Was There A Server That Was Seized In Germany In The 2020 Election? Revisited 2024.

[Ingomike]

I think you don't understand the difference between normalcy bias and rational thinking. Logically, the fact that someone can do something is not evidence that they did. It's fair to suspect they did. To be utterly confident that they did is a failure of reasoning given the circumstances. I think you're just pissed at me because I don't accept your instincts as evidence.

You keep posting like the fact they can is the ONLY evidence. It us not.

You had claimed that "I don't know" is not an answer, implying that likely yes, or likely no are the only answers for a question like that. The point of the "aliens" example was to help you understand why "likely yes" and "likely no" are not the only answers, and that "I don't know" is actually the most reasonable answer given the circumstances.

With the information available the I don’t know for sure but it is either likely or not likely is the right answer for discussion, and bacon, don’t know is for those that have no idea this even is a subject to discuss.

Why a raid in Germany instead of some other uncorroborated claim? Why must it be that? Because it's delicious. GWP reported it. You consumed it eagerly.

It is not uncorroborated you just don’t like it that CNN did not cover it. At one time there were two generals and some press coverage from Europe that has been scrubbed from the internet.

I would wager that I could completely fabricate a plausible sounding story, have AI make it look exactly like a GWP article, and you'd accept it without scrutiny. And then we could argue about it off and on for 4 years. And I could make the same arguments that I made here, using the same rationale. And you'd eventually post a poll trying to get other people to agree with you. And the only way you'd let it go, is if someone you respect told you it was a sham. Stuff like that is just too delicious to scrutinize.

All I have said is I found enough evidence that a preponderance of the evidence to believe it happed.

Just because it can doesn't mean it did. This is a logical fallacy. It's an appeal to possibility.

Again, the possibility is not the only evidence.

I think it's difficult to navigate the reports for accuracy. We have to rely on sources that are uber biased. What I mean by that. Both sides can and do fabricate stuff that benefits their own side. On the opposing side, their outlets are the only sources of news that will publish news that is true, that is unfavorable to our side. Of course they'll publish nonsense. But they're eager to publish the truth when it hurts their opposition. It's the same on our side. Only right wing sources were being honest about Hunter's laptop for example. You weren't reading the truth about that on any mainstream center, to left outlets. That creates a problem of credibility, because we don't know when our own side is lying to us or telling the truth.

As I see it GWP and others published the quotes of generals who claimed they had knowledge. Maybe they made it up to fit the other evidence, but I previously laid out the rationale for believing it likely.

You're eager to consume information that confirms what you already believe, and you're reluctant to let go of it even if proven wrong.

There have been many articles in conservative media that I hoped was true but quickly discovered they were blown out of proportion or flat wrong and moved on.

None of this is false except I think categorizing it as "the big steal" sounds about as nutty as progressives insisting 2020 was the most secure election ever. There's a space between the extremes where the truth most likely resides.

So you say it is possible but simultaneously it is nutty?

I don't expect deep partisans to see any apparent motive. However. If you're on the losing side, why would it not be advantageous to push conspiracy theories to sow distrust in the election? Not that it required far fetched stories to bring doubt in the election results.

This is true, but again based on my explanation of what occurred that it was the most secure election in history and the constant opposition to any security measures makes it pretty clear that something is going on.

You have people who have the means, motive, and opportunity. They also had the means, motive, and opportunity to do a lot of other things we can imagine, but we don't believe everything just because our minds can imagine it. Any evidence a raid actually happened? Any testimony from people seeing strange things when this supposedly went down?

There were some news stories in the European press at the time that have now been scrubbed from existence. Not like the old days when you could just go to some obscure library to get a copy of an obscure paper.

Anything other than people claiming it happened who have a reason to lie?

You never have explained the motive that TWO generals, who are now damn near off the grid when I do searches for what they said, gained to perpetuate lies. What did they gain to lie?

Set aside what you want to believe. Ask questions critical of what you do believe. Ask if you'd believe it if the exact same story happened, but for the other side. Does your political leanings make this seem more real than if you had opposite political leanings? Do I want to believe the truth, or do I want to believe what my imagination feeds me.

