by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 12, 2022) — For the last several weeks, The Post & Email has been following the Telegram channel of former New Mexico State University associate law professor David K. Clements, who along with his wife Erin is leading a canvass of Otero County registered voters in an audit of the 2020 general election approved by county commissioners at their January meeting.
Last fall Clements was dismissed from his teaching position for failing to wear a face mask while teaching, encouraging his students to abandon their masks and generally objecting to the university’s COVID-19 policies.
Clements has spoken at a Clay Clark “Reawaken America” event, hosts a Rumble channel and has approximately 136,000 followers on Telegram.
In 2014, he ran for the U.S. Senate from New Mexico.
Last August Clements attended Mike Lindell’s “Cyber Symposium” in Sioux Falls, SD, where he delivered an address titled, “The Vote Trafficking Parable.”
When announcing the event in late June, Lindell, an avid Trump supporter who has sought to prove the election “stolen,” claimed to have in his possession “PCAPS” (packet captures) gleaned from the night of the 2020 presidential election demonstrating that foreign countries, primarily China, conducted a “cyberwarfare” attack on county election systems, changing millions of votes for Donald Trump to those for Joe Biden.
Despite building considerable anticipation via numerous media interviews about his intent to release proof of election interference, Lindell reneged early on the symposium’s third day, claiming a “poison pill” had been injected into the data and he had been physically accosted the night before.
Following the event, Lindell confirmed that the alleged PCAPS data was provided by “Mary Fanning” of The American Report and former government subcontractor Dennis Montgomery. Other experts supplied the same data, Lindell claimed.
Montgomery did not attend the symposium amid unconfirmed reports he suffered a stroke just before. According to one symposium attendee who spoke with The Post & Email last fall, Fanning attempted to direct certain interactions at the event from afar.
Since March 17, 2017, Fanning and Jones have promoted dozens of Montgomery’s claims, which are often associated with current news stories and almost invariably lead back to his allegation, made in 2013 to then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, that a government super-computer, “The Hammer,” had been turned on Americans by the U.S. intelligence community to collect personal information without a warrant.
“The Hammer” spied on Trump, his family, and many of his employees, Montgomery alleged, and gathered personal information on members of the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts and prominent media personalities, among others.
Interestingly, for five years, Fanning and Jones have advanced the “Hammer” narrative without presenting any proof of Montgomery’s ever-evolving claims, and although inconsistencies and provably false statements abound in their writing, no corrections or retractions have been made.
Throughout their scores of articles in which Montgomery is mentioned, Fanning and Jones have failed to disclose Montgomery’s decades-long history of litigation, both as plaintiff and defendant; his failure to produce software he claimed to have, including in federal court; and the 2010 five-count felony indictment produced by a Clark County, NV grand jury alleging a sizable default to a local casino in 2008.
On October 31, 2020, Fanning and Jones put forth a new narrative claiming “The Hammer” and software Montgomery allegedly invented, “Scorecard,” were altering votes from Trump to Biden in eight key states. Two of those states, Florida and Texas, were determined to have cast votes for Trump outside the margin of error.
As of this writing, Fanning and Jones’s last article written about “The Hammer” is dated October 16, 2021 and features an interview of a retired Naval information security expert suggesting that in Maricopa County, where voter fraud was investigated under the authority of a group of Arizona State Senate Republicans, “our allies and our enemies” were responsible for producing the Biden victory.
In a striking about-face on January 3, 2021, Fanning and Jones made the claim, sourced to Montgomery, that China conducted a “cyberwarfare” attack against the U.S. presidential election, altering the outcome. Shortly thereafter, Fanning was put in touch with Lindell through WVW-TV host Brannon Howse to convey the data of the attack she claimed to have, after which Lindell brought it to the Trump White House to much mainstream media fanfare.
The result of the initial collaboration was a business relationship wherein Howse, Fanning and Jones became producers of Lindell’s “Absolute” video series aimed at proving the November 3 presidential election to have been stolen and Lindell supported their independent endeavors with promotions from his company, MyPillow.
Since the cyber symposium, Lindell and Howse have continued their working relationship. However, Fanning and Jones have moved on to collaborate with “Caravan to Midnight” host John B. Wells and reportedly no longer communicate with Howse or Lindell.
After years of following the Montgomery narrative, on July 6, 2021, The Post & Email published an article titled, “Did Mary Fanning and Dennis Montgomery set up Mike Lindell for a Hard Fall?”
