Beauty of discussing in a venue like this is it doesn't matter if a response to a question or comment comes 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days later... it comes when it comes... so no worries about timing makes for better communications since time is not of essence for now. Our only goal is truth as much as it can be attained and clarity as much as it can be managed.
We are playing chess by mail and half the fun is the anticipation when opening the mail box, letter present or not.
However, that said, time to process and time to research are certainly factors.
"A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order."
I know you have not had the time to review the links to the posts in my first comment in this thread, if you had you would have read my discussion with another reader asking the question about lifting the gag order by Executive Order. Link below - scroll down thread...
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6StjklN/mike-lindell-claims-usg-gag-orde/
Perhaps it would be advisable to review those posts and accompanying threads. I have read through 90% of the motions and filings accessible on line. I suggest rather than attempting to replicate that reading, that at this stage a review of the posts and threads above, which are linked back to original source documents, would be a clarifying exercise. But if you don't have the time, I can continue to provide clarifying commentary when there is narrative divergence between our respective interpretations or research of particular issues.
"Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner."
"The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD."
You know this how? In particular how do you know that the Hammer associated super-computer was not moved from NV to Maryland and that the NV servers continued to run Hammer after having "moved Hammer" to MD.
Please provide a link to your source for this statement, if possible, in particular to the statement that Hammer continued in operation in NE after Ft Washington operations had commenced.
I have found no evidence in any of the on line sources I have reviewed on this subject that suggest that. In fact, just the opposite occurred when Montgomery removed the Hammer / Scorecard software from the Reno NE facility (when he discovered the illegal surveillance activity) which was the reason Trepp attempted to use the FBI and the courts to steal it back. Hammer/Scorcard processing was shut down and Trepp's insider government rice bowl got a huge crack put in it. Lucky for Montgomery he got an honest judge in the proceedings. So, what have I missed that you did not?
Below copy/paste from https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/ site - in the CHRONOLOGY section.
Feb 3rd, 2009 HAMMER Supercomputer moved to Fort Washington Maryland
Help me to reconcile your and Montgomery's statements.
It is my experience when the United States government buys equipment as part of a contract to provide hardware (or software as the case may be) in assistance to a contractor's delivery of a service, they do not transfer or gift ownership of that equipment to the contractor, particularly in instances when that equipment has processed highly classified data. Just sayin... in my experience, and I mean specifically, in my experience.
"When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract."
Yes. Concur. Look at that contract. References can be found in the links provided in my first comment this thread.
"A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that."
Depends. If you are MITM a hard line. Sometimes, as in the instance of a line splice though, is not MITM, but is a signal mirrored off or replicated, there is no intrusion or "being in the middle. If you are MITM intercepting broadcast links, you can do that from 20,000 feet up and in some instance by satellite. Nothing about being MITM applies. And there are other more esoteric methods of collecting data that could have been used in this instance. The main point is that there is no information of how Montgomery collected his 32 Terabytes of data, other than to say he "collected it." Words, and their definitions, which may be the same, but in different contexts or different professional fields, have different meanings, as you aware as an engineer and as a lawyer, matter.
In regard to the 2020 election, as far as I have been able to determine, based on the research provided in the links above and statements made by Montgomery, Lindell, various cyber experts employed by Lindell, the nature of the PCAP data provided to Lindell as described by experts who have worked the data hands-on, and is the subject of the current filings and memorandum in the Nevada Court, the 2020 32 terabytes of PCAP data was not the result of a MITM attack but was the product of a passive collection operation, nature as yet to be determined (clandestine or in some capacity officially sanction by some as of yet authoritative entity).
The very scope (geogpraphically), scale (32 terabytes) and short duration (03 Nov to 06 Nov 2020) (all these factors in combination) of this targeted collection excludes what you are about to theorize. I would walk away from that... unless instead of a theory you have real world experience actually mounting a MITM "attack." of this scope and scale.
