Hello, everybody. Welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R&R Law Group in the beautiful sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have helped thousands of good people facing criminal charges navigate through the criminal justice system. And over our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with the criminal justice system, with the justice system. In general, I’m talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges who are not particularly interested in justice, and we all know that it starts with the politicians, the people on top, the ones who write the rules, pass the laws and expect us to follow them. But when they get a little, a little bit of trouble or they’re called to account, they don’t want to apply by the same standards of justice as you are.
I, and so what we wanted to do with this program is shine. The beautiful spotlight of disinfecting transparency down upon the system, with the idea that we want to route some of this stuff out, we want to get rid of the bad, the malcontents, the, the people who are part of the system that aren’t adding anything of value to it and support those who are doing good, who are fighting for the people like you and I. And so what we want to do today is talk about it. And if you are a regular of the program, thanks for being here. If you’re not do us a favor and hit the subscribe button, because for a long time, we’ve been really doing a deep dive on the election election, 2020 is still going on. And what we’ve been covering here is the legal battle. I’ve called it the legal battle of all time, the world’s biggest war going on right now in the courts, but not only in the courts, outside of the courts as well, because a lot of what we’re seeing sort of unfolded is pseudo legal.
We’re seeing these legislative hearings here in Arizona today. We also saw them recently in Pennsylvania, and there’s a lot going on that we need to dissect. So we’re going to do that today. And we’re going to break it down into a couple of different segments. So, first and foremost, I want to talk about the Pennsylvania Supreme court. We’re going to get to that, that order in that ruling that came out over the weekend, there was a lot of activity. We had a long weekend very recently, and there’s been a lot of updates going on. So Pennsylvania Supreme court, they dismissed a lawsuit out of their particular court. We want to know why, because they’re using this really interesting antiquated, legal doctrine known as latches, which is something that you don’t hear about too much anymore. So what are they doing? Where did that come from?
Why are they sinking their teeth in on that issue? Is it relevant? Is it going to be overturned on appeal? We’re going to talk about all of those different questions. The other thing we’re going to really spend a lot of time on today is the Sidney Powell lawsuit, the crack and the crack and case that is developing out of Georgia. There was a lot of activity there as well. We have the federal court docket. I want to show you the flurry of motions that were filed over the weekend and over the holiday as well, because there’s some interesting things in there. We have a new affidavit from Dr. Shiva, which we’ve already talked about. Some of his information on the show. He has this big 40 something page affidavit that he filed. We want to break that down a little bit. We also want to talk about the hearing that took place in Arizona, which is a sort of, sort of a lot of what we saw in Pennsylvania, which we covered previously.
But Ms. Faith, who is back there found some very good clips, and we’re going to run through those with you as well today. So quick reminder again, if you’re not already a subscriber, now’s a good time to hit the subscribe button. We go live at this time every single day of the week. We want you to be a part of the program. Another reminder to join us on our discord server, because that’s where the chat continues after the show’s over it’s this chat platform where we can all communicate. And we also will share the slides exactly what I’m going to present in the discord server after the show. So if you want access to that links any of the original files on this episode, I have a lot of legal documents that we’re going to go through. I’m going to try to make it not.
So mind-numbing, you’re going to see a lot of walls of texts, but we’re going to try to break it down and communicate it in layman’s terms so that we can all understand, uh, what’s going on, including myself. So let’s dive into it. Like I said, I want to start with something that we’ve been spending a lot of time on this channel covering, which is the Sidney Powell lawsuit last week, actually on Friday, we came in, did a little bit of a black Friday show and went through the, the original filings. Remember these all came out on Thanksgiving day in Michigan and in Georgia. And we talked a lot about the underlying lawsuit, if they’re the underlying basic complaint, but new stuff was filed over this weekend. And one is interesting. It’s a big document and it introduces some new evidence. So we want to break that down and show you what’s going on in that new document.
So let’s take a look. Here is the us district court docket. And we pulled all this information up from pacer, which is the federal online access case record access portal. And you can see here, this was the original lawsuit we were talking about last week, Pearson vs. Camp filed on 1125. And we see here down here, it’s Linwood Jr. Who is the official attorney on record, according to the U S uh, docket. This is the Northern district court of Georgia, which is the U S federal court. And you can see down here, Ms. Sidney Powell signed this new motion, which was submitted on November 27. So that was on Friday and it’s called the plaintiff’s emergency motion for declaratory emergency and permanent injunctive relief and a memorandum in support thereof. So Sidney Powell, who is my understanding is not licensed to practice law in Georgia or the, the Northern district of Georgia for the federal circuit.
And so she is, is a sort of piggybacking on Linwood and Harvey McDougald who are these two attorneys who are actually filing the lawsuit. So Sidney Powell signed off here, but she has this little asterisk by her name. It says her application for admission pro HAC, VJ is coming, which means she’s gonna be, she’s moving the court to allow her to go in and practice. Now, what I want to show you next is a breakdown of all of the different minute entries, basically all of the things that have been happening in the case since November 25th, what I’m going to show you is going to be a huge wall of text. So don’t jump out the window, but let’s take a look at it and we’ll break it down briefly. I want to highlight some of the areas that we’re going to go through in this new filing.
So this was filed on November 25th, as we see here, very top item has all, all the different complaints, all of the different exhibits. This is what we covered previously. So, uh, Myra Romera Nicola Zuhair, we’ve got Carlos Silva. We have, uh, an exhibit from the Texas secretary of state rejecting dominion. We have, uh, just a number of different affidavits and reports and so on and so on. And this was all filed on November 25th. So then a couple of days later, we have some, some minor things going on in the court, notifies them about their COVID policies. And so on some ends get mailed out on the 27th to a number of different people. We have a certificate of interest and motion to leave, but then something happens very interesting. On 1127, we have a new motion that is filed with some new information. So let me move my image out of the way over here.
Let’s put it up there and what we’ll see on November 27th, this six, this number six docket number that was filed. We have a motion for a temporary restraining order with bold red, immediate hearing requested and motion for preliminary injunction and so on and so forth. But what we want to look at here are these two new affidavits that I have underlined in green. And you can see that there was an affidavit declaration from Dr. Shiva, I Adori who we’re going to talk about. And then there’s another one from an exhibit, a joint cybersecurity advisory exhibit. And then we have some text of an order. So this is new. This is new information. We have a new affidavit and this was not included in the original filing. That was two days prior to that. And so as we move on, we’re going to see what happened shortly thereafter.
So on the 29th, that was going to be on the 27th. That was Friday. So nothing was filed on Thanksgiving. So on Friday, nothing happened. We have all these motions filed on Saturday, nothing happens, but then yesterday on Sunday, look at all these court entries here from November 29th on, and then a whole slew of activity. Also today, literally today, uh, we just pulled this right before the show. And what you can see here is there’s additional notices, additional summons that are going out. And then we have these three check, uh, these, the three arrows that I put on the slide here that say we have three different orders. And so you may have seen some of this in the media over the weekend, largely sort of this back and forth ping pong of, Oh my goodness. A judge in Pennsylvania acted, and Trump won a lawsuit.
You saw that you saw that from some people in the Trump team. I think, uh, maybe Ms. Powell or somebody in his team were sort of amplifying these claims saying Trump won because the judge said that they can’t go in and erase all the tabulation data from the tabulators machines, big victory. Well then shortly thereafter, there was another order from the same judge in the same court. And it seemed to sort of undo that. So this judge came out with an order said, you can’t go wipe your dominion machines. You want to keep those records available because there’s an investigation going on. Then a couple hours later, there was this another order that says, well, hold on, not so fast. And then shortly thereafter, there was another order that says, okay, actually, yeah, we’re going to kind of keep moving forward the way things were.
And so there was a big back and forth. The right wing was very excited when the first order came out, the left wing was doing cartwheels when it was immediately, Hey, look, Donald Trump lost again. His teams were a bunch of idiots. And then now not so much because I don’t think anybody knows what’s really going on. So we’re going to explain what happened here, but it is interesting because these are, these are interesting claims that are sort of new and novel claims because remember the original lawsuit, one of the, one of the main claims, one of the main remedies that they wanted to get across to the courts was to stop the certification. Remember there was all a big race to stop the certification. Well, Pennsylvania is now certified and these motions are coming in after the certification. So what are they doing? Are they going to ask to rescind the certification or are they going to ask to modify it or to stop the legislature or from the secretary of state, from transmitting the documents over to the house of representatives what’s going on here?
And is this the framework? Is this the idea that they’re going to be using in the other States because Arizona just certified our results today. And maybe this is what their strategy is going to look like. We’re starting to see what the different arguments are going to look like as these cases progress. And as we move past certain deadlines, because we’re moving past certification deadlines in many States, but these lawsuits still keep coming. So what is the deal? Well, let’s take a look at it. As I said, when you go through our slides, if you get them in the discord server, you’re going to see a bunch of these different documents in here. When you pull these slides, you can actually just double click on the slide or double click on each one of these images. These are PDF files that are in the slide.
So you can come and take a look at it. So let’s take a look at what the original document said. So we had the original court filing, but then we have a new motion, this new one that was filed on the 27th, which was on Friday, that we now have a number of different orders about. So again, it’s hard to keep track of these things, but this is the newest information in the Georgia case from Sidney Powell, from Lynnwood, this is their lawsuit. This is the crackin lawsuit. And there’s an additional information that was filed that we’re learning about over the weekend. So if you want to skip all that procedural history stuff, this is where we’re at now. And Ms. Powell goes into her motion and she says, she opens it with this statement. She says, after a general election and hand recount audit vice-president Biden was declared the winner of Georgia’s general election for president by a margin of 12,670 votes on November 20th.
But the vote count certified by the defendants on November 20th is wrong. And I have that underlined in red. That’s their argument. They’re going to say, all right, well it’s certified great certified, good, good job guys, Pat yourselves on the back, you certified a fraudulent election. Good for you. So what the vote count certified was wrong. And that’s what their argument is going to be. She says tens of thousands of votes counted towards vice president. Biden’s final tally. They were the product of illegality and physical and computer-based fraud leading to outright ballot stuffing. She says on November 27th union County officials advised that they are going to wipe the voting machines of all data and bring the count back to zero on Monday, November 30th, 2020, which is today resetting the machine. She says, we’ll destroy relevant evidence now existing on each voting machine. This cannot be allowed. So that’s the main crux of this additional motion she’s saying, okay, look, it’s, it’s been certified.
That’s great. Um, we’re going to need to continue our investigation. The vote certification was wrong, but we want access to the machines. We want to go see what was going on here. So the rest of this document is really supporting that claim. And then we’re going to get to the order. And we’re going to see what the judge has to say about that. Is this evidence convincing enough? This is the material that was presented to the judge before we get to the order. So we’re going to get to that order that I already explained. This is kind of weird, you know, order than a reversal, then a reversal of the reversal, but this is what the judge was reading or seeing prior to issuing those orders. So let’s go through it. And remember, in my previous video about this type of content type about this type of, uh, of legal analysis, the two questions that we were asking ourselves was, number one, is it baseless?