You are butt hurt. You really are. You wanted so bad for the great white horse to lead the cavalry to win the war that when they failed to materialize you became bitter over it. I saw it in your posts real time. I was greatly disappointed myself but regrouped to fight another day. You really are scarred over this.

 

[Ingomike]

This post is a good summary of your own normalcy bias, the admission that the CIA and military intelligence can not only influence elections, but do, and now have altered our very own election process is a big event to process.

The following is more for others following along than to @jamil, let’s look at the soundness of IM’s logic and some facts and let folks decide for themselves if this is similar to the question of aliens have visited earth.

It is an unassailable fact TPTB so despised Trump from the beginning of his campaign in 2015 that the FBI falsified FISA court warrants to surveil his campaign. This demonstrates the levels TPTB were willing to go before he was elected. Then look an all the extraordinary things they have done since to take out Trump. Extraordinary is and has been the norm concerning TPTB and attempts to take down Trump.

Is there anyone that does not believe that in this tech world we live in today, where everything from our governments and top corporations critical data can be stolen or manipulated, that the CIA and military intelligence does not have the ability to hack and do as they please to internet connected voting software? This has been exposed by several whistleblowers. At one time it was called hammer and scorecard.

We saw vote counting anomalies with our own eyes on our television screens and computers that are inexplicable. We were initially told the voting equipment was not internet connected, but later proof it was emerged. One of the top software designers /developers for the software the FBI and SEC use to find financial fraud, found fraud in the vote tallies. The very organizations that used the developer and his tools attacked him and the tools as frauds.

Is it any surprise that the very voting machines and software we citizens rely on is produced by companies with ties to very corrupt sources of money and power? Including foreign governments and organizations hostile to the US? There have been several sources that saw US election data routed through overseas servers and just this week election software code was found to be corrupt and even had the Ukrainian anthem in it.

Then when citizens try to secure the election process TPTB fight security protocols with all their might. The US elections are about the least secure major country elections in the world. This lack of security provides cover for the hacking manipulation of votes. The overall chaos of the election aftermath and everyone running around and even the low level fraud exposed all provided cover for the big steal.

Finally there were two generals that came out as whistleblowers on TPTB that were the ones that said there was a raid in Germany between intelligence assets in the field over server data. Many believe this data was the elusive Kraken. These generals have no apparent motive, that I can see, to do this other than to serve the country and live up to their oath. If they did have one by all appearances it failed miserably they have been relegated to obscurity and literally scrubbed from the internet.

In the preceding paragraphs we have the motive, the means, the outcome and we have whistleblowers that attest that it occurred, I believe it likely by this preponderance of evidence that there was a raid and fight over election data in Europe between intelligence factions and that TPTB won and it was covered up.

Is any if this new to any of you? Is this compelling to you? Are there questions? I find this topic fascinating and would enjoy fleshing it out rather than bury this or turn it into discussions of extraterrestrials…

I mean, that's how every conspiracy theory works. 9/11. Moon landing. Flat earth. Aliens. Kennedy assassination. Sometimes the conspiracy theories turn out to be true, and sometimes not. And it's the times people get them right that gives them confidence that they have some kind of super-keen instincts that they must trust. But when they're wrong, no such mental update happens. So people go on thinking that their instincts are better than logical reasoning for truth discernment.

I laid out a full explanation of why I believe it likely to have occurred, yet, you don’t refute my points. You just babble about conspiracy. Come on tell me what evidence I have wrong…

 

[Ingomike]

What Mike thinks he has:

View attachment 378549

What Mike actually has:
View attachment 378550

 

[Ingomike]

She got discredited. Was the discrediting fabricated, or did she earn it? We probably won't get to know the truth, if she actually ever did have the Kraken. But you believe she did. If it were the other way, with exact same circumstances, I strongly suspect you'd think the Democrat counterpart deserved being discredited for making such wild unsubstantiated claims.

