by Sharon Rondeau
(Oct. 31, 2022) — As The Post & Email reported Tuesday, on October 21 MyPillow founder and CEO Mike Lindell spoke at a “Reawaken America Tour” event in Manheim, PA during which he described a face-to-face White House meeting on January 15, 2021 with then-President Donald J. Trump.
Lindell has only recently claimed he pursued the encounter in order to have a “gag order” lifted on a government protective order in a 16-year-old Nevada lawsuit settled in 2008.
The Litigation and Protective Order
The 2006 lawsuit filed by then-government subcontractor Dennis Montgomery against his business partner, Warren Trepp, accused Trepp and the technology company they founded in 1998 of copyright infringement.
Initially named “Intrepid” and later renamed “eTreppid,” the company launched in Nevada with the purpose of producing video- and audio-compression technology for the gaming industry. After the 9/11 attacks, its work attracted the attention of the U.S. Defense Department and led to a $30 million contract for eTreppid to supply software for use in the “War on Terror.”
Montgomery’s lawsuit and Trepp’s countersuit disputed the ownership of the software and source code involved in eTreppid’s work for the DOD, with Montgomery naming the Department as a defendant.
“Absolute Proof” not Forthcoming
Having related the story numerous times, Lindell claims that on January 9, 2021 he acquired unassailable proof from Montgomery, through intermediaries Mary Fanning and WVW-TV host Brannon Howse, that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from Trump. The evidence, Lindell says, is in the form of “PCAPS,” or packet captures, allegedly collected by Montgomery as the election unfolded.
According to Lindell and Fanning, the election interference was carried out by the Chinese in the form of a “cyberwarfare” attack on voting equipment across the country. In addition, Lindell says and Fanning has claimed, U.S. government bad actors utilized a super-computer system Montgomery alleges he “built,” “The Hammer,” along with software he allegedly invented, “Scorecard,” to flip votes from Trump to Joe Biden.
As with other claims Montgomery has made over at least two decades but more recently published by Fanning and Alan Jones at The American Report, the “Hammer” narrative, and its more recent addition, “Scorecard,” is uncorroborated and remains unverified.
As a result of the 2006 litigation, then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Negroponte filed a motion for a protective order on information Montgomery, Trepp and others held relating to eTreppid’s work with the federal government. In August 2007, U.S. District Judge for the District of Nevada Philip Pro granted Negroponte’s request while stipulating that information associated only with “any intelligence agency” was precluded from disclosure.
Although the government’s protective order remains in place pending any new court order, Montgomery has not been officially admonished or disciplined for conveying his “evidence” to Lindell through a reported business arrangement, and, according to the U.S. Justice Department, Lindell is free to release Montgomery’s information publicly.
Lindell a Path to Trump
At his “The Moment of Truth Summit” in August, Lindell spoke for approximately 20 minutes about his January 9, 2021 introduction to Montgomery and Lindell’s belief that it constituted a “divine connection.”
The introduction occurred, Lindell said, after Howse, who on several occasions had interviewed him about his theories regarding the 2020 election outcome, contacted Lindell to introduce Fanning, who was seeking a means by which Montgomery’s “computer forensics data” could be relayed directly to Trump. At the time identifying Montgomery only as “the source,” on January 18, 2021, Howse recounted on his website:
Brannon and Mary start out the broadcast discussing how Mary called Brannon on January 9, 2021 and notified him that after working for weeks and weeks of the source recording in real time the cyberwar and stolen election of 2021, they had no one they knew who could get the computer forensics data to President Trump. Apparently, many prior sources around President Trump had been shut out by deep state actors. Brannon told Mary that the only person he knew that he believed could get the data to President Trump was Mike Lindell. Brannon called Mike on his cell phone and conferenced in Mary. For the next 21 minutes, they briefed Mike on what the source had compiled in real time on numerous hard-drives. Mike had been doing his own research and what he was being told was consistent with what he knew to be true. After numerous calls and being shown data reports, Mike flew to Washington D.C. and presented the evidence to President Trump in the Oval Office. Mary, Alan, and Brannon discuss this topic in detail.
Data Source Elusive
Howse, Fanning, Jones and Lindell co-produced Lindell’s 2021 nine-part series, “Absolute Truth,” which included presentations and opinions from a number of public and private figures, one of whom, Michigan attorney Matt DePerno, brought a lawsuit alleging election fraud in Antrim County and is seeking to become that state’s next attorney general.