Is it baseless? Is there any basis for this at all? And the number two, if it is, can it get over that? Can it get over that basic threshold that preponderance of the evidence standard in order to say, if we gave it the best evidence and we gave it the most time, if we gave it all the benefits of the doubt, if we looked at this evidence in a light, most favorable to the people, making the claim in this case, Sidney Powell, her team Trump’s supporters across the country. If we look at it most favorable to them, is there anything in here that, that maybe could be more likely than not that there was some fraud that took place that had an impact on the outcome of the election? That’s what we’re asking ourselves. We have to be very, very favorable to that side. If the answer is yes, or if it’s questionable, then maybe it’s most appropriate to be heard in court.
Maybe it’s most appropriate to let the case go forward so that these claims can be litigated on the merits and not thrown out just because the judge has some procedural problem with the case. So that’s what we’re asking ourselves baseless. And is it going to meet the burden? Is it going to go over that hurdle? And if it’s, if it’s just enough to even be questionable than the appropriate form in my mind is to have that heard in court. So let’s ask ourselves those questions as we go through here. Now there’s some additional stuff, uh, additional sort of paragraphs. We’re just going to cover on briefly. If you want to read the full complainants, it’s big, it’s about a hundred pages long. So, uh, you can go take a look at that as well. So let’s dive into it. One of the first things that she brings up is this a sort of, sort of one of these, these little bits that we’ve already heard from Rudy Giuliani, but they put it into a nice little chart here.
And I wanted to share that. So we see one of the first main sections is talking about mail-in ballots and a pattern of fraud. She says sworn affidavit testimony, detailed analysis of the results of the election results show that 96,000 votes were illegally cast 96,600 Malin votes. There’s a plaintiff, there’s a different expert witness. I think we’ve already talked about this guy before, but he says in one of his affidavits, he says, the first red flag comes from the male end dates. And he goes through this analysis and he breaks down. He says the voter records of the County show, 96,000 mail-in ballots or voted, but the County records show that they were never received back. So how do you have a vote that voted, but you don’t have any record that you got the vote back. He says 42 mail-in ballots were received back before they were mailed out to the voter 1800 were, were received back completed the same day.
They were mailed out 1700 mail-in ballots were received back completed one day after they were mailed out. And then 2200 were received back after two days. Basically those numbers are impossible. So he goes through and he adds them up. And we get to this number of about 96,000. So, uh, you see here in this chart, he just adds them all up total ballots with impossible mail-out and receive back dates were 5,900, uh, ballots returned with no record at all 231,000 ballots returned with no record and canceled and so on. So they’re, they’re identifying 96,000 potential votes that are in that bucket of questionable votes. And before we move on to the next document or the next slide where we have a little bit of information about what Matt Brainerd was able to pull up, think about this, one of the, the, the criteria or the arguments that Sidney Powell and her team are making is that you don’t necessarily have to show that the election would have gone in favor of Donald Trump.
You just have to show that we don’t know, we just don’t know what it is. And so this is a little bit of a different standard than what they’ve been proporting to argue previously. Previously, we’ve seen a lot of language here saying that any of these questionable votes, any of the votes that are in the, uh, you know, bad signature bucket or out of state voter, who shouldn’t be voting in our state bucket, or, uh, ballots came in three days after the deadline bucket, they’re identifying these big buckets. And previously those buckets were the allegation from the Trump team was that every one of those buckets should have been for Donald Trump, not okay. Well that that’s a questionable bucket and we want to split those up is either really been well. We’re going to throw all of those out or all of those need to be counted for Donald Trump.
And we even, we on this, on this program, we read some of the language and we’re like, Oh, that doesn’t make any sense. If you just, if you have a bucket of disputed votes, clearly those are not all going to be for Donald Trump, right? Just the same rationale that people have with questioning all of these big spikes in Biden’s votes. Uh, you know, many, many people in the media are saying, well, those are just natural votes and natural patterns. And those are just certain precincts being counted that are majorly in favor of Biden. And a lot of people are throwing their arms up in the air and saying, well, that’s, that’s ridiculous, right? There’s no way that votes vote. A bucket of votes comes back at 99% for one particular candidate. And so when Donald Trump was making the same argument, we were a little, uh, questionable about that, but here, we’re not seeing that anymore.
Now these buckets are not all Donald Trump’s votes. They’re just unknown votes. And the buckets are bigger than the difference in the election, bigger than the bigger differential between Biden and Trump. And so now they’re just saying it, we just don’t know who it is. We don’t know what it’s about. We don’t know where those votes would end up, but because of that, uncertainty, that’s a justification for what they’re asking for. It’s a justification for their relief. And so that’s a little bit of a nuance there. It’s kind of a technical distinction, but I think it is important because it’s changing a little bit and it’s getting a little bit more narrower. And as it gets more narrower judges, and I think legislatures are going to be more inclined to grant the relief that they seek previously. The request that the relief that the Donald Trump team wanted were so big.
He was saying, we’re going to have to throw out 6 million votes or 7 million or whatever. It was huge buckets. And we’ve talked about it here. That there’s no way a judge is going to do that. Even if the evidence is pretty compelling, they’re just not going to do that because the court system is based on legitimacy. And if the court comes in and overturns the will of the people, the courts are going to lose all their legitimacy and out goes the window, uh, their power. So they don’t want to do that. And now, as this is getting more and more reasonable, their claims for relief are becoming more, I think, more grounded, maybe we’re going to see some results. So that is the first bit of evidence. We see this chart here, 96,000 votes. We don’t know where they go. We don’t know what bucket they’re in, but there’s 96,000 of them.
And they’re concerning. We also go through and we see that principle sort of play out here in some of Matt brain arts data. So Sidney Powell goes through and says separately, uh, evidence gathered by Matt brain art in the form of recorded calls and declarations of voters. They were analyzed by plaintiff’s expert, William Briggs, and they show that there is a statistically significant sample. The total number of mail-in ballots, the voters mailed in, but were never counted. Have a 95% likelihood of falling between 30 1030 8,000 total loss votes. This range exceeds the margin of loss of president Trump by 12,600 votes by at least 18,000 or as much as 26,000. And so you can see, you can see sort of where, if you read between the lines on this argument,
You, you sort of see that, that, you know,
It’s, it’s a good argument. If you’re trying to prove the case that you don’t know how a missing 31,000 or 38,000 votes would impact
The election, w w you don’t know, right. There’s, there’s a big bucket there. The margin that Donald Trump lost, Georgia buys 12,000. We’ve got a big bucket of 31 to 38,000. All right. So if we, if we found those votes, it could change the election. Now, is it likely to you
Probably not, right? Because if you have 31,000 votes, Donald Trump has a margin of 12,000, he needs to win that bucket of votes by a two to one margin, right. In order to close that gap and flip the election. So is that by itself enough to flip it? Probably, probably not. Because even if you did find those 38,000 votes, unless this was something that it was sort of systematically disenfranchised Trump votes, then yeah. Maybe it does come back to one. Maybe it comes, it comes back all for Trump or a significant portion for Trump or higher than two to one or 80 or 90%. Right? Because this is just one part of the claim. The rest of the document is making bigger allegations saying that this is, this is just as one component. It’s just one puzzle piece. There’s a lot more of, of, uh, deeper.
Range of deeper depths of malfeasance across the board. And so Sydney, his lawsuit goes on and this is, this is the, the addendum. This is a new motion. She says in paragraph two, that there’s ballot stuffing going on Georgia’s election process depends entirely on voting machines and software poaches from dominion voting systems, computerized vote recordings and tabulations are controlled by software that were literally designed to cheat. We’ve seen this type of language a lot. She says these were open to human manipulation in 2020 ballot stuffing is not simply counting votes of dead people, illegal aliens. And so on all this occurred here, but sworn affidavit testimony, detailed analysis of reported election results. Now demonstrate that over 135,000 votes were illegally transferred from president Trump to vice-president Biden through an algorithm embedded in dominion software. And so this claim is pretty strong, and we already saw that affidavit in a previous exhibit, but this, this was a lot of the data that we were, we were speaking about where they were showing these big, uh, graphs and these spider webs of interconnected data. And we have name servers going to IP addresses and so on and so forth. Some of that stuff is over my head in terms of the technicality, but people with 35 years of background in, in, in computer forensics and detailed analytics and so on, they were putting together these massive aphids. It’s that seem to detail it pretty cool.
Clearly in one of our critiques about the Trump campaign’s claims was that it’s hard to do that. And one of Sydney Powells, I think shortcomings for a long time was this idea that the software was created in Vanos Venezuela for Hugo Chavez. All right. So what that happened, how long ago? Well, what happened here and now they’re sorting now they’re connecting the dots. It’s starting. The, the bigger picture of the allegation is starting to come together. We also see, I saw, uh, an interesting
Point about that. So-called flood that water main, that broke and had number of different observers to leave the counting facility. So remember this story and, uh, it’s, it’s in Sydney, Powells edition, new motion, and we’re learning here that that was not so true. There’s actually video of it. So here’s what she says. She says manipulation of votes was apparent shortly after the polls closed on November 3rd at approximately 10:00 PM. Election officials evacuated the state farm arena where votes were being counted. And they said that it was due to a plumbing leak that represented a threat. This was a lie here underlying, she says video of the location at the time shows there was no flood and no emergency. Instead after all challengers and other personnel, I left several elections.
Chris stayed behind and continued to feed votes into dominion tabulators for over three hours until 1:00 AM on November 4th. All right. So see, when you start to kind of connect these things together, now you start to see where some of the numbers are off numbers. Don’t make sense. There’s a bunch of missing votes, and then you kind of connect the dots here. And apparently there’s a handful of people who kick everyone else out and then have three hours alone, unfettered access to a bunch of vote, tabulating machines. And it doesn’t look so good.
And all this again is happening in Georgia, all of the same lawsuit. And this is one localized incident of connecting the dots, you know, locally hap in Georgia, this is what happened and just slowly methodically connecting one thing to another. Then we see in, as her document continues to unfold, we see this, this affidavit from Dr. Shiva [inaudible]. And now this, this guy has been the subject of the show. Previously, I’m going to pull up his, uh, his memorandum here. Let’s take a look at this entire, this entire document that Cindy Powell submitted over this past weekend. So you can see here, there’s a lot of, a lot of information here. The table of contents, we have the certificate of service. This is the case of the list of all of the different cases that are a part of her authority. And we just keep scrolling.
This is all part of her claim. And at some point we’re going to get down to Dr. Sheeva’s declaration, his affidavit, and I want to run through it. Not because I want to give you a detailed breakdown of it. It’s about 40 something pages long. I just want to show you sort of the work and the analysis that went into it. So it starts, obviously he’s over 18. He’s an engineer, vast experience engineering system. He attaches his, uh, his resume near the end of the document. I’m gonna show you that he actually ran for office at one point in time. And he goes through and you can see in paragraph five, he talks about how this works. There’s a digital scanner that scans the ballots. It makes an image of them. It puts them in a document such as a PDF or a, uh, an image file.