I don’t believe she said she had it, but I might misremember it. I thought she said it was coming but she never got it. Kind of like an attorney that said they were getting exculpatory evidence for their client but the PI that had it or was getting it encountered those that wanted it more badly than he did and it was lost. Does that discredit the attorney? It will depend on who you ask…

 

[Ingomike]

I'm curious. Why does it matter so much that I neither believe it happened nor disbelieve it happened?

Mike passes it off as normalcy bias, which I guess is a defense one could take. But not an effective one that passes scrutiny. It's like something you say to deflect from points you can't counter.

If I had normalcy bias I would not believe it's even possible to have happened. But what I actually believe is similar to what you believe. The establishment would do whatever they think is necessary to preserve their power. You think that means every claim made must be true, because they would do it. I'd rather believe what's. Or what I can reasonably say is true, given the available information. And if the available information doesn't connect the dots necessary to give me confidence that the thing is true enough, I'm not afraid to say I don't know. But you guys act like that's a bad thing.

Normalcy bias is where something that has never happened before, even if people think it possible, they think it can’t happen or the terror of the thought of it happening causes people to believe it cannot have happened.

 

[Ingomike]

I always thought normalcy bias was a tendency to believe one thing over the other.

Mike had educated me that even skepticism to believe anything is a normalcy bias.

I am starting to wonder if everything is normalcy bias....which would make it normal. And if it's normal then normalcy bias is redundant.

I also noticed normalcy bias entered his vocabulary in heavy rotation which makes me wonder if he just took a psychology or a logic class because it's pretty normal for newly learned concepts to be identified more frequently even if erroneously. That's just normalcy bias.

Then again I don't think Mike is normal. I don't think i am normal.

But that could just be my normalcy bias of believing that everyone is special.

We agree, we are not normal…

 

[Ingomike]

I mean. I love this reasoning.

I think Bug used it once or twice and then Mike picked up on it. Or Idunno, maybe it was visa versa.




I think we should address normalcy bias thing as used on the internet to support extraordinary claims.

It's a tendency for people to disbelieve that some extraordinary event will affect themselves. So, say the TV is blaring tornado warnings, it's coming your way, you see the radar on the screen and the hot weather chick pointing at the place in that red splotch on the radar screen where the tornado is. She points to where it's headed, which is right near you. So instead of taking cover, you think it's no big deal and you don't take sufficient action to protect yourself. You might even go outside to see it.

I've seen explanations that normalcy bias is the opposite of situational awareness. Now Mike might be encouraged by that to insist that he's the one who is situationally aware, yet without being curious about his own biases.

But anyway, this thread is fun and all, but there's a lot more INGO to read. Also, I have to mentally prepare myself for Mike's epic takedown of me. I can only imagine it will be a lot like the promised Kraken that would have come, but for the CIA subverting it.

My biggest struggle with normalcy bias is clicking like when I see a @jamil post that actually is correct, my normalcy bias say he is always wrong…

 

[Ingomike]

I would love to hear the reasoning behind those that chose no, it is unlikely there was. What leads to that conclusion? I laid out my why it was likely.

 

[jamil]

You keep posting like the fact they can is the ONLY evidence. It us not.

You made it the most prominent part of your rebuttals to my skepticism. You asked me many times if I thought that the CIA had the capability to do it, as if that's all you needed to prove your point.

With the information available the I don’t know for sure but it is either likely or not likely is the right answer for discussion, and bacon, don’t know is for those that have no idea this even is a subject to discuss.

"Likely", means you think it was likely to have happened. Not likely, means you think it was likely not to have happened. There is another option. I don't know. That's what you say when you don't find the evidence someone presents for either likely or not likely, to be compelling. It's not my fault you haven't presented a compelling rationale. 75% agreed with me on that.

It is not uncorroborated you just don’t like it that CNN did not cover it. At one time there were two generals and some press coverage from Europe that has been scrubbed from the internet.

But I don't watch CNN so why would I care if they didn't cover it? I care about what I believe. I kinda want it to be real. It is uncorroborated. And isn't it convenient when you're in need of corroborating evidence, you say it's scrubbed. Why should I believe you?

