loader image

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the R&R Law Group where my team and I over the course of many years have helped represent thousands of good people facing criminal charges all throughout the state of Arizona. And over our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I’m talking about misconduct involving the police. We have problems with prosecutors. We have judges behaving badly, and it all comes from political misconduct. They’re the ones in charge. They write the rules, they pass the laws and then we all have to deal with it. And we’re seeing a lot of that going on right now for the last several weeks, about two and a half weeks. So far, we have been really in the middle of what I have been calling the legal battle of the century of E of all time, because people are at each other’s throats right now, fighting over the biggest prize in the United States of America, which of course is the presidency.

And so today what we’re going to do is focus on the big news of the day as it relates to the election battle, specifically focused on Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has been the, the spot to focus on this entire time. We’ve got major updates from the hearing today. There was a legislative proceeding that took place where Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and even Donald Trump phoned in it was very interesting. And we’re going to detail what happened and what that might mean for the foregoing campaign. We also have another area of Pennsylvania in federal court. The Trump campaign has filed an appeal in the third circuit court of appeals. And we have another letter from another attorney. Who’s also relevant to the case. We want to run through that. And then we’re going to talk about what’s going on in state court in Pennsylvania as well. So we’ve got this, the trifecta, as it were in the state of Pennsylvania, we have the third circuit, federal court handling a case that originated out of Pennsylvania.

We have the state Supreme court court, which is now being asked to rule. And then of course we have the legislature. So we’ve got a lot of Pennsylvania to get into today, but this is the Canary in the coal mine. This is where it all starts. You know, all Donald Donald Trump and his campaign need. In my opinion is for a little bit of momentum. If one state falls or one state legislature makes an adjustment or modifies things from the ordinary course of elections, that might be enough to release the flood Gates, to open the spigot and have other States and other legislatures go on and do something similar in their own locality. So this is where a lot of people are focused on and for good reason. Now, before we dive into it a little bit about the program, I will take live, chat, super chats, any questions at the end of the program.

So for the next 30, 40 minutes or so, we’re going to go through some material, analyze the primary sources. We’ll take questions at the end. So feel free to send those in. We have our moderator and miss faith who are taking the questions and sending them to me, queuing them up for the end of the program. As another reminder, if you’re not a regular subscriber, we go live at this time, day of the week, not on the weekends, we won’t be here tomorrow, but we will be back Friday. We want to make sure that you are a part of the show and available to have the conversations with us. All right. So let’s dive into it. So, as I mentioned, I want to start with the third circuit. I know the juicy news of the day is the hearing that took place out in Pennsylvania, in front of the legislature.

We’re going to get there, but before we do, let’s take a look at the third circuit because this is interesting. There are some new arguments, there’s some new, new little strategies that we can sort of tease out from a lot of this litigation. That’s going on. A lot of what you see in the news. I think a lot of what you see, even from some of the mainstream commentators who are the legal commentators, you know, they’re, I think they’re kind of missing the forest for the trees as it were. And so let’s take a look at what is going on here. We have a new complaint. It’s not a complaint. It’s a, it’s a letter that was written over by this gentleman here. His name is [inaudible] and his first name, I don’t know, his first name is we’ll get to it, but here’s what he says.

This is a letter that’s going over to the third circuit. What that means is currently there is a lawsuit that is being that is, is pending in the third circuit because it’s being appealed. Let me back up and frame this out a little bit better. So what happened originally is there was a lawsuit taking place out of issues, arising out of Pennsylvania that went up to the district court that we saw a lot of that we’ve covered a lot of this stuff on this channel, but what ended up happening is the judge dismissed that lawsuit. So the Trump team filed the lawsuit. The judge turned around, dismissed it and dismissed it with prejudice, which means it’s done. You can’t have those issues come back anymore. The court ruled on it. Doesn’t come back. Now, of course they can appeal it. And that’s exactly what they’re doing here.

They’re appealing it to the third circuit. One of the issues here is that Rudy Giuliani, isn’t licensed to practice law in the third circuit. He’s only licensed to practice law in the second circuit, which is sort of a, you know, kind of an important thing. You can’t practice law where you’re not licensed and there are formal procedures that you need to go through in order to get that done. And so yesterday, a lot of people in the political commentary at they were saying that, well, what we need to do now is denied Rudy Giuliani’s appeal because he’s not licensed in the third circuit. And technically they’re they’re right, right. These rules exist for reasons. Now, w w what we’re going to see here is there are other ways to address the case and address the legal issues, not being sticklers about the rules. And that’s what this new attorney is bringing into the fold.