During the last 36 minutes of the initial video, Fanning is featured describing Montgomery’s alleged capturing of evidence from the 2020 election in the form of pages and pages of columnar data listing the alleged time, IP address, location and sources of the collective “cyberwarfare” attack perpetrated by China to change the outcome of the presidential contest. At the time, Fanning departed from her narrative surrounding “The Hammer” and “Scorecard,” launched on October 31, 2020 as the manner in which the election “steal” was unfolding.
Neither Montgomery nor his underlying sources of the information were identified.
As Lindell said at the August Summit, he spent “nine months” and “had another cyber guy that worked for a year – over a year now; it’s been a year and a half – validating and validating” Montgomery’s election data, signifying that it was unvetted when he took it to Trump at the White House.
Lindell did not mention a “gag order” at the Cyber Symposium he organized and held a year before, where he had promised to release the 32 TB of election data Montgomery allegedly collected. On the second day of the three-day conference, Lindell announced he was told a “poison pill” would be “put in the data, and that we were all going to be – they were comin’ and raid the place and arrest and grab whatever we had.”
“Dennis has a switch where you can watch and you can see all of this stuff happening…” Lindell claimed.
According to Lindell on October 21, after speaking briefly with Trump with the document in hand, he was taken “upstairs” and “downstairs” by White House attorneys but not ushered back into Trump’s office, thereby failing to obtain the signature he sought.
Although eTreppid did not produce election technology or software, Lindell appears convinced that the 15-year-old protective order precluded his ability to legally release the “PCAPS” Montgomery provided him, resulting in his meeting with Trump just six days after obtaining the information.
To that end, on August 20, Lindell’s legal team filed a Motion to Intervene in the long-settled litigation to request that the government lift the protective order so he can release Montgomery’s information and technology in his own defense against a $1.3B lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.
Along with the Motion was a 194-page “Declaration” signed by Montgomery in which he asserted his belief that his election data was precluded from release due to the longstanding protective order.
In the second video of the “Absolute” series, “Scientific Proof,” physicist Dr. Douglas G. Frank explained to Lindell his theory that the use of an “algorithm” based on U.S. Census data resulted in artificially-inflated votes in Colorado and Ohio, among other states.
In a departure from that narrative, during an interview with David Clements posted on May 23, 2021, Frank claimed that as part of Lindell’s quest to discover the truth about the 2020 election, Lindell “hired ‘like, mission-impossible, secret-agent’ kind of people,…sending them to the locations,” presumably where the cyberattacks were launched. “When I first saw the movie with the electronic incursions,” Frank continued, “I said, ‘I can make it look like I’m in Spain; I can make it look like I’m in China…It’s great information…”
Frank indicated he believes his “algorithm” explanation of the election outcome ties into Montgomery’s data illustrating “incursions.” At the 2:00 mark, Frank said of Lindell, “At that time when he made the movie, he only had the incursions, but, and then, I was excited because I could show what those incursions were doing once they’re in, but when you think about it, that still doesn’t prove that the incursions weren’t taking place, say, from inside the country, just appearing to be from somewhere else, right? Except that after that movie, after that, he had — and I’m telling you, Mr. Lindell is a real patriot; he’s spending all of his money, everything he owns he’s investing in this — …he hired, like, ‘mission-impossible, secret-agent’ kind of people that broke into those facilities, secretly, got into those computers where those IP and Mac addresses are and took digital images of the computers proving that there were actually people executing the commands when those were taking place…It’s not just a remote access; you can prove that there was — there are keystrokes on a computer at a certain time. You can prove that; there are logs. So he hired people that are brilliant computer technical experts to go to these places and actually do it. And he has said that himself on the Bannon ‘War Room’ that time.”
Three months later in August 2021, the Associated Press and other outlets reported that an investigation was launched by Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) into security practices in Mesa County after “passwords for Mesa County’s voting equipment had been posted on a far-right blog.”
On October 13, 2021, Colorado Public Radio (CPR) reported:
Copies of the county’s election management software and passwords were shared with people who believe the 2020 election was rigged by Dominion Voting Systems, the Denver-based company that supplies Mesa County’s equipment, and images were later posted online by the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.
Griswold subsequently decertified the county’s voting machines, and searches of Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters’s home and office were conducted which Peters and Lindell characterized as “raids.”
In November CPR reported of the leaked voting-machine information:
…That data was eventually released on the internet by people who believe the 2020 election was stolen, leading the state to decertify all of Mesa County’s election machines…
The searches came on the same day Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission said it will investigate allegations that Peters accepted gifts above the legal limit for elected officials.