All I have said is I found enough evidence that a preponderance of the evidence to believe it happed.

I think we've diagnosed the issue. Your preponderator is faulty.

All you've got is the word of a retired general, maybe two, who have reasons to lie (I gave you the reasons they have to lie), and a "news" that is willing to try to concoct a story out of it. By your own admission you don't have anything else except the appeal to possibility, because conveniently, I have to take your word that it was scrubbed, and that it was credible at some point prior to being scrubbed.

Again, the possibility is not the only evidence.


As I see it GWP and others published the quotes of generals who claimed they had knowledge. Maybe they made it up to fit the other evidence, but I previously laid out the rationale for believing it likely.

They didn more than just published the quotes. They made up a whole narrative. But nevertheless, you're free to believe it was likely. I'm free to post my skepticism.

There have been many articles in conservative media that I hoped was true but quickly discovered they were blown out of proportion or flat wrong and moved on.

Huh. Guess I'll take your word for it. But the way you cling to this story, one might get the feeling it's vital to you for some reason to have to believe it, in the face of a weak rationale.

So you say it is possible but simultaneously it is nutty?

Well, now let's recap to what I was referring.

---

MIKE: Then when citizens try to secure the election process TPTB fight security protocols with all their might. The US elections are about the least secure major country elections in the world. This lack of security provides cover for the hacking manipulation of votes. The overall chaos of the election aftermath and everyone running around and even the low level fraud exposed all provided cover for the big steal.

---

When I'm asked if the election was stolen, I say instead it was rigged. "Stolen" is a euphemism, and it assumes the election belonged to Trump and that "the cabal" as Time put it, stole it away from him. Calling it the big steal is kinda retarded.

If we could count all the votes gained by illegal means, and determine that Trump actually won the electoral college after the accounting settles, which is the only way to know if Trump would have won, you'd have a good rationale to say it was stolen.

This is true, but again based on my explanation of what occurred that it was the most secure election in history and the constant opposition to any security measures makes it pretty clear that something is going on.

I'm not disputing that there was something else was going on. But there's not a good rationale to claim the CIA raided servers in Germany. The statement you replied to here was intended to provide a reason for the purveyors of the story to lie about it.

There were some news stories in the European press at the time that have now been scrubbed from existence. Not like the old days when you could just go to some obscure library to get a copy of an obscure paper.

Again, quite convenient they've been scrubbed.

You never have explained the motive that TWO generals, who are now damn near off the grid when I do searches for what they said, gained to perpetuate lies. What did they gain to lie?

Yes I did. Here it is, see the highlighted:

I don't expect deep partisans to see any apparent motive. However. If you're on the losing side, why would it not be advantageous to push conspiracy theories to sow distrust in the election? Not that it required far fetched stories to bring doubt in the election results.

You are butt hurt. You really are. You wanted so bad for the great white horse to lead the cavalry to win the war that when they failed to materialize you became bitter over it. I saw it in your posts real time. I was greatly disappointed myself but regrouped to fight another day. You really are scarred over this.

Well, of course I'm going to push back here, because none of this is rational. What calvary? What bitterness? I've been pointed, but polite in our conversation. You keep saying things that I think are a bit out there, and so I push back. The oddest part is that I'm scarred? Do you really believe that? I mean I suppose you do. You believe the CIA raided servers in Germany on no real evidence so I suppose you could believe I'm actually scarred.

So this was obviously not the takedown advertised. Should I assume that's still coming?

 

[jamil]

I laid out a full explanation of why I believe it likely to have occurred, yet, you don’t refute my points. You just babble about conspiracy. Come on tell me what evidence I have wrong…

I tell you that all you have is the word of 2 generals. Because that's all you have. Plus the GWP article that made it into a narrative. That's refutation.

I've also rebutted the points of your rationale, most of which is based on your appeal to possibility. I haven't addressed the "scrubbed" evidence because it doesn't exist.