So here’s the letter that is going over to the clerk of the third circuit court, and let’s read through it. So we see here that Donald Trump for president, and in this case, Donald Trump for president versus Kathy Boockvar in her capacity as the secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And we also see that there were referencing here, what’s called a local rule. So different courts have local rules that need to be followed. This attorney has a pretty big from here. You can see all of these different attorneys, uh, considerably larger than ours, about probably double the size of our firm, which means, you know, this, this is a, this is a firm. This is a heck of a firm. They’ve got a good system in place. They have good structure, probably very competent team, good management and so on because they’ve been around for a while and then they must do good work.

And so what we see here, local rule 34.1, dear chief clerk, I write on behalf of the, of the president, basically his legal team and what they’re doing. They can’t file a motion in this court because they’re not a party to the lawsuit, but they’re asking if they can start appearing to assist Rudy in this case. And there’s some things we can glean out of this. So it says, unfortunately, attorney Giuliani, he’s admitted to the second circuit court of appeals, but he hasn’t been able to get certifications due to COVID-19 because of the complications with the different entities in New York. Now there’s no argument here that Rudy Giuliani is not qualified to appear in front of the second circuit court or the third circuit. This is just a formality, not a big deal. They’re just trying to, you know, they’re just trying to find some technicalities that would invalidate him for being able to appear in the third circuit, but there’s no practical reason, right?

Federal law is federal law sort of across the board. Different circuits have different rulings and sort of, they narrow down the opinions. But remember, all of these issues are really stemming from the constitution and it’s a federal constitution, which is all across all the different States and all the different circuits. And so that’s the starting point. And to make this distinction that while Rudy Giuliani, he’s licensed in the second circuit, but not the third that he can’t go into. The third is kind of a ridiculous argument. And this attorney is making the same claim. So here we see that he is saying over 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. The campaigns claims should be heard on the merits and not dismissed for perceived procedural irregularities. American voters need to have confidence in our electoral system. Now that’s, that’s pretty obvious argument, but what comes next is even more interesting in my mind.

So you’ll see here that this attorney is using a lot of language saying that the oral argument would be helpful if we go into federal court and they’re being very deferential. They’re saying, look, if the court just happens to have any questions that the appeal should be granted, we believe an oral argument would be helpful to address the arguments. So it’s just, you know, look when we know we’re not a party, but if you need somebody who is licensed in the third circuit, we’re ready and available, we can help clarify a lot of these issues for you. And as this goes on, we’re going to see more of that. So let me move my screen out of the way there’s me gone. All right. So we see that what this letter does, is it detailed some pretty big footnotes that have some interesting points in it.

And so the first one is saying that our prior attorneys didn’t do such a good job. We’re sorry for that. Listen. Here’s what happened? The attorneys in the lower level courts, they were getting harassed. They were, they withdrew quote because of threats, including economic retaliation, former counsel was verbally harassed. Linda Kerns. She withdrew, she withdrew. And then she acts before she did though. She incorrectly withdrew certain allegations and claims. So she kind of, you know, she kinda botched this case a little bit, but then as soon as we got involved, we really tried to correct all this stuff. We apologize. Now let’s hear the case on the merits. Don’t dismiss it because of this procedural problem that we had, because if you just dismiss it now, then that doesn’t address the underlying issue. The underlying issue is still going to be pertinent if you dismiss it on a technicality.

But bullet point number two is very interesting. And we’re going to talk a little bit more about this later in the presentation today, but it says, look, plaintiffs believes the court will benefit from the hearing. Oh, I’m sorry. From hearing how the significant deadline is December 8th, the safe Harbor, not November 23rd plaintiffs can also explain that this date is not dispositive as justice Ginsburg wrote in Bush versus Gore. All right. So let’s back that up for a quick minute. Let’s, let’s break that down a little bit. Plaintiffs believes this court will benefit from hearing how this significant deadline is December 8th. So what the underlying court found was that the November 23rd date was dispositive, which means that is the date that matters. They’re saying in Pennsylvania, look, our certification deadline was on November 23rd. We had to get this stuff in before December, November 23rd. And that’s why the underlying court denied their motion to amend their original complaint.