The founder of the MyPillow company, Mike Lindell, who is a staunch advocate for election fraud conspiracies, has claimed he provided security and housing for Peters for several weeks because she faced threats after news of the security breach became public. Colorado law forbids elected officials from accepting gifts with a value greater than $65.
Peters was featured as a special guest of Lindell’s at his Cyber Symposium in August 2021, although video of her appearance is not found on Lindell’s Frankspeech website as of this writing.
According to CNN early last month, Peters was charged with a total of three misdemeanors and seven felonies in connection with the alleged security breach. She pleaded “not guilty” to all charges and faces trial in March.
Who Has the Passwords, and Who Used Them?
In mid-September both Frank and Lindell had their phones seized by the FBI within hours of one another. In an interview soon following Frank’s interaction with the FBI at an airport, he told Howse, referencing the Mesa County investigation, that “secret passwords” to vote tabulation machines “leaked out.” “That’s why Mike [Lindell] was able to acquire so many PCAP recordings,” he said.
The video, which is not easily located on Frankspeech, is here: https://frankspeech.com/video/first-and-exclusive-interview-dr-doug-frank-after-fbi-took-his-phone-airport
According to Frank, he told the two FBI agents that “over a year ago” he “suggested” to Peters that she conduct a “forensic backup” of her “election” computers. “So I coached her on that a little bit,” Frank said. “The good thing about it is that we didn’t just get one backup. We got a backup before the election, and then Dominion came in and reprogrammed the machines, and then we had our guy go in again and make another forensic copy.”
“I’ve not done anything illegal,” Frank said in response to Howse’s question, “Are you worried that you’re being investigated?” “False charges” have been concocted against Peters, Frank said.
On September 16, two days after FBI agents surrounded Lindell at a drive-through in Mankato, MN demanding he turn over his phone, KOTATV published an article titled, “Mike Lindell’s FBI phone seizure tied to Sioux Falls Cyber Symposium,” quoting Lindell. “Lindell says the FBI was asking about Tina Peters, who is facing charges for her conduct while employed to oversee elections in Colorado, including attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, and official misconduct,” the outlet wrote.
As noted above, Peters’s appearance at the Cyber Symposium does not appear to be posted at Frankspeech, although her address to the “Moment of Truth” Summit is readily available.
However, on August 23, 2021, a video was posted from the Cyber Symposium titled, “Copy Of Mesa County Clerk’s Dominion Machine Before And After Raid Of The Office.”
On September 7, 2022, CNN reported that in August Peters’s coworker, Belinda Knisley, who was also accused of wrongdoing in connection with the alleged security breach, accepted a plea agreement “in exchange for her cooperation and testimony against Peters.”
“According to the signed plea deal,” the article continues, “Knisley told investigators that Peters created a scheme that permitted an unauthorized person access to secure areas inside the clerk’s office and to the county’s election equipment. Knisley told investigators the individual gained access after he was given a badge fraudulently created by herself and Peters.”
The Lindell Search Warrant
As reported by Newsweek on September 14, the day Lindell’s phone was seized, “Lindell said he was questioned by the FBI about Tina Peters, a Colorado clerk who is under indictment over allegations of tampering with election voting equipment. Lindell said he was also asked about Dominion Voting Systems, and fellow 2020 election denier Doug Frank.”
The same article reported the search warrant as stating:
“ATTACHMENT B Items to be Seized I. The physical cellular telephone assigned call number [Redacted] “LINDELL CELLPHONE”; and
2. All records and information on the LINDELL CELLPHONE that constitute fruits, evidence, or instrumentalities of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(aX7) (identity theft), 1030(aX5XA)(intentional damage to a protected computer), and/or 311 (conspiracy to cufflink identity theft and/or to cause intentional damage to a protected computer)-(the “SUBJECT OFFENSES”)-those violations involving Tina Peters, Conan James Hayes, Belinda Knisley, Sandra Brown, Sherronna Bishop, Michael Lindell, and/or Douglas Frank, among other co-conspirators known and unknown to the government (the “SUBJECTS”), since November 1, 2020, including:
a. All records and information relating to damage to any Dominion computerized voting system, including any impairment to, or attempt to impair, the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information:
b. All records and information relating to BIOS on any Dominion computerized voting system, including any modification to, or attempt to modify, a BIOS setting.