Attack is not a term of art associated with this type of operation and IMO is misleading to the average lay person. I would caution using this term. A passive collection operation is all that has been publicly acknowledged at this time. A fine parameter to work within until more information is made available.
"Stay on target" has many meanings.
Hitting a baseball is a kind of attack... catching the baseball that was hit is not. You attack what you want to somehow alter, disrupt or destroy and catch what you want to collect or capture. Again, just sayin
.
Beauty of discussing in a venue like this is it doesn't matter if a response to a question or comment comes 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days later... it comes when it comes... so no worries about timing makes for better communications since time is not of essence for now. Our only goal is truth as much as it can be attained and clarity as much as it can be managed.
We are playing chess by mail and half the fun is the anticipation when opening the mail box, letter present or not.
However, that said, time to process and time to research are certainly factors.
"A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order."
I know you have not had the time to review the links to the posts in my first comment in this thread, if you had you would have read my discussion with another reader asking the question about lifting the gag order by Executive Order. Link below - scroll down thread...
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6StjklN/mike-lindell-claims-usg-gag-orde/
Perhaps it would be advisable to review those posts and accompanying threads. I have read through 90% of the motions and filings accessible on line. I suggest rather than attempting to replicate that reading, that at this stage a review of the posts and threads above, which are linked back to original source documents, would be a clarifying exercise. But if you don't have the time, I can continue to provide clarifying commentary when there is narrative divergence between our respective interpretations or research of particular issues.
"Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner."
"The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD."
You know this how? In particular how do you know that the Hammer associated super-computer was not moved from NV to Maryland and that the NV servers continued to run Hammer after having "moved Hammer" to MD.
Please provide a link to your source for this statement, if possible, in particular to the statement that Hammer continued in operation in NE after Ft Washington operations had commenced.
I have found no evidence in any of the on line sources I have reviewed on this subject that suggest that. In fact, just the opposite occurred when Montgomery removed the Hammer / Scorecard software from the Reno NE facility (when he discovered the illegal surveillance activity) which was the reason Trepp attempted to use the FBI and the courts to steal it back. Hammer/Scorcard processing was shut down and Trepp's insider government rice bowl got a huge crack put in it. Lucky for Montgomery he got an honest judge in the proceedings. So, what have I missed that you did not?
Below copy/paste from https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/ site - in the CHRONOLOGY section.
Feb 3rd, 2009 HAMMER Supercomputer moved to Fort Washington Maryland
Help me to reconcile your and Montgomery's statements.
It is my experience when the United States government buys equipment as part of contract to provide assistance to a contractor's delivery of a service, they do not transfer ownership of that equipment to the contractor, particularly in the instances when that equipment has processed highly classified data. Just sayin... in my experience, and I mean specifically, in my experience.
"When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract."
Yes. Concur. Look at that contract. References can be found in the links provided in my first comment this thread.
"A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that."
In regard to the 2020 election, as far as I have been able to determine, based on the research provided in the links above and statements made by Montgomery, Lindell, various cyber experts employed by Lindell, the nature of the PCAP data provided to Lindell as described by experts who have worked the data hands-on, and is the subject of the current filings and memorandum in the Nevada Court, the 2020 32 terabytes of PCAP data was not the result of a MITM attack but was the product of a passive collection operation, nature as yet to be determined (clandestine or in some capacity officially sanction by some as of yet authoritative entity).
The very scope (geogpraphically), scale (32 terabytes) and short duration (03 Nov to 06 Nov 2020) (all these factors in combination) of this targeted collection excludes what you are about to theorize. I would walk away from that... unless instead of a theory you have real world experience actually mounting a MITM "attack." of this scope and scale.
Attack is not a term of art associated with this type of operation and IMO is misleading to the average lay person. I would caution using this term. A passive collection operation is all that has been publicly acknowledged at this time. A fine parameter to work within until more information is made available.
"Stay on target" has many meanings.