You can export some of this data into an Excel format. Uh, there’s a, you know, an electronic image of the actual ballot. You, so every single ballot goes in and gets scanned. It’s part of the record. And remember, let’s back up a little bit. It’s what Sidney Powell is asking for here is to not let them wipe these records clean. They don’t want, she does not want the dominion software to be white, right? And this is, this is where she’s making her claim. And this is what Dr. Shiva is doing. He’s going through. And he’s explaining why it’s so important how these machine works. These machines work. Now, you can see here in Cheetham County, he’s got all of these different graphs, these very localized analyses of the different precincts in Georgia. And he says, the graph below shows the percentage of Republicans in a precincts.
And then he compares those with these different patterns. And it just goes on and on and on, right? And you can see, this is all statistical analysis here, and we have more data from Fulton County, Trump, actual votes versus the reject, uh, uh, projected votes, more out of Fulton County. We’ve got actual votes Biden versus Trump. And in the gap closes, he does, uh, ethnicity based distributions, all sorts of just very, very, very detailed analytics, 16 page 16, page 17, page 19 and so on. And this is why this data’s pretty important is because if this is gone, then the announced the ability to analyze a lot of these records goes away. So he finishes here. He says, in conclusion, the declaration has presented in multiple counties, a consistent pattern of high Republican, low Trump vote pattern anomalies. It was discovered that ethnic distributions were applied to three counties.
The only plausible explanation for the vote distribution was the president. Trump received near zero black votes, which is also highly improbable. He goes down to the Cobb County. He talks about this weighted race where certain voters are given a higher weight in terms of their votes. So one person, one vote is what you normally think here. They’re saying no, not so not so fast. It’s about one person, 1.2, two votes of, of approximately the 48,000 votes from president Trump to Mr. Biden, 373 votes were cast and so on. And he, uh, he signs it. Now take a look at his resume here. It’s about, I think, 10 pages long. This is what this guy’s background is. Uh, let’s take a look, consulting software engineer, teaching assistant all over the place. Uh, chief technology, officer information, cybernetics, uh, modeling. He’s got a number of different academic pop publications, 200 confidential industry publications, white papers and technology, all this different stuff, right?
This is a pretty credible, pretty credible guy, as far as I can tell. And he went through some detailed analysis stuff. That’s over my head for sure. Uh, at least just from, you know, glancing through that document, but this was all presented to the court. This was all presented to the judge in district court. And what did the judge do? Well, he issued an order. He actually issued three orders, the first order of second order and a third order. So let’s see what he had to say. Now, as a reminder, what did Sidney Powell want? What did the Trump people want? They want to show that there’s more evidence it’s continuing to come in. And all of these other individuals are doing their own analysis that are now being incorporated into the bigger picture. So we haven’t had brain art out there. We have Dr.
Shiva. We’ve got a number of different individuals on the Trump team who are not part of Sidney Powell, his team. And so a lot of this stuff is just bubbling up and they were telling the judge, just stop them form eliminating the wiping, the dominion software, prevent them from doing that. That’s what an injunction is. It says, we want an order that prevents them from doing something in this case, stop wiping the machines. Here’s the order from the judge out of federal court. He says, plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion for temporary injunctive relief here. They seek an order directing the defendants to allow the plaintiff and their experts to inspect the dominion voting machines in Cobb Gwinnett and Cherokee County. So that’s it. They had a zoom hearing at seven 45 and, uh, they were, they were ruling on this motion. So it’s just an order to inspect.
That’s all. During the hearing, the defendants argued that the secretary of state has no lawful authority over the election. Officials citing Jacobson versus Florida of secretary of state. Their second argument. Well, let me, let me take that argument first. So here’s what the government is saying. Listen, we know you want access to the machines. We don’t have any ability to go in and make them do anything with the machines because they’re all local election officials. So the way that it works is right now, the Trump people, Sidney Powell, Linwood, they’re suing the secretary of state, Brad rafts Ravensburger and he’s the state, he’s the person who is overseeing the entire election. So what they’re saying, the government is saying, well, okay. Yeah. I mean, we know you want access to the machines, so we don’t have them. They’re not our machines. Those are what the cities, the counties, or the precincts.
And so go talk to those people. We don’t have them judge, nothing we can do about it. And so what the plaintiff’s what Sidney Powell and Lynnwood are saying is, okay, that’s fine. Here’s what we’ll do. We’ll just amend the original complaint. And we’ll just add the election officials. So we’ll just go, we’ll find whoever’s in charge of cob Gwinette and Cherokee. We’ll just go ahead and add them to this underlying complaint. That’s going to obviate the issue of whether the proper officials have been named as defendants to this case. Right? Pretty easy. So government says, Oh, we don’t have access to that. The other side says, no problem. We’ll just add the people who do have access to it. Who is it? Great. Give me their names. They’re getting added onto the lawsuit as well. Well, the defendants, uh, you know, they still don’t want to give access to this stuff. They don’t want people to come in and look at the dominion software to do these forensic analysis. I don’t know what basis for it. It is, understand the argument of, well, we don’t have access to it so we can’t let you in. Okay. That’s a separate problem. So if you, so in other words, if you did have access, if you did have the machines in your closet, Brad, would you let us come in and take a look at that thing? Or is there another argument that you would raise? Well, yeah, he does. He says defendant’s counsel. They also argued that such forensic inspections would pose a substantial security risk and proprietary trade, secret risks to the defendants [inaudible] so the plaintiffs, uh, Trump’s team and or Sidney Powell and Linwood, they said, okay, well, we can fix that. No problem at all, all we need is an order from the court.
It says, bring your own experts. Thanks.
So the defendant can bring their own people to come in. They can join us as we go through it. This whole thing can be video recorded. So bring your experts in and we’ll video record it. And, you know, we’ll ask the court to allow what’s called an in-camera inspection. So
If, if the experts get information about it, they’re just going to give it back to the court. They’re not,
I’m going to make it public. And in-camera inspection is exactly that. It’s when evidence is taken sort of out of the public eye and it’s reviewed back in the judge’s chambers, it’s reviewed off the record so that a judge can make decisions on sensitive information. And you see this in criminal law, if somebody is in the middle of a courtroom and they have a very important pressing, urging urgent thing that they need to address, they don’t just blurt it out in front of the judge or the jury, or if something is very prejudicial, it’s important to a case, but it’s really prejudicial. It’s going to be really hard for a jury to look at this and not sort of, you know, prejudge our clients or whatever. So what you want to do is you want to just go talk to that, talk to the judge off the record with that.
And that’s what they’re saying here. So Sidney Powell and her team are saying, okay, look, yeah, there may be trade secrets there. Sure. I’m sure. I’m sure dominion has proprietary and algorithms and a lot of very good justifications for their security and why they don’t want a bunch of people poking around in it. Especially people who have a stake in it, especially people who are running for office and, uh, and who may, you know, may be able to find an exploit and then utilize that. So their security, I understand their perspective on it, but that can be remedied. That can be rectified. And it’s pretty simple to do that. You just bring your own experts. So Sydney brings her expert. The government brings their expert. Sydney says, we’re going to record it. They can record it themselves in anything that is found from that investigation, it doesn’t go to the public.
It just goes right back to the judge. So the judge can hear the next evidence and sounds, you know, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. So why are they opposing it? Well, here’s what the judge came out and said, he said they had a zoom hearing and it is now ordered and decreed as follows. He says, after considering the email submissions today, it is ordered that the defendants. So in this case, the government shall have until Wednesday, which is two days from now, uh, enough time to set forth a brief and what factual basis they have, if any, against allowing the three forensic inspection. So if they have a justification for why these should not happen, why is that? Let us know it’s due by December 2nd at 5:00 PM, let us know the brief should be accompanied and supported by an affidavit or other evidence if appropriate.
So send us the evidence Mr. Government, if you don’t want us to inspect this stuff, tell us why. In addition, the judge also says the defendants, so the government here, they’re enjoined and restrained from altering, destroying, or racing or allowing the alteration or destruction or ratio of any software or data on any dominion voting machine in any of those three counties. It’s pretty good. Pretty good. So hang on to that data and tell us why we shouldn’t be looking at it, but hang on to it while you’re writing your motion. In addition, number three, defendants are ordered to promptly produce a copy of the contract between the state and dominion. So some government records about what that looks like. And then lastly, this temporary temporary restraining order shall remain in effect for 10 days or until further order of the court. Whichever comes first. So this is, this is important.
This is pertinent here 10 days. So this temporary restraining order is going to be in place from 10 days. This is the order. This came out on November 29th at 10, 10:00 PM Eastern standard time. So this judge was up late and issued this order late that night. Okay. And it says 10 days for the restraining order. Well then what ended up happening is shortly thereafter. Now this was the big headline across the internet, everybody. Oh my goodness, Pennsylvania judge team Trump victorious because they’re going to, you know, they issued all of those orders and this is going to be very great. Well then shortly thereafter, there was another order that came out and it was actually on the second day. Uh, the following day on November 30th, the judge came out and said, hold, hold, hold, hold, hold so fast. There’s actually a little bit more to this than meets the eye.
This is the second order that came out. It says, this court finds on November 29th. We already granted a prior order here, but this order involves a question of law and there’s substantial ground for a difference of a, of an opinion. And an immediate appeal may actually be necessary here. So this is called interlocutory appeal under USDA 1292 being. And what that means is this judge is basically saying, okay, yeah, I know that in that last order, there’s a pretty important issue here that an appeals court may want to take a look at. And it, it, it may have to do with amending the complaint to add in the different defendants. It may have to do with some of the relief that’s requested and so on. And so they’re saying that right now, if the defense wants to appeal this thing, they can take it up to the next level.
They can take it up to the circuit court and go and appeal it. But if you read this order, it’s not saying anything about undermining the underlying complaint or the underlying order, right? The, the, the, this order on November 29th says it’s going to remain in effect for 10 days, but then another order comes out and doesn’t say anything about that. It just says you can appeal this sucker up to the next circuit court level. And then when we move on to the final order, we’re going to see here that it says again, no comment, no mention of what happens to the underlying injunction that 10 days is still going on. But here it says this matter shall come to the court for hearing on Friday, December 4th. Now, so now there’s gonna be an evidentiary hearing or, uh, some sort of a hearing on the fourth this week.
And then the schedule here is going to be opposition to the plaintiff’s complaint due on Wednesday. We’re going to see a reply brief on Thursday, and then we’ll have the actual court proceeding on Friday. So it’s going to be a busy week. So that means the government has to respond by Wednesday, Sidney Powell and her team have to respond back to their response by Thursday. And then we’re going to have a court proceeding that takes place on Friday. So what that means is that Georgia is going to be lit over the next week. So expect to see a lot of new filings and a lot of new back and forth on this particular case. Uh, I saw that this afternoon that the democratic party, the DNC, the DNC, the DHEA, the S whatever, all of all the different acronyms are joining into this lawsuit. They filed a motion to intervene.