c. All records and information relating to the attachment of any peripheral to any Dominion computerized voting system, including any USB flash storage drive or other external storage media;
d. All records and information relating to the operation of any Optical Disc Drive on any Dominion computerized voting system, including the use or attempted use of CDs or DVDs to run software:
e. All records and information relating to any software, program, application, or code used to obtain information about the configuration. security features, contents, or vulnerabilities of any Dominion computerized voting system;
f. All records and information relating to authorization or lack of authorization to damage or modify any Dominion computerized voting system;
g. All records and information relating to any attempted or successful misappropriation, theft, conversion, transfer, or exfiltration of any proprietary hardware, software, or other data;
h. All records and information relating to Conan James Hayes’ use of another person’s name, photograph, credentials, or other identifying information or documents;
i. All records and information indicating the geographical location of any SUBJECT.
j. All records and information indicating the state of mind of any SUBJECT, as it relates to the SUBJECT OFFENSES discussed in the Affidavit;
k. All records and information indicating attempts by any SUBJECT to conceal an individual’s involvement in the SUBJECT OFFENSES;
l. All records and information indicating the identity of any person(s)-including records that help reveal the whereabouts of the person(s)- who communicated with any SUBJECT about any matters related to the commission of the SUBJECT OFFENSES;
m. Evidence of who used, owned, or controlled the LINDELL CELLPHONE at the time the things described in this warrant were created, edited, or deleted, such as logs, registry entries, configuration files, saved usernames and passwords, documents, browsing history, user profiles, email, email contacts, chat, instant messaging logs, photographs, and correspondence;
n. Evidence of software, or the lack thereof, that would allow others to control the LINDELL CELLPHONE, such as viruses, Trojan horses, and other forms of malicious software, as well as evidence of the presence or absence of security software designed to detect malicious software;
o. Evidence of the attachment to the LINDELL CELLPHONE of other storage devices or similar containers for electronic evidence.
p. Evidence of counter-forensic programs (and associated data) that are designed to eliminate data from the LINDELL CELLPHONE:
q. Evidence of the times the LINDELL CELLPHONE was used:
r. Passwords, encryption keys, and other access devices that may be necessary to access the LINDELL CELLPHONE;
s. Volatile data and volatile memory stored in the LINDELL CELLPHONE;
t. Documentation and manuals that may be necessary to access the LINDELL CELLPHONE or applications on the LINDELL CELLPHONE, or to conduct a forensic examination of the LINDELL CELLPHONE;
u. Records of or information about Internet Protocol addresses used by the LINDELL CELLPHONE.“
18 U.S. Code § 1028 is defined as “Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information” and reads:
(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section—
(3) knowingly possesses with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication features, or false identification documents;
(4) knowingly possesses an identification document (other than one issued lawfully for the use of the possessor), authentication feature, or a false identification document, with the intent such document or feature be used to defraud the United States;
(5) knowingly produces, transfers, or possesses a document-making implement or authentication feature with the intent such document-making implement or authentication feature will be used in the production of a false identification document or another document-making implement or authentication feature which will be so used;
(6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawful authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority;
(7) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law; or
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
The search warrant specified item #7 (above) as the applicable subsection of the statute.
Another offense cited is 18 U.S.C. 1030 and specifically, Section (a)(5)(A), “intentional damage to a protected computer.” The statute reads:
§1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602(n) 1 of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States;
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss.2
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; 3
(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(1)(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(2)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(6) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph, if-
(C) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(3)(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(4),4 or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph;
(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)-
(I) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses (I) through (VI) of subparagraph (A)(i); or
(E) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both;
(F) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both; or
(2) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses under subsection (a)(1) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title.
(1) the term “computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government;
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; or
(I) an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) 1 of the Federal Reserve Act;
(6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter;
(9) the term “government entity” includes the Government of the United States, any State or political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country;
(10) the term “conviction” shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer;
(11) the term “loss” means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service;
(13) the term “Federal election” means any election (as defined in section 301(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(1))) for Federal office (as defined in section 301(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(3))); and
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
(g) Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in subclauses 5 (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (V) of subsection (c)(4)(A)(i). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in subsection (c)(4)(A)(i)(I) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer software, or firmware.
(h) The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection, concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5).
(i)(1) The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this section, or convicted of conspiracy to violate this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person forfeit to the United States-
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.
(2) Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section 6
Where Does it Lead?
If, as Frank claimed, Lindell or an associate obtained and used proprietary “passwords” to gain access to voting machines, where he allegedly discovered “PCAPS,” Montgomery’s data would have proved redundant and unnecessary to Lindell’s quest for answers about the 2020 election.
In addition, if, as Frank claimed, “mission-impossible” computer technicians “broke into” certain “facilities, secretly,” and “got into those computers where those IP and Mac addresses are and took digital images of the computers proving that there were actually people executing the commands when those were taking place,” has a crime or crimes been committed?