I mean, any eye witnesses see the raid? Were there people actually raided? If so did anyone talk to them? What facility was raided. What town was it in? Did GWP send any journalists there to follow up? Did GWP investigate any of the claims themselves? Or were they not curious enough to send anyone to find out whether these things were so? Remember back when journalists used to investigate and corroborate what people claim?

 

[jamil]

View attachment 378711

On what?

 

[jamil]

I don’t believe she said she had it, but I might misremember it. I thought she said it was coming but she never got it. Kind of like an attorney that said they were getting exculpatory evidence for their client but the PI that had it or was getting it encountered those that wanted it more badly than he did and it was lost. Does that discredit the attorney? It will depend on who you ask…

She's the one who called it Kraken. I don't think she actually implied any link with the story about the raid. She really didn't say what the Kraken related to; she just said that they had evidence and that they'd be releasing it shortly.

There are a lot of explanations we can imagine for why she didn't come through with the Kraken. The'd all be speculation. But claiming publicly that she has evidence and then doesn't come through, is going to sully her reputation. But I don't think she deserved to be canceled over it socially or professionally. In a fair world, she'd just be knocked down a few reputational rungs.

My strongest suspicion is that someone claimed to have some strong evidence, presumably evidence of cheating, and then when she saw what they actually had, it wasn't Kraken. Wouldn't surprise me if that someone was Rudy.

 

[jamil]

Normalcy bias is where something that has never happened before, even if people think it possible, they think it can’t happen or the terror of the thought of it happening causes people to believe it cannot have happened.

View attachment 378712

It's similar to what you said. But your definition seems closer to how the internet uses it.

As I said, people with normalcy bias believe that things will continue normally, even in the face of strong evidence of impending danger. The research around it is more in the context of not taking seriously natural disasters or other catastrophic events. Like not taking tornado warnings seriously, and then dying because you didn't take shelter. People commonly underestimate how disasters will impact them. The research determined it's a cognitive bias, which they named normalcy bias.

But, the internet likes to bend the meaning as a literary tool to deflect when people are skeptical of their pet conspiracies. For example, someone might say, "your normalcy bias is preventing you from believing the truth about alien abductions." That's not really what normalcy bias originally described.

 

[foszoe]

My biggest struggle with normalcy bias is clicking like when I see a @jamil post that actually is correct, my normalcy bias say he is always wrong…

Using "always" in a statement is a sure sign of normalcy bias....

 

[jamil]

It's been a few years since I read the original GWP article. So I thought I'd refresh my understanding.

This retired three-star falsely claims US soldiers died attacking a CIA facility in Germany tied to election fraud

Despite retired Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney's claims, there weren't U.S. troops killed in a firefight with the CIA in Frankfurt.

www.armytimes.com

Somehow over the years my recollection got mixed up. The narrative got morphed into thinking that the CIA raided a dominion server farm to destroy evidence of tampering.

But this morning's research refreshed my recollection, and added some information I didn't know. So here's the claim made by McInerney:

US special forces loyal to Trump conducted a military assault on a server farm in Frankfort Germany, controlled by rogue agents within the CIA. During which, 5 servicemen may have died in a firefight with with the CIA agents. The goal of the operation was to stop data flowing from several swing states into Frankfort Germany, for the ultimate purpose, to flip votes from Trump to Biden. The raid was successful, and they secured the servers, along with the data which would prove "the steal". That's the claim.

I also learned that I was incorrect about the Powell's promised Kraken. I had been under the impression that Powell's use of 'Kraken' was unrelated to this military operation. It's exactly related. She was referring to the data seized.

So having gained a fuller understanding of the exact claim, I find it all unsatisfying and unfalsifiable. We can't prove any of it is true. We also can't prove it's false. There was never any data released from this supposed raid. There isn't any evidence that such a raid took place, other than the word of questionable people. There's no rationale to believe it's true or false.

I say questionable, because apparently McInerney has made wild ass claims before, which caused him to be fired as a Fox contributor. I don't have a good rationale for believing him. In fact, having spent the time researching further into the claim, I'm downgrading my opinion of events from neutral to leaning more towards not likely, at least as claimed. I can't say it's false. But the claim looks to be far fetched, tho still possible if all the stars aligned just right. I think this retired general is a bit of a nutcase and not reliable. Sorry if that offends anyone.

