trumpeted’ are people who are quite clearly playing ‘double games.’

    One familiar type of operator is what might be called the ‘limited hangout artist.’ Such figures recognise that, when the weight of an accumulation of ‘skeletons’ has become so great that it is threatening to break open the ‘cupboard’, the best strategy may not be to try to keep it ‘slammed shut’, but some have to be ‘let out’ if others are to remain concealed. There are obvious overlaps however with the kind of figure I am tempted to call the ‘lets lead them by the nose artist’, who does not simply hinder the discovery of truth, but is involved in the creation and/or dissemination of actual falsehood.

    A common feature of the various kinds of ‘information operation’ involved is that their practitioners are adept at exploiting a natural human propensity, which afflicts almost all of us, to greater or lesser degrees: to be inclined to discount the possibility of deception, when we are told things we are predisposed to believe by people we find congenial. An equally natural human propensity, obviously, is to discount the possibility that things that we do not want to hear, told to us by people we are inclined to dislike and distrust, could turn out to be true.

    Over the years, I have come to believe it is a ‘counsel of prudence’ to act on the reverse principle, and to, as it were ‘bend over backwards’ to ‘look gift horses in the mouth’ when we are predisposed to believe things, and try to keep as open a mind as possible when the reverse applies.

    Among other reasons, this is because I have repeatedly seen how both propensities can be exploited in ‘information operations.’ One way of doing this, in situations where ‘skeletons’ are threatening to fall out of ‘cupboards’, involves targeting people who have either already successfully exposed some ‘arms’ and maybe the occasional ‘leg’ of a skeleton which is actually in the cupboard, and working out what skeletons they would like to believe are actually there, which are not.

    Practised adeptly, this can generate situations where the efforts of people who are actually very skilled, determined and courageous investigators – a rather obvious example being Sidney Powell – can be frustrated because they can be ‘inveigled’ into making claims which can be proven to be unfounded. It then becomes very much easier to exploit the fact that very many people would dislike and distrust them anyway, to create the impression that each and every claim they have made can be discounted, and indeed can be regarded as unbelievable when presented by others, because they have made it.

    As regards the vast mass of evidence relating to questions of whether the 2020 election was manipulated, and if so whether this was decisive in affecting the result, I have been too preoccupied with some unresolved matters here in Britain to feel I have a very confident grasp.

    However, I have seen no reason to dissent from the argument made by the ‘political scientist’ Claes G. Ryn in a piece in the ‘American Conservative’ on 5 January, in which he marshalled a mass of material to suggest that there was a ‘prima facie’ case that there was enough manipulation to have had a decisive impact. That may indeed be open to argument. What I cannot for the life of me see is open to dispute is that there was at least sufficient evidence to warrant serious investigation, alike by law enforcement and the media.

    (See .)

    It was then particularly striking that one found precisely the reverse situation materialising after the 2020 election as after its predecessor. At that time, the ‘dossier’ published by ‘BuzzFeed’ and attributed to Christopher Steele, was very widely accepted in the ‘Mainstream Media’ on both sides of the Atlantic as providing a strong case that the election of Donald Trump was ‘illegitimate’, because he was a kind of ‘Siberian candidate.’

    Various very well-established journalists, among them Luke Harding of the ‘Guardian’, wrote books to that effect. His ‘Collusion’, published in November 2017, became a # ‘New York Times’ bestseller. This was despite the fact that, even on a casual reading, the ‘dossier’ looked almost as palpable a forgery as the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion ’ or the ‘Donation of Constantine.’

    After Joe Biden’s victory, by contrast, all the ‘evidence’ pointing to the possibility of widespread electoral fraud, and a ‘stolen election’, was simply discounted by the ‘MSM’, as the product of ‘conspiracy theories.’

    What however I think we have also seen is accumulating evidence of very successful attempts to prevent any serious investigation by various forms of ‘limited hangout artist’ and ‘lets lead them by the nose’ artist.’ And it was indeed with something approaching horror that I read this post by Larry. The situation came to seem even worse, when I looked at the coverage of the ‘Cyber Symposium’ on the ‘Last Refuge’ site, by ‘sundance’, much of whose writing has seemed to me very good.

    His first item, on 10 August, was headlined ‘Mike Lindell’s Passionate Opening Statement for The Cyber Symposium on 2020 Election Fraud, The Big Lie.’ A subsequent link to a presentation, on the same day, opened: ‘A video shown today by data analysts and investigators during the Mike Lindell Cyber Symposium. The primary aspect to the presentation surrounds the financial resources spent by China and George Soros to fund specific companies holding operational control over the 2020 election tabulation systems.’

    (See ; .)

    Yet another post was headlined: ‘Conspicuous Timing, Dominion Voting Systems Sues Newsmax, OAN and Patrick Byrne on Same Day As Mike Lindell Cyber Symposium.’
    (See )

    But, for God’s sake, if there is any ‘gift horse’ which people trying to make the case about the ‘2020 Election Fraud’ really should look in the mouth, using every possible method of modern ‘dentistry’ to examine each and every one of the ‘teeth’, it is claims about the involvement of China and George Soros. Moreover, as has been repeatedly illustrated, dubious ‘evidence’ is commonly disseminated, to facilitate precisely the kind of ‘lawfare’ move which is now being again attempted.