Hitting a baseball is a kind of attack... catching the baseball that was hit is not. You attack what you want to somehow alter, disrupt or destroy and catch what you want to collect or capture. Again, just sayin
.
Beauty of discussing in a venue like this is it doesn't matter if a response to a question or comment comes 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days later... it comes when it comes... so no worries about timing makes for better communications since time is not of essence for now. Our only goal is truth as much as it can be attained and clarity as much as it can be managed.
We are playing chess by mail and half the fun is the anticipation when opening the mail box, letter present or not.
However, that said, time to process and time to research are certainly factors.
"A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order."
I know you have not had the time to review the links to the posts in my first comment in this thread, if you had you would have read my discussion with another reader asking the question about lifting the gag order by Executive Order. Link below - scroll down thread...
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6StjklN/mike-lindell-claims-usg-gag-orde/
Perhaps it would be advisable to review those posts and accompanying threads. I have read through 90% of the motions and filings accessible on line. I suggest rather than attempting to replicate that reading, that at this stage a review of the posts and threads above, which are linked back to original source documents, would be a clarifying exercise. But if you don't have the time, I can continue to provide clarifying commentary when their is a narrative divergence between our respective interpretations or research of particular issues.
"Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner."
"The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD."
You know this how? In particular how do you know that the Hammer associated super-computer was not moved from NV to Maryland and that the NV servers continued to run Hammer after having "moved Hammer" to MD.
Please provide a link to your source for this statement, if possible, in particular to the statement that Hammer continued in operation in NE after Ft Washington operations had commenced.
I have found no evidence in any of the on line sources I have reviewed on this subject that suggest that. In fact, just the opposite occurred when Montgomery removed the Hammer / Scorecard software from the Reno NE facility (when he discovered the illegal surveillance activity) which was the reason Trepp attempted to use the FBI and the courts to steal it back. Hammer/Scorcard processing was shut down and Trepp's insider government rice bowl got a huge crack put in it. Lucky for Montgomery he got an honest judge in the proceedings. So, what have I missed that you did not?
Below copy/paste from https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/ site - in the CHRONOLOGY section.
Feb 3rd, 2009 HAMMER Supercomputer moved to Fort Washington Maryland
Help me to reconcile your and Montgomery's statements.
It is my experience when the United States government buys equipment as part of contract to provide assistance to a contractor's delivery of a service, they do not transfer ownership of that equipment to the contractor, particularly in the instances when that equipment has processed highly classified data. Just sayin... in my experience, and I mean specifically, in my experience.
"When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract."
Yes. Concur. Look at that contract. References can be found in the links provided in my first comment this thread.
"A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that."
In regard to the 2020 election, as far as I have been able to determine, based on the research provided in the links above and statements made by Montgomery, Lindell, various cyber experts employed by Lindell, the nature of the PCAP data provided to Lindell as described by experts who have worked the data hands-on, and is the subject of the current filings and memorandum in the Nevada Court, the 2020 32 terabytes of PCAP data was not the result of a MITM attack but was the product of a passive collection operation, nature as yet to be determined (clandestine or in some capacity officially sanction by some as of yet authoritative entity).
The very scope (geogpraphically), scale (32 terabytes) and short duration (03 Nov to 06 Nov 2020) (all these factors in combination) of this targeted collection excludes what you are about to theorize. I would walk away from that... unless instead of a theory you have real world experience actually mounting a MITM "attack." of this scope and scale.
Attack is not a term of art associated with this type of operation and IMO is misleading to the average lay person. I would caution using this term. A passive collection operation is all that has been publicly acknowledged at this time. A fine parameter to work within until more information is made available.
"Stay on target" has many meanings.
Hitting a baseball is a kind of attack... catching the baseball that was hit is not. You attack what you want to somehow alter, disrupt or destroy and catch what you want to collect or capture. Again, just sayin
.
