Fake Mary Fanning trying to undermine Lindell.
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
Comments (5)
sorted by:
CIRCUS
I posted on this months ago. The "Mary Fanning" data was 99% bullshit and easily explained away.
It looked more like a packet capture from the guest wifi somewhere in GA (not necessarily SFA): "Russian" addresses were update servers for Kaspersky antivirus, "Chinese" addresses were AWS datacenters.
I think this data was, at best, a misguided fumbling attempt to prove fraud; at worst, a spurious capture meant to mislead and discredit.
Either way, it's not the data Lindell used.
All this is good to know cause I totally missed the fanning brew ha ha.
I don't trust Fanning. An interview I heard her on over a year ago showed she was more interested in protecting her 'turf' and promoting her own name than on the truth.
But I have not seen anyone question Montgomery's creds up to this point and that includes Gen. McInerney who has spoken at length about Hammer and Scorecard, supposedly developed by Montgomery.
Lindell said on War Room about a month ago when asked by Bannon directly - 'is his data the same data Mary Fanning speaks of' and he said 'no'. I think he may be referring to the packet captures. I think Fanning was in one of his earlier vids where they showed the graphic of the data flowing to IP addresses around the world but the packet captures would be more detailed data.
I think the biggest challenge with the packet captures is going to be convinving people (judges and justices) that aren't computer experts of its legitimacy. To the average person it just looks like a bunch of numbera and you basically have to take the word of computer experts to decode it. We could run into a problem when some experts don't agree with other (Deep State's) experts.