Mike Lindell’s Controversial Cyber Symposium

By: Cliff Kincaid

Do election tactics like mail-in ballots and ballot harvesting explain how Trump “lost” the election nationwide? Or was there a Chinese-directed cyber warfare attack on electronic voting machines? That’s the issue as we count down to Mike Lindell’s August 10, 11, and 12 Cyber Symposium on voter fraud.

Some conservatives such as geopolitical analyst Jeff Nyquist question whether the hard evidence will ever be forthcoming. He gave me an interview on America’s Survival TV outlining his theory that Lindell, a strong backer of former President Trump, has been set up by Deep State forces to make charges that cannot be substantiated and that the symposium could backfire.

Lindell, described as the most seen man on TV, is a former drug addict who turned his life around through Christ. His firm employs almost two thousand people selling not only pillows but other useful American-made products.

As a result of his pro-Trump activism, he has been attacked personally and his firm has been blacklisted by various retailers for putting some of his wealth behind the claim that the presidency was stolen from Trump.

Although Lindell has become a favorite among conservatives for putting his money behind causes such as election integrity, he is seen by Nyquist and others as going too far in his voter fraud claims by saying he has “absolute proof” that foreign interests such as China conspired to sabotage Trump’s re-election.

The most recent Mike Lindell video, “Mike Lindell Releases First Packet Captures Ahead Of August 10, 11 and 12 Cyber Symposium,” teases viewers with what appear to be computer screens of data (at 8 minutes and 16 seconds of the video), as if intercepts of the cyber-attacks have indeed been captured. But the images are too vague to be able to be read by an average viewer. Lindell says they are data from the election in 6 states being captured in real-time. “We have all 50 states,” he says. “It’s billions of lines long.”

He says a screen at the cyber symposium will run this data, which was captured by “heroes” and validated by “white hat hackers.”

But analyst Nyquist questions the sources of the information and the analysis.

“I do not think it likely that thousands of voting machines were hacked by China, or that the whole thing was managed from overseas,” he says. He thinks “corrupt party machines” in key places like Detroit and Philadelphia conducted the voter fraud “for their own reasons,” primarily getting Biden and other Democrats elected.

Nyquist has analyzed and questioned the various claims made by Lindell and his supporters, concluding that a “three-letter agency” —  the FBI — has orchestrated a set-up to make the narrative of voter fraud look ridiculous and backfire. He adds, “If this whole thing is a setup of Lindell by agents or assets of a three-letter agency, then it is a very dirty game.”

In an article posted on July 22, he said, “I make the following appeal to Mike Lindell: I beg you, Mike, do not hold this Symposium in August. It could be a trap, or worse than a trap.”

Nyquist, the author of several books on geopolitics, did not automatically reject the alleged involvement of China and other foreign interests in the November 3 election. He believes China and Russia are enemies of the United States. But after talking to the various players in the controversy, he found deficiencies in the data and has questions about the sources.

Regarding one Lindell film, he said, “It is my belief that Lindell’s documentary Absolute Proof is an ‘absolute swindle.’” And Lindell is the victim of this swindle. His intentions are good, but he does not understand what proof is. Consequently, Lindell has been tricked into supporting a narrative that could derail the election audit process.”

The film “Absolute Proof,” described as “Exposing Election Fraud and the Theft of America,” is based on a report by Mary Fanning and Alan Jones citing “whistleblower” Dennis Montgomery.  An alleged former NSA/CIA contractor, Montgomery has reportedly provided extensive evidence of illegal wiretapping by U.S. intelligence agencies to the FBI, but that the Bureau has failed to act on the evidence that he provided.

Nyquist, however, concludes Montgomery is not trustworthy and that he may have been co-opted by the FBI.

I have extended an invitation to Montgomery and his backers to appear on my ASI TV show to counter the charges.

Turning the tables on his critics, Lindell is offering $5 Million to anyone who can prove the cyber data that he says came from the November 2020 election are fraudulent. He thinks the evidence is so strong that when it is presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, a ruling of 9-0 will restore Trump to the White House.

Yet, when various state parties after the election filed documented claims of illegal voting in certain swing states that went against Trump, they were denied standing for a hearing before the Supreme Court.

If Lindell’s claims fall apart, the well-documented case that election fraud and corruption were indeed at work in other ways on November 3 could be discredited. One observer told me, “I was part of the Trump election legal team. I was deployed to Detroit, I saw corruption. I do not know about computers. But from what I saw they were very bold and in your face about cheating and breaking the rules.”

Those tactics included keeping observers out of the vote-counting centers, putting cardboard on the windows at the center to hide what was happening, and using menacing “security guards” to discourage oversight.

Of all the programs I did on the subject, Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, was most accurate. He said that Trump, despite proclamations about voter fraud and his own victory, would exit the White House.

The author of It Takes a Revolution, Klayman said Trump’s legal team was not able to prove its case and that the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, wouldn’t intervene to save his presidency.

Klayman’s Freedom Watch organization recently conducted a Third Continental Congress, featuring various speakers on the subject of how to neutralize the corruption in the American political system, including in the courts.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

Share:

Related Articles

5 thoughts on “Mike Lindell’s Controversial Cyber Symposium

  1. Agree with Richards’ post above,,what a hatchet job of article and I too wonder why an article like this was allowed on this web site. This article is a rehash of all the nay sayers, especially democrats since the election. He offers no proof that actually proves the point of NO EVIDENCE. You have to be dumb and blind to not see the evidence as it played out on live TV. He obviously never looked at what evidence has been given by hundreds of sworn affidavits.. Hit job is rather mild. He also denigrate Dennis Montgomery, why is he not to be trusted, evidence. Please! Lots of hyperbole and very short on evidence. Just a pablum rehash of main stream media and democrat talking points here.

    I guess he missed the article printed in Italian news regarding hacking of our election and names of Americans who helped orchestrate using Italy’s satellite to do it. Unfortunately I did not save it. Regardless, I do agree we may need we get to the bottom of voting problems. Everyone should be very concerned about it and want a better method and security in our elections. There were many state laws broken where mail in voting is concerned, many many people did get multiple mail in ballots without request, that’s a huge problem.

  2. This is total lunacy, none of this has any basis in reality. Anyone sensible can see through this nonsense instantly.

    1. REALLY??? Then show US what you see! Prove it WRONG! The one who DOES gets $5,000,000! Sounds pretty convincing to me. Have you even watched the videos of the FRAUD! Probably Not. I have. Absolute Proof of voter fraud!!! WE WIN! GOD WINS!!

  3. This article is a “never trumper” hachet job, as proved by the last sentence: “. . . Klayman said Trump’s legal team was not able to prove its case and that the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, wouldn’t intervene to save his presidency.”
    . . . Comment: The last phrase “. . . and that the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, wouldn’t intervene to save his presidency.” is absolutely true. HOWEVER, the first part of the sentence, “. . . Trump’s legal team was not able to prove its case.” is a bald faced lie – His legal team was “able”, but NOT allowed to prove its case. The courts, at every level, would not allow the evidence to be presented in court.
    Why is Treavor allowing this unsubstantiated hit piece to be posted on his site?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.