Beauty of discussing in a venue like this is it doesn't matter if a response to a question or comment comes 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days later... it comes when it comes... so no worries about timing makes for better communications since time is not of essence for now. Our only goal is truth as much as it can be attained and clarity as much as it can be managed.
We are playing chess by mail and half the fun is the anticipation when opening the mail box, letter present or not.
However, that said, time to process and time to research are certainly factors.
"A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order."
I know you have not had the time to review the links to the posts in my first comment in this thread, if you had you would have read my discussion with another reader asking the question about lifting the gag order by Executive Order. Link below - scroll down thread...
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6StjklN/mike-lindell-claims-usg-gag-orde/
Perhaps it would be advisable to review those posts and accompanying threads. I have read through 90% of the motions and filings accessible on line. I suggest rather than attempting to replicate that reading, that at this stage a review of the posts and threads above, which are linked back to original source documents, would be a clarifying exercise. But if you don't have the time, I can continue to provide clarifying commentary when their is a narrative divergence between our respective interpretations or research of particular issues.
"Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner."
"The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD."
You know this how? In particular how do you know that the Hammer associated super-computer was not moved from NV to Maryland and that the NV servers continued to run Hammer after having "moved Hammer" to MD.
Please provide a link to your source for this statement, if possible, in particular to the statement that Hammer continued in operation in NE after Ft Washington operations had commenced.
I have found no evidence in any of the on line sources I have reviewed on this subject that suggest that. In fact, just the opposite occurred when Montgomery removed the Hammer / Scorecard software from the Reno NE facility (when he discovered the illegal surveillance activity) which was the reason Trepp attempted to use the FBI and the courts to steal it back. Hammer/Scorcard processing was shut down. Lucky for Montgomery he got an honest judge in the proceedings. So, what have I missed that you did not?
Below copy/paste from https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/ site - in the CHRONOLOGY section.
Feb 3rd, 2009HAMMER Supercomputer moved to Fort Washington Maryland
Help me to reconcile your and Montgomery's statements.
It is my experience when the United States government buys equipment as part of contract to provide assistance to a contractor's delivery of a service, they do not transfer ownership of that equipment to the contractor, particularly in the instances when that equipment has processed highly classified data. Just sayin... in my experience, and I mean specifically, in my experience.
"When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract."
Yes. Concur. Look at that contract. References can be found in the links provided in my first comment this thread.
"A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that."
In regard to the 2020 election, as far as I have been able to determine, based on the research provided in the links above and statements made by Montgomery, Lindell, various cyber experts employed by Lindell, the nature of the PCAP data provided to Lindell as described by experts who have worked the data hands-on, and is the subject of the current filings and memorandum in the Nevada Court, the 2020 32 terabytes of PCAP data was not the result of a MITM attack but was the product of a passive collection operation, nature as yet to be determined (clandestine or in some capacity officially sanction by some as of yet authoritative entity).
The very scope (geogpraphically), scale (32 terabytes) and short duration (03 Nov to 06 Nov 2020) (all these factors in combination) of this targeted collection excludes what you are about to theorize. I would walk away from that... unless instead of a theory you have real world experience actually mounting a MITM "attack." of this scope and scale.
Attack is not a term of art associated with this type of operation and IMO is misleading to the average lay person. I would caution using this term. A passive collection operation is all that has been publicly acknowledged at this time. A fine parameter to work within until more information is made available.
"Stay on target" has many meanings.
Hitting a baseball is a kind of attack... catching the baseball that was hit is not. You attack what you want to somehow alter, disrupt or destroy and catch what you want to collect or capture. Again, just sayin
.
Beauty of discussing in a venue like this is it doesn't matter if a response to a question or comment comes 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days later... it comes when it comes... so no worries about timing makes for better communications since time is not of essence for now. Our only goal is truth as much as it can be attained and clarity as much as it can be managed.
We are playing chess by mail and half the fun is the anticipation when opening the mail box, letter present or not.