They wanted to go in and update their reason for filing the lawsuit. The court said no. And the court said, no, because we’ve got a deadline on the 23rd, which was two days ago, that was the certification deadline. So that’s the basis for why Trump lost the case in the, in the lower level court they’re appealing. And they’re saying, look, December 8th is the pertinent deadline, not November 23rd, but they don’t stop there. So December 8th is we all kind of, we’re talking about December 8th, being the safe Harbor deadline, December 14th, being the electors day when they actually send their votes in, but they go on a little bit further in this. And I think we can tease out more of what they’re doing and they’re moving the goalpost a little bit to their favor, which I think is supported. At least there’s a good argument under the law.

It says, plaintiffs can also explain that this date is not dispositive either. So they’re saying yes, Pennsylvania wants November 23rd. We think a more pertinent deadline is December 8th, but even December 8th is really not, not the correct date. They’re saying justice Ginsburg explained this in Bush versus Gore. She quote said the December 12th deadline for bringing Florida’s electoral votes into the safe Harbor under the U S code lacks, the significance the court assigns it. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that date, the deadline for bringing those votes into the safe Harbor doesn’t have any significance that the court assigns it because she says in this is in light of Congress’s detailed provisions for determining on the sixth day of January, the validity of the electoral votes. And then you can find that case site down there, five 31, us nine eight, and look it up if you want to see the Bush versus Gore opinion.

So Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself in the Bush versus Gore decision, according to this attorney is saying that all of those dates, the December 8th date, the December 12th date in Bush versus Gore it’s December 14th, this year. She’s kind of saying those don’t really matter too much because Congress has a bunch of other more important that they’re going to follow. And the ones that are prescribed under this statute are, you know, they’re kind of like guidelines. There are a lot of other things that happen, which we’re going to talk about, and you can take a look here. This comes from the congressional research service. If you pull up this link, you just type in, uh, I don’t know, electoral votes or type joint session of Congress into Google. You’ll pull up this document and we’re going to go through it in a little bit more detail here in a second.

But what we’ll see here is this is the date that they’re talking about. January six, 2021. This is the date where the joint session of Congress counts the electoral votes, and then they declare the election results. That’s the date November, sorry, January 6th. So even more time. And they’re saying on January six or another date, the Senate in the house of representatives assemble at 1:00 PM in a joint session at the Capitol in the house chamber to count the electoral votes and declare the results. That’s when their results are declared. Okay. Not the 14th, not the eighth. There’s an argument here because there’s a lot of procedural stuff that happens on the backend that makes this, that they can throw this off the vice-president presides. As the president of the Senate, the vice president opens the certificates, presents them to four tellers, two from each chamber, the tellers read and make a list.

When the votes have been ascertained, encountered the teller, transmits them to the vice-president and so on. If one of the tickets has received a majority of two 70 or more, the vice-president announces their results, which shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the person’s, if any elected president and vice-president, until that happens, there is no new president. That’s what they’re arguing in this, in this letter. Now they’re not arguing that specifically, but you can kind of see where they’re going with this. They’re saying, ah, you know, the December 14th, not such a big deal anymore because the state legislatures, they’re the ones who have the power to do what they want to do with their electoral votes. And up until that day, when the house opens them, counsel them and reads them, they can still be making arguments and still be making claims. And so we haven’t seen that from the Trump team yet, this is new information that they are sort of not even worried about that December 8th date.

Now they’re, they’re moving this a little bit. They’re saying court, the November 23rd was way too soon. And we’re going to see their point, why they say that, but way too soon, the correct date should be later in December 8th, December 14th, or even January six there’s. In other words, there’s plenty of time to continue to investigate this. And the letter goes on couple other quick points before we move on, says here, plaintiffs can assist the court in understanding that the lower court didn’t find any prejudice made no finding of prejudice. They say they did, but they’re saying that, uh, I mean, really when we come in, we make our case, judge, we’re going to show you that really was no prejudice. Bullet 0.4 says plaintiff wishes to address issues that were never raised before, because the matter is not moot. And this is something we spent some time on yesterday.