 

[jamil]

Oh. And who is the second General? I'm only seeing McInerney making the claim. All the sources seem to point to him, although I did find a claim that Gomert was making the same claim. But all I can find about statments from Gomert was something about some other raid, which didn't mention anything about Kraken or rogue CIA operatives trying to steal the election.

 

[Ingomike]

You made it the most prominent part of your rebuttals to my skepticism. You asked me many times if I thought that the CIA had the capability to do it, as if that's all you needed to prove your point.

I never made it my only point, but without capability the rest of the point is moot. If a guy was murdered by a .38, and the suspect had motive, and opportunity, but the suspect has no arms he lacks capability.

"Likely", means you think it was likely to have happened. Not likely, means you think it was likely not to have happened. There is another option. I don't know. That's what you say when you don't find the evidence someone presents for either likely or not likely, to be compelling. It's not my fault you haven't presented a compelling rationale. 75% agreed with me on that.

We all saw the votes change. Experts testified that the vote tally patterns were not random. Something happened. This topic seems likely.

But I don't watch CNN so why would I care if they didn't cover it? I care about what I believe. I kinda want it to be real. It is uncorroborated. And isn't it convenient when you're in need of corroborating evidence, you say it's scrubbed. Why should I believe you?

I went back and looked at a link I had at the time to a European news article, gone. Other information I saw at the time cannot be found today. I know I saw it and read it, some I posted, but I cannot find it anywhere now. You don’t have to believe me but does it seem far fetched that it was scrubbed?

I think we've diagnosed the issue. Your preponderator is faulty.

51% baby is all I’m saying…

All you've got is the word of a retired general, maybe two, who have reasons to lie (I gave you the reasons they have to lie), and a "news" that is willing to try to concoct a story out of it. By your own admission you don't have anything else except the appeal to possibility, because conveniently, I have to take your word that it was scrubbed, and that it was credible at some point prior to being scrubbed.

What reason does he have to lie? You keep saying that but never tell us the reason he lies.

They didn more than just published the quotes. They made up a whole narrative. But nevertheless, you're free to believe it was likely. I'm free to post my skepticism.

If they reported what others said how did they create a narrative?

Huh. Guess I'll take your word for it. But the way you cling to this story, one might get the feeling it's vital to you for some reason to have to believe it, in the face of a weak rationale.

I find this topic fascinating. I don’t believe TPTB would perpetrate this from the US.

Well, now let's recap to what I was referring.

---

MIKE: Then when citizens try to secure the election process TPTB fight security protocols with all their might. The US elections are about the least secure major country elections in the world. This lack of security provides cover for the hacking manipulation of votes. The overall chaos of the election aftermath and everyone running around and even the low level fraud exposed all provided cover for the big steal.

---

When I'm asked if the election was stolen, I say instead it was rigged. "Stolen" is a euphemism, and it assumes the election belonged to Trump and that "the cabal" as Time put it, stole it away from him. Calling it the big steal is kinda retarded.

If we could count all the votes gained by illegal means, and determine that Trump actually won the electoral college after the accounting settles, which is the only way to know if Trump would have won, you'd have a good rationale to say it was stolen.

Rigged, stolen, play with euphemisms but the end result is the same. With our famously insecure elections true audits are not possible. That is a feature not a bug.

I'm not disputing that there was something else was going on. But there's not a good rationale to claim the CIA raided servers in Germany. The statement you replied to here was intended to provide a reason for the purveyors of the story to lie about it.

The story is that those looking for evidence attempted a raid on a server farm and clashed with the CIA in the attempt to obtain that data. It was reportedly in Germany.

Again, quite convenient they've been scrubbed.

Do you really think they would leave this hanging out. They want to keep you on their side…

Yes I did. Here it is, see the highlighted:

So a respected general tarnishes his reputation over politics? Not buying it, but maybe.