It looks like the judge granted that I briefly read through their response to the complaint. Their arguments are largely the same, not particularly, uh, much interesting there, a lot of standing arguments that there’s no basis for bringing this complaint. A lot of moot arguments, uh, that, you know, this stuff is over because the state has already certified this and so on. So, uh, not, not particularly worthwhile in terms of dissecting those, I think we’ve already done enough of that. But speaking of interesting legal claims and new legal concepts that we haven’t seen quite some time since we studied them, maybe in law school, we’re talking about the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, the Supreme court very recently issued an order, dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice. And you may remember this. Well, we’ve talked a lot about Pennsylvania. It’s hard to keep track of them, but this is the case that we want to highlight here today in the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, in the middle of the district. Again, this one was filed by the honorable Mike Kelly, who is a local congressperson, and he was suing the Commonwealth. And, uh, it looks like the, uh, Kathy Boockvar, which has been subject of a lot of Pennsylvania lawsuits, basically most of the year. And what we see here is this was, this was an order. This was called a, what’s called a bike Curium opinion here. So you can see at the top,
Bye Curium a PR opinion means it’s by the court. So when we get to the final page, we’re going to notice that this was not signed off on by any particular judge. And you can, you can have some commentary about that. You know, whether no judgment, I wanted to put their name by this thing everybody’s hiding sort of behind this court order, you know, and we’re all just gonna, uh, go along here, but nobody’s going to take primary responsibility for this thing. And to frame this out just a little bit further in Pennsylvania, there are a lot of, a lot of lawsuits that have been going back and forth for some time. Some are in the, in the, in the, on the door of the U S Supreme court. Some are in federal court. This one here is in state court. So this was, this took place where a local Congress person was suing the governor.
It was in a lower level court and the lower level level court prevented the certification. They issued an order regarding the certification of Pennsylvania’s votes. Okay? So this was
Lower level. This was not Supreme court. This was sort of an entry level core in Pennsyl
Lawsuits gets filed. Lower-level court says, yeah, you’re right. This mail-in ballot thing here. It’s a problem. We’re, we’re reviewing the documents and it’s looking like this whole thing may be unconstitutional. You mean like absentee bolt mail-in ballots? No, no, all of them,
The whole thing, because of what happened with act 77, which we’ve already spoken about a long time, uh, for, for, at length on this channel, there’s been a lot of litigation about this act, but let’s run through this,
This high-level. So when we break it down a little bit, so it’s, there was a lower-level court in Pennsylvania that said Pennsylvania is not going to certify our elections. The lower court said that the Supreme
Court out of Pennsylvania, not the United States came
In here and issued this order over the weekend on the 28th of November, here is what that order says. All right, pure
Curium. So this is an order from the court in general. It says on now
We’re 28th. We are taking jurisdiction over this, in this case, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the secretary,
We vacate the lower courts order, which had originally preliminarily enjoying the Commonwealth from taking any,
Okay, let me back up on this. They’re they’re here that any
Further action regarding the certification of the, of the 2020 election result is gone, then they’re going to be dismissing the entire complaint altogether. We’re going to dismiss it with prejudice. And you can see in this footnote that they’re taking jurisdiction over this, the court is saying on its own motion or on petition of any party in any matter, it can just go in and just take power. And that’s what it’s doing here. It’s saying we’re going to step in on this thing, because it’s so important they go through and you’re going to see the rest of the outstanding motions are all now dismissed as moot. So this is the, this is the takeaway from this opinion, let’s go into the analysis here. So what they’re saying is that they’re challenging act 77, which was passed into law in 2019. And what that act did is it established universal.
Mail-in voting for Pennsylvania. Now they’re saying they want to find that to be unconstitutional. So Trump’s people are coming into court. They’re saying that act that was passed in 2019 is constitutional. And what they want to do as a remedy is to prevent the certification of the results out of Pennsylvania. They’re asking the court to invalidate this. This is the court’s summary of what the plaintiff’s arguments are. So what team Trump, what they’re arguing is saying, they’re asking to invalidate the ballots, and they’re asking to disenfranchise 6.9 million Pennsylvania’s. And they’re using language that comes directly from Donald Trump and his team’s underlying lawsuit. They go on the Supreme court out of Pennsylvania, and they say, we hear by dismiss with prejudice, for failing to file their constitutional challenges in a timely manner. The challenge violates the doctrine of latches, given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge.
All right, hang on. While ascertainable upon 70 sevens act 70 sevens enactment, alright, this, this is nuance, boring legal stuff, but let’s keep mustering through this. They say the want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable petitioners filed this facial challenge more than one year after the enactment of act 77. So they filed this action on November 21st, which is going to be after the election, millions of Pennsylvania voters have already expressed their opinion in both June and November elections. And now they want to commence this, this, this litigation, and that is beyond the pale. This petitioner’s failed to act with due. They failed to act with due diligence. And this would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters. As a result, they’re going to be saying that they are preliminary. Listen to how broad this is. Preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 election.
So nothing, no other further action regarding the certification of their results. And they’re going to dismiss with petitioner’s petition for review, and all other outstanding motions are dismissed as moot. All right, so let’s break down what the court’s, uh, understanding here is. So they’re saying that act 77 was broken down. Uh, it was passed into law in 2019. Okay. So they should have been, they should have filed their lawsuits right after it was, it was filed. Uh, they can’t wait now until after the election is over, they should have challenged act 77 before then. And so what they’re saying, presumably is that act 77 has been the same as it was in 2019. We already had a primary. We already had a primary for the presidential election. We had other primaries and so on. So they should have challenged previously because act 77, hasn’t really changed.
It’s been the same this whole time. There are no new issues. There’s no way that we would have known, or you should have known that you should have known about these issues because the act was so set in stone, but did the Supreme court out of Pennsylvania, forget that on September 17, 2020. So over a year later that they changed act 77. And remember this, we covered this one a long time ago. This came out September 17th before the election out of Pennsylvania, just as Bayer here, writing for the Supreme court of Pennsylvania issued this opinion, which is talking specifically about act 77. Remember they wrote this. So there was already litigation going on in September 17th, 2020. So they’re saying you should have filed this stuff a long time ago because act 77 should have been challenged. Well, it was being challenged. It was being challenged here, right here.
In this case, guys, you wrote this opinion on it, justice Bayer. And remember this, this was your conclusion in the same document in which you define all of these changes to act 77 act, 77 was all about mail-in voting. And what you did here is you went in by your own court. You change what the legislature had to say right here. You encounter, you say that a three-day extension of the absentee in the mail in ballots is adopted such that ballots mailed by voters and postmarked by 8:00 PM on election day shall be counted if they are otherwise valid and received by the board. And so on that wasn’t in the original act. None of that was in there, but you Supreme court, you went and changed it. You modified all of the rules before, before the election even took place. And you did it on September 17, 2020.
And then by the way, guys, it wasn’t done on September 17, 2020, because this went all the way up to the Supreme court. Judge Roberts, chief judge Roberts, for some reason, didn’t want to hear the case in the United States Supreme court. This issue could have already been addressed, but he refused to hear the case. So on a four, four split, it went back down, Pennsylvania Supreme court order stood. All of these election changes to act 77, which authorized the absentee voting stuff. All of it got modified by the Supreme court. So the Supreme court now let’s think about this out of Pennsylvania is saying you can’t bring this claim because you should have brought it earlier. You didn’t think enough about it. You knew what act 77 was going to be in September, 2019. Even though we changed it a bunch after that time, we changed a bunch of it in September, 2020.
So are you, so now should the defendants or the petitioners here should Trump’s people have filed immediately after September 17, 2020, because the court just changed a bunch of it. Should they have waited until right after, uh, the Supreme court refused to hear the case and dismissed the
So they’re, they’re complaining that they didn’t bring their suit.
Now think about the flip side of this. We’ve seen a lot of different lawsuits from the Trump. People get dismissed for standing, because they’re saying you don’t have a right to bring a lawsuit. In other words, your case is not ripe. You have no ability to come into court and make your claim because you’re not the real party at interest. You’re not somebody who is on the receiving end of the harm. That is alleged in this case, she, you can’t win either way. If you bring it, if you bring a lawsuit while you should have brought it sooner, we’re going to dismiss it. Or if you bring a lawsuit, well, it’s not ready yet. Or you’re not the party who’s really responsible for this. You have no standing, you can’t bring the lawsuit. So these courts are just finding reasons. And this one, this doctrine of latches w is, I mean, it’s such a stretch, Oh my goodness, they’re looking. They decided on what they were going to do with the case. And now they’re just trying to find a basis for it. And a lot of other attorneys out there on, uh, on Twitter, you know, sort of a reading this opinion going,
What’s the Supreme court going to do with that? I don’t think that it’s going to be particularly good. This is, this is not in my mind, a, uh, a landmark legal decision. This is, this is writing.
That is, I’m not sure,
Particularly good in my mind. Uh, and, and, and I, I don’t know that it’s going to stand. We will see, we will see now, I think they’re going to take this up to the Supreme court. I think they’ll file a number of different motions and appeals and so on, but we will see where that goes.
All right, let’s finish up with
The sort of non-legal news of the day, but it is kind of legal. Remember on this channel, we’ve been speaking about how this election
Fight is going. Donald Trump has been
Really, I think, operating in two different spheres. One is the legal world where we are covering a lot of what we’re talking about here. A lot about the lawsuits, affidavits, declarations motions, and so on. And then simultaneously, there’s this sort of battle that’s going on in the public sphere, in the public arena, where people are thinking about these ideas and people are connecting the dots in a way that is sort of analogous to the court proceedings, but it’s different. It’s in our minds, it’s in the sphere, public arena. That’s, what’s taking place with these legislative hearings. We talked about this last week when they were in Pennsylvania. Today, they were in Arizona and Arizona is a little bit of a different ball game because we, we traditionally, we are pretty red States. And a lot of the time, what you’ll see is that there’s, I would say some, some momentum for some of these more sort of outlandish possibilities.
And let’s, let’s get into the hearing a little bit and let’s break it down because, um, we want to see what some people had to say. Now, a lot of this is going to be familiar to you. So we’re not gonna spend too much time on a lot of the clips, but a lot of this, we we’ve sort of covered some of the same theories in the same conversations in Pennsylvania, but there’s one gentleman whose, uh, whose information has been, I think, quite compelling both times that we’ve seen him perform in one of these hearings. So let’s take a look at what happened today, here in Arizona, in our backyard.