If you’re not a regular of the channel, we move pretty quickly on this program. Here we go through a lot of case law and analyze these legal issues, sort of at a fast pace yesterday, we were talking about Marx versus Stinson, and we were originally reading the complaint that was filed in the, or the opening brief that was filed in this court in the third circuit court. And when the Trump team referenced Mark versus Stinson, they sort of explained what the holding was in that case. In other words, what the law was and they were wrong about it. I looked up the case we read through it didn’t really make any sense. They sort were sorta misstating. The fact, I didn’t read anything about their prescribed remedy, but there was another pretty good remedy in there that had to do with de certifying elections and holding special election.

So I think that the case was on point. They just got the statement of the law wrong, which is, you know, it’s not uncommon attorneys do that all the time, especially when you’re super pressed for time. And you’ve got a motion that needs to be in the, in the federal circuit court quickly. So you, you kind of have a little bit of leeway there. Uh, you know, just to some degree, some attorneys would disagree with that, but you know, attorneys are our people and they’re going to misstate the law from time to time. But the case itself, I think is on point and it has some interesting features to it and he details it here. He says, as in March versus Stenson, federal courts may order the result of the election de-certified, which has, as we can explain, would render this certificate of ascertainment that was already issued by governor Wolf invalid.

So, remember yesterday, when we were talking about this case, we explained that the Trump team filed their opening brief shortly thereafter, there was an appeal that was submitted by, or a response that was submitted by the democratic national convention or a committee or whomever it was. And they were saying, Oh, this is moot. We don’t even need to argue about certification anymore because it’s already been done. So sorry, guys, uh, too little too late, you lose the argument. Now it’s going to go, we’re done. We’re not even going to argue with this anymore. So they ask the court to dismiss the case, but they’re coming back here in this letter and they’re saying, no, no, no, not so fast. There’s a prior case that shows that you can act, you can reverse the certificate of ascertainment. The Pennsylvania general assembly also has the power to appoint the Commonwealth presidential electors. So if, if the district court came out and said, president Trump won the legal votes, well, that may have a significant impact on the general assembly. Right? Doesn’t that make sense? If the court comes through and they rule on the merits of the case, they don’t dismiss it for some procedural nonsense, they rule on it. And the court finds that. Yeah, there were a lot of illegal votes in our final tallies. We’re going to throw out all the illegal ones. We’re going to say that.

Yeah. I mean, based according to these numbers, even though the, the, even though the secretary of state and the election people. Yeah. They certified it, but the court found, yeah, there was a, there was a quarter million illegal votes in there as a result of those illegal votes. We’re going to find out that, uh, that, that Trump technically won this election. We know the secretary of state has already certified it, but we’re finding that according to the law, there’s this big bucket of votes that shouldn’t count. We’re going to find that they don’t count secretary of state, even though you’ve already ascertained it. I mean, you can do what you want with it. You can do, you know, that’s your, that’s your business. Uh, but this letter is saying that information might be helpful for the legislature to go in and then award their electoral votes accordingly. So take that power away from the executive branch, from the secretary of state, from the board of electoral or whatever that, you know, the board of canvassers or whatever the individual States call them, take that power back, hold onto it, and then nominate those electoral votes further down. The process could be closer to January 6th. Could it be closer to the December 14th? And there’s a procedure that they need to follow and I’ll detail what that is, but just because it’s a sort of a recommended procedure, there’s still additional time. I think. So we’re going to get, we’re going to dive into this question a little bit further, but we just wanted to touch base on that. There are additional claims and just because an election was already ascertained doesn’t mean that there isn’t any case law out there to support reversing the ascertainment, ordering a new election, or just finding that those buckets are invalid so that the state legislatures now know what to do. This issue gets litigated, gets in front of a judge. Judge says, yeah, doesn’t look so good. Alright, well now it’s back to the legislature and they can rely on the courts making, you know, a quote, independent finding that this thing was not done properly. The fifth footnote here says plaintiffs can assist the court in understanding that the district did not rely on any other grounds besides undue delay.

And that’s a pretty big issue. Okay. So what, what, what, what, what I’m in my, my mind, what I see is the court. When they were analyzing the claim, Donald Trump brought, brought his campaign, brought his claims into the court. The court said, look, you have all these different complaints. You have all these problems. Why don’t you present some evidence file a complaint with the court? They did that. Obviously they filed the complaint. Then they said, well, the judge had some problems with the complaint. They asked to go file a second amended complaint. And the judge at that point said, look, we’re out of time on this thing, they vacated the evidentiary hearing to act, to hear the claims. They said, no, we’re not going to do that. And they issued a ruling on what they had heard thus far. Well, the reason for that, the reason why it was so quick is because this court felt like they were up against the deadline, this November 23rd certification deadlines coming up quick, we got to get this thing addressed.