Some have speculated as to why the Clark County case against Montgomery has been continued for so long. In his Telegram timeline, Clements, who was previously a prosecutor, wrote that such treatment often arises “when you are an informant.”
Some have suggested Fanning may have worked for the CIA in the past, an accusation she often makes of those critical of the Montgomery/”Hammer” narrative.
Wood’s new organization, #FIGHTBACK, supports Clements’s Otero County audit effort and stresses that Clements and his family are “at risk” because of it.
Both men refer to the importance of the need to “FIX 2020” and the pitfalls it entails. “Because of David’s persistence to FIX 2020, he and his family are facing mounting threats of violence,” Wood wrote on his website. “Before being assaulted by Byrne’s Deep-State Enforcers, David received numerous death threats. Many of the threats were directed at his wife and kids.”
“Byrne” is a reference to former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, who last year launched a 501(c)4 organization, “The America Project” after claiming to know how Trump lost the election.
Gen. Michael T. Flynn (Ret), who in 2017 served as Trump’s national-security adviser for approximately three weeks, is active within The America Project and, according to Clements, is associated with one Jeremy Oliver who Clements said threatened him on several occasions, including a physical encounter at CPAC late last month.
Flynn is often referenced in Fanning and Jones’s work.
In recent days Clements has brought attention to the convergence on Lindell, prior to the cyber symposium, of individuals whose purported information proving election interference by China remains unverified.
“I was at the Cyber Symposium,” Clements wrote on March 10. “I saw it all up close and personal. I was backstage, and at the debriefs. There was so much great information provided, but all it takes is for the work of fraudster Dennis Montgomery to taint all that were involved.”
Further, he said:
I believe Montgomery was used to hurt Lindell, and by extension, he was used to hurt President Trump. Guilt by association.
All I can say is that team Lindell was warned about Montgomery and Mary Fanning-Kirchhoefer.
I couldn’t get a sense of the PCAPS’ authenticity, so I avoided discussing them.
I believe my instincts were right.
He has also pointed out that Trump’s second attorney general, William P. Barr, is a former Kirkland & Ellis attorney, as is Kurt Olsen, who works closely with Lindell and spoke at the cyber symposium.
In early January, XR Vision co-founder Yaacov Apelbaum and TGP Communications, LLC, aka The Gateway Pundit, sued Fanning, Jones and Howse in Missouri state court.
I see commenters arguing over who is to be believed. I’m not to say, but I will say this:
Fanning, Jones, Lindell, Montgomery et al have had ample time to produce actual evidence. They haven’t done so, whether it be about the Hammer story or the election heist/PCAPs.
If they don’t have proof, then we’re being asked to go on Montgomery’s word alone. And this man is a proven, convicted fraudster.
Is it really any more complicated than this? For my simple mind at least, it’s not.
As far as we know, no court of law has convicted him on any crime, but there is the pending 12-year criminal case in Clark County, and there was a referral for perjury from a federal judge which was not prosecuted because the pertinent case settled.
I stand corrected. I was under the impression he had been found guilty of fraud in court following the DoD scandal.
At any rate, the other part of my comment remains in tact: they’ve had enough time to produce proof, and still haven’t. Why not? That tells me everything there is to know regarding the veracity of the claims.
Perhaps Fanning is relying on statements such as this one in 2017 from Mike Zullo: “So we don’t know what this Russian hacking is about, but the other thing Montgomery did alert us to is…[three-letter government agencies] have the ability to make it look like a foreign entity did the breaching when it was actually done within the borders of the United States.”
Or did Zullo retract that assessment?
The Post & Email asked Zullo about your comment, and his reply was, “That statement stands.” He also said he “is of the opinion that everything that happened in 2020 is actually domestic” and “Stay tuned for future articles.”
So it sounds as if both Zullo and Fanning are relying on Montgomery.
Why is acceptable for one to rely on Montgomery but not the other?
Does it have something to do with who gets credit?
Response from Mike Zullo:
Obviously, you haven’t been paying attention. Zullo relied on Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe and Thomas Drake, all of whom pointed to Dennis Montgomery being a fraud but confirmed the statement he gave to Zullo as accurate. If you are so inclined, check back for future articles.
The same Wiebe who initially called Montgomery a fraud but now backs Montgomery? That calls into question some serious credibility issues for Wiebe.
It is as if these people agree with each other only when it is convenient to do so.