David is doing a public service…
I’ve taken the liberty of copy and pasting the Twitter chain by David Reaboi, and putting it into a regular text form. His salient points on this Q-driven conspiracy theory needs to be viewed by all. OANN needs to distance itself from the purveyors of the theory, for it’s eating at their credibility at a time when they need to bolster it due to the implosion at Fox News. No time (ever) to go chase rabbits down endless holes.
“Guys, this is total nonsense.”
For the credulous—here’s why it’s bullshit. (1) this nonsense theory is an adaptation of a previous nonsense theory purporting “HAMMER” as software used to spy on Trump officials. There is zero evidence for this, other than a guy named Montgomery—who is a total conman.
(2) We know there was spying—but that doesn’t establish ANYTHING having to do with this software. Your car could malfunction, and I could tell you it’s the Flux Capacitor. Even tho I give you no evidence—Your car DID malfunction, didn’t it?
(3) Articles about HAMMER were written by a team of two people on several different websites with no credibility. They were self-referential, using older links to create the illusion that evidence had been provided. It had not. It’s an InfoOp trick; oldest in the book.
(4) After the election—and it was becoming clear that some kind of fraud/weirdness was going on with votes—the conspiracy theory about this software, again, based on no evidence provided, was rolled into the prior conspiracy theory. Presto!
(5) Nobody has established that software called SCORECARD even exists or has been used by anyone to “fix” votes—it’s just been asserted, and somehow relates to HAMMER. This Montgomery character claims he made it; ok, proof it’s been used?
(6) Some very cynical people are depending on you to conflate several things at once, some of which is true. But these things aren’t necessarily related. For ex, this has NOTHING to do with Dominion—and thinking this SCORECARD thing is bullshit doesn’t mean there was no fraud.
(7) As for people with good reputations vouching for this story—the flimsiness and laughable nature of this story should cause you to maybe re-evaluate their judgement. Plenty of smart, well-meaning people fall for nonsense—and a RT doesn’t necessarily mean an endorsement.
(8) If you’re still falling for this, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe you have not had the experience of well-regarded former generals or people from the intelligence world tell you batshit crazy things that reflect a total misreading of the evidence. Believe me, I have.
(9) If I give you an explanation for something u believe to be true—is that explanation true? No. It could be something totally different that explains the phenomenon you’re observing. Calling that explanation bullshit doesn’t invalidate your observations—only that explanation.