So Trump campaign, you don’t get any additional time to go and continue to make your claims because we got to really meet this deadline. The Trump Trump campaign is coming back and saying, wait a minute, okay, it’s a deadline. You know, deadlines are meant to be broken. You always ask for an extra day when you’re in grade school. The, the important point here is not the deadline. The important point is that this election was done unlawfully. The integrity of the election is in question so you can certify whatever you want. You can have a deadline, okay, fine. You have a deadline. You just certified an illegitimate election. Congratulations, you met your deadline, but the underlying basis, the foundation of the entire election is questionable at best.

And they’re saying that the argument should be that the better argument is to why handcuff yourself to this sort of arbitrary deadline certification dates. When there’s still plenty of time under the constitution and under the federal rules, you have to get your stuff certified by November 23rd, that’s just a Pennsylvania rule. And that’s largely why the, the entire procedural strategy from both sides, Donald Trump and all of his individual lawsuits that everybody around the country is saying, well, it’s one in 35. He’s losing all of these lawsuits. The whole point of that was to buy time so that these claims could develop. And he could essentially push back these certification deadlines. He wanted to buy time and build in space to make his legal defense pertinent. The Democrats by contrast are doing the exact opposite we want. They want to just really, really get aggressive with getting certified, stopping all of the certification challenges, get this thing through the hoop so that it’s done in close.

They can close the books on it and move on to the next thing and just throw their hands up in the air and say, look, we already certified it. We did our recount. We did our audit. It’s done in closed. We’re not going to talk about, about it anymore, but that’s not exactly how the law works, even though they may want it to be as such. So that’s where the Trump campaign is making. I think a pretty good argument. You know, the stakes here are so high that we need to make sure that the underlying election is legitimate before we just rushed through the certification process. And their claim here is, is pretty compelling that, you know, th th th the main point is we should hear it on the merits. Let’s hear the evidence stop dismissing these claims for stupid technical reasons. Like we have a 23rd deadline, or, you know, some other, any other of these manufactured justifications. Let’s hear it on the merits. Even if you think it’s an, uh, uh, a totally bogus claim, even if, if you’re super far pro Biden, whatever, it’d be good to just hear some of this stuff in court. There’s still time. There’s still a huge contingent of Americans who think that this election was illegitimate. Maybe just give them their day in court, because if you keep dismissing these types of claims, they’re going to, I feel like they never got their say, and that’s, that’s really bad. That’s worse than losing the election. If they lost the election, Donald Trump lost fair and square, all right, they may be unhappy about it may not feel so good. They may feel sorta gypped and feel unsettled about the election. But if you, if they also lost, and you also say, you don’t even get to present your evidence in court that adds insult to injury, and they’re not going to be happy about that. And it’s going to make it more difficult for the Biden team, whether they, whether they think this is all justified or not, they may think Donald Trump is stoking a bunch of fear, whatever their interpretation of that is, it doesn’t matter. This is a problem that they have to deal with the Biden administration. If they don’t deal with this, if the Democrats don’t let these claims go forward, or the judges don’t let these claims go forward, the country is going to be largely ungovernable. Joe Biden may have technically won the white house. He may get swept in office, you know, all this stuff, MEI, MEI, pitter, patter, and fizzle out death by a thousand cuts. If we, as we’ve discussed here. But if that happens and he does take the white house, and there’s 76 million people who think that that was illegitimate, the country is ungovernable.

So he may be president, but he’s not going to accomplish anything or very, very little outside of executive orders, which will then as, as there’s another Republican in the office or verse all of that stuff. So that’s where we’re at. On the third circuit. This letter finishes up over here. It says, plaintiff’s request 20 minutes to present their oral arguments. That’s all the guy’s name is Mark Mark scaring gene, uh, it’s re re, re uh, I think a very nice letter and well done. They only want 20 minutes. Rather this court should grant the appeal, send it back to the district court, retained jurisdiction, any of these emergency issues. Just let us come in and talk for 20 minutes. Can you look, can you give us 20 minutes? Is that so much to ask for? I don’t think so. So, uh, that’s, what’s going on in the third circuit.

