by Sharon Rondeau
(Feb. 11, 2021) — [To listen to this article, in Microsoft Edge, click here, right-click on article header and click “Read aloud”]
[For Part 1, click here.]
On Trump’s last Friday in office, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell was photographed at the White House with typewritten notes he carried into a brief meeting with Trump appearing to suggest options by which Trump might remain in office via invocation of the Insurrection Act and a possible “National Emergency” declaration stemming from a September 2018 executive order concerning foreign interference in U.S. federal elections. Notably, Lindell said in later interviews that he shared information he received from The American Report‘s Mary Fanning with Trump and/or those surrounding the president at the time.
On February 5, Lindell, a longtime Trump supporter, released a two-hour video, “Absolute Proof,” with Fanning credited as one of the producers and main sources of information, during which he presented what he claimed to be evidence of widespread 2020 ballot fraud in several “swing” states sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Without providing a source, Lindell displayed statistics resembling those exhibited by former White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro in his three-part report produced after the election claiming that Trump, in fact, won the election over Democrat Joe Biden..
The Post & Email cannot confirm Lindell’s data was extracted from the “Navarro Report.” However, numerous lawsuits filed on behalf of the Trump campaign which did not receive oral argument made similar allegations as to illegal voting in Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania allegedly more than sufficient to alter the election outcome.
At the 1:36:00 mark in the video, Lindell introduces Fanning, who has now altered her “Hammer and Scorecard” narrative to one in which she alleges that foreign countries commandeered the election away from Trump in acts of “cyberwarfare.” In fact, during her approximately 20-minute soliloquy, Fanning does not mention “Hammer” or “Scorecard,” nor does she mention the name “Dennis Montgomery,” even though in previous writings and broadcasts she has credited him with this work.
Through the use of video technology, Fanning claimed in Lindell’s video that China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries penetrated U.S. election systems, county by county, switching votes from Trump to Biden by the thousands. To purportedly back up her reporting, Fanning presented documentation displaying columns of data, including alleged IP addresses of bad actors involved as well as targeted IP addresses where votes purportedly resided in electronic voting equipment and were changed from Trump to Biden. She also revealed a dazzling video presentation depicting an unblockable array of attacks via the internet on election machines throughout the United States. China was the worst foreign offender, Lindell and Fanning alleged.
Mike Zullo, who was assigned by then-Sheriff Joseph Arpaio to oversee Montgomery’s work as a confidential informant for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) throughout 2014, told The P&E that the video presentation and IP addresses are “hallmark Montgomery.” “I have seen this before in dealing with him,” Zullo said. “Montgomery’s tantalizing depiction is designed to have the viewer believe all these countries worked in tandem precisely at the same time in a choreographed cyber dance altering vote counts. That same video ‘documentation’ appeared on Montgomery’s website, Blxware.org, some weeks prior to the Lindell documentary and have since been removed; this, too, is all Montgomery. Montgomery used video presentations to dazzle government officials as part of his scheme to defraud the government. I viewed them and they were also turned over as evidence to a federal court.”
Like Lindell, Fanning does not reveal her source other than to say that an undisclosed number of “cybersecurity analysts” reportedly working for the United States were responsible for gathering the evidence of election interference beginning on November 1, two days before election day.
Zullo told The P&E he is extremely concerned that Lindell has not been made aware of Montgomery’s past and that none of Montgomery’s information has been properly vetted. “Lindell may very well end up being a victim of another con and Fanning has brought this trojan horse into Lindell’s world,” Zullo continued. “Fanning’s new tactic of not revealing the name of her source, which is easily determined by the revelation and previous crediting of Montgomery by name in her many articles over many months, clearly demonstrates that she is actually aware of Montgomery’s credibility issue. I know she is acutely aware of his defrauding the sheriff’s office yet she continues to remain silent and conceal him from public view and scrutiny. A simple internet search would have revealed it all.”
Montgomery was credited in a 2010 Playboy article as “The Man Who Conned the Pentagon” for having claimed, in the years following the 9/11 attacks, that software he allegedly invented could detect hidden messages in Al Jazeera broadcasts. Montgomery’s claim contributed to a declaration by then-DHS Secretary Tom Ridge of a “Code Orange” resulting in the grounding of French airliners just before Christmas and of Pentagon officials considering shooting down additional aircraft. It was later determined that none of the information was valid.
“This doesn’t bode well for Mike Lindell who, from my observation, honestly believes the Montgomery information brought forward by Fanning is legitimate,” Zullo said. “Fanning’s information was the grand finale of the film. It is just a matter of time before Montgomery comes to the surface and his work and reputation are thoroughly scrutinized. I fear it will all fall apart and the media will seize the opportunity to discredit everyone and their information appearing in the documentary. I understand that Montgomery’s information already has problems. While I personally do believe there was voter fraud and election-tampering, and there are some very creditable people who presented information in Lindell’s documentary, based on my personal experience, I find it very difficult to believe anything Montgomery brings to the table. Mary Fanning may very well have planted a poison pill in that body of work. This is either sheer journalistic dereliction or outright sabotage. It is just inconceivable to me that anyone with any gray matter in their head would interject this guy, with this background, into this national crisis that for certain will be litigated. The thought of Montgomery testifying on behalf of the President is absolutely horrifying. Fanning’s concealment of Montgomery’s identity smacks of premeditation and willful intent. She knows he is a land mine; she just does not want you to know.