    Surely the thought should have occurred to ‘sundance’, and many others, that precisely because a ‘Chinagate’ scenario was one in which many of Trump’s supporters would like to believe, they should be alert to the possibility that what purported to be ‘evidence’ validating it would not withstand critical examination?

    For all I know other presentations at the event may contain compelling evidence and argumentation. However, because the central fact is the total failure of Mile Lindell to deliver on his promises of ‘smoking gun’ proof on Chinese involvement, everything presented there is going to be ‘tainted by association.’ In the light of Larry’s previous posts about Dennis Montgomery, it seems to me almost beyond belief that anyone not either a fool or knave could have failed to realise that, in dealing with Lindell, ‘a very long spoon’ was appropriate.

    A further irony here, I think, relates to what, in my view, represents by far the most thorough, methodologically rigorous, and thought-provoking analysis of the dossier attributed to Christopher Steele, published under the title ‘The Mechanics of Deception’ by Yaacov Apelbaum on 17 March 2018 at his ‘Illustrated Primer’ site. In dealing with the vast mass of material collected in this analysis, and also the ‘cutting edge’ analytical methods deployed, I have tried to be at pains to heed my own maxim, and look the ‘gift horse’ very carefully in the mouth.

    (See .)

    The notion that the actual role of Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier attributed to him was to give an appearance of ‘intelligence legitimacy’ to what was actually a ‘camel produced by a committee’, in panic-stricken haste, is certainly one which I was already predisposed to believe. So also was a particularly interesting suggestion, which I see prompted a ‘fishing expedition’ on the part of that accomplied ‘limited hangout’ artist, the former ‘New York Times’ journalist Barry Meier, as is evident from the exchanges of comments.

    This was that Luke Harding had been a ‘contractor’ not only for Steele’s company, Orbis Business International, but also of Hakluyt, a company, or rather group, which Apelbaum was arguing had played a highly significant role in ‘Russiagate.’ Some of the – very radical – implications that this claim would have, if true, are of purely parochial British relevance: such as what it would say about the moral, and intellectual, decline, or perhaps it would be better to say disintegration, of the ‘Guardian’, which was once a great liberal newspapers.

    Others, such as what precisely such a ‘contractor’ is paid for, and in what form, may also be of interest to Americans. Also important here is the question of what might be inferred about the ideas of figures involved in the – transatlantic – networks in which Harding is clearly involved from his mendacious and/or delusional understandings of twentieth century Russian/Soviet history.

    While I cannot regard the claim as proven, nothing I have found in following up this ‘lead’ contradicts it. As it happens, in addition to Barry Meier being clearly familiar with Apelbaum’s work, so too are Steve McIntyre and his associates, to whose attention I drew it personally. This makes it, to my mind, rather remarkable that all these people are enthusiastically disseminating the patent ‘BS’ about Steele’s supposed ‘collector’ or ‘Primary Sub-source’ actually existing, and having been identified as a – somewhat alcoholic, apparently – erstwhile associate of Fiona Hill at Brookings called Igor Danchenko.

    Of course, if Apelbaum is right, the effect of what they are doing is enabling a strategy of making Steele the ‘patsy’ in order to inhibit any serious investigation of the ‘networks’ out of which the dossier came, and of the actual role of people in the FBI, DOJ, and other parts of the ‘deep state’ in creation. In so doing, of course, the activities of these people both rest on, and reinforce, a patently absurd premise: that one can simply rule out of court the possibility that people in these organisations have been involved in a kind of ‘industrial-scale’ fabrication of evidence.

    But it appears practically everyone who is supposedly attempting to uncover the truth about ‘Russiagate’ prefers to accept the – thoroughly sloppy – productions of these people, rather than following up the ‘leads’ contained in Apelbaum’s methodologically sophisticated and rigorously argued work.

  15. English Outsider says:

    David – Yes, there were indications that the election ought at least to have been investigated and there seems to have been no attempt to do so.

    “Seems”. What about AG Barr? Before the election he appeared on TV in an interview with Wolf Blitzer and was objecting strongly to the arrangements being made for that forthcoming election. I think it was the only time I’ve seen him angry –

    “D’you think that’s the way to run a vote?” Barr asked and it was obvious he didn’t.

    After the election Barr did look into how the election had been run. Then he went quiet on the subject. Had he looked into it and found no substantial level of fraud? Or had he found significant fraud but decided not to take it further?

    On the Dearlove/Steele affair, three British Prime Ministers had knowledge of it, if not before the affair went public then obviously afterwards. None disowned it. The decision to give Steel a safe house at one point – and to disclose that that had been done – shows that HMG was and remained involved directly. This was no freelance retired operative running loose. His actions were, if only retrospectively, known and approved by HMG.

    Dearlove himself was ambiguous on the truthfulness of the dossier in the one TV interview of his I saw. He did not, however, disown it entirely (& 2.40) and in the interview said Trump would be gone in three years anyway.

    So whatever happened at the American end the Steele affair, probably the most damaging attack on an American President possible, was authorised if only retrospectively by HMG. Why?

    And Trump must have known it was so authorised. Why did he not demand a retraction from HMG?

    Old stuff. Most by now have forgotten about it. But it’s stuff you’ve researched in great depth and with deep knowledge of the UK IC scene. I’m just wondering if it’s one of the things you’ve been preoccupied with and whether you have any fresh light to throw on the subject.

Comments are closed.