So my vote is only as good as the integrity of dominion and all the hackers that exist. It can get into the dominion machine. Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account. Pardon me? Say that one more time. Your vote is not as secure as your Venmo account. Can you think of any reason why any, anyone would hire them to count votes in the United States? I could postulate a lot of, or any of them. Good reasons. Um, they have a strong lobby. Um, they, uh, work with the government. They work with state government agencies and they’ve got the infrastructure to sell their services. So,
All right. So, so that is, um, that is a guy by the name of retired army Colonel Phil Waldron. And, uh, he went through and I think we have some clips on this. Miss Ms. Faith cut some, uh, some clips up for us here today, but this guy went through and he presented some pretty, some pretty interesting evidence that that was connecting some of those dots. So obviously that’s a pretty interesting claim, right? That your vote is less secure than your Venmo account, which is, I would say, you know, arguably moderately secure, I would think I don’t, I don’t know. But what he’s saying here is that there is, there’s an ability to connect the dots in a way that shows that a lot of this data was being sent off, do the U S soil being sent back to Europe and he had these graphs and these charts. And I think Rudy Giuliani here is asking him a little bit further about it. The main point that he wanted to get to in this hearing is that a lot of the information about whether the dominions voting machines and so on are connected to the internet is, is off and his company or his research was showing that all of this data was going back and forth between us land and data overseas. He specifically talks about a place called Frankfurt Germany. And I think we have that in this next clip. Let’s take a listen
Maricopa County, but we haven’t seen the machines at Maricopa County nor have you. This evidence is being submitted to dispute the lies that dominion and smart MADEC are putting out, which is the machines are perfect. The machines can’t be tampered with their machines are tamper-proof. The reality is their machines are just the opposite. They’re completely vulnerable. Is that right? And if you look up on the screen, that’s a, exactly what, let me see if I can, do I need to put this at full screen, or is that a better, a better view? I need to explain it. So this, this is a spider foot reconnaissance, a tool that [email protected] network that was analyzed on November 3rd. And, uh, basically this shows, um, vulnerabilities, it shows volume, volume metric, um, internet traffic, the raw data. It shows, uh, all of the web servers, physical coordinates, um, all the vulnerabilities that are associated with the server. But basically it does show that, um, this was, uh, this was connected to the internet on, on voting day. And, uh, the volume of traffic was significant and the vulnerabilities that were there, plenty of vulnerabilities that, uh, that hackers could, uh, penetrate the system. Can you tell if some of those communications? Yeah.
And so, so this was, you know, this was an interesting part of the hearing today. I think we heard a lot of this evidence or similar type of evidence in the, in the Pennsylvania underlying hearing, but this was, this is interesting because of the idea that the software is connected to the internet. Now, previously, a lot of what we’ve heard about these voting machines is that they are isolated off the internet. They’re sort of dark they’re disconnected so that these vulnerabilities can not be accessed. And we’ve seen a lot of information that, you know, these are using old Windham seven, uh, windows, seven software operating systems, or windows 10, without many of the updates. And you know, a lot of these, a lot of that type of software is extremely vulnerable. That’s why everything updates all the time, all software is vulnerable. Every time your phone apps update.
Most of the time, they’re fixing a security vulnerability somewhere. And so you see that all over the place. So the idea was that dominion and they’re they’re voting tabulation machines or disconnected from the internet. So they were just physically incapable of being infiltrated by anybody who wanted to come in and do some malfeasance. What this guy is saying is that, no, that’s not true at all. All of these things are actually connected to the internet. And if you have a little bit of wherewithal, you can go in there and you can manipulate whatever you want. Now, you know, some of these questions, I’m a sucker for these types of charts. I love these graphs. I love data. It makes me happy and, and, and warm inside, but, you know, but, but what is it actually showing? It’s very easy to get sort of information overload.
You can, uh, see a lot of charts. You can go through Dr. Analysis and you can see just mounds and mounds of data, but what does it mean? And what does it say and how do you bring that into court in order to convince a judge or to convince a jury that this is something that requires some, something requires some wherewithal. I think probably where the bigger value here comes into play is it’s just incrementally going one step further. So think about this every time we see these hearings or this new information, or this new evidence or the so-called crackin or whatever it is that Sidney Powell releases or that anybody releases, we’re all looking for that smoking gun we’re looking for. Oh, there it is. There’s the connection. There’s the dot. It’s going to be a lot more, I think of small bites, a lot more progressive than that.
So this guy, he may not, he may not have the data to show that the specific voting software in Arizona that was on the machines that were here in Maricopa County at our precincts, that that machine in particular itself was connected to the internet. We’re not there yet. So this evidence isn’t compelling to that part. What he’s saying here is that he’s analyzing a ton of different data. That’s showing that on November 3rd, there was a lot of weird activity going on on the internet and dominion. And there are people were communicating with all these software servers in all parts of the world. And so on that evidence should be enough then in theory, to move it to the next step, to just take it. It’s, it’s, it’s enough to tip that next domino into the other one. And if they can get access to some of this proprietary data, or like we saw in Georgia, if that judge grants them an order to go in and pick this software up, or, you know, doing a forensic accounting on one of these machines, that may be the next domino that falls into the next domino, that gives them access to the specifics about how these machines were being used on the ground on election day.
So remember, we’re still sort of at a 10,000 foot view. I think this stuff is going to continue to narrow and narrow and narrow over the coming days, weeks. And in the next year, that’s where this stuff is becoming powerful. I remember if we just rewind the clock back three weeks ago, the claims here were a lot more immature. They were young. We had, uh, you know, three-year-olds filing lawsuits. They didn’t even really know what they were saying. They were just kind of formulating their words. Now these lawsuits are growing up, they’re playing some sports. You know, they’re saying big words that are kind of making you go, Whoa, all right. And now I think as time goes on, they will continue to mature and the claims will continue to narrow and get a little bit more specific. And so what they’re trying to accomplish here with this hearing is I think to just keep the energy, going to keep the momentum in place to show that, Hey, what dominion says, and we went through all seven different dominion excuses for why their software is the best in the world.
We went through and analyze their arguments and their claims on this channel. And a lot of them were kind of, kind of weak. They were kind of missing any meat on the bones. A lot of them had to say, well, we’re 100% credible. Okay, well who says you’re a hundred percent credible? Is anything a hundred percent credible? Is anything a hundred percent secure? No. So why are you putting that on your website then dominion. It just undermines your entire credibility of every other argument you make, because nothing is a hundred percent the fact that you can’t even acknowledge that makes us all think that maybe you’re less than a credible, but this is enough to say on the face of it. Can’t take Dominion’s word for it. There’s additional information out there that warrants further investigation. Dominion’s not going to give you access to that stuff. So you’ve got to convince a judge just like Sidney Powell did that. You need to go in, preserve the equipment, preserve the evidence, bring your own experts in and do some analysis. All right. Let’s jump in over to another clip here from Arizona.
Sure. Dr. Giuliani, how are you? Are you married? You’re allowing, can I just ask you, so this is Dr. Shiva calculation where Trump received minus 30% of the Democrat vote. How did, can you explain to us in a way, in a way that we can understand how you got to that calculation? Sure. So let me go back to it if I can go back to it. Um, so think, think of this, uh, mayor Giuliani as a, this is, if you think about this, this is the actual, this is a curve that represents the actual, uh, vote. Uh, what’s called the cumulative both count for Mr. Biden and president Trump. Okay. So this is the control. This is what actually occurred, um, on election night. Does that make sense? And, um, what we’re attempting to do in mathematics using mathematics, you can do what’s called curve fitting, where you can change certain variables to attempt to fit this curve.
The variables we are changing here, which cannot be done manually, but the computer is essentially changing the possibilities of different leavers of percentage of Democrats voted for president Trump. The percent of Democrats voted for Mr. Biden, the percent of Republicans have voted for a Biden. The percent of Republicans voted for Trump, the percent of independents have voted for finding the percent of independents vote for Trump and so on. So it’s a, uh, solving where remember in algebra where you could multiply, um, variables by different equations, and you’re trying to match this curve. So the computer is doing this I’m Mary Giuliani. And so that’s why I’m showing you this different possibilities. Now there’s hundreds of thousands that the computer’s running through to figure out what possible as you can see, or what possible combination of these would lead to this. And the only one we were able to find was this, I hope that explains it. We’re looking at the computer trying to find combinations of these boat allocations that could perfectly reproduce this result.
All right. So it’s, uh, uh, you know, once again, this is a lot of modeling and this is, this is not particularly, I think, persuasive to a lot of people who want to know, how was this election stolen? What happened, why people want to connect the dots a to B to C, this is like a, to double, you know, XYZ. I mean, it’s, it’s far, far, far away from helping people to wrap their head around this. This is helping people in the form of persuasion. It’s showing people that the numb something’s off with the numbers and it’s, and it’s helping people, I think, uh, identify the fact that this warrants further investigation. And so in terms of that, I think it’s effective, but whether or not this is going to convince a judge to actually take a deep dive into the election, uh, you know, I’m not particularly sure about it, but I do think that it is interesting vote. Uh, and let’s go through, I think I have one more clip and then we’ll jump into some of the live chat. Here we go.
Basically. Uh, what I did is I took a completely different approach than what’s been presented up to this point, based on the little that I’ve heard here is there’s approximately 1500 precincts, uh, in, in Arizona. And there’s three classifications for male, female. And then you, I guess maybe that’s undecided, uh, um, um, classification. And then there’s five different types of voters. There’s one, two, three, four, five hard Republican, moderate swing, uh, moderate Democrat, hard Democrat. So there’s five categories. And what I did is I looked through the age roles, so 18 to a hundred, and I basically created a unique bucket, so to speak for each of those classifications. So it turns out there’s about 980,000 plus unique Arizona voters. And the way I, what I did is I didn’t look at the total. I looked at the number of registered voters in the state, because if the, if the core data set is flawed, everything else that happens afterwards is irrelevant in my opinion, because, you know, so I kind of took an approach of how has the thing constructed.
It was a very tedious process to organize all this, but then once I got that organized, I broke out all of the, the, um, the mail one, two, three, four, five votes. So I want you to think about like, okay, there’s five classifications of male voters in the state of Arizona. I summed up and looked at how many of those votes by age 18 year olds, 19 year olds, 20 year olds across all those different categories. And then I did the same thing for females. And then I did the same thing for the use. And this is, it was absolutely mind boggling. What popped out as a result of this incredibly tedious process, the correlation of men that voted in Arizona. So the first category one, you know, the, the, the, the, the number one voter versus two, one versus three, one versus four, one versus five, and then, you know, making sure that all possible combinations of male voters was accounting for the court.
The, the, the, uh, the average of those correlations for male voters is approximately, uh, 63.83%. That makes sense because, you know, people, people, as they age, they’re kind of random, they may fall into, you know, maybe they’re liberal, one-time either conservative the other time to kind of bounce around. And the variation, the standard deviation is very high as it should. People’s life cycle, life cycle changes. It’s about 30%. So then I did the same thing for females now. I mean, I can ask a silly question, but I said, no, my wife told me no jokes, but, uh, you know, the, the, the I’ll get to the punchline. Do women, are women more predictable than men when it comes to voting? Are they more independent? Now, first people, you know, people’s first answer seems to be, Oh, they’ll, they’ll do more of what, you know, they’ll, they’ll, their correlation should be higher.
And actually the opposite is true. They’re at about 58%. So about six points, higher, six points lower in terms of the correlation doing the same analysis. And that makes sense because most women don’t wanna tell you what they’re doing when they go in the voting booth. So that’s the joke. But anyways, um, so then what I did is I did the same thing for the use. Now, keep in mind, there’s a total, excuse me. When you say you, as you’re talking about undisclosed, not youth, as in like it. Yeah. I like that from my cousin Vinny, Hey, there you go. You got to joke still youths. So, uh, what is a you, but, um, so basically once I did, once I did that, there’s 463 throughout 463,660 classified that I found under this category. I did that same analysis. Now, keep in mind, the standard deviation for men was about 30, 32.8% for women was 35.77% that there would be a lot of randomness through time across the aging process of human beings.
