That false.
It is not targeting Mike Lindell.
>OVERALL, DOES NOT MATTER, IT IS CLEAR AS FUCKING DAYLIGHT THAT THE ELECTION WAS HIT FROM MULTIPLE ANGLES ON THE GROUND AND VIA CYBER.
As I said lb,
that is utterly true.
SO FCUK OFF WITH THIS LARGE ATTEMPT AT TRYING TO FUCK UP THE LONG AND EXHAUSTIVE EFFORT
>P.S NOW YOU HAVE 50 STATE LEGISLATORS WORKING TOGETHER.
>MOAR PANIC
And also as I said lb,
this is a strawman.
It is Montgomery that is trying to discredit Mike Lindell with his Trojan Horse shit.
Oops.
The "SO FCUK OFF" rant was a quote of the anon to whom I was responding.
It is not my remark.
Montgomery and Mary Fanning are targeting Mike Lindell,
no matter what Montgomery provided.
>p.s Montgomery did not provide the packet captures. his testimony was used as a guide.
Got any sauce with that?
And another thing,
what the hell difference does it make about Sharon Rondeau's appearance?
That sort of remark is evidence of a glowworm.
>you must be female
Again,
useless points.
First,
a person's appearance,
and then the male/female thing.
You contribute utterly nothing to the argument but useless remarks about appearances and genders.
No sauce,
reason,
or logic,
to counter anything.
This just continues to show you a glowfag,
and have no credibility.
kek,
you are a desperate scam artist,
Montgomery.
Still waiting for that sauce.
Oh wait!
You have never delivered proof of anything in the past.
Why would you now?
>p.s Montgomery did not provide the packet captures. his testimony was used as a guide.
Still waiting.
Where's the sauce?
kek!
wah, wah, wah.
Argument about appearances is not a cogent argument,
Glowie,
Montgomery.
Completely batshit off topic,
on purpose.
Why?
Because you got nothing.
You're a fraud.
Now,
I'll ask again:
Where's the sauce?
>p.s Montgomery did not provide the packet captures. his testimony was used as a guide.
This coming from somebody claiming Montgomery didn't provide the packets,
but only provided testimony.
Again,
where's the sauce for this bold claim.
This makes it seem as if you are on the inside,
privy to details.
So,
you're one of the players?
Montgomery,
is that you?
Where's the sauce for your claim Montgomery didn't provide the packets,
but only testimony?
Where,
oh where is the sauce?
Attempting to discredit with no sauce,
then using arguments about appearances and genders,
nothing to contribute.
Surely you know this golden nugget because you're on the inside?
Are you Montgomery?