“It is always important to remember that it is not what you know, think or believe; it is what you can prove that matters, and Montgomery has not been able to prove anything for seven years. He has never demonstrated that any software he claims he created since 2001 ever worked,” Zullo said.
In his 2014 book, “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War,” author James Risen dedicated his entire second chapter to Montgomery’s purveying of his purported inventions to the Pentagon and the CIA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, claiming his software could detect an impending terrorist attack. The chapter includes Montgomery’s denials of having misled Pentagon officials as to the software’s capabilities while at the same time, revealing some of the pitfalls of the government’s hiring of contractors whose primary interest is financial gain. Montgomery attempted to sue Risen and his publisher over the chapter but failed to produce the software that would prove his claim and the case was dismissed.
Appealing to audiences apparently vulnerable to uncorroborated information, the documentary has garnered widespread distribution even while being censored by YouTube. Further, Lindell has been a guest on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” and a number of other prominent radio programs touting the video, which he says presents the “absolute proof” as to how the election was taken from Trump.
The Post & Email asks why “Hammer” and “Scorecard” are no longer mentioned; who the purported “cybersecurity analysts” are who gathered Fanning’s presented information and their level of expertise; how the data was gathered and verified; whether or not the purported evidence was provided to the FBI for investigation; and whether or not it has been corroborated. Are the charts Lindell claims as “absolute proof” “evidence,” “proof,” or neither?
In response to Lindell’s video, Zullo said:
Every piece of evidence put forth must be weighed, challenged and perhaps substantiated by additional facts, i.e., other factual “evidence” to determine whether it is relevant and factual, either separately or in totality that is sufficient to bring the trier of fact to the logical conclusion that any of this actually occurred. Montgomery’s trademark is to overwhelm with voluminous content, kind-of like hiding the devil in the details. It is all part of the grand illusion. To conclude what has been presented to be actual proof is premature. We are a long way from there at this point. Many people simply do not understand the difference between evidence and proof. What I have observed in the documentary can be categorized simply as evidence of the accusations, some of which admittedly is compelling at first blush. However, it is not absolute proof on any level at this juncture. That is not to say it won’t be at some point in the future.
I do want to be very clear I fully support Mike Lindell and am grateful for the enormous sacrifice he has made to bring this information to the public. But I strongly believe that much of this comes down to credibility of witnesses, and Montgomery just does not have it. There are others who I believe can bring the very creditable information forward and will not be hampered by the monumental credibility issues of Montgomery. Additionally, should Montgomery’s work become in conflict with others’ or proven to be completely unfounded, as I suspect will be the case, it will do irreparable harm to the entire effort. Montgomery’s stuff should have been left on the cutting-room floor. If Lindell was not made aware of Montgomery’s issues, that responsibility rests squarely on Mary Fanning and Brannon Howse, because they know all about it. I know personally they both were warned.
In 2016, a federal judge wrote in an opinion that Montgomery committed “fraud” against the MCSO in 2014 by claiming to possess evidence of government surveillance but never producing it. In 2009, a federal magistrate judge referred Montgomery to the U.S. Justice Department for perjury, an accusation which was not prosecuted due to the lawsuit from which it arose reaching a settlement. A third federal judge, Rudolph Contreras, admonished Montgomery for failing to provide the software and source code at the heart of his defamation lawsuit against Risen which Montgomery himself initiated.
The “analysis” to which Fanning referred in the Lindell video consists of a chart bearing multiple columns of data alleging thousands of pages of the type of documentation as shown on the WVW-TV broadcast of January 13, albeit lacking a source or forensic evidence.
On Monday, former CIA agent, former State Department Office of Counterterrorism official and business owner Larry C. Johnson published his observations of Fanning’s assertions in the Lindell video at The Gateway Pundit, writing:
Mary Fanning claims to have evidence that foreign servers, including locations in China and Iran, were changing vote totals in specific counties. Unfortunately, she has not published any of this alleged evidence. You just have to trust her. But I dug into the information she is relying on and learned that her source is Dennis Montgomery…
The key to beating the lie that there was no election fraud is evidence–documentary, electronic and eye witness. The fact that Dennis Montgomery, according to Mary Fanning, is at the heart of this worries me.
Updated information The Post & Email received just prior to press time appears to support Zullo’s concerns. In an update to Johnson’s article of which The Post & Email learned just prior to press time, The Gateway Pundit wrote that software “technologist” and subject-matter expert Yaacov Apelbaum rendered an analysis of the data from Fanning’s presentation in the Lindell video, identifying a number of inconsistencies. GP reported:
Here is what Yaacov observed:
1. The data is not sorted. That would be virtually impossible for any select output statement that created the file.
2. Many of the IP addresses do not match the source and target locations specified.
3. Some of the company/entity names don’t match the location specified.
4. The document uses DBA names for companies instead of the actual legal name, which is what you would get if you did an actual IP-> organization resolution.