With regards to the UW, when I did that same analysis, 94% plus correlation, let me say that again, 94% correlation. And I was like, this is insane. Like, this is like fictitious, it’s like this, and not keep in mind. This was come up with, I came up with this by going through all 1500 precincts and unbundling all the data age by age, across their sexual life, you know, the, you know, the MF and you, and then also what type of voter where they, so this is extra and I happen to love data. So this was fun for me.
Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Very, very interesting stuff. You know, again, have to ask yourself, what does that mean? Should we know, should, should any of us just understand what that guy just talked about? You know, these correlation, these weird anomalies, uh, probably not right. That these types of people, that guy is a data expert. He knows all this stuff. He lives eats, sleeps, breathe, drinks, data. And so that would be an expert witness that a lawyer would bring into court and have them testify. And th the general rule of thumb is like he said, yeah, no jokes, uh, during your testimony. But, uh, he, he, uh, he landed one there a little bit. So that happened today in Arizona, even though Arizona, uh, also today certified their results. You can see here, uh, just in Arizona, certifies its results with president elect Biden, winning the state’s electoral votes, as we’ve already spoken about here, just because the state certified, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot more things that can happen in the, in the, in the interim.
And we’ve, we’ve gone through that, right? They have to send it over there. The house has to open them and vote on it. Even during the counting of the votes in the house, people can challenge the vote. So you could have different state representatives making challenges, and this thing can go on and on and on. They’re all, all sorts of different contingencies under the 12th amendment for a contingent election. Uh, you have the presidential succession act and so on, but just because the state certifies it and wants to spike the ball and say, the game is over. It’s not quite there, which is why they are also continuing to litigate. We know that the, the, the election has already certified in Georgia and Pennsylvania, but they’re still litigating those cases. Why is that? Because they know a certification is it’s nice, but it’s not the end of the claim.
If they can go back and show that there was additional fraud or make their case to the state legislatures, the certification may not matter at all because the state legislatures may pull that power back in and take it away from the secretary of state, the secretary of elections or whatever that may be. All right. So, uh, let’s go, go on over to these super chats cause Ms. Faith has been clipping some of those things and sending them on over my way throughout the show. Thank you, Ms. Faith. We have lava Java lava at the beginning with a nice cup of Joe. Thanks, lava Java. Appreciate that. Thanks for being here. We have Kenneth fielder who says, hello? I still listening in from your phone or your computer everywhere has a fingerprint in code. Yeah. You know, that’s a good point. Uh, that, that is a good point.
It’s funny. I’ve always, I’ve always thought about that in terms of this voter integrity stuff. You know, we’ve talked about this, uh, about electoral and voter integrity versus this concept of voter suppression. Anytime you make a claim to have a more, I would say, a more secure election, one with more integrity, where you have IDs or fingerprints or something in order to assure that ensure that a person who’s voting is the person who they say they are the response to, that has always been well, that’s just voter suppression. Now you’re just trying to suppress people and disenfranchise people. And so the, I, you know, the idea that having a, requiring a person to have an identification card before they go into the voting booth, that that’s overly burdensome is wild to me given the fact that you have to have a voting ID to go and buy a bottle of booze that, you know, get into a certain movie.
If you’re around a certain age, you know, to go do anything in this world. And the idea that you can’t, it’s too burdensome to get one in order to go vote is ridiculous. I think Kenneth, your point here is that everybody is scanning their face with their phones. I don’t know, a hundred times a day scanning your face or your fingerprinting into your phone. You got biometrics all over the place, but for some reason we can’t count our votes in the United States. And we can’t make sure that people who are, are who they say they are. And so on. It’s kind of ridiculous. We have another one from George McNair who says big Wisconsin lawsuits come in soon. Thanks, George. If they’re, if they’re coming, we’re going to cover them here. So thanks for alerting us to that. And thanks for being here, Seth G says, heard on Tim Poole today that the PA legislatures said they wouldn’t meet again to discuss until after new year.
Interesting. In other words, it’s over in Pennsylvania thoughts. So that is interesting. I did not hear that, but keep this in mind that there, there are deadlines in January. Um, I would tend to agree that if they’re not going to act before January, the likelihood of anything significant happening, happening in Pennsylvania with them not doing anything at all in December, I think is not good for the Trump team. They want to start seeing some movement before January, because on January six, I believe that’s the date that the new Congress comes into power, which is going to be substantially more Republican than it was last session. And those people are the ones who received the votes and then cast the votes or, or, you know, go through the formal process in the house. So, theoretically, you know, you could, you could even object on the day of the votes counting in January.
So, uh, the likelihood that anything happens if they don’t act in December is probably very, very low, but it’s possible. They certainly could, or their, their house of representatives or their senators, or at the very last minute on a special session in January, they could pull some of that power back. Presumably. Now again, it would all get tied up in the courts again, saying that they don’t have the authority to do that. So if they’re, if they’re sort of deferring this stuff until next year, I’d be curious to know more about that. So thanks Seth for that. We’ll take a look. Uh, Adam K says, how well would statistical analysis even hold up before a judge, to someone unfamiliar with the methods of compiling data, all of Mr. Shiva, Dr. Sheeva’s finding seem impressive because it looks hard to contest it. Yeah, it does. Yeah.
I mean, it’s, it’s, it is difficult. It’s, it’s hard for a lay person, especially someone like me. I mean, a large reason I went to law school is because I don’t like numbers. I like writing and speaking and, uh, formulating arguments. And that’s not necessarily numerical in many situations. And so when I look at that stuff, it’s sort of foreign to me. I can look at it and say, okay, that looks compelling. Or that argument makes sense to, so this bucket versus this bucket versus this bucket, that bucket is not counted. Okay. I can follow that argument. But when you get into the numbers and the statistical analysis and all that stuff, it’s a little bit, it’s a little bit, I think, over my head. And it would be something that you’d want to bring in somebody who knows about that stuff. And the government I would presume would do that.
You know, if this case move forward and went into court, they would have their own experts. It’s just like us in a DUI case. I don’t know everything there is to know about how to test the blood sample. If somebody is arrested for a DUI, I know enough about it. I know quite a lot about it so that I can communicate well with an expert witness that our office would bring in who we work with on a case. But I can’t go to the jury and explain all the ins and outs of gas chromatography. Our expert witness could write just like the state’s witness there. Their expert can do the same thing for them. And so we have a sort of a battle of the experts, dueling expert witnesses. Sometimes you have multiple experts, you have one issue you want to bring in three different people to testify about that.
And so that same thing would happen here. You’d have expert witnesses from both sides. You’d have Dr. Shiva on the one side versus another doctor on the other side or another expert witness or whomever making their arguments. And then in the battle of the litigation in the courtroom where they’re duking it out. And they’re both getting cross-examined that’s when you could be able to synthesize something from that. And then the jury can make a ruling or the judge can make a ruling, but unless you get in there and you get to have the opportunity to present that stuff, nobody’s going to hear the claims. So we’ll see. And you know, the weight of the evidence is going to be up in the air depending on who’s presenting and, and what format it’s in. But it’s a good question. Thanks, Adam. We have Bethany Lawson with the thumbs up.
Thanks, Bethany. Appreciate you being here. Thanks for being a part of the program. We have Wolfgang Dayo who says Trump likely does not want to run in 2024 right now is the best time to do everything Truman, left as bad yet improved his legacy afterwards. That’s a good point. I mean, I think, you know, we’ll, we’ll, we’ll see what happens with that 2024, you know, Trump’s already kind of up there in age and, uh, I think it might be time to pass the torch on as it were, but we will see, we have crunch. That’s presuming that this election’s over, uh, Chris ancho NADOs has been watching you just about every day, the last two weeks. Keep on keeping on brother. You’re dropping a lot of valuable knowledge, Trump 2020. It ain’t over. Thanks, Chris. I appreciate you being here. Thank you for the support and the nice super chat we are going to keep on.
Keeping on. We have Dirk Kessler in the house who says what would happen if this finally proved if this is finally approved after Biden is inaugurated, does he get impeached? Do they install Trump as the rightful president? So I think if, if he’s an aggregated, I think at that point it’s done, uh, it’s it’s, it’s basically done. I think, I think at that point in time, legally, I’m not sure that there’s a mechanism for that. I’m not sure that anybody has even thought about that in terms of a policy position. I mean, a lot of we’re thinking about it right now, but has anybody in Congress wrote anything on what happens? We have a lot that takes place before that happens, but the, the, the mechanism would be impeded, right? If Joe Biden was in the, in the, in the presidency and we learned that he’s not the rightful president, the recourse would be that the people would ask him to resign or vacate office or something. But then what happens next? Does Kamala Harris go in, um, do we have a new election?
Do you know, there’s really no mechanism after the fact to go in and, and install President Trump? I mean, it would be, it would be groundbreaking. And I think if something like that were to happen, you could kind of do it any way that you want. I don’t see a course though for there for that. I mean, it’s a good question. And it’s kind of an interesting thought experiments, uh, that in addition to that, I’m not sure that the public would have the will, that the courts would have the, well, I think once, once the next person is, I think most people are just gonna, um, probably just be settled with that. We have, yeah.
Adam K, who says, is mayor Rudy suffering from old age? Or should we not underestimate a guy who crippled the mafia in the 1980s? So mayor Rudy, you know, I think he has his good days and his bad days is Pennsylvania hearing. I think it was a pretty good day.
His, uh, his other one where he was, you know, sorta sweating his face off and stuff that was kind of a mediocre day. And then he’s got some other days that are kind of like downright bad, like on his YouTube channel when he’s talking about saving America
And then sells a cigar, it’s like, all right, that’s not so good. So you have like good Rudy, medium Rudy, not so good.
Rudy, that being said, I do think he’s impressive. Uh, I think he’s got a very long career. I think it would be foolish to underestimate him. I know a lot of people think that he’s
Washed up and, uh, past his prime, but I don’t think so. I think he’s still got some fuel left in the tank, but we will see. Good question,
Adam, we have SSW lamb who says, hi Robin Fe, thanks for covering this general McKinney gave an interview stating that us special forces, seized servers in Frankfurt. That’s interesting. I’m not sure who that general is. Uh, I’ve seen some clips from some people making that claim, but I haven’t seen any, any confirmation of that anywhere, or I don’t know, general McKinney or, or whether he’s, um, credible or not. But I would imagine
If he’s a general, I would take that with some weight.
We have Brian Kang who says, well, the Pennsylvania one go to the Supreme court. If they, if they will accept it, I would, I would, I would think so. I think that the Trump team is probably filing a writ for a petition for certiorari right now, I would think that it goes to the Supreme court. We’ll see what they want to do with it. We have Ikari 2000 with the first super chat, says my first super chat, many, thanks for everything you’re doing grateful. YouTube recommended your channel, looking forward to your channel’s growth. Thanks to Cari. I appreciate that. Thanks for being here. Glad you found us glad that YouTube recommended it. I think it has something to do with that like button. I think if more people press that, then that might help us in that, uh, in that goal. So if you’re watching and you don’t mind doing that, we’d love that we have super plate own a Noman who says, if Trump is trying to win this by going through the electors, and that’s a good reason to end the electoral college. And I think you’d be right about that. I think, I think a lot of people would make that argument.
You know, this could be the, Uh, the straw that broke the camel’s back as it were. A lot of people are already making that claim. They’re already saying that the popular vote is what should count. I’m not particularly in favor of that. I think that gives too much power to the major metropolis centers. And I personally don’t want to live like LA or New York city. I don’t particularly like how those places are run. And if they’re going to dictate how the rest of the country runs, I think that’s concerning. I think there’s a good reason for the electoral college, but a lot of people are, have already been making that claim that if we really want to live in a democracy, even though we don’t live in a democracy, if we really truly should be living in a democracy, then maybe the popular vote is more appropriate for them.
Uh, and you know, this could be something where, Oh,
A lot of people rethink how elections go from top to bottom, including the electoral college. But before we make any changes to the constitution, there’s a lot of wisdom in that document. Maybe we should be careful before we just start wanting to throw out huge portions of how this all works. We have Jamal B in the house who says, thank you for the shout out last week. Here’s two big ones. King. Yeah, Jamal. B’s in the house. If you’re not familiar with Jamal B, Jamal B, uh he’s um, he hails from France, Jamal beam, uh, boost Sonai is how you say his last name. So if you miss that Superchat, take a look, Jamal, Bussan a hails from France. Good to have you here. Jamal. We have Zulu who says, hi faith doesn’t ever say hi to me. Can you believe that? He says, hi faith. Can any of this hearing footage be introduced in actual legal proceedings? So Zulu, if you’re talking about the hearings that took place in front of the legislature, no, I don’t think any of that would be admissible, but those people themselves could come into court and they could testify. And so I think that’s what this is all about.
And remember the affidavits are sort of like the admission ticket into court. You file a document. You say, this is what I’m going to say. If the case moves forward, those people come into court, they’re available to testify. They’re available to be cross-examined and they would present their evidence in a, in a formal legal proceeding. They be sworn in under oath, and then they’d go through all of those formalities. And then that would be actual evidence that would be exhibits that would be testimony in a trial. But this, this stuff is just, I think for the public, largely we have Liberty or death in the house. He says, Republicans contend to hold office while Democrats hold power, when legislatures decide, they want to see it, electors will be called racist and fold. Yeah, I think that’s probably true. You know, the Republicans are very, uh, well, let’s say they’re polite.
The Republican party. Very, very polite. Yeah. They just, okay. Yeah. We want to be civil. We want to be accommodating. We don’t want, you know, we go to the same dinner parties as they do. Uh, we want to fist, fist bump each other on the, on the Senate floor. You know, all of that stuff. They’re just having a grand old time. They’re part of the in circle. So if they do things that rock the boat a little bit too much, they may not be invited back to those cocktail parties. So they want to be very polite. They don’t want to be controversial. They want to just know. Okay, sure. Yeah, sure. Go along and get along. No problem. And as soon as somebody starts using the racial thing, yeah. They’re going to fold, I think like cheap suits. We have lava Java Lavo says if Biden is inaugurated while Trump still has remaining lawsuits pending, is it safe to assume that the Supreme court will be packed?
Yeah, it’s a really good question. And I think that plays a live in thinking about this packing issue a lot, because, uh, this could be something where the Supreme court, even though they want to find in favor of Trump, they don’t find in favor of Trump largely because they don’t want to lose the power of the court. So remember if we harken back to what happened during the FDR era, remember FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt for a long time, uh, was implementing what he called the new deal, where he was unveiling all of these programs to help America get out of the great depression. And we had all of these jobs programs and workers programs and all those things. Well, the Supreme court during that time came back and said, you can’t do all that stuff, man. You’re really overreaching. You’re extending your power beyond anything that was permissible under the constitution. And therefore we’re going to strike down a lot of these provisions and a lot of these new deals. Well, what did FDR do? He just turned around and said, okay, that’s fine. You want to keep striking this stuff down? How about I just add six more judges to the court? What do you think about that Supreme court? And suddenly there was a pretty sharp departure from their ordinary course of finding against him. So link all of these new deal programs sound pretty good. Well, you hate, you know what, FDR, we re-read that constitution. You’re right. It’s right there. You can do that. You can do whatever you want and you have a ton of executive power. Don’t even worry about it. Just go implement anything you want.
So he used that to, Uh, they, they call it the, the, uh, switch in time that saved nine or something like that. It’s this idea that they switched how they were ruling and it saved the nine judges on the court because he was threatening to pack them. And remember the Supreme court operates on legitimacy. If the court doesn’t have any legitimacy, they really don’t have any power, a big part of what chief justice Roberts does and what most chiefs chief justices do is they manage that perception of what the court can.
And so if, if this is something where the case is in front of the Supreme court and the arguing is, is more textualist, it’s more originalist. It’s an argument that, that, uh, Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett and Alito and Thomas really be in favor of, maybe find a way to thread the needle a little bit, to give it to Joe Biden so that when he does get into office, he doesn’t pack the court. See how that kind of parallels a little bit, not so sure we will see now the opposite argument would be that well, if they find in favor of Trump and Trump wins the white house, then Trump gets into office, serves out the next four years, finishes his full term, and then they don’t get packed anyways. But what happens when there’s another president or another democratic president or they regain the Senate or they regain, uh, all, all the other two branches of government, I think packing might be inevitable because it would be payback for the Supreme court finding in favor of Donald Trump. So that’s just sort of gaming it out both directions, but we will see how that goes. Good question. There are lava Java lava. We have another one from Dirk. K who says one more question. I just watched the firm. What’s your favorite attorney? Judicial movie of all time. You know, you know what I liked a lot was, um, I don’t think it was necessarily attorneys, but it was sort of criminal law related and it was legal. It was mine hunters on Netflix. That was, uh, that was so good. Uh, it was mine hunters on Netflix. I think it was only two seasons. Why do they do that? Why does Netflix do that? It’s like two, and then it’s onto the next one. And that was a good episode. That was a good show because it was sort of the, the conversation about what the FBI was doing with psychological profiling. You remember that previously in the seventies, psychological profiling, wasn’t a thing. It was just something that was a weird concept that we were all starting to think about in criminal law that, Hey, maybe these serial killers think a certain way, or maybe, you know, people who ha who do certain things in our society are wired a certain way.
And that was interesting to me because it’s one of those things that you sort of just take for granted, you wake up every day and you think, Oh, I’m living in this world. This must be how it has always been, but there have been major paradigm shifts in the history of criminal law. And I thought that movie did a nice job of sort of detailing what that transition look like. And there’s a lot, there’s a lot that I would like to go into. I’ve talked to Ms. Faith about this, about putting together like a, kind of like a documentary or a long expos, a about the history of what criminal law was in the United States, because remember we didn’t have these maximum super prisons in the 17 hundreds. You know, we did justice differently. I think a lot more humanely. There was a transition to this really punitive, overly harsh incarcerate.
Everybody lock them up, throw away the keys. That’s kind of a newer thing. It’s kind of a recent phenomenon in terms of, you know, how we police locally and what we do with people. And my mindset is to, you know, go back to some of what the original solutions were about rehabilitating people and reintegrating them into society and making them do things that are good for them, not punishing the hell out of them so that when they come out of prison or out of jail or out of the reform, that they’re worse off, we don’t want that. And so, uh, we start thinking through, you know, how, how people think, how they operate and how can we really help people. And I thought that in mind, Hunter, when they were detailing this, this sort of new thought of how law enforcement was to operate, I thought that was pretty cool.
And they did a nice job explaining that. So thanks for, thanks for that. Thanks for that question, Tim McDaniel with the super chat. Thanks, Tim. Appreciate that. We have Kenneth fielder who says servers were in the CIA house. It was reported by the military. So I’ve heard a lot of smoke on that one. I just haven’t seen anything about it. So we’ll take a look at it and see if we can find anything about the servers. I know Sidney Powell mentioned it. I’ve seen some headlines about it, but I’d like to confirm it. The problem is, is that nobody will confirm it. If it wasn’t the military, they’re not going to confirm it. It was if the FBI or somebody working in cahoots with the FBI, they’re not going to confirm it. Nobody wants to talk about it, but we would like to know because it’s kind of important right now. All right. Thank you everybody. For those super chats, let’s take a look over here. We have, uh, any others coming in.
All right. So yeah, here’s, here’s another one Tim McDaniel said in discussing court legitimacy, does the PA Supreme court have any seems like they’re finding grounds for self impeachment? So Tim, I would agree. I don’t think that they have any, honestly, uh, we in a slide in a previous show, we talked about what the makeup was. I think it’s five to Democrats, to Republican on the Supreme court. So I think it’s a quarter to seven, uh, not nine, so seven, five to five Democrats, two Republicans. And if you look, then you’ll see that one of the Republicans was appointed by a Democrat Governor. I think Tom Wolf. So it’s kind of like five, The Republic or five Democrats, one probably a squishy Republican. And then we’ve got maybe another real Republican. I don’t know. So that court seems pretty biased to me, this idea that they’re going to use latches to say that you can’t bring a lawsuit and then dismiss it with prejudice and then write a pure curiam opinion where nobody even wants to sign the order because it was such a bad order. I think that’s pretty indicative that they have no legitimacy at all. And, um, I think it’s a weak argument, not a good one. And truthfully, I hope the Supreme court does grant search Rory and I, and I hope that they get overturned on that because it’s just a bad opinion regardless of the outcome, if that was Team Biden, filing that and they go add an order like that. That was literally the court coming to a conclusion. They came to the conclusion first. Then they went and they, they, they looked in the toolbox of old legal doctrines and said, Oh yeah, we’re just going to pull that one out. That one fits this, dismissed the lawsuit. Here’s this one. We’re gonna put that together and just get rid of it. That’s really what it felt like. Not, not very well-reasoned in my mind. And you can, you can read it yourself. You can go and actually literally read the opinion. You’ll see in there, anytime, anytime anybody in a legal document or a legal argument makes a statement that is super definitive.
Like this is unmistakable. If somebody, he says that in an opening brief, this is unmistakable. This happened and it’s unmistakable. Well, that’s a conclusion rather than giving us the conclusion. Why don’t you sort of detail what, what the evidence is? Cause that’s more pertinent.
So they went through and it’s a lot of conclusory statements, a lot of language. It just says unmistakable grotesque and all these violations. Okay.
But why gone? Why explain? Okay. Oh, latches.