Well, of course I'm going to push back here, because none of this is rational. What calvary? What bitterness? I've been pointed, but polite in our conversation. You keep saying things that I think are a bit out there, and so I push back. The oddest part is that I'm scarred? Do you really believe that? I mean I suppose you do. You believe the CIA raided servers in Germany on no real evidence so I suppose you could believe I'm actually scarred.


So this was obviously not the takedown advertised. Should I assume that's still coming?

You changed on this topic after it all was over. You wanted it too and have had a tone about you that comes through ever since this occurred. I may have a similar bitterness as well.

 

[Ingomike]

I tell you that all you have is the word of 2 generals. Because that's all you have. Plus the GWP article that made it into a narrative. That's refutation.

I've also rebutted the points of your rationale, most of which is based on your appeal to possibility. I haven't addressed the "scrubbed" evidence because it doesn't exist.

I mean, any eye witnesses see the raid? Were there people actually raided? If so did anyone talk to them? What facility was raided. What town was it in? Did GWP send any journalists there to follow up? Did GWP investigate any of the claims themselves? Or were they not curious enough to send anyone to find out whether these things were so? Remember back when journalists used to investigate and corroborate what people claim?

I do remember but that is not today…

 

[Ingomike]

It's been a few years since I read the original GWP article. So I thought I'd refresh my understanding.

This retired three-star falsely claims US soldiers died attacking a CIA facility in Germany tied to election fraud

Despite retired Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney's claims, there weren't U.S. troops killed in a firefight with the CIA in Frankfurt.

www.armytimes.com

Somehow over the years my recollection got mixed up. The narrative got morphed into thinking that the CIA raided a dominion server farm to destroy evidence of tampering.

But this morning's research refreshed my recollection, and added some information I didn't know. So here's the claim made by McInerney:

US special forces loyal to Trump conducted a military assault on a server farm in Frankfort Germany, controlled by rogue agents within the CIA. During which, 5 servicemen may have died in a firefight with with the CIA agents. The goal of the operation was to stop data flowing from several swing states into Frankfort Germany, for the ultimate purpose, to flip votes from Trump to Biden. The raid was successful, and they secured the servers, along with the data which would prove "the steal". That's the claim.

I also learned that I was incorrect about the Powell's promised Kraken. I had been under the impression that Powell's use of 'Kraken' was unrelated to this military operation. It's exactly related. She was referring to the data seized.

So having gained a fuller understanding of the exact claim, I find it all unsatisfying and unfalsifiable. We can't prove any of it is true. We also can't prove it's false. There was never any data released from this supposed raid. There isn't any evidence that such a raid took place, other than the word of questionable people. There's no rationale to believe it's true or false.

Yep, the only info out there is there to debunk the the existence of the story, none of the original stories seem to exist, even on GWP.

I say questionable, because apparently McInerney has made wild ass claims before, which caused him to be fired as a Fox contributor.

What claim was that? Oh ya, he called John McCain “Songbird John'" and TPTB came down of FOX News and they capitulated to the mob.

Fox News cuts ties with retired general who called POW John McCain 'Songbird John'

A Fox spokeswoman told media outlets Friday that Tom McInerney will not be invited back for appearances on Fox Business Network or Fox News Channel.

www.azcentral.com

I don't have a good rationale for believing him. In fact, having spent the time researching further into the claim, I'm downgrading my opinion of events from neutral to leaning more towards not likely, at least as claimed. I can't say it's false. But the claim looks to be far fetched, tho still possible if all the stars aligned just right. I think this retired general is a bit of a nutcase and not reliable. Sorry if that offends anyone.

We saw the results change right before our eyes.

Experts testified that the changing tallies had patterns that indicate manipulation.

I believe we all agree the CIA has the tools to change vote tallies.

They have a proven motive to change tallies.,.

So tell me why wouldn’t they steal or have “rigged” the election outcome?

 

[firecadet613]

So tell me why wouldn’t they steal or have “rigged” the election outcome?

You're acting like Trump wanting to completely overhaul them would be motive or something...