However, that said, time to process and time to research are certainly factors.
"A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order."
I know you have not had the time to review the links to the posts in my first comment in this thread, if you had you would have read my discussion with another reader asking the question about lifting the gag order by Executive Order. Link below - scroll down thread...
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6StjklN/mike-lindell-claims-usg-gag-orde/
Perhaps it would be advisable to review those posts and accompanying threads. I have read through 90% of the motions and filings accessible on line. I suggest rather than attempting to replicate that reading, that at this stage a review of the posts and threads above, which are linked back to original source documents, would be a clarifying exercise. But if you don't have the time, I can continue to provide clarifying commentary when their is a narrative divergence between our respective interpretations or research of particular issues.
"Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner."
"The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD."
You know this how? In particular how do you know that the Hammer associated super-computer was not moved from NV to Maryland and that the NV servers continued to run Hammer after having "moved Hammer" to MD.
Please provide a link to your source for this statement, if possible, in particular to the statement that Hammer continued in operation in NE after Ft Washington operations had commenced.
I have found no evidence in any of the on line sources I have reviewed on this subject that suggest that. In fact, just the opposite occurred when Montgomery removed the Hammer / Scorecard software from the Reno NE facility (when he discovered the illegal surveillance activity) which was the reason Trepp attempted to use the FBI and the courts to steal it back. Lucky for Montgomery he got an honest judge in the proceedings. So, what have I missed that you did not?
Below copy/paste from https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/ site - in the CHRONOLOGY section.
Feb 3rd, 2009HAMMER Supercomputer moved to Fort Washington Maryland
Help me to reconcile your and Montgomery's statements.
It is my experience when the United States government buys equipment as part of contract to provide assistance to a contractor's delivery of a service, they do not transfer ownership of that equipment to the contractor, particularly in the instances when that equipment has processed highly classified data. Just sayin... in my experience, and I mean specifically, in my experience.
"When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract."
Yes. Concur. Look at that contract. References can be found in the links provided in my first comment this thread.
"A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that."
In regard to the 2020 election, as far as I have been able to determine, based on the research provided in the links above and statements made by Montgomery, Lindell, various cyber experts employed by Lindell, the nature of the PCAP data provided to Lindell as described by experts who have worked the data hands-on, and is the subject of the current filings and memorandum in the Nevada Court, the 2020 32 terabytes of PCAP data was not the result of a MITM attack but was the product of a passive collection operation, nature as yet to be determined (clandestine or in some capacity officially sanction by some as of yet authoritative entity).
The very scope (geogpraphically), scale (32 terabytes) and short duration (03 Nov to 06 Nov 2020) (all these factors in combination) of this targeted collection excludes what you are about to theorize. I would walk away from that... unless instead of a theory you have real world experience actually mounting a MITM "attack." of this scope and scale.
Attack is not a term of art associated with this type of operation and IMO is misleading to the average lay person. I would caution using this term. A passive collection operation is all that has been publicly acknowledged at this time. A fine parameter to work within until more information is made available.
"Stay on target" has many meanings.
Hitting a baseball is a kind of attack... catching the baseball that was hit is not. You attack what you want to somehow alter, disrupt or destroy and catch what you want to collect or capture. Again, just sayin
.
Beauty of discussing in a venue like this is it doesn't matter if a response to a question or comment comes 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 days later... it comes when it comes... so no worries about timing makes for better communications since time is not of essence for now. Our only goal is truth as much as it can be attained and clarity as much as it can be managed.
We are playing chess by mail and half the fun is the anticipation when opening the mail box, letter present or not.
However, that said, time to process and time to research are certainly factors.
"A President CANNOT lift imposition of a protective order. A protective order is an action taken by a court - i.e., an element of the judicial branch. The President is the chief executive of the executive branch. If you want a protective order lifted, you need to seek that relief from a court. So Trump couldn't give Lindell what he wanted. Declassification is not the same as removal of the state secrets privilege, which is not the same thing as lifting or clarifying or modifying a protective order."