5. All of the destinations are protected with firewalls, so, the “INTRUSION METHOD” referencing the word “FIREWALL” is meaningless. Also, from the limited attack vocabulary it obvious that whoever wrote this is not familiar with actual cyber offensive operations.
6. Source date format is incomplete and is missing the time zone
7. Some of the records are incomplete, for example row 24 states that “TRUMP: DOWN 44,905”, but failed to add the “Y” entry under the “SUCCESS” column
8. The tabs on the spreadsheet show that the titles were created manually (“Sheet 1” vs. “Sheet1”), which is unlikely if this date came from an automated process
9. The values in the field titled “TARGET ID”, which have the format of a MAC address, were most likely created with a random number generator. A sampling of some of these numbers yielded no results
With the unvetted information from Fanning and Jones, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret) has touted “The Hammer ” in various forums as the answer to why Trump lost the election and described Montgomery as “a world-class American statesman,” no doubt without knowledge of Montgomery’s past. WVW-TV host Brannon Howse has hosted Fanning touting Montgomery by name on prior broadcasts, but inexplicably stopped referencing Montgomery by name, as did Fanning, several weeks before Lindell released his video on which all three, along with Jones, are credited as contributors and/or co-producers. By that time, Montgomery was known only as the SOURCE. Clearly not an accident, but a coordinated effort.
Much of what has been brought forth by Fanning appears to coincide with Montgomery’s past method of operation that is easily gleaned from his documented history and Zullo’s firsthand experience with Montgomery.
The 2011 New York Times article cited in Part 1 states that former Republican Senator Conrad Burns spoke to Montgomery’s fraudulent demonstrations of his non-functional software, obviously impressed by what he saw “In an interview, Mr. Burns recalled how impressed he was by a video presentation that Mr. Montgomery gave to a cable company. He talked a hell of a game,” the article reported.
Prior to Twitter closing his accounts, Lindell tweeted links to The American Report ‘s articles with a reference to “Blxware.org” purporting that along with the federal government, the now-defunct company for which Montgomery worked between 2006 and 2009, Blxware, was engaged in illegal surveillance. On the website, Montgomery sought donations to fund his alleged exposure of government corruption and had raised more than $74,000; as of this writing, the fundraising portal appears to have been removed. Zullo warned earlier that Montgomery was going to try to “monetize” his new efforts, which he did.
On Tuesday, Jason Goodman of “Crowdsource the Truth” called Lindell at his office and attempted to caution him about Fanning’s source, a gesture Lindell rejected. “I didn’t get my information from them, sir,” Lindell told Goodman. “I got my [information] from other sources inside the government that have nothing to do with them…”
Lindell briefly appeared interested in Goodman’s offer to “help,” but moments later ended the call abruptly with, “Lose my number…you’re working for Dominion. Goodbye.”
Questions remain as to the motive(s) behind Fanning and Jones’s persistence in promoting unproven claims which continue to shift from one focus to another. Responsible investigative journalism involves time-consuming research, verification through interviews with firsthand witnesses and collection of official documentation, and corroboration by others without an agenda and provable expertise in the subject matter. Regardless of how often a claim is made, without verifiable evidence to support it, the claim remains nothing but an effort to dominate headlines, garner website clicks and deliver financial profit to its purveyors.
What follows is a meticulously-researched timeline of litigation involving Dennis Montgomery beginning in 1993. As demonstrated by frequent excerpts from court transcripts and links to news articles, all items are gleaned from public information. Given the history, readers should judge for themselves whether or not Montgomery’s claims, absent verifiable evidence, can be considered credible.
Excerpt (This material not suitable for children):
September 1993: A former research assistant, Penne Page, at 3Net Systems, Inc. sues her former supervisor, Dennis Montgomery, the company’s vice president holding partial ownership in the company, for sexual harassment.
Court records show Page, who was employed as a research assistant, would level the following accusations against Montgomery in her lawsuit:
“On many occasions during plaintiff’s employment, Montgomery asked plaintiff to orally copulate him. During the last six months of her employment, plaintiff was required to travel to job sites in the United States and Canada. Several times, Montgomery told plaintiff he was going to show up at one of the jobsites and have sexual relations with her. On two occasions, Montgomery masturbated in plaintiff’s presence during working hours, demanded that plaintiff watch him, asked to touch her breasts, and asked if it ” ‘turned her on’ ” to watch him. During one such incident, the plaintiff ran from the office to her car, but Montgomery followed her, grabbed her arm, attempted to grab her breasts, and tried to prevent her from getting into her car.”
Montgomery’s attorneys would take a position claiming he could not be held personally liable. While initially Montgomery prevailed on this theory, Montgomery’s legal victory was short-lived. Page will appeal the decision and is ultimately granted a “writ of mandate” reversing the lower court’s decision, reinstating Montgomery’s legal liability, and Page is also awarded attorney’s fees. While this ruling does not determine guilt or innocence, it indicated the appellate panel’s disagreement with the premise upon which Montgomery maintained he could not be held liable under California law.
Download PDF of Parts 1 & 2: