loader image

Hello, and welcome back yet again, to 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 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 get things back on track, get their lives back on the right path. And over our time in practice, helping all of these people, we’ve seen a lot of problems with our criminal justice system. I’m talking about specifically misconduct involving the police. We have problems with prosecutors. We have malfeasance from judges and I’m talking about political sort of incompetence from our politicians, which is what we’ve been focusing on a lot over this past couple of weeks, ever since November 3rd since the election was in full effect.

And so today what we want to do is hold those people accountable, take a look at what is happening in and outside of our, our, our sphere of influence outside of our, our, uh, our system of government. What are they doing and what is happening? Because right now it’s very confusing. There’s a lot of different pundits and different commentators out there saying that they can, they can tell you what’s going on, but in reality, they’re not so much on the Mark. So today on the program, what we’re going to do is we’re going to break into a lot of the latest election legal news. There’s been a lot going on this entire week, specifically. I want to start with, or I want to we’ll get to this eventually this new lawsuit that was filed by L Lynn wood. If you don’t remember him, we’ve talked about him previously on this channel.

In fact, I’ve actually been a little bit critical of him on this program because of what he he’s involvement looked like in the Rittenhouse case. Anyways, he submitted a big long 188 page complaint in the district court out in Georgia. And I have some clips from that. It’s actually fairly interesting. And we want to show you what that looks like. We also know that Donald Trump and his team are moving forward with the partial recount in Wisconsin. We have some more information on that, and there’s already some pushback they’re already trying to change. Some of the rules is what it sounds like in Wisconsin. We have certification problems. The last night, there was this big hubbub about, uh, some, some, uh, board of canvassers out in Michigan who were refusing to actually certify the election. They got really scolded and then flip their votes. Want to tell you a little bit about what happened there?

We have a very interesting email from Sharpie gate here in Arizona. I remember I talked to you about this Sharpie some time ago, the Sharpie that I used to complete my ballot, the Sharpie that Mary could very well save America. Well, that’s back in the news. There’s an email that leaked out from one of our former or current politicians here. I want to share what that looks like. And then we’re going to stick around after the program to dive into the live chat. Now, Ms. Faith is, uh, I think getting the stream worked up on the back end to get the title and everything. All right. And in that stream, there should be a link to our discord channel. I want to promote that, send you over there. That’s where we talk before and after the show, and I share the slides that I’m going to be covering in that platform when we’re done with the program.

So that out, if that is not in the description, it will be shortly because myth Ms. Faith is working on that. All right? So let’s dive in. We have a lot of legal stuff that we want to get into today. And I want to start by following the bouncing smiley face. Where are we at in the selection process? Because a lot of people are sort of lose context. I think they lose sight of the time and where we’re at in this entire development. So this is what it looks like. This is the actual number of days that we have until electors day. So you can see, we are right here at the bouncing smiling face. Election day was just over two weeks ago. And we have about, it looks like, you know, three and a half weeks, really until the state legislatures need to nominate and send their electors to go vote and send that stuff over into the federal government so that they can formally confirm that we have a new president.

So there’s still a considerable amount of time until that next date. There is a lot of stuff that’s going to be happening in between now and then, because there’s a lot of States that have different certification deadlines. Like we saw in Michigan last night, Donald Trump and his team are largely suing to stop those certifications to stop the recounts or to force recounts. But what they’re trying to do is, is stop the immediate sort of certification and closure of the process. A lot of these States want to just close it and say, we’re done. We’re not going to be investigating it any further. They’re asking that that be stopped so that they can go and investigate further claims and then supplement their lawsuits. Just like we talked about yesterday in Pennsylvania. Now, once again, we want to frame out some more context and explain that Donald Trump and his team, they’ve got a big hurdle in front of them.

There are significant things that need to happen in order for them to change the course of the election. And so yesterday, when we were looking at the numbers across the different States, you can see here, Donald Trump had a Delta, a deficit of just under 300,000 votes. So in Arizona, 10,000, 13,000 in Georgia, 33,000 Nevada, 72,000 Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, 20,000, and the big one in Michigan with 146,000 deficit. Now this actually got worse for the Trump team over the last 24 hours. You can see here, the new numbers as of today, he’s actually over 300,000 in votes deficits at 316,000 votes. His team is down and you can see the numbers actually increased pretty dramatically in Wisconsin. A lot of that, and went from 146,000 to 155. And, and same thing in Pennsylvania from 72,000 to another 82,000. But the rest of the States remained largely unchanged, but it is a big hurdle.

And we’ve spoken a lot about this, about how the Republican party, how Donald Trump and the GOP and team Trump can actually move this forward in a way that’s going to work for them, right? They can go through the court system, they can file lawsuits. They can identify big buckets of votes in order to get those things disqualified and close that Delta. So take that 316,000 votes that there’s a difference in and shrink that number down. And a lot of these legal strategies are operating under that frame. They that’s what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to identify big voCATS where they can actually get some of this stuff thrown out. Now, the other way that they can do this is by waging this legitimacy war as I’ve called it a long time here, where they’re basically convincing voters and the state legislatures that there was enough fraud and malfeasance that even though the courts are not recognizing it, that it is something that requires action from the state legislatures.

In other words, they’re going to this legitimacy war. If it’s successful, it’s going to persuade enough people in the local governments to modify what, what they’re going to be doing with their electoral votes, electoral votes. And you know, that that’s kind of a risky strategy in my mind because I’m not real sure that they’re going to be able to meet that high burden. How are they going to convince all of these different Republican legislatures that they should basically throw out the votes of their constituents in their States and just cast the electoral votes for Donald Trump? That’s a big ask and it can only be accomplished in my mind if they’re going to go that route with some major, major evidence, some big drops, Sidney Powell calls it, the crackin calls this, you know, this is I’m going to be releasing the crack in mounds of evidence.

We’ve talked about her, uh, yesterday and the day before this idea that she’s got just a fire hose of evidence that is percolating in her desk drawer somewhere that we have not seen yet. And if it is significant, if it is this cracking idea where it’s just going to come out and really be cracking, it’s going to cause people to stand up and say, Whoa, that is massive. They’ve been saying that, but we just haven’t seen much of it yet. And I wanted to, uh, flush this out a little bit. So I drew a graph that I’m calling the cracking scale and the cracking scale shows you the relationship between the likelihood of us seeing some cracking and the time. And so here’s what it looks like. I want to explain how I sort of think this will go right now. We’re sort of here.

We’re early in the process. We’re still, we’re just over two weeks out. Trump’s legal team has said that they are going to be filing a lot of additional lawsuits next week. And so we’re still over here, right? They’re promising us some crack in they’ve given us some deadlines. They’ve told us specifically that next week, we’re going to start to see more and more lawsuits. We’re already seeing more of that stuff. Come out with Ellen woods complaint, which we’re going to be talking about today. But my thought is is that as more and more time goes on, as we start to get closer and closer to that December 14th date, the likelihood that we’re going to see any actual crackin is probably going to be diminishing pretty significantly. And so I’m expecting here basically this week and maybe the early part of next week, if we’re, if we’re there, if we’re beyond those dates and we’re not seeing anything significant, I think we’re going to be down here. We’re going to be at the likelihood of getting anything from the Trump team. That’s going to be significant enough to

Reverse the margin. The reverse the course of

This election, I think is going to be very, very significantly diminished. And it’s going to be a problem for the Trump team in both Accords. They’re going to have difficulty in the courts because the judges aren’t going to want to throw out the will of the people unless there’s significant compelling evidence to do so. And it’s also not going to work by convincing the Republican legislatures that they’re going to, you know, that they need to do something dramatic that would deviate them from the standard course that normally occurs in their elections. Is that out there? We don’t know yet. They’ve said that it is, and there’s still additional time. And so we’ll give them that benefit of the doubt, but we just haven’t seen it yet. The reason why this is so important is because the public is sort of starting to move on from this thing, whether they want to, or not.

Now, this poll came out from Politico is written literally yesterday afternoon, and it says 46% say Trump should concede right away the results of the survey come two weeks after election day, as a president continues to Mount legal challenges, to legal challenges, to election results in several swing States. And so the headline, you might be thinking, wow, that’s a lot of people right there just saying, man, let’s wrap this thing up. But the bigger point here is 54% of Americans are saying not so fast. That’s a bigger number, right? It’s a, it’s a bigger majority of Americans who were saying, well, maybe we should wait on this thing. Let’s take a look at what really happened. And so when I first saw this headline, I thought that’s actually not that much people. I thought it would be significantly higher than that. I thought, you know, maybe 60, 70% of the American public would say enough already, but it’s not so much.

It’s really a kind of a minority position. Only a small minority, 46% say he should concede right away. And the others are saying, well, let’s wait a little bit, but that dynamic is going to change. It’s not going to be 46% forever. In fact, I think probably next week, we’re probably going to be looking at 50% and the following week, probably 60% and so on as it, this just becomes something where Joe Biden is the de facto presumed next president. And as more and more States start, start certifying their results. As the Trump team starts losing more and more lawsuits, it’s going to start looking worse and worse. And so that’s why myself and some others are concerned that, you know, maybe this crack in drip idea is not so productive and let’s see some more evidence as it comes to fruition. We want to see more of it now.

And we have a little bit of it, which we’re going to get to today. When we talk about the Georgia lawsuit and L Lin wood. And so let me break down that poll just very quickly. So you can see here, it says, this poll published today says 46% of registered voters think Biden should concede. And that includes of course, 72% of Democrats, 43% of independence and only 17% of the Republican. So that kind of splits along the party line down here, 32% say Trump should concede the election of eventually, if he is unable to back up his mass fraud claims. So this is the 32%, this is the kind of in the middle of the road. Then you have another 12% who say Donald Trump should not concede at all. Basically, no matter what. So this 12% portion is, you know, a group of people who were probably never going to be believed are never going to believe anything that are, that they’re told and that’s okay.

But the 32% of the registered voters, those are the ones who are sort of in the wait and see mode. And they’re going to start peeling off. And I think going into the Joe Biden camp. And so that’s something that Donald Trump’s team has to be cognizant of because if they start losing public support, the judges are gonna start falling. Anybody who’s sort of involved in the case, people in government are going to start falling ground support from local Republican officials, that’s all going to start falling. So the team needs to keep the legitimacy up of these claims in order for it to be effective both in court and on the ground level. And we’re going to see if they can do that in the coming days. So let’s take a look at Pennsylvania. We spent some time on this yesterday. I was actually hopeful on the program yesterday to have more information about what actually took place in Pennsylvania, but they had some serious phone hiccups yesterday.

We covered a little bit about what took place in court by watching other people’s tweets. I tried to log in the phone was actually the phone system was down and then it took a while for them to get it back up. So it was all kind of pieced together, but we did get an order in this case, John Crucell over on Twitter posted this. And he said a new, new, new judge in campaigns, feds lawsuit in Pennsylvania, officially cancels the evidentiary hearing, which is slated for tomorrow. And so this opinion here where this actual order from the court, let me move myself out of the way, says, uh, president Trump versus Kathy Boockvar. We talked about this, the evidentiary hearing that was already scheduled for November 19th, which is tomorrow is canceled. Linda Kerns. Her order for a motion to show cause is denied. And then the plaintiffs and the defendants are going to be basically filing all of their briefs and filing a new motion for preliminary injunction by 5:00 PM today.

So there are probably motions that are being literally slid in under the door right now, as we speak or, or had just been back there in their time zone. So we’re going to, we’re going to see, right. But the order that is the actual hearing that was scheduled for tomorrow is been canceled. And you know, that’s, that’s interesting, right? You could say that that is not so good for the Trump team because they’re not going to have an opportunity to present any additional evidence. The theory might be that the judge heard enough on the proceeding case and just said, I don’t need to hear anymore, uh, file some additional pleadings, send us an additional memo, send us any information you have kind of made my mind and we’re going to issue an order, a ruling without the need for an evidentiary hearing. So, uh, that, you know, that could, could in fact be something that is not so good for the Trump team, but we just don’t know yet.

We’ll know more tomorrow. And then on Friday when we start, uh, sort of expect some responses from this court. So not a big update on Pennsylvania, Arizona, like I mentioned, the Sharpie that saved America. This is a situation where we have a leaked email from one of our candidates for Congress. This guy’s name is Josh Barnett. He’s, uh, was, was running for Arizona district seven. He’s a Republican candidate, business owner, family centered, concerned citizen, ready to fight for you. And if you can find him [email protected] and this individual posted on Twitter today in an email that apparently came from Maricopa County. In fact, from the Maricopa County elections board, the assistant director of recruitment and training, talking about Sharpies, talking about the Sharpies before the election happened. And so I actually have a copy of the email. I want to run through it with you because it’s interesting.

This has not been confirmed. It was, it was posted by one of our political people here who does have a blue check Mark. So that’s about as much authenticity as I can, can give it, but I can tell you, this email looks pretty authentic to me. It looks like it actually uses the same maricopa.gov email address that we use, that we communicate with people with at the County attorney’s office, at the AGS, all these different, you know, local areas. They use the similar format, the similar naming conventions for their emails. But let’s read through this because this is curious. Now it’s not hard evidence, but it’s curious. And when you start to speculate about this stuff, it can get interesting. You can easily concoct a theory here that this looks like there was something else going on behind some of these decisions. So here it is, this is the email.

And it goes over from Kelly Dixon is the name of the woman. And I actually blocked out some of her specific contact information. Don’t want to dock her or have people sending her emails that are not unnecessary, but she sent this on October 22nd. So just a few weeks before the election, she says subject pen and pens. And thanks. And this here from Kelly Dixon, this type of email, this RIS CX looks familiar to me and this RA R I S c.maricopa.gov. That’s the same type of email that we see in a lot of our correspondents. She says, hi, amazing troubleshooters. So apparently there’s a lot of problems because she’s got a nickname for them. First and foremost, I want to thank you all for supporting this historic election for my seat in the command center today, I finally had the chance to Marvel at the numbers and feel unbelievably grateful for all of you working so hard and supportive democracy.

Thanks. Isn’t good enough, but thanks next, which is a nice statement, right? Nothing to complain about there. Next we’ve heard you and we know your hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie markers starting tomorrow, 10 23 through 11 two. So all of the early votes, right from October 23rd to November 2nd, anybody who’s coming in, we’re asking that the clerks hand voters, ballpoint pens in capital letters rather than markers. We need to use markers on election day, but for now, and through 11 to hand voters, a ballpoint pen, you have plenty of pens in your supplies right now. Please message this to your inspectors and ensure they cascade this change down to everyone on the board. If you have any questions, let me know, hope you have a great week. Kelly Dickson, assistant director recruitment and training Maricopa County elections five 10, where it is and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Very interesting email. Now, I don’t know if Maricopa County elections has responded yet to this. I haven’t seen anything from them. They may have a very good explanation for why this was, and this could just be, you know, uh, just, uh, uh, a resource issue. Oh, I’ll just use the ballpoints and then use the Sharpies. We don’t have enough Sharpies or, you know, whatever it is, I’m sure they’ll come up with some excuse, but you can very clearly say why you see why this may be concerning to people, right? This, that standard idea here throughout this entire election was that the Joe Biden people, all of his voters are going to be voting early. They’re all voting by mail. That was a big democratic talking point. Get your votes in, send by mail. They were filing literal lawsuits that we’ve covered here on this channel for a long period of time detailing all of the different challenges that they were embarking on in different States in order to force more mail in voting and extend deadlines and waive signature requirements and all of that stuff, it was a big push by them.

And the Trump people were doing the opposite. Donald Trump was telling them don’t vote by mail, go to election day, show up on the polls on election day. And so just based on those two directives, you would imagine that the Democrats are going to be voting in large numbers between October 23rd and November 2nd. The two dates that they put in this email and that the Trump people would be showing up on election day and they’re going to be given the Sharpies. So the Trump people, the people who show up in person Sharpies, the people who are doing the only early votes, which would probably be the Biden supporters. They’re all given the ballpoint pens. That is interesting, isn’t it? It’s almost like they want to be able to identify ballots. After, after the fact one was used with one piece, one was used with something else, they can just take a quick look at it and say, Sharpie election day ballot, ballpoint pen pre-election day ballot.

And I don’t know, is that split realistic are those types of buckets, the early votes and the day of votes? Did those align with one particular candidate? I would guess I’m just speculating. I don’t know. It’s a hypothesis that the early votes are going to lean towards Joe Biden and the in-person day of votes are going to lead towards Donald Trump. So why is somebody sending an email out? And if ballpoint pens are good for 10 23 through 11 two, why are they not good enough on election day? Very, very curious. I don’t know. I don’t have an answer for that, but we’re going to continue to see all right, so let’s move on to Wisconsin, shadowy, Wisconsin. We learned this morning that the Donald Trump campaign will in fact be filing for a recount. This is from John Roberts over at Fox news has breaking the real Donald Trump campaign will be filing for a recount in the state of Wisconsin today.

And in Wisconsin, they said that they actually received a wire transfer from the Trump campaign for the full $3 million. No petition has been received yet, but the Trump campaign told WEC staff today. One is going to be filed. We have no further information at this time. So let’s spend a little time talking about what’s going on here. So originally Trump and his campaign, people were calling for a recount in Wisconsin and Wisconsin said, sure, yeah, no problem at all, but it’s going to cost like 8 million bucks. So you guys got to cough that up. And of course they didn’t want to do

That. And or maybe they did. I don’t, I don’t know what the back office conversation was, but they didn’t do it immediately. Few days go by. And then we see this bill come through for $3 million. So instead of a full recount at 8 million, it looks like it’s going to be a partial recount for the 3 million. So they’re not going to re canvas and reaudit the entire state. They’re just going to do it in a few of them. And in, in particular, they’re going to be focused on these two counties, Milwaukee County and Dane County. And the reason being is you can see right here, it kind of makes obvious sense. This data comes from bloomberg.com. Milwaukee County. You can see down here is a big, big blue bubble. And the margin here are, is massive. It’s 69%, basically 70% to 30% to from Joe Biden to Donald Trump.

So you would imagine that there is a huge bucket of the Joe Biden votes that they’re going to be trying to invalidate whatever that looks like. Then they’re going to bounce right over to Dane County, which is just a couple of counties over same situation there, right? Another huge margin, 75 to 22. So they’re just going to be asking for the audits and the recounts and really the two biggest counties of all of them, all of these other counties, uh, from what I can tell are just are smaller. I don’t know what’s up here in, uh, in, in, in, in, in terms of, uh, counties and the size of the counties, but you know, they’re big, they’re big counties and they’re lots of votes. And you could imagine that if you could knock off, you know, 60, 70,000 votes in Dane County, 60, 70,000 votes in Milwaukee County, then that would flip the entire state because he’s only down there by about 150,000 votes.

So that is interesting, right? That’s a pretty, I think, uh, sort of, sort of aggressive approach on this thing. They’re saying we’re going to pay for it. We’re going to put our money where our mouth is. We have skin in the game on this. We’re not going to ask the public to pay for it. We’re just going to pay for it. No problem at all. Sure. You want us to do it now? I’m not necessarily sure that I agree with that. I think that, uh, if there’s enough malfeasance that is F is evidence, then maybe the public should pay for it. It is a public election after all, but that being said, Trump campaign, they’re going to put up the money. You put your money where your mouth is. That is that how it goes, put the money up. And that, that way we can know that you have skin in the game.

So they’ve made that decision. They’re going to do that. And there are some interesting things that are also coming out about Wisconsin. So it’s kind of like this, like whack-a-mole game, that’s going on. You know, these different claims are popping up. And then, you know, all of the people in the anti-Trump camps kind of just whack them down and say, that’s not, that’s not good. Some of them stay down. Some of them come up and then some of them go away forever. Or some of them pop back up. We have another one that just popped up today out of Wisconsin. This comes from a guy named Justin Hart on Twitter. And once again, this is just data. And he’s claiming that the data is coming from the New York times. And what he did is he says, check out this visual. So the New York times keeps a log of every change to their presidential vote tallies. We believe that they get their info from dominion clarity. Now check out the wild ride in Wisconsin where real Donald Trump was up leading by 51% all night until a dump at three 42. So he comes up with this graph and

He says that he actually pulled this data from the New York times and it’s all timestamped data. So in other words, they can see it’s a log where they can see every single time there’s a new entry, a new ballot dump new information. It says how many ballots, where they come from and what time. And so what this guy did is he just plotted them over a timeline and you can see, you know, a thousand ballots came in at four 55,000 valves came in at four 57 and so on all the way through 200, 400, 700, 800 until he gets right to that time at three 48. And if you were here with us on election night, we did a live stream for five hours. We were watching, we were following along this entire ordeal. And we all left that night at 10:00 PM, Arizona time, wondering how Donald Trump could possibly lose.

Then we woke up the next morning and everything flipped because all of these ballots came in late, late, late, early morning, uh, on the following day. And so when we look at this actual chart here is what the data looks like. So you can see here sort of a normal ratio for most of the night. You see the blue, the blue spikes and the red spikes. We have sort of an, even almost a 50 50 split between the different voters in the different counties, all going across here until we get to 3:42 AM 143,379 votes just came in for Joe Biden, right there. Very strange. And you can see this gap down here. You know, the whole system is working pretty much. Normally you can, you can expect the early votes in the early day to be sort of scattered because my understanding is this is when people are coming in person, this is when everybody is voting, the polls will close.

Then they’re counting everything. And they’re sorting through all of the mail. And the mail is pretty much jumbled. And it’s like a deck of cards that you just shuffle 50 times, everything that’s coming through, the mail is just jumbled up. And so when you start to actually process these big batches of ballots, it’s going to look something more like this, something more, even across the board, because they’re all jumbled up, just like a card, right? You get random probability and rant, random distribution of the ballots that are in the mail. And now something happened a big, big, big bump up here. Now, I don’t know what, what explains this right? There could be a number of different explanations. It could just be, we had, we had additional ballots that we were counting that didn’t get counted. You know, those are, in other words, those are legitimate votes.

There’s nothing wrong with those votes. It’s 143,000 votes and we just had them and we didn’t count them on the underlying calculations, but they’re there. Every single one of those is tied to a legitimate legal, lawful voter in the state of Wisconsin. And there’s nothing to be concerned about. Really. You know, this was sort of a clerical problem. We should’ve spread them out or input them all at the same time, but we did. And we just batch them all up. But come on in, take an audit, look at everything. Here are the books come, you know, scour, everything you want, it’s all legitimate, but that’s not what’s happening. Right. They’re really pushing back on this. They, they, they just don’t want people to come in and do these audits.

Even though some of this stuff begs the question, what happened there? It may not be fraud. I don’t, I don’t know if it’s fraud or not. It looks unusual. It looks sort of out of the ordinary. I remember that game when I was in grade school, which one of these things just doesn’t belong here? That’s it? That one stands out. So people will naturally ask some questions about that. And Wisconsin, they’re making Trump jump through some hoops in order to get this recount done. And in fact, even though it sounds like they’ve already paid for it, and this stuff is already underway. Apparently in Wisconsin, they are meeting tonight. The elections commission is now trying to modify some of the rules. This comes from Andrew Hitt, who is the GOP chairperson of the Republican party in Wisconsin. And he just posted this on Twitter. Before we hopped on the program, breaking Wisconsin elections commission.

After seeing president Trump’s recount petition and objections is trying to change the recount manual at an emergency meeting tonight at 6:00 PM. So probably going on right now to make objections harder to make this must be stopped. So once again, they’re trying to change the rules. This has been something we have covered ad nauseum on this program. All of these different lawsuits were mostly originated by the Democrats. They all started this stuff many, many months ago. We’re going to talk about that right here when we get to Georgia. But what they’re doing is just constantly changing the rules. The goalposts are moving all over the place and they’re blaming Donald Trump for being so litigious and filing lawsuits. But they’re the ones who are moving the rules around. And I’m going to show you exactly what I mean right now, because we’re talking about Georgia and Lynn wood Lynwood.

As I mentioned at the start of the program, he is somebody who I’ve actually been somewhat critical of him in large part because he doesn’t have any criminal law experience as far as I can tell. And when he originally came into my spotlight, when I started to know of this guy, he was working on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. We spent a lot of time on Kyle Rittenhouse on this channel, and I have a lot of empathy for his case and his entire situation. When I saw what was happening to him specifically, he, I saw these different attorneys come onto his team, and I was concerned about it a little bit. And we saw John Pierce, we saw Ellen wood, and I start looking at these guys’ profiles for this program. And they’d have like zero criminal law experience. They have big public media contracts, and then all sorts of like crisis management and public relations type type of law, but just nothing that was, I think, pertinent to Kyle Rittenhouse, his case.

And it was a little bit critical of him. Lint Ellen would actually kind of pulled back a little bit from the entire case and said, I’m not doing anything with the criminal law stuff in Rittenhouse. They actually went and got a local attorney in Wisconsin, uh, who who’s, who does have a lot of criminal law experience. So I think a lot of that guy rectified. So that being said, I went through the complaint that was filed by Ellen wood today. And there is some very interesting in there. And so we want to dive into it. The case, as I mentioned is, is here it’s wood V raffles burger. I think there’s a little typo there. No problem. And what we’re going to see here is this is from Ellenwood. He says, good morning, last night, I filed an emergency motion for injunctive release, a relief against the Georgia secretary of state, which is the, uh, ref refs and burger guide relief sought includes an order prohibiting certification, which includes defective absentee ballots and requiring that a hand recount be performed.

We’re going to dive into this at length here. If you want to read the full motion along with all of the different affidavits, the full complaint, he has it here. So go check him out at L Lin wood on Twitter. You can click that Dropbox link and get the full memorandum, but I am going to go through it right now. So, uh, in addition to that, now Sidney Powell who has sort of been the forefront, the foreperson of the entire Trump team is mentioning this, and she’s given this a lot of credit credibility. So she retweeted this and she says for a good read on the beginning. So she’s calling this just the beginning of the tsunami of evidence, see Linwood and Georgia and their suit that was filed last night with the exhibits. And of course she’s tagging everybody else. So let’s go through this thing because it is in fact, interesting.

You can see here, it was filed in the United States district court for the Northern district of Georgia in Atlanta. And what’s, what’s curious about this is that it’s actually from Lynwood, right? It’s from the plaintiff Lynwood. It’s not from Donald Trump. It’s not from the GOP. It’s not from the Trump campaign. None of that stuff. He’s actually filing this on his own. And what’s interesting here is on this program, we talked previously about this issue of standing and whether somebody can bring a lawsuit, if they’re not a real party in ed interest, if they don’t actually have a stake in the litigation. So right, just like you can’t go and file a lawsuit on behalf of somebody else, unless you’re a lawyer, you can’t go do that because you don’t have standing. You weren’t injured. If you were involved in an accident while you can go through the person who hit you, you were injured.

So you can go see that person you have standing. But if you were a neighbor and you saw somebody get injured, well, you don’t have it. Even though that person may have been at fault and done something wrong, you can’t go Sue them and claim damages because you were not a party to the accident. And so Donald Trump and his legal team had been running into some of that. They’re filing claims. They’re making assertions that the state governments violated rules regarding voting and ballot collection and all of that stuff. But they’re saying, but yeah, but, but Donald Trump, you don’t even live in Michigan. So you weren’t impacted by these rural changes. Go find a voter who was impacted by those changes. That person does have standing. And here in this Georgia case, L Linwood is filing this both as a lawyer, as a very nationally high profile lawyer, but also as a voter. So he is not going to run into that same standing issue that the Trump team has been running into. And so here’s what he’s asking for. Plaintiff’s emergency motion for injunctive relief. Injunctive relief just means they’re asking the court to do something. And then they’re, they, they, they

Filed the action. And then the he’s going to support it with a big bunch of stuff, a big memorandum of additional material. So let’s go through this. Now, we’re going to see some of these claims sort of mirror. Some of the other claims we’ve talked about on this channel, but there are some interesting ones here. And I actually learned something in this complaint that I had not, I did not know before I’m gonna explain what it is and why. So let’s start by seeing what Ellen wood is asking for. What do they want if this lawsuit is successful, what’s it going to look like? Because at some point something’s going to happen and somebody who’s going to say he didn’t get what he wanted. And the Trump campaign is getting blown out and losing all of his cases and so on. So here is what L Lynwood actually wants.

He seeks declaratory relief and an emergency injunction halting the certification of the Georgia results. We’ve already seen that. K just halting the certification because it’s coming up. It’s coming up very soon. I think the actual deadline is on Friday on the 20th. So it is a right around the corner. The court should issue an injunction to bar certification of the results. And here is what the basis is. Here’s why he is saying, this is so important. He’s going to go through, he’s going to take us through a little bit of a journey in this complaint where he’s talking about the Georgia election code. So think about this and sort of in two different things, the Georgia election code, okay. The rules that were written by the legislature. So by the local senators, the local representatives, the people who were in charge of running the government in Georgia, they pass laws.

They pass laws about DUIs. They pass laws about, uh, you know, marriage or whatever, whatever they want to do, including elections. So they have a whole section of code that governs how they run elections in Georgia. What Ellen wood is going to do. He’s going to say, this is the law. Here’s a look at it. This is what the law says, that the people voted for their representatives who wrote the law and passed it into play. Well, now what he’s going to be complaining about here in a complaint, not complaining, that’s pejorative like, Oh, he’s just whining. Like this is, this is the problem is the elections board raffinose burger. And the people who are actually administering the elections are not in compliance with the law. Sounds like, well, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would that be? And as we get through this, you’re going to see it’s in large part because wrappings burger, the secretary of state actually entered into an agreement before the election with the Democrats, with the democratic party, the Democrats in Congress and the Democrats in the Senate, they all entered into this settlement agreement.

So they helped to frame the rules of the election before the election took place. The Democrat party filed these lawsuits. Well, before they were literally suing the secretary of state in Georgia. They didn’t want to be sued. And they said, okay, how can we resolve this case? How can we settle this so that this lawsuit goes away and they rewrote some of the election administrative rules. So they put together this election manual that is now going to be used in Georgia as the election was going on. This all took place before the election happened. Then they rewrote the rules. The secretary of state in Georgia then administered those rules to everybody who was running the election. And those rules don’t really match up with the legislature rules, even though the government entered it into and entered into it with one, essentially one political party. So that’s the big idea framework.

Let’s take a look at how this works in a legal document. We go over here, you can see the Georgia legislature. So this is from Ellyn woods complaint. And he’s saying the Georgia legislature instructed County registrars, registrars, and clerk clerks regarding the handling of absentee ballots, Georgia election code says this, and you can go and you can read this whole block. It’s it’s legal ease. It’s not particularly interesting, but it says, look upon receipt of each absentee ballot, the clerk shell, right, the day and hour, they received it. Shell compare the identifying information on the oath with the information on file and his or her office. So that’s verify the signature, okay. Shall means it’s not discretionary. You have no choice. You got to do it, shall compare the signature or make an oath or, or make on the oath with the signature Mark and so on.

Shall if the information and the signature appear to be valid and so on and so forth certified by signing and initialing his or her name before the voters. Oh, so you can see here, right? This is direct language from this part of the statute, the Georgia election code instructs. And this is a block quote. They’re quoting from the, this, this rule, right? And this is the rule that the legislature passed. The people voted on it, uh, or voted on their representatives. They went into Congress in Georgia. They pass the laws, entered it in, in, in, into law. The governor signed off on it. It’s now formal law. They even go so far as to say what should happen in the event that these absentee ballots don’t have a valid signature. Okay. You’re hearing a lot about this signature stuff in Georgia that nobody’s checking the signatures.

Well, what does the law say about the signatures? Ellenwood tells us, and here he says they also established the Georgia legislature, not the courts, not the secretary of state, not the governor, the legislature that has the authority to do this stuff given to us by the constitution, established a clear and efficient process to be used. If they determined that an elector has failed to sign the oath on the outside envelope or that the signature does not conform with a signature on filed. So these are the rules. When that happens, when a ballot comes in, signature doesn’t match, they didn’t sign it something’s up. Here’s what they do. If the elector has failed to sign the oath, or if it does not appear to be valid, or if they haven’t furnished any information or any of this other stuff, the clerk shall right across the face of the envelope rejected.

Given the reason, therefore the board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall then notify the electorate of such rejection and a copy shall be retained in the files for at least one year. And here again, they’re citing the code O C G a section 21 dash two dash three eight six [inaudible]. And they put the emphasis added shall, shall, shall, shall shell. It’s not, man. It’s not, it’s not discretionary. In other words shall means you have to do it. It’s in the law. You don’t get the choice if it says may, or if it’s a recommended or if this is a good idea, then you have some discretion. You give the administrative agencies, the leeway to go out there and implement the rules in a way that they see fit. It’s sort of a guideline versus a rule, right? This is a rule. This is, shall do X, Y, and Z.

And so what Lynn was saying, that didn’t happen because before the election took place, there was this big lawsuit. And it was filed by the democratic parties, that different, different organizations, which I’ll tell you about. And then they sued the state of Georgia. And the state of Georgia said, don’t Sue us anymore. What’s it going to take to settle this? And so they reached an agreement where the settlement actually interferes. It goes against some of the rules, some of the shells, some of the requirements in the underlying law that was passed by the legislature. So how can they do that? How can the secretary of state and in a lawsuit come into a settlement that goes in direct opposition to the underlying law. That’s the basis of the claim. And so here’s what he’s saying. He says that they entered into this agreement that the defendants here, which is going to be the secretary of state in Georgia, on Rapids burger, his unauthorized actions to alter the Georgia election code and processing of defective absentee ballots.

That’s the title of this entire paragraph. Here’s what he said in March, 2020, the secretary wrappings burger and the state election board who administer the election. So he’s going to call them the state board or the administrators. They entered into this agreement. It’s called a compromise and settlement agreement and release with the democratic party of Georgia. So this is raffinose Berger who represents the state of Georgia entering into a collective agreement with Georgia Democrats, the Democrats senatorial campaign committee. So the DSCC, then we have the DCC, the democratic congressional campaign committee. And what they’re doing is they’re setting forth different standards to be followed by the County officials in the processing of the absentee ballots in Georgia. That’s his claim. He says, although Ravensburger is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations that are conducive to the fair, legal and orderly conduct of the primaries and elections, all such rules and regulations must be consistent with law.

So that’s what he, and again, he’s going back to the Georgia statutes, 21 dash two dash 31 dash two. He’s saying you have the right to go and make these different administrative orders and regulate these things. You can go as the secretary of state and put guidelines in place and manage this stuff, but they can’t be in direct opposition to the underlying law. That’s illegal. You can do, you can do so as long as they operate within the confines of the rules. And he’s saying here that they don’t, that’s not what happened here, because this is what the settlement settlement agreement actually says under the litigation settlement. The following language is added to the pressures and complexity of processing, defective absentee ballots, making it less likely that they would be identified or if identified process for rejection. So all of this is new language, and let’s just, let’s do a quick refresh on this.

Let me back up to this slide. Okay. Let me show you what’s in the actual law. So you can see here, this is the law. This block text here says if the elector failed to sign the oath, or if the signature does not appear to be valid, this is what happens. They right across the board rejected, they shall notify the elector of such rejection and so on. That’s it? Okay. That’s what happens if it’s a bad ballot. Now, when you fast forward, what is the settlement agreement? Say? It adds all of this additional stuff. So it changes it from that to this. If the registrar registrar or absentee ballot clerk determines that the signature does not match the signatures on file or on the absentee ballot application to the clerk must seek review from two other registrars, deputy registrars or absentee ballot clerks, a male and absentee ballot shall not be rejected unless a majority of the registrars, deputy registrars.

And so on reviewing the signature agree that the signature does not match any of the voters signatures on file or on the absentee ballot application. If a determination is made that the electric signature on the ballot does not match any of the voter signatures on file, the registrar shall write the name of the three election officials who conducted the signature review across the face of the ballot, which shall be in addition to writing rejected, and the reason for the rejection as required under this law here. So you can see that they just added a ton of requirements on this thing. So the original law said, all you need to do is say, doesn’t match, uh, rejected, right? And then you do what the law said to do. You keep a copy on file. You notify them that this is a bad ballot and come in and fix it.

That’s it here. The modified rules that were entered into the, the, the, the election itself, literally was a compromise between the democratic different committees. The DSCC the DCC and the Democrats in Georgia. They entered into an agreement with raffinose burger and they added all of this additional stuff in and think about what kind of a hurdle that is on every single absentee ballot. If every time a signature looks a little bit off and used, and you say, Hey, I think this one’s off. You gotta, you gotta go find two other people. You gotta all vote on it. Then you have to literally sign the document right? With, with everybody’s names. And the reason for the rejection. It’s a lot, right? You’ve got to do that for every single absentee ballot. We’re talking about thousands and thousands of ballots. So at some point you would imagine that people would just go, looks good to me.

Looks pretty good to me right now. The Democrats, the people over there on the other side say, well, the vote should count. Every vote should count. What does, what does a signature matter? We know who it is, who it is. The election is, is secure. We have very good integrity in this entire thing, but anybody on the other side is saying, wait a minute, why are you making it so difficult for somebody to just match a signature? You now actually have like, have these like miniature trials, or are you gonna have three people come in? You have a board of judges. They all look at a ballot. They say, ah, it’s kind of looks good to me. Doesn’t look so good to me. Okay. You don’t like that one. You want to reject it, sign your name right there. Right. Sign it. And we’re going to have you sign it and give the reason for it.

And, uh, now we know who it is, right. Would people be inclined to do that? Or would they just say it’s it’s good enough. So if you want it to, if you want it to modify, let’s say, for example, hypothetically speaking in a hypothetical country, if you wanted to inject a bunch of ballots into an election, and you didn’t really want to be able to trace where they came from, because you know that the signatures aren’t going to match, what would you do to get those ballots into the system? Well, you would make it more difficult to verify the signatures. You would put some roadblocks, some hurdles in place so that the people doing the signature verification don’t necessarily do the signature verification. And you can see that happening. It’s the same theme that’s going on around the country. They’re talking about turning the sensitivity down on the different electronic machines.

In this case, they’re just making it more difficult for the human beings to go in and actually verify a signature. Because if you want to reject the ballot, you’re going to have to go find two other people. You’re going to have to vote. You’re gonna have to put your name down on a document. And that voter who says, well, why wasn’t my ballot counted? Now they have a name. Now they have some recourse. Now you’re on the record. Now there’s a paper trail. So why would people want to just put their name down on a bunch of ballots and say, well, I’m, I’m rejecting all of these ballots. It’s sort of intertwining them into a process that they don’t really need to be a part of. They just need to be, you know, ruling on these things. And, and so this is what the complaint is from Ellen wood.

And I think it’s actually a pretty interesting complaint because I had no idea that in fact, that there was this settlement agreement that took place. We talked about a lot of the other cases that have been going on. And the reason we covered a lot of the active cases is because they were active. They were in district courts. They were just in front of a Supreme court, or they were filing writs for Sergio Rory to get, to get the Supreme court, to hear their case. And a lot of this stuff was still pending. This was not, they had this thing done and settled before the election. And so why would the Democrats, why would these three different organizations, the Arizona or the, the, the democratic Georgia people, the democratic Senate committee and the congressional committee, which is the house Senate Democrats, why would they be so inclined to modify these, these different rules on the absentee ballots?

Why would that be, and file big lawsuits about this and enter into a settlement agreement with the secretary of state? Why would that be? I don’t know. Here’s is an actual compromise agreement from the Democrat, from the Democrats and Brad RAF Ginsburg. Here’s what it looks like. Ellen would actually put this document in his document. He said, yeah, this is the agreement. Here’s what it looks like. Compromise, settle, settlement agreement, and release. It’s entered into, by the democratic party of Georgia. This is a contract between these two parties, the democratic party of Georgia, the D S C C the DCC and Brad Raffin Spurger. Okay. Rebecca Sullivan. And so on the state defendants. So these three parties sued the state because they wanted to change the rules of the election. They, the lawsuit, it was called democratic party of Georgia versus Rapids burger. This is it.

And they’re talking about amending their complaint. They’re talking specifically about absentee ballot, signature matching procedure. They’re modifying the rules about absentee ballot, signature matching procedure, the notification process for when it’s rejected, the procedure for curing or rejected ballot and so on. And you can see what their claims are. They, you know, if they don’t do these, if they don’t make these modifications, they’re violating the 14th amendment. They’re violating the first amendment. They’re unduly burdening the right to vote. And they’re giving voters disparate treatment. That’s sort of separate, but unequal treatment. They’re failing to afford Georgia voters due process and so on. So they’re, they’re, they’re major claims and they’re filing this stuff before or the election in order to change the rules. And you can see as part of the settlement agreement, as part of this contract, they want this information put into this document, the official election bulletin.

So the secretary, this is part again, part of the settlement agreement, the secretary of state raffinose burger in his official capacity as secretary of state agrees to issue an official election bulletin. So this is sort of an, an election manual containing the following procedure. So this is a procedure that must have largely been written by the Democrats. This is the same one that we already read through when reviewing and so on. Uh, if a registrar clerk determines that the voter signature on the mail-in ballot does not match any of the voters signatures on file, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Right? So they’re changing the underlying legislative rules, and they’re doing it with an agreement between three democratic entities and the secretary of state. They’re getting into this contract on how to modify the election bulletin so that the manual is then sent out to everybody else.

Who’s on the ground, counting the ballots. And if, if that’s the case, of course, you’re not going to see any claims of fraud from any of the workers, any of the poll workers or anybody who’s in there, because they’re just following the manual. It’s right here in the manual. We’re supposed to do it this way. We’re doing it this way. And what do you want to complain about? Of course, everything’s been done by the book. Well, the Democrats wrote the book. They actually filed a lawsuit to modify the election. And now this is in a flood initial election material. The official election bulletin is I’m not even calling it official. They are UN they’re calling it an official election bulletin containing the following procedure that’s applicable. So they get the right, the rules, and then they get to complain. Uh, when we, when, when people want to challenge the rules and say, Hey, you’re you, you can’t do that. The legislature, that, that is the will of the people that the people voted for the representatives to go into, into their state Congress and pass the laws. That’s the will of the people. They already wrote those laws. This is a separate agreement. That is not a part of that system. This is a separate contract between the secretary of state and three democratic entities. And they’re wondering why people are so up in arms about this election and saying, wait a minute, this recounting Georgia

Is ridiculous. I own this program yesterday to my own, my own, uh, lack of credibility. I was saying, it’s going to get to the point where people are very tired of hearing about these complaints. If people are complaining about a recount, it’s like, Ugh, enough already, right? It’s sour grapes, stop it, get over it. We can’t keep complaining about all the different recounts. So we’re going to do a third recount in Georgia, a four-three count of fifth recount while they’re doing a recount, but they’re doing them according to the old rules to the rules that people have problems with the problems with the signatures, because the rules were changed from the actual rules. It’s, it’s, it’s surprising to me. And I’m not sure why other people aren’t up in arms about it. It’s one of those things where you’re wondering, wait a minute, how, how can, how can one political party enter into a private contract with the secretary of state to literally modify the election rules?

And where was the GOP on this? Where were the Republicans? Where was, where was any of the Senate leadership or the D or the, the Republican congressional committee or the Republican Senate committee? Where were those people? They just sitting on their hands while the well, one party was modifying, literally the rule book, wild, very, very wild. Now that is the sort of the preface of the lawsuit he goes on. And he talks a lot about why this is so important, why this is such a violation. Signatures are critical to a, uh, an election with integrity in other words. And he goes through it. He makes the claim. And he says, in addition to this problem that they’re not following the rules. And these rules were literally modified by the Democrats. He’s saying in the recount, in the audit process, there were major major problems. And he goes through in Ellenwood.

He attaches a number of different affidavits and declarations at the end of the complaint. So let’s run through a couple of them. There’s a lot here. If you want to dive into it, I would encourage you to do so. Go check out Ellen woods Twitter, and you’ll see some of it. So here, just a sampling of some of the affidavits, you can see here, a woman named Amanda Coleman said that she filed the support in order of the temporary restraining order. She said, we signed in. Now, this is, uh, I just clipped out some of the important parts she signed in this isn’t her paragraph seven. We were told that there were too many volunteers on the floor. We would not be permitted to walk the floor and observed. So she shows up, she gets kicked out. We’ve heard a lot about that. Maria Dietrich says on November 15th, this is one another one of her bullet points.

Same thing. I arrived at the Georgia world Congress center at 8:00 AM to monitor the hand counting by nine 15, which you would imagine is when they’re started, officials announced that the voting was complete and set everyone home. I spoke to the security guard who was shocked because he planned to be there at 10:00 PM until 10:00 PM. And he was there last night until 10:00 PM. So, uh, you know, okay, maybe they just finished the votes and they just got done and they had to send her home. There’s a lot of those in, in this actual complaint, another one from Susan Voiles. She says most of the ballots. Now this, this is an interesting one. She starts and she’s going through a lot of her experience and how she got here. And in paragraph 14, she continues. She says most of the ballots that she was looking

At had already been handled. They had been written on by people and the edges were worn. They showed obvious use. However, one batch stood out. It was pristine. There was a difference in the texture of the paper. It was, it was if they were intended for absentee use, but had not been used for that purpose, there was a difference in the field. These different ballots included a slight depressed pre-fold, so they could be easily folded and unfolded for use in the scanning machines. There were no markings on the ballots to show where they had come from or where they had been processed. This stood out in my 20 years experience of handling ballots. So this must be somebody who does this type of work. A lot. I observed that the markings for the candidates on the ballots were unusually uniform, perhaps even with the ballot marking device, by my estimate, observing these ballots, approximately 98% constituted votes for Joe Biden.

I only observed two of these ballots as votes for Donald J. Trump. Very interesting. And you might say that’s just one anecdote, right? But there’s more to support that in the forthcoming affidavits, this goes on and it says here, affidavit of Nicholas Zahir says, while in Henry County, I personally witnessed ballots cast for Donald Trump being placed in the pile for Joseph Biden. I witnessed this happen at table a. We have another one from Myra Romero. She says, I’m a Florida bar, licensed paralegal. I’m a registered Democrat. It was of particular interest to me that hundreds of these ballots seemed impeccable with no folds or creases. The bubble selections were perfectly made all within the circle. Only observed selections in black ink and all happened to be selections for Biden. It was also a particular interest to me to see that the signatures were not being verified and that there were no corresponding envelopes seen in the site.

Okay. And we’re seeing more of that when you go and you read through them, you’re going to see a lot of that theme going on that these ballots looked like they were pre pre printed, that they have a different type of paper and so on. And then we have another one from an actual lawyer. This is from Abraham Reyes Esquire, which means he’s a lawyer, the recount resumed at Jackson elementary. On about this time I had my ID badge. I went in, I noticed that the Republican, that one Republican monitor was allowed yet there’s 26 tables. And he told Erica Johnson again, if there were 26 tables, recounting three monitors from each party to be, or to be permitted because it’s one monitor per every 10 tables, which the Republicans lost that one, they wanted actually more monitors per table. But this was, this is not that, that batch, right?

It’s not one to 26. It’s one to 10. And he was complaining about that. Erica Johnson, who was in charge says, she told him I’m in charge. I should stop interfering with the process. I told Erica Johnson that she was interfering with the process since she was not following the recount rules knowingly at that point in time, a young man named Trevon McCoy associated with the Georgia Republican party told Erica Johnson that the Republicans were entitled to be three, not one monitor since there were 26 tables, Erica Johnson called over a police officer, officer Johnson, and Erica Johnston asked officer Johnson to remove

Mr. McCoy from the building. And that’s from a lawyer, that’s from somebody who’s got a bar license. If he’s making something up or lying under oath, he could lose his bar license crimes of, you know, any, any sort of dishonesty or integrity problems. The state bar, at least in Arizona, had a lot of problems with it. And you know, that that guy is putting his name out there. He’s telling you he’s a lawyer. And he’s saying that he saw this. So there are certainly concerns here. And many people are saying, well, this is an evidence you need some evidence. You need some documented, you know, where are the text messages? Where are the cell phone recordings or the surveillance footage? This is evidence folks. This is it. This is what people can, they can come into court. They can testify. And these are, are, these are persuasive in my mind, right?

These are, these are not definitive evidence, but it’s persuasive. And it shows that there’s, there’s other things going on that are concerning. And what Ellen would here does is he ties it back to the law and how they’re essentially skirting the law. They’re trying to impose and, and create these new rules that were partially drafted by literally the Democrats. They’re trying to impose those in violation of what the people voted for with their legislatures and the statutes that they would draft in effect into law. So it’s very concerning. Now. I would, I would definitely take a look at this one. I think this is a, this is an interesting one. And we’re going to see where this lawsuit continues to go. I think he’s gonna, I think this type of lawsuit to me feels a lot better than the lawsuit where the Trump team is arguing about not being able to observe and therefore hundreds of thousands of ballots should have been shown out, uh, thrown out.

I’ve already gone into detail about that, but this feels a little bit more promising. He’s got some very specific allegations here. There’s some very pertinent law and there’s some, some serious manipulation that was taking place by the elected government officials and the Democrats in order to rewrite these rules, it’s concerning. And I think people, uh, have, have a lot to be concerned about here. My original position on this was don’t complain about the recount. This looks like there’s a lot to complain about. And I just, even, I didn’t even hardly scratch the surface. There’s 180 pages in here, a lot more affidavits and a lot more that you can get into. So go check that out. Now in Georgia. Speaking of this, we have David Schaefer who is a former state Senator. He’s the chairman of the Georgia Republican party. And he came out and he said, there are other problems as well.

So of course this guy is biased, right? He’s a chairman of the GOP, but here’s what he has to say. And I think he makes a pretty interesting point. He says, one of our monitors discovered a 9,626 vote error in the Cobb County hand count one batch was labeled as 10,000 for Biden 13 for Trump and improbable margin. Even by the Cobb standards. The actual count for the batch was diminished by a factor of 10, actually from 10,000 down to 1000 for Biden and 13 for Trump had this counting error not been discovered. Biden would have gained enough votes from this one batch alone to cancel out Trump’s gains from Fiat Floyd and Walton. We limited to one monitor for every 10 tables. We were kept under some distance from the tables. There was no telling what we missed under these unreasonable restrictions that miscounted batch had been, uh, signed off on by two official counters already been signed off Biden’s margin of victory in this batch of oats was 99.9%, which beat Bashar al-Assad in 2007, he only had 96% Raul Castro’s 2008 margin, which was 99.4%.

And it even matched Kim Jong IL’s 2009 margin at 99.9%. Our attorneys have turned over an affidavit from our monitor to the secretary of state and requested an investigation. So a lot of, lot of interesting things going on out of Georgia. And they’re about to certify this stuff very soon. And, um, we’re going to continue to follow along. So I hope you are subscribed. We’re going to, we’re going to see what the response is from the secretary of state, probably from the Democrats, because they were a party to the underlying settlement agreement and we’ll follow along. So we want to make sure that you are a part of that. All right, let’s turn back over to Michigan because I learned some new words today. I learned a word over on our discord chat. I learned the word ma uh, mask knee, right? It’s acne from your mask.

That was new. Never heard that one. Uh, hopefully I don’t have that problem. You guys can sort of judge that, but you know, that was one of the new words. I learned another word today from somebody who’s on the board of elections out in Michigan, two people last night were making the waves on Twitter. Last night, we had this little bit of a temporary rub in the certification process out in Michigan, there was a, there was two individuals who actually didn’t want to certify their results. And so Donald Trump did a retweet and said, well, Hey, they’re not certifying their results because two of the people who are on the board feel like there’s enough problems here that this is not worthy of certification. So a lot of excitement, the GOP was very happy about that saying, okay, that’s good news because we agree this is a fraudulent election.

Well, what ended up happening is that as the proceeding, the hearing that the elections board was in, as it sort of got underway, the two people who were holdouts, who were not willing to certify it, they got castigated, they got scolded by the other members of the board. And there was a lot of animosity towards them from everywhere in the country, all of the left-leaning news sites, all of the left leaning commentators. Uh, my understanding is that these people were just raked over the coals because they were, you know, doing something that they felt they needed to do as part of their official duties on the board of election. Don’t, isn’t that what they’re for? But they got scolded pretty good. And what did they get called? A racist, yeah, a racist. That’s something that I’ve been called a number of times on this channel.

It’s, you know, it’s just something that everybody gets called. Even, even Joe Biden got called a racist Kamala Harris called him a racist at one of those debates. So it’s kind of just the standard term these days. And Ned Stabler was one of these board of commissioner who had a little bit of a meltdown on the, uh, the zoom call. And now he’s getting a lot of favor. A lot of people are thrilled with this guy. Yeah. For democracy. Yeah. For smashing racism. Yeah. For, for calling these people out, you’re fighting for Detroit and all these different places to me, this guy just looked like he was a little bit kind of kinda off the rocker. Right? A lot of this stuff has become personal for these people. A lot of it has become just really their entire life’s work. And Donald Trump is such an enemy and he’s going to ruin America.

And if you even do anything to support him, even if it’s part of your elected duties, even if you’re an up on the board of elections and your job is literally to raise concerns about the integrity of the election. If you do that, you’re a racist. So this comes from Ted’s Ned Stabler. You can see here. I actually think he modified this. I was looking at his profile earlier today, and I think he kind of changed as he’s obviously been getting a lot of attention. And so this is him, this is him in his zoom meeting. And he goes off on two minutes, I’m going to play some of it. I’m not sure how much I can listen to, but when what I want to listen, what I want you to hear is the first part of this, because there’s actually some interesting information here, aside from his rant about racists and so on.

Think about this. He’s going to talk about the fact that there is, is approximately he says in a previous election, only 50% of the ballots were re countable. So he says half the ballots in, in a preceding election, we couldn’t even recount literally half of them. He says this time around 72% of them, we can recount. So things actually got better, which leads me to be wondering, well, what what’s happening to the other 28% of the ballots, you’re telling me that a quarter of these ballots are not able to be recounted. That kind of sounds like a big number, right? If you have a quarter of anything that is lost in the shuffle somewhere, that’s a pretty big number. The margin I would imagine would be a lot smaller than that. So he actually, in his little bit of a ranty gives us some information, some insight into just how poorly these elections are. Run. 72% of the ballots come in a hundred percent of the ballots come in. They can only recount 72% of them. So what happens to the other 28%? Uh, I don’t know. Maybe somebody should ask him that question.

Um, we also know that the secretary of state and the attorney general have already, uh, tweeted out that your legal arguments are rubbish and you’re going to lose. And when it comes to court. So we’re not worried about that at all. I’m also not worried about any of your old things are bad. So we can’t certify arguments because that’s just ridiculous. You certified in August when they were worse, less than 50% of the ballots were re countable. Now over 72% are, uh, 58% of the, or even balanced when it was less than 30% last time. So it’s doubled, it’s gotten way better because the secretary of state actually jumped in and did her job unlike you. But I know it’s not going to change your opinion. Um, you talked about not certifying Detroit, even though you acknowledge that Lavonia a city, by the way, I know, you know, is 95% white had bigger variances than Detroit, which is 80% black.

We understand and, you know, added your name. So I’m not going to try and change your mind. I just want to let you know that the Trump stick the stain of racism that you, William Hartman and Monica Palmer have just covered yourself in. He’s going to follow you throughout history. Your grandchildren are going to think of you like bull Connor or George Wallace, Monica Palmer, and William Hartman will forever be known in Southeastern Michigan as two races to get something so unprecedented that they disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of black voters in the city of Detroit, because they were ordered to probably, I know Monica, you think Q told you to do it or some other crazy stuff like that, but just know when you try to sleep tonight, that millions of people around the world now on Twitter, know the name, Monica Palmer and William Hartman as two people, completely racist and without an understanding of what integrity means or shred of human decency, you, the laws and on your side history, won’t be on your side. Your conscience will not be on your side and more knows when you go to meet your maker, your soul is going to be very, very warm.

Okay? So that guy’s, uh, a bit angry. Don’t have much to say other than I hope he finds some peace and some calm in his life because whew. All right. So, um, you know, everybody’s a racist, if you do anything that, that has a disproportionate impact on any particular population, obviously it’s because you’re a racist. There can’t possibly be another reason for why they may not have wanted to certify the election. It was clearly because they’re a racist. And my big problem with this whole line of argument is that all that, that does is just, it just chills people’s speech. He was literally out there calling them by name saying the entire wrath of the internet is going to come down on you almost like a call to action. Everybody’s going to come. You’re going to be stained with Trump. You’re going to be stained with this racist behavior.

You’re a rotten person because you were, you were doing what you were elected to do. You were, you were in the board of elections and you were actually just voting your opinion, but you can’t even do that. Now. Now, listen, these two people are grown adults. They should be able to take it. If this guy wants to come and rant against them, they’re adults, they should be able to rant back against them. They should be able to just come back out and stand by their vote. That’s what they got into politics is a blood sport. I, you know, I think if you’re going to play the game, you gotta, you gotta suit up. You gotta play out. You gotta, you gotta be ready for this stuff. Now I think that that was sort of unbecoming of somebody in our elected office. You know, these, these sort of hysterical rants from people who are just melting down on camera and making all sorts of bizarre accusations is just it’s.

It’s weird to me. Uh, I’m not real sure why our government operates that way. I like to think of, uh, of America as something with a little bit more class, a little bit more, uh, you know, sort of level-headed reasonable dialogue, but these people are just taking it personally, and we’re going to see more of it. Somebody else on that same zoom call took it a little bit, even further. And this is what I wanted to point out. This guy taught me a new word today. We’re going to hear about it. Uh, but he’s, he’s taken this one step further. And he’s saying, this is going to actually trickle down to your kids even. And he talks about their school. So this guy, his name is Abraham [inaudible] and he sees a state representative elect son of immigrants. He is the first robotics coffee, think different lover of environmental justice and so on. And he was also on this call last night. And he starts kind of ranting into this about, about literally calling out these people by name and then telling the world where their children go to school as if they have something to do with this. Like they’re going to go to their schools and they’re going to be confronted by black kids at school. And they’re going to be reprimanded because their parents did something in elected office.

And what that tells us is you miss Monica Palmer from gross point woods, which has a history of racism are deciding to enable and continue to perpetuate the racist history of this country. And I want you to think about what that means for your kids. Probably go to gross point North. There it is. And when they see all their black classmates and they know that and what

Yeah. And so the big complaint there, a lot of people were saying, this guy was trying to dox them, trying to docs the kids. And so, you know, your kids who probably go to gross point high, right? They’re going to get, you know, they’re going to get into this with some people at that school. You know, that’s, that’s bringing in people who are not a part of the game. I get being in the game. I get, you know, having to have the stones to go into this stuff or talking about heated issues. You’re going to run into guys like Ned Stabler, who are just a little bit, you know, a little bit off on, on certain things. And that’s just natural. You’re going to expect that, right? That’s what happens in local government. This guy though, is bringing in, they’re talking about their kids in a political debate.

It’s totally inappropriate. It’s totally uncalled for the kids in high school, North point high, whatever it is, they don’t deserve this. They don’t deserve to be brought into this, but we’re seeing more and more of that. I’ve covered it on this channel AOC and a number of these Trump accountability projects. They want to keep track of everybody just who are even talking about it. If you’re even in the camp of, maybe we just want to have a conversation about this. I’ve been called at myself. I’ve had people send me text messages and telling me I’m out of my league. You shouldn’t be talking about this stuff because they want to shut up the conversation. And I’ve said that many times that is not helpful for anybody. It’s not good for the Republicans. And it’s really not good for the Democrats, because if Joe Biden is elected and there’s 70 million angry Americans, you feel like they got this election stolen from them.

The country is going to be ungovernable completely. And so I would imagine if I w if I were in Joe Biden shoes, I would imagine that I would say, come look at everything, come take a quick look. We’re not going to give you, you know, everything that you want, but reasonable accommodations to come look at all of these records and all of this information, and we’ll even pay for the audit because the country is going to be ungovernable. If we don’t, I don’t know why we’re not seeing more of that. Everybody just wants to say the conversation is over. There’s nothing to discuss. The word that I learned comes up in this next clip from this fellow. And he is talking about something that I had never heard of. Let’s hear this, a home run from them

Eight years, and they did not do a single thing. So while you may show us your car, Cassie 80 today, and refusing a certified election and making note that you are okay with certifying all of Wayne County except Detroit, no, that we see what’s happening. No, that there is nothing other than Jim crowing that is going on right now and recognize the facts. The reality.

So enough from that guy caught Cassidy caught Cassidy is the word of the day. So look that up. Uh, I’m not real sure what it means sorta like audacity, but, Cassidy. I don’t know if that’s a piece of software, like, like the, the sound recording program audacity. Um, I don’t know if that’s a medical condition. I don’t know if there’s a cream for that. I don’t know what it is, but Cassidy, that is the word of the day. Thank you to Abraham. So we have another, another trend in this direction. So, you know, more doxing, more talking about kids, more putting you on lists. This comes out from a United States house of representatives member saying tonight, I am calling for the eventual prosecution of Donald Trump and his enablers for their many crimes against the United States. So this guy, his name is bill Pascrell Jr.

And he is saying that they want to prosecute everybody. So parse part pass Scrill demands investigation. He says he’s called for the wide spread investigation and prosecution of members of the outgoing Trump administration. Donald let’s listen to all these very poignant accusations. Donald Trump and members of his administration have committed innumerable crimes against the United States. I okay. He has endangered our national security, how he ripped families apart, how he poisoned the census, how he personally profited from the office and he attacked our elections and sought to throttle democracy. He was rightly impeached. And so on. Doesn’t say almost anything in there, right? There’s no, there’s no actual evidence of a crime in that statement. Therefore in 2021, the entire Trump administration must be fully investigated by the department of justice and any other relevant offices. Donald Trump, along with his worst enablers must be tried for their crimes against our nation and constitution, importantly, any further abuse of the sacred, pardon, power to shield, criminals and so on. And so on. America is lawless and all this stuff. So very, you know, very wild. This guy’s basically calling for Joe Biden to get in there and the department of justice to go after his political opponents. Very interesting stuff that they’re actually calling for this. We see this in other parts of the world and it doesn’t look good. It doesn’t end well. And we have elected officials in the United yeah.

States, Congress asking for this stuff. It’s bizarre. We’re going to see where it goes, which is why we’re grateful that you’re here. All right. Let’s jump into some super chats today. Let’s get the chat log, dive, and go and get all right. Let’s try this again. Can you hear me now? Um, all right. We’re back in business.

All right. We’re back in business. I’m sorry, everybody. So let’s jump into the super chats. I don’t know what is going on. All right.

Faith came and interrupted me and she said you did it again. So it’s, it’s, it’s like amateur hour over here right now today. I apologize. Thank you for working with us on this. Okay. So Rachel has the broader significance here is that the Republicans are going to start, I think, flipping over there, they’re going to roll over because generally speaking, the legitimacy here is, uh, it’s, it’s one thing, right. The Republicans don’t have enough evidence that make it a slam dunk for the different individual Republicans in their individual precincts to go home and say that they have something to fight for. If the Trump team at the very top of this, if they cannot go in and, and really convince people that there was massive fraud, then these Republicans are just going to start flipping. They’re going to start getting th th th th the system is going to chip away at them. And Donald Trump needs a big number of those different legislators in order to, to move the ball forward under a 12th amendment scenario

Question, though. Thank you. Um, yeah, it’s, it’s not a good omen that the legitimacy needs to continue to be amped up from the Trump team, which is why I’m saying is more and more time goes by the likelihood that this thing is gonna turn out well for the Trump team diminishes. So we want to see more information from them if they’re going to be successful. Josh Rose says is doxing of the canvassers in Michigan criminal. Can the certification be undone since it was done under duress to them and their children? So, uh, Josh Rowe, very interesting question. I don’t know the answer to that in Michigan, specifically, most criminal law is done under state law. So you’d have to ask a Michigan attorney about that. Um, I would, I would, I would, I would be inclined to say that there’s probably something that would fit in Arizona. We have a statute called threatening and intimidating, and it, it does cover some of that type of activity. So if you are, you know, literally like doing something, that’s going to constitute a threat, or there’s going to be an act of intimidation, then that may be sufficient in order to, to bring a criminal charge. And you see this in, in certain situations where there is cyber harassment, when somebody is actually going and making allegations under a pseudonym, like a fake Instagram profile or whatever that looks like. So that could be true. Now

Whether the certification could be undone, if it was done under duress to them, you know, again, I, I, I don’t, I think that would be a difficult case to prove. And because largely because they made some concessions, they said, yeah, we’re going to certify this, but we want an, a more in-depth audit of some additional things that are going on. So, um, uh, I’m not sure that they’re going to be able to sort of an unring that bell as it were, but we’ll see, Jessica Hill says, do you think Trump will declare martial law if all else fails? I don’t think so at all. I think that what, you know, I think what many people think is going to go out with a boom is just going to be a little bit of a putter if, if that does happen. So if Donald Trump’s team is unsuccessful in this effort, I I’m of the mindset that this will be sort of a death by a thousand cuts, right?

It’s not going to be one big hacking away at this, this idea of Donald Trump. It’s going to be death by a thousand cuts. We’re going to see a lot of different lawsuits get dismissed. We’re going to see a lot of different States certify their results. And it’s just going to be, you know, just kind of this momentum of UN of inevitability is going to happen. Then at some point, somebody in the government with the GSA is going to start the transition. And then at that point, it’s kind of a foregone conclusion. We’re waiting for some of these levers to come into play. And that’s the, that’s the real impetus for the Trump team to start moving, right? There’s some deadlines coming up soon and they need to start producing results. Otherwise these deadlines are going to come and go, and they’re not going to have anything.

That’s going to be able to save them off. And it’s just going to be a foregone conclusion. So we will continue to see what happens there as well. Erin CDs, back in the house, he’s a regular with the super chat. Thank you, Aaron, appreciate that. He says Peter Neff and jerk chair at the smart Maddock is part of the Biden team. I think that is an issue. I heard that. Yeah, I read that, that he was, uh, on the board or something and one of these voting companies, and now he’s actually on the transition team, which is very, very interesting. Cm says is downtown Phoenix, nice to live? I’m looking at the Orpheum laws. And so cm, I don’t know, actually, you know, they look nice to me. I, I, I don’t know how things are down there right now. You know, downtown Phoenix is sorta not the same as some of the downtown other, other downtowns that I’ve been to.

Things get pretty quiet down there, like around nine o’clock. Uh, it’s they’re, they’re trying to sort of make it this bustling center again, that has, uh, a better nightlife, but COVID came out and ruined all of that. So I think a lot of it is kind of still dead. I don’t live there. I live in Scottsdale and, uh, I prefer that I prefer sort of a, uh, less hustle bustle area, but it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s nice. Phoenix is great. I love living here. I think it’s a good, a good place to be. We have Gabriel Hernandez who said wasn’t that Wisconsin dumped because of the mail-in voting ballots, finally being counted since the vote tallies aren’t counted at the individual precincts, but rather at a centralized location. So yeah, that very well could be true. Right. I mean, that could be easily the explanation. And I would be okay with that.

If somebody else came out and said, yeah, that’s exactly what happened at four 42, we had, uh, you know, w w we had already sorted these ballots at a different tabulation center. Here’s what it is here. Come take a look at them. Here’s the, here’s the records, this voter voted, and this person’s not dead. This person requested a ballot, you know, to come check it out. That would, that would satiate a lot of people, including myself. I just like to point out what some of the data shows and this, Oh, that’s interesting. Right? What, what happened there? And then what I think, what I think the reasonable course of action would be to say, it’s a question and response question response. This data looks interesting. There’s an explanation for that. This data looks interesting. Here’s an explanation for that. And we just go around and around.

We play this little mental gymnastics game. We’re exercising the muscle of our brain. We’re talking about these issues and people are, are, are learning things, right? We’re coming to conclusions based upon a reasonable dialogue, but that’s not really happening right now. We have all these other people who say, if you question this stuff, you’re a racist, you’re a conspiracy theorist. You’re a que supporter. I’ve got called a birther for some reason, even though the birther thing was like, uh, in, in the year 2008. But you know, there’s a lot of issues around that. I just think that with more transparency would be able to get a little bit more, um, a little bit more calm for a lot of the people that still have questions. And I’m perfectly okay. If there’s an analysis that comes out and says, Dr. Shiva was wrong. Here’s why Benford’s law doesn’t work.

Here’s why, uh, you know, Matt Brainerd identified all these people, but they don’t really count because X, Y, and Z, but we just haven’t gotten a lot of that. And in fact, I did see that dominion posted a response, which I think I’m going to talk about on Friday seven reasons why everything is legitimate and authentic. And I want to go through that because I have some issues with that, right? Even the explanations from the people who are facing the accusations are pretty weak and leaving a lot to be desired. But Gabriel Hernandez, I think you might be exactly right, right. There. There could be a very good explanation on that in Wisconsin. I just haven’t heard about it yet. Harley Ortega says, dude, do you do this research for fun on your free time? You’re a beast for this content. And I can tell you, the only way we get it done is it’s a team effort.

It’s miss faith. And I, we just grind away at this stuff. And she is a huge help, a huge part of the program. Rachel S with another Superchat says, if Trump is as confident as he claims, why in the dominion fraud, why waste millions on likely non determinative recounts? I sense a bluff that is interesting, Rachel. Yeah. It’s a quarter, a little bit of a different perspective than I, than I was thinking. I was thinking that, you know, Donald Trump is a pretty practical guy when it comes to money. And he always talks about that. It’s sort of one of those things that he relishes. He likes that, and he tells the story. He told the story. I think he’s told him multiple times about an embassy in Jerusalem or someplace. And he said, well, they wanted $4 billion. I did it for 20 million, something like that.

You know, something ridiculous. The government wanted, uh, you know, a $700 hammer. I got it done for two bucks. And he, he talks that way. And he, and he thinks that. And so my thought process was if he’s going to be spending $3 million of sacred campaign money in Wisconsin, there may be because they have some evidence of it. And if it’s, it may tie into the bigger claim. So if he’s going to be claiming that dominion is the culprit behind all of this election interference and malfeasance, maybe they go in, they do this audit and it, it, it correlates. So in other words, the software and the dominion hardware that they uncover in Wisconsin actually was in effect there. So these big discrepancies in the votes, in those two counties, those would actually shrink. And you could tie, you could tie the software to the result. I’m not being articulate on how I’m explaining this right now. But in other words, they’re, they’re, they’re, they’re focusing in, they’re saying we have this hypothesis, dominion manipulated the votes. We’re going to go and actually audit those votes in those counties. And we’re going to show you, we’re going to show you that the software was bad. Here’s what we think happened. Here’s what actually happened. And the recount is the supporting evidence to back up the underlying claim. It’s a good question though. We have Trey Contrarez who says, like how you completely and continuously overlook Republican involvement in the settlement agreement. Like the Democrats did it all by themselves. So I actually made that point, Trey, I don’t know what, I don’t know what the, the actual, um, Republican involvement was, but let’s go back. Let’s scroll back to the slide and I’ll show you what the settlement agreement itself actually says. It’s not me making this stuff up. It is in the agreement itself. I don’t see a Republican party here, unless it’s these people, David, Seth, collectively the state defendants on the other side, are these all, all the Republicans. I mean, I guess they, yeah, I guess they could be. They could, they could all be the Republicans, but you have the secretary of state who is entering an agreement with the Democrats. And I know Brad raffinose Berger is somebody who is a Republican, but why is he letting the debt? Why, why enter into a settlement agreement in the first place? Why wouldn’t you just say, yeah, listen, take your claim to court. We think our statutes are perfectly fine. This is the one, this is the law. This is the rule. So there was in my mind, if the Republicans had any stones, if they actually wanted to fight their case, they would have just drawn a line in the sand and said, no, just like the Republicans did in Pennsylvania, the Republicans in Pennsylvania came back and said, no, we don’t want to move this three days. Election day is election day. Don’t move it three days. And they lost that battle. But I didn’t see that happen here in the Georgia case. All right, Zulus in the house, he says, hi faith, no matter what happens with the election, I think we can all agree that [inaudible] needs to be put down. Kay, thanks. So that is the new chatbot that we have in our discord channel that Ms. Faith is playing around with. We bought this software, it’s like 79 bucks for the year or whatever. And it, it allows us to, it will automatically post the new videos in the discord chat. And so we’re, we’re playing with some of the functionality and we’re learning discord and having fun with it. But Zulu doesn’t like the bot, which hurts the bots feelings, but that’s okay. It may not be around forever. We may kick that thing out of here, but we’re just playing around with it. But thanks for the feedback, Zulu. If anybody else wants to get rid of that stuff, then uh, then let us know. All right, we have a couple super chats that came in and it says, no sound. That is from, uh, from Freddy. The fake ballot says, there’s no sound. Hopefully we got that fixed. We have Truman HW who says digital keys to the PA vote machines were stolen. Thus, completely vulnerable. Why else steal the E M Y op few skate servers. We’re going to assume all is innocuous. Yeah. That’s a good point. Why do those things? Yeah, why that, that’s my big issue. It’s like, just, just to show us this stuff, it’s all public, it’s all public record. Just let’s, let’s audit this stuff. Let’s let people take a look at the data, but everybody’s trying to hide the ball a little bit. And when they get asked about it, when they ask the secretary of States and these election people, and they say, um, do you guys do a good job? Is there any fraud, anything go wrong on your election? They all come back out and they say, no, most, most credible election we’ve ever had.

We did a good job this time. Didn’t we do a good job there, Joe. Yeah, we did a great job, man. We, we, we really knocked this one out of the park. It’s the same thing we see with the police departments, right? We do criminal law. That’s what we do here on a daily basis. Anytime we try to investigate the police or get a statement from the police, they always say, look, we investigated ourselves. And we found we did nothing wrong. Everything was by the book. We followed policy, no issues at all. And I’ve said this a number of times here. If, if they were to come out and say that the, the election software, the integrity of the process, if they came out, they identified a big problem. They would have the biggest incentive in the world to not disclose it, because it would undermine the legitimacy of their power. If they got into power on, uh, on, uh, on, on the back of a system that was illegitimate, then their claim to power is illegitimate. So they are going to do everything they can to prop that up. And I’m just not the type of person I’m not in the, and I’m not in the industry. I’m not in the right profession. If I was a person who just automatically presumed that the government was right and accurate, I just don’t. I just, I just tend not to. And I’m usually pretty right, because the government is usually largely incompetent as we are all seeing. I don’t care. What side of the aisle you’re on Democrat, Republican. I think we can all agree that this election is a disaster because the various governments are running. It it’s not run very well. So we’ll see. All right, Adam K says, what will an audit do after a certification? Should it actually overturn the results? Does it rescind the original certification? So that’s a good question, Adam. And I don’t know the details on that. And I think it might actually vary state to state. So different States have different rules. This is what makes a national sort of election uniform very difficult is because the constitution says that the different state legislatures are in charge of this. Part of that is by design part. Is it part of it is because we want a distributed system. We don’t want one big overarching system that has the ability to be commandeered by any one agency. Right? We want this little system, these little laboratories of democracy as Sandra Day, O’Connor called them to exist and operate independently of one, another sort of like different cells.

So if Florida gets compromised and they use software, that makes the results of their election completely legitimate, that doesn’t impact it. Doesn’t, it’s not systemic and permeate across the, over the rest of the country. We can, we can siphon off the Floridians and we can say all of the other States are good. And so that’s why it’s so complicated. There’s a lot of different rules and a lot of individual issues going on. So if the state certifies the election results, well, let’s say by the time we get to the, let’s say the state certifies the results. Okay? So now Joe, Biden’s up by 10,000 votes, Donald Trump’s, uh, lawsuits get dismissed in a number of different courts because they’re found to be moot. The court says, well, the results are already certified. You can keep suing, but the results are what they are. We already counted them.

We’re not going to open that can of worms again. Thanks for, thanks for playing goodbye. Well then Donald Trump and his team, the only strategy that is remaining is they now have to go and wage a public relations war. That’s legitimacy war. They have to show outside of the court of law. That there’s enough evidence to say that the, the results of this election are not credible. And that is going to what that, that would be, what would convince the Republicans in the state legislatures to then go and modify what they’re doing with their electors. And I think that’s the only real way that, that they can, they can actually maneuver into a change. In course. Good question though, Adam, Aaron CB says he’s back. He says, go and file suit, ask for a word, change in a law and get it going to AC court change ARS 13 dash bank robbery to letting you know.

So there won’t be a problem when I’m arrested. Okay. So I don’t really know what that said, Erin, but I’m hoping, you’re saying that you’re not going to Rob a bank. That’s not a good idea. Okay. That’s not legal advice, but it’s just not a good idea. Right? So I hope that’s not what you’re saying, but thanks for the super chat. Meg, Tory says our and our lager by found several court docs online and using advert, uh, advanced Google operators, but not all of them. Can you guys share published the court records paperwork so we can read them. Yeah. And that comes from Meg Tori. And she posted that. It sounds like, uh, in, in the, in the live chat. And so Meg, let me, let me direct you over to discord. Okay. So the discord is our chat server. It’s our chat software and the conversations take place before the show and after the show.

So even though you’re right now and you’re talking about, you know, we’re having this live chat and, and having a discussion, it will continue after the program. So what will, what I do after the show is I take the slides, literally the same slides that I’m showing you. And we post those into the chat. So you can have, you can get access to them. And in many of them, I have links to the original documents. Sometimes they actually include the original documents in the slide. And we also will send you the links. The links are in the slides to take you to the original primary sources. So check that out. Um, lava, Java lava says, uh, love that name and he’s back in the house. That would it be more productive legally if the Trump lawsuits would have kept discoveries within the courts, instead of all over the media, you know, it’s an interesting question.

I, uh, I’m not too sure about that. I, I think probably not. And here’s why I say that, you know, judges are people too court clerks are people opposing counsel, they’re all people. And if they they’re reading the media, they’re reading the news, they’re influenced in the same way that you were. I would be judges. We want them to be impartial. We want them to be removed from the personal, you know, animosity and bias that all of us experience in life. But, but that doesn’t happen. They’re humans, they’re there. They’re not immune to it. And so I think what we’re seeing here is political pressure on the judges. And there’s a lot of it and they’re not inclined to overturn the will of the people. And so if you, if you only kept the court documents close to the vest, and only within the formal court proceedings, the judges may see it, but they’ll know that the public doesn’t see it.

And if, if, if they ruled on a case that would disenfranchise large swaths of voters, that would be catastrophic for their career, for their state, for their circle of influence, it would be a big problem. So I think what a lot of the judges are probably looking for is cover. They need something in the mainstream media, something that a majority of Americans believe that would give them an excuse to take this further. And so far, the Trump team, as far as I can tell, it hasn’t really delivered anything. That’s going to be like a big slap in the face to two people. They just, they just haven’t yet. It’s all been a lot of speculative stuff. Um, Ellen woods complaint today is probably the closest thing to anything concrete that we have seen thus far in terms of actual problems. A lot of the other stuff, Benford’s law, Dr. Sheeva’s analysis and so on. They’re interesting, but they’re not, you know, they’re, they’re, they’re speculative, they’re sort of abstract concepts. And so if they can come out and say, look, we’ve got documented evidence that so-and-so from dominion, literally manipulated 1.2 million votes or whatever they’re claiming. That would be something that would give the judges cover. It would give everybody cover. It give a lot of Republicans, attorney generals, state legislature is a lot of different individuals, a fake because where they can go and say, well, you know, I wasn’t going to investigate this stuff, but because this other stuff came out now, we’re going to take a closer look. And there just hasn’t been anything like that quite yet. We’ll see if it does come out S S with another Superchat says any legal recourse against the director of dominion, Eric Coomer who States on Antifa call that no chance Trump can win.

I made F unsure of that. So I have not, uh, I’ve not seen that quote. I’ve not seen any evidence of that. That would be a major, a major claim, right? You would, that would certainly go to establishing a motive, which is something we talk about in criminal. A lot. If, if the head person, director of dominion is on a conference call saying, we’re going to make sure Donald Donald Trump doesn’t win this. A lot of eyeballs are going to be perking up a little bit. That can be investigated. I have not seen that. We’ll take a look at it. I’m not sure if that’s factual or not, but, uh, who knows, uh, thank you SS for that. We have, Mr. Deplorable says, how does C I S a play into all of this great show as always? So if, if, if by CSA C I S a you’re talking about, um, uh, who we talked about him yesterday, what’s his name?

He was just fired the cyber cyber intelligence, security administration. I think that’s what it’s called. You know, they were, uh, they were not included from my recollection. And we went through Donald Trump’s administrative order that he executed in 2018, specifically relating to foreign interference in elections. And that was not something that I, I saw that, that, uh, that, that acronym, uh, CIS in there, it wasn’t as the director of national intelligence. We saw the department of Homeland security, secretary treasurer. We also saw, um, bill BARR and some other individuals. So I don’t know necessarily how CIS fits into that scheme. I think it’s a subset of Homeland security, or it’s closely related to one of the other executive branches, but I just don’t know specifically, but nevertheless, you know, that’s somebody, who’s a part of the team. And if he’s going to come out and make a statement that doesn’t pass through the white house about the security of the election, well, of course he’s going to be fired, right.

If, if anybody comes out and speaks against your employer, they’re, they’re going to fire you. Like, like you just have to expect that. And, uh, you know, we don’t know that’s consequential. We don’t know if that’s going to change anything or maybe he was refusing to move forward on certain things. Remember that executive order from 2018 specifically mandated that all of these different agencies put together a framework and deliver a report back over to the president within 45 days of the election, which by my count puts it at December 18th. And if you actually push it back to the, uh, the, the new deadlines that were set in Pennsylvania, which was three days after the election, so November six or in North Carolina, which bumped it all the way back to November 12th, I think, you know, that 45 days may actually extend beyond the end of the certification period for the I’m sorry, for the electors day when they actually cast their votes.

So, um, we’ll see, we’ll see, there’s a, there’s a big shuffle going on right now, all over the place. And we’re going to see where that falls into play. Thank you, Mr. Deplorable for that. Another super chat came in for, uh, from Wayne Janssen. Thank you. No question from Wayne, but thank you so much for being here. Wayne. We have S S w Lam says, Rob, great show watching from the UK, did the U S army really seized servers in Germany, hoping Trump stays for a second term praying for the U S thank you, uh, S S w lamb. Appreciate that. So I looked into that. I tried to find any evidence of this, of this server seizing, and I, I didn’t see anything and actually dominion themselves. They said that that didn’t happen. So they actually put a list of seven different, uh, rebuttals, essentially the debunking, the different claims that are out there. And they had a little bit of a section there about that issue saying, uh, we don’t have servers overseas, or we don’t have servers where they’re claiming that the servers were seized and, and they have some links to some supporting authorities that also say they looked into it. And so, you know, that’s, that’s open to your interpretation. I think that if there was a covert sure, by the FBI, the CIA or something, you know, we’re not going to hear about it until it’s it’s time to hear about it. So anything is really speculation at this point, but dominion themselves are saying that that did not happen. So, um, take that with a grain of salt. Of course, Dr. EMB says, thank you for your time and efforts with the super chat. Thanks doctor. I appreciate that. That’s another nice Superchat from you. And, uh, once again, we’ll get to the 12th amendment. Thanks for being here. Thanks for the super chats. And thanks for the questions. Uh, Truman HW says you covered too far to observe, and that’s one thing, but what about being tricked into leaving election night and tons of one-sided votes coming in? It’s a good question. Truman. Yeah. And a lot of those affidavits are saying that, you know, that they’re on official lists.

And if you actually read the L Lynn wood complaint, you will see there that they’re actually including the statement, the, the written letters in the affidavits, from the state of Georgia saying, we approve you to go be a, a watcher. We approve you to go there and observe, and then they would take that letter in and they would get denied. Nope, votes are already counted. You’re not allowed admission. I, I read you the affidavit from one of the lawyers who was in there and actually pushed back. They told him to leave and he said, I’m not leaving. You got 26 tables here. Uh, we get to, we get to monitor this stuff. And you know, it, it takes somebody with some fortitude to go in there and stand back against these people, right? And most people just don’t have that disposition. Most people like to go along and get along and be affable and not get into arguments.

I don’t even like to get into arguments and that’s part of my job. Right. But, but it’s still one of those things that you have to be able to practice that and disconnect from sort of the emotion of it. And most people just don’t have that skillset. They’re not trained in that. So to say that you’re going to have a bunch of these volunteer, Paul Walker, Oh, Watchers, you know, go in and elbow their way into these rooms when there are literal cops and there are literal, you know, people of authority with the government telling you, you can’t come in, you don’t get access to this stuff that in the one affidavit I read you today, they actually called a police officer over to throw somebody from the Republican party out. That’s a, that’s a problem. That’s a violation through and through. And these people testifying to that effect.

That’s evidence that counts, and we’re going to see what the courts do with it. But I agree with you there, there’s a lot of issues that are coming to lights, and we’re going to see where it all goes. Alexander Fermin AOV says, uh, no question on that. Just sent over a super chat. Thank you, Alexandra. Appreciate that. Appreciate you being here and being a part of the show that one time at, also with the super chat chiming in says, what do you think about AC speaker, uh, Bauer’s opposing hand count of ballots in Arizona? How likely do you think a hand count is given the new email? Uh, interesting. So I, I must, I must not have missed that. I’ve not seen that the speaker of the house opposes a hand recount. I haven’t seen that. I think we, we read through a different letter from the Senate’s here in Arizona, and they don’t believe that there was anything wrong with the election and they go out of their way to say that. But they’re also saying that they want to look a little bit further. And I think what they were calling for was an audit. I don’t know, specifically the language there. Um, but it is curious. I, I would, I would imagine that Arizona would be more inclined to, to do that. I think that there is a lot of, uh, of concern here at least know all amongst the people I talked to, you know, it’s, it’s one of those things were a lot of people just sort of feel like something off. And I think they’re only going to be satiated satisfied if there’s a little bit more looking into some of this stuff. And, uh, we’re, we’ll see where that goes here in Arizona. But thanks for the question that one time at all. Right. So it looks like the sound is still working. Yay. We’ve got it all figured out. Um, somebody said just reboot loading, loading, loading, no video comes more technical difference.

[inaudible] all right. So it looks like I may have been in the wrong chat box. Let’s see some other, the questions. What do you think about 160, 156,000 votes being thrown out in Nevada for voting irregularities?

President says, uh, the vote. Yeah. So, you know, I’m not sure about that. I don’t think I’ve seen that one either. I’m not, I haven’t seen that. There’s so many lawsuits literally flying around all over the place and it is, it is interesting. So we will see, let’s see super chat, somebody sending another super chat. All right. I’m swap, swap and chats. I have to move some screens around. Let’s see what else we’ve got. Uh, John Woodham says the Ellen wood lawsuit is absurd. Truman HW says you really are. Awesome. Exclamation. Thank you for that. Uh, thank you times 100. Thanks, Truman. I really appreciate that. My friend, I appreciate your support. Appreciate the super chat. And I’m excited that we seem to have taken this dumpster fire of a technology issue show and kind of pieced it back together a little bit. We have Brian Reinhart who says, Oh, well, I take it to the U S constitution article one, section nine, clause three, no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. It does not apply to Michigan. Interesting.

Uh, Kevin B says, Robert, I have not heard anything discussing the chain of custody for the ballots. So Kevin, probably a new, a new, a new viewer here. We’ve talk about some of that here. I actually did a show where I did a diagram where we took everything from the voter who requested the mail-in ballot to the con to the communication, to the secretary of state, to the actual transmission of the ballot, through the us postal service from the us postal service to the voters house, to the voters house, to the completion of the ballot, to being sent to the us postal service to the collection and the transmission over to the secretary of state. So we ran through that entire chain of custody. And we were specifically talking about an issue where the us postal service lost track of their numbers. So they were only counting the stuff that was coming in, but they were sort of losing track of what was actually going out.

And there was a story that we covered here, where they were missing, uh, something like 300,000 ballots. And there was an actual order from judge Sullivan in district court that said, you have to go find that you have to go and scour all of the different factories or all of the different warehouses that are within the us postal service chain. And you need to go and identify that, and you need to file a written order that you’ve done this and they didn’t do it. And so there’s a lot of problems. And when you put that in the context of the chain of custody, you can identify where there’s a pretty good insertion points. If you were going to deliver a bunch of ballots outside of the chain of custody, pretty easy to do that, you would just insert it in the, in the, in the area where they lost track of their numbers.

And that was specifically going from the us postal service to the secretary of state. They lost track of that. So the chain was broken there, and there’s a good chance that people could have inserted ballots there, whether it did or not. I don’t know, but it’s just hypothetical. You know, when you break this down on a sort of a, a, a logical, you know, think, think through the steps, I thought that was the best place to insert something unlawfully. All right, let’s see here. So we’re running a little bit long here. I want to let let’s wrap up show here so I can make sure that I can get the show figured out for tomorrow and fix our technical difficulties. I want to thank you all so much for being here. Thanks to Mr. Ma, the moderator and of course, Smith, Ms. Faith, Ms. Faith.

This is a pretty, it’s a pretty intense show for miss faith over there. She’s she was knocking at the door or two times saying, Hey, moron, your audio is not working. So we’re going to get that sorted. Now we’ll get that fixed for you tomorrow. In the meantime, uh, you know, don’t, uh, don’t forget to subscribe, right. Even though this kind of amateur hour today, uh, hit the subscribe button, we’ll get together. We’ll be back tomorrow. As another reminder, joined the discord, uh, Mr. [inaudible] out there, uh, submitted the link over there. We’re going to have some conversation that takes place after the show. I’m gonna put the slides in there, want to make sure that you’re available, uh, to, to get that stuff. So head on over there as well. Also, don’t forget to subscribe. The channel is doing exceedingly well. We’re so excited about it.

I mean, people are very interested in this type of material and I love talking about it. It’s a lot of fun and I’m so grateful that you’re here. So I would just ask that you join us again so that we can carry this on and continue onward and do us a favor and share the show, send it to your friends, invite him to come take a look at the slides, come join this conversation because there’s a lot to talk about. And we’re grateful that you are here. One more Superchat just came in from SSW. Lamb says, watch Zuckerberg, Senate hearing Facebook’s task platform, coordinate censorship with Twitter and Google. Thanks for the real news. I saw a little bit of that. Yeah. I saw some of that. I expected that there was going to be this collusion between them because we started to see a lot of people just drop off one platform and then there would be a domino effect.

One, you know, Google would pull him down. Twitter would pull him down. Facebook would pull him down, just this domino effect. So you had to believe there was some sort of collusion. I think the first one that we saw in that effect was actually about Alex Jones, right? I mean, he got, he got de platform like simultaneously, overnight. It was pretty interesting, but it’s a good question. Hopefully that doesn’t happen to us cross our fingers. We don’t want to get canceled. I’m really hopeful that we don’t. I think that we provide valuable stuff. We want to keep it level headed. We want to use question and answer the Socratic method. Talk about some claims. Some of them are going to be, you know, a little bit out there. Some of them are going to be a little bit more legitimate, but the point is we’re exercising that muscle we’re we’re, we’re, we’re flexing and getting better.

We’re using our minds and we’re having a real conversation about this stuff. Not the headlines that you see scrolling around at the bottom. And that’s the only bit of Def bit of depth that you get out of them. We’re not going to do that here, which is why we’re grateful that you are a part of the show. One more thing, if you know anybody who was charged with a crime in the state of Arizona, that’s our business. That’s what my entire team here at the RNR law group does. We’ve got an awesome team of people. We love helping good people charged with crimes because it’s important, right? We’re all human. We all make mistakes, but that doesn’t mean that our lives should be ruined. We want to help good people get back on track a little bit. And that’s it. That’s what I’m going to leave you with. Thanks for letting me ramble off there a little bit. I want to wish everybody a very wonderful evening, a nice night, have a restful sleep. I will see you back here. Same time tomorrow. It’s 4:00 PM, California. Oh, uh, what is that? Pacific time? Eight, 5:00 PM in Arizona, which is mountain time. We have 6:00 PM in Texas and then 7:00 PM for you Eastern time. Folks. Love to see you back here tomorrow. Thank you so much. Have a great evening and be well bye-bye.