I know you have not had the time to review the links to the posts in my first comment in this thread, if you had you would have read my discussion with another reader asking the question about lifting the gag order by Executive Order. Link below - scroll down thread...
https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6StjklN/mike-lindell-claims-usg-gag-orde/
Perhaps it would be advisable to review those posts and accompanying threads. I have read through 90% of the motions and filings accessible on line. I suggest rather than attempting to replicate that reading, that at this stage a review of the posts and threads above, which are linked back to original source documents, would be a clarifying exercise. But if you don't have the time, I can continue to provide clarifying commentary when their is a narrative divergence between our respective interpretations or research of particular issues.
"Timeline. By "moving Hammer" to Fort Washington, MD, they don't mean moving the Reno, NV servers to MD. They mean constructing a super-computer center that is custom-built with machines/operating systems/virtualizers/etc. to run his software in a "supercharged" manner."
"The NV servers still existed, and they still ran Hammer, even in the wake of having "moved Hammer" to MD."
You know this how? In particular how do you know that the Hammer associated super-computer was not moved from NV to Maryland and that the NV servers continued to run Hammer after having "moved Hammer" to MD.
Please provide a link to your source for this statement, if possible, in particular to the statement that Hammer continued in operation in NE after Ft Washington operations had commenced.
I have found no evidence in any of the on line sources I have reviewed on this subject that suggest that. In fact, just the opposite occurred when Montgomery removed the Hammer / Scorecard software from the Reno NE facility (when he discovered the illegal surveillance activity) which was the reason Trepp attempted to use the FBI and the courts to steal it back. Lucky for Montgomery he got an honest judge in the proceedings. So, what have I missed that you did not?
Below copy/paste from https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/ site - in the CHRONOLOGY section.
Feb 3rd, 2009 HAMMER Supercomputer moved to Fort Washington Maryland
Help me to reconcile your and Montgomery's statements.
It is my experience when the Unites States government buys equipment as part of contract to provide assistance to a contractor's delivery of a service, they do not transfer ownership of that equipment to the contractor, particularly in the instances when that equipment has processed highly classified data. Just sayin... in my experience, and I mean specifically, in my experience.
"When I refer to the contract under which Hammer was built, I am referring to the contract pertaining to the 2009 "move" event. Not the 2004 initial engagement. ...I note that Montgomery did many things for the government. Not just create Hammer. The 2004 engagement may cover a lot of ground that is non-Hammer, so to speak. I need to look at that contract."
Yes. Concur. Look at that contract. References can be found in the links provided in my first comment this thread.
"A MITM attack requires you to actually be in the middle. I have a theory about that."
In regard to the 2020 election, as far as I have been able to determine, based on the research provided in the links above and statements made by Montgomery, Lindell, various cyber experts employed by Lindell, the nature of the PCAP data provided to Lindell as described by experts who have worked the data hands-on, and is the subject of the current filings and memorandum in the Nevada Court, the 2020 32 terabytes of PCAP data was not the result of a MITM attack but was the product of a passive collection operation, nature as yet to be determined (clandestine or in some capacity officially sanction by some as of yet authoritative entity).
The very scope (geogpraphically), scale (32 terabytes) and short duration (03 Nov to 06 Nov 2020) (all these factors in combination) of this targeted collection excludes what you are about to theorize. I would walk away from that... unless instead of a theory you have real world experience actually mounting a MITM "attack." of this scope and scale.
Attack is not a term of art associated with this type of operation and IMO is misleading to the average lay person. I would caution using this term. A passive collection operation is all that has been publicly acknowledged at this time. A fine parameter to work within until more information is made available.
"Stay on target" has many meanings.
Hitting a baseball is a kind of attack... catching the baseball that was hit is not. You attack what you want to somehow alter, disrupt or destroy and catch what you want to collect or capture. Again, just sayin
.