Oh, all right. So, so I see, you’re not, you don’t even want to respond to the underlying arguments at all. You’re just going to come step in, take jurisdiction away, take an opinion that was already ordered by a judge in your state, throw it out because you think that they should have been brought sooner, even though you changed the law under which they’re bringing the claim and you changed it in September of this year, not last year. So did you want him to bring the suit under the old act 77 or the new act 77 that you just modified or should they wait until after the Supreme court of the United States tells him what to do? So what do you, I want to do Supreme court. You can’t win. And to me, this opinion felt extremely transparent and very, very obvious. So we’ll see what happens. I don’t think they have any legitimacy. I think it’s a totally biased. And they’re just looking for a basis for finding the outcome that they want. We have Rachel S with a super chat says, thanks for your hard work. This seems to bring out the worst in people starting to feel heartsick over the hateful atmosphere. We’re all human. Yes. Rachel, you notice this perfect cause exactly right. We are all human politics can be a little bit hot. People can get heated over this stuff. But remember, we’re all Americans. This is all of our countries, all of our country. This is normal stuff to get in political conversations over this. We don’t need to kill each other. We don’t need to jump across the dinner table. We can have conversations about this stuff. This has been something that we’ve been doing in America for a long time. And we’ve been through a lot. This is not going to break America in my mind.
We may have president Biden. We may have president Trump. Who knows. Are we going to be able to move on? Yes we are. Is, is either one of these people going to ruin the country? I don’t think so. We can have some reasonable conversations about how America would be better with one of them or how it would be worse with one of them. But that’s it. And all we’re trying to do here is sort of break apart. The arguments, take some of the power out. A lot of the vitriolic claims by looking at some of the complaints, looking what’s being filed in court, having, you know, having a civil dialogue, we want to encourage civility on this program. We have a rule in this, in our discord server and on this channel to be nice, be productive. Think of this as like a dinner table where you’re having a conversation with friends, you invite your friends over for dinner.
Politics comes up, we talk about politics. Nobody kills each other. We all leave as friends because it’s political. It’s not personal. That’s what we’re trying to do here. And Rachel, I appreciate your support. Don’t get sick over this stuff because it’s going to be okay. But thanks for being here. We have Wolf day Dayo saying, people say that dominion devices had a paper trail. If they could have shut out observers and changed out the papers and shredded the real ones. Yeah. So it’s a lot of ifs there. You know, what I have heard is sort of, um, they’re able to hear here’s what I’ve, what I’ve sort of heard is you, you have these, you have these big, I would say pools of votes. So rather than buckets, you take all of the, I talk a lot about buckets. We bring all the buckets of votes in.
We dumped them into one big pool. They all get co-mingled with each other. So we don’t really know what’s in that pool. And then we have this dominion software that has their pool of votes. And it’s really hard to connect. The two, once everything goes into both pools, you can’t do a one-to-one sort of corroboration between the two, especially if you’re not doing any signature verifications or any checks, because all of the ballots that are in the pool are all co-mingled with each other. And it, it, it leaves it prime for somebody to inject a bunch of ballots into that pool because you can’t verify that they’re in there. And then once that happens, once you have a pool that has been sort of, uh, wanting, you know, there’s, there’s a lack of credibility there, or it’s been sort of infiltrated to a certain extent. I see the word’s escaping me right now that I want to use, but it’s not legitimate. It’s, it’s, it’s
Potentially illegitimate. It’s compromised as the word, if that pool is compromised. And now you have a voting system that is sort of able to be manipulated in the ways that Sidney Powell and Lynnwood are claiming it’s able to be manipulated, then, then you’re, you can’t have a one-to-one connection. And so you’re able to just manipulate the votes any way you want that’s in layman’s terms, how it’s sort of been explained to me, but I do not know. Hopefully the courts will allow this to continue forward and we’ll flush it out in courts. All right. Let’s take a couple more chats before we hop off, hop off for the night. Uh, we have, let’s take a couple more questions. Ms. Deb says wrong Biden. Won’t ruin America, but his handlers will. I hope you are not okay with fraud canceling our votes. I’m not okay with fraud at all.
We have, we have another one from Brian. Reinhart says that, how is it some card? Some courts are stating that Trump has no standing when the president have standing directly wouldn’t have, because, because it directly affects them. So there’s a lot of different arguments on that. Um, Brian, there, there are a lot of arguments there. Some people are filing lawsuits that weren’t really impacted by it. Some people have not found, uh, there’s all sorts of political doctrines about standing. Standing is actually a very important issue. We spend a lot of time on it in constitutional law, but the idea is that you have to be the right party, a real party and interest somebody who’s actually going to be harmed by the election. And some of it is, is a subjective, you know, different judges can view it differently. And in some cases, the idea was, is just because you’re a voter doesn’t mean that you are personally impacted by the fraud, but the fraud would have to be to, to a certain extent that it would reverse the course of the election.
That’s number one. And then number two, that you would have some sort of harm if it were not reversed. So what is the harm to that individual voter? So what the Trump team has been doing is cause a lot of these lawsuits are being dismissed because of standing is they’ve actually gone to the Republican electors. So the people who now have a 100% stake in the outcome of the state counting, right? Because if you’re somebody who was nominated by the governor, whomever to be a Republican electoral vote nominee, that’s literally literally a person who’s going to go in and cast the vote. Then you’re disenfranchised, or this doesn’t go your way. Now you have a real stake. Well, wait a minute. I was supposed to go and do this duty. It’s being taken away from me. That’s a real harm that person has standing. And so, uh, Sidney Powell, I think in both of our lawsuits in Michigan and Georgia, the people she suing for are not just regular voters.
These are electors and it provides them with a different level of standing. It’s a good question, Wolf. Uh, let’s see. All right, let’s do, uh, let’s do one more and then we’ll hop on outta here. Let’s see. It says amazing that the founding fathers saw this coup attempt and covered it in the constitution. We have, Kenneth Slayer says, I always consider myself impacted the reasons for which I served in the military are erased for my erased from my nation. Ooh. Yeah. That’s that’s, that’s heavy. That’s some heavy stuff we have McCain’s revenge in the house. He says are Rudy’s witnesses under oath. I understand the importance of talking about the accusations of election’s fraud. Isn’t it equally important to talk about FBI, DHS, DOJ and courts not finding evidence? Uh, yeah. Uh, I don’t know if his witnesses are under oath. I didn’t see if they took an oath when they went into the hearing.
I would presume that they would, I don’t recall that. I wasn’t looking for that specifically. Um, I think you’re asking in the second part of your question, isn’t it important to talk about the fact that they are not finding evidence? So it’s hard for me to talk about a lack of evidence to talk about something in a negative. Uh, I don’t know. I haven’t heard a statement from the FBI. I haven’t heard a statement from, uh, the DOJ. We did cover the DOJ statement. Remember we covered the attorney general BARR memorandum. We went through his memo and we talked about his modification of some of the internal guidelines for how the DOJ assesses these cases. But, uh, the rest of it, I’m not sure. I mean, I think, I don’t think the FBI has made a particular claim. We saw the one guy from the firm system and he made a statement and then he’s fired. Right? So we’ll cover the statements if, if there’s definitive credible evidence that, uh, somebody has come out and reviewed everything and they have found nothing and they have, uh, uh, bit by bit rebuttal of a lot of these claims I’ll cover it. I have no problem covering that at all. I’d like to cover it.
All right. Well, let’s, uh, it looks like we got one more that just came in. So this comes from, uh, SSW lamb says Liz Harris at the Arizona hearing stated that 10% of the ballot she audited, they could not confirm the identity. Could this overturn certification, you know, I would think so. Yeah. I mean, if you have 10% that you cannot certify, that would be, that would be, I think a huge number, right? The election was, was way closer than, than that. And so I, I would imagine that that would be enough to overturn certification, but I had not heard that number. So I think SSW lamb, you’re asking about in Arizona, they have a mandatory percentage audit. So after the total count, they have to go and they have to file to, they have to, I think check 2% of the precincts and audit, audit them to make sure that they conform to the expected audit.
There’s a, there’s a, there was a lawsuit here. I’m not sure what the status is off head offhand, but there was a lawsuit here where they were, they were challenging the difference between a precinct and a vote tabulation center. And so it was a nuance distinction here, but the idea was, if you are only auditing a sample of a bigger bucket, you’re not going to get as granular audit results and the audit is going to be less effective. So there was a lawsuit about that. I’m not sure how that ended up, but it is a good question. All right, my friends, well, let’s leave it at, let’s leave it at that. What I want to do is thank you once again, for being a part of the program, I want to remind you if you’re not a subscriber on this channel already hit that subscribe button as we go live every day of the week, right here, uh, at this time.
And we want you to be a part of it. Like I said, uh, previously when I was answering one of the super chats, we want this to be a lively, civil, friendly, productive conversation. And we can, we can have more impact when there’s more people who are involved in that. And that’s why we want to have you back. So we’d love to have you subscribe and then you can even hit that notification bell in case you forget so that when the show goes live, you get that notification. You can race right on over here and be part of the conversation. I would also ask you to do us a favor and share the show, share the channel. We have a new Facebook page. Now the link is in the description. So if you want to share that on Facebook, it’s really easy. You press one button or send a copy or send a link to the YouTube channel, to your friends as well, so that they can come and also be a part of the show.
We also have a discord channel, which is in our, in our link. I think module put it right out there in the, in the chat. So you can click that. That will take you over to a server where people will continue to talk after the show and before the show and on the weekends, when there is no show. So we want to invite you to come over there. I put a copy of the slides. There’s a copy of my book in there. It’s called beginning to winning how to fight your criminal case and succeed in court. You can get a copy here. Uh, you can get a, a free PDF in the discord, or you can go on Amazon. If you want to buy a copy, that’d be, that’d be great also. So, uh, that’s, that’s it. That’s all we got. We have one more super chat that just came in.
It says lefty here, but you are my main source of info in terms of libertarian sources. I like to keep myself out of the echo chambers. Yeah. Oh, look, lefties. I happen to love lefties. I think I have a lot of lefty ideals. You know, I want a lot of good things for the world. I just have a little, a bit of a disagreement on how we get there. And so that’s okay. I think we can all have similar ideals. We can all want to improve humanity. We can all want to have better lives, better societies, less pain, less suffering, more happiness, more joy. We can just have some conversations about how to get there. And I think that is very reasonable. So I am glad that you’re here, here. L L L J Baez Adams. Thank you so much for being here and being part of the show.
So we’ll leave it at that. One more reminder that if you know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, that’s what we do. That’s my day job. I’m a criminal defense lawyer here at the R and R law group and my team. And I, we love to help good people charged with crimes. We, we are really good at it. It’s our passion. And we would be honored if you had anybody who you trust there, you, you, you, you cared enough about to send them our way, because I know we’ll do a great job. We’ll help them through and we’ll make sure that things get back on track a little bit better for them. So that’s it for me, everybody. I want to wish you all a wonderful night have a very restful evening and a night. A good night’s sleep. I will see you back here. Same time tomorrow. As a reminder, it’s 5:00 PM, Arizona, which is mountain time. It’s 4:00 PM. West coast, 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM. Eastern. We’ll be right here. We want to see you back here. So have a wonderful evening and I will see you tomorrow. Bye-bye.