So that’s the federal level. Now let’s talk about something that’s sort of, kind of pseudo legal. It’s kind of, kind of like a hearing kind of like a trial and kind of not, it’s also kind of like a Trump campaign rally, because it was kind of exciting to watch and a lot of fun, regardless of what side you’re on. It was, it was interesting to watch how this whole thing unfolded. Of course, I am talking about the big news of the day. The Trump legal team had a hearing in Pennsylvania in front of the Pennsylvania GOP, where they were talking about all of this type of, uh, this election fraud that was going on in Pennsylvania. They had a number of different witnesses who came on and gave their testimony. And this is about as close as we have gotten to an actual hearing and actual presentation of the evidence, because we haven’t seen any of this stuff in court yet because the judges have just been kind of kicking it out and stuff has been floating around.

But this is the first time that we got to put some faces and some names and some personalities to the different affidavits. If you’ve been a regular of this program, we’ve been going through some of the affidavits and detailing some of the claims. And a lot of them seemed pretty credible. We have attorneys, we have people who’ve been ballot Watchers or poll Watchers. For 20 years. We have heads of different local grassroots organizations, people who have invested interest in being authentic people, putting their names out there, signing these documents, swearing under declaration of perjury. Uh, I’m, I’m willing to come in and testify and we’ve gone through many of them probably, you know, a dozen or so of them on this program. Now, many people on the other side of the aisle who are opposing all of these efforts are coming through and saying, well, anybody can write those.

Those are just bogus affidavits who cares? You know what they have to say? You can just go down to your local Walmart and, and get people to sign documents. It’s really irrelevant. Nobody sign anything. They’re all fake. Trump bias people. Okay. You can say that. But now what we saw today was a face to a name. We got to see some credibility. We got to see some emotion. These were people who were willing to come forward and literally put their entire reputation on the line to say, this is what I saw. This is what happened. You should take me seriously. And many of these people are quite credentialed. We saw some attorneys, we saw some forensic experts. We have some, uh, some, you know, statisticians. We had some really, some really pretty impactful people there today. And it was important. This was something that is important.

And if the media wants to disagree with that, of course they can. But they’re, I think they’re just overlooking the reality of the situation here. There’s a lot of people who watch this thing today. And so when I was poking around, I watched the whole hearing. Uh, there was some parts that kind of tuned in and out of, but I watched most of it and I wanted to poke around and see who else was talking about this today, anybody? And what do we do while I went over and checked out the New York times? Uh, nothing here. I took this screenshot today, Wednesday, November 25th. We’ve got over here. Trump pardons, Flynn. We’re going to talk about it. We’ve got the white house. Uh, we’ve got, we’ve got stuff about Asian-American voters, stock issues over here. We’ve got Gavin Newsome opinion stuff. Um, anything about this? I don’t know.

Groundbreaking hearing that took place today in Pennsylvania that had to do with the integrity of the election. No, nothing, nothing on that. We go over to the Washington post. Did they have anything? Nope. It’s another story. Uh, about Michael Flynn. Uh, of course Trump pled, you know, Trump, Trump, uh, pardon him, even though he pled guilty, we have Biden urges, unity as Trump rails about the election. As about as close as we can get to anything about what happened, uh, nothing over here, NRA, we’ve got some opinion columns over here. We go over to CNN and it’s largely the same. You know, they’re doing the same story, same stuff. Trump pardons, Michael Flynn. He granted full part in to somebody who pled guilty. Yep. I know. Terrible Biden delivers a compassionate message in a somber holiday speech. We have CEO’s stuff talking about wearing masks and so on, but we have a little, we have a little bit of a headline down here.

What does this say? Oh my goodness. It says Trump phones into Pennsylvania, GOP, lawmakers, baseless voter fraud event. After canceling the trip. What a piece of garbage that guy, you know, canceling the trip and then he just phones it in to a baseless baseless hearing. All right. Well, let’s click that article and see what it has to say, because surely there’s some good information about what took place at, I don’t know, one of the most important, most, most newsworthy things today. What is this? Uh, what does this author over at CNN? I have to say here is Jeremy diamond who says, um, Trump phones in to the baseless voter fraud claim. Okay, well, we’re going to go into the hearing of, so we’ll see if there’s any basis for a complaint here, but he said he called into the Gettysburg Pennsylvania hearing on Wednesday, hosted by GOP state lawmakers over once again, baseless allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election.

After his planned trip to the event was canceled. Then the next three paragraphs are all about COVID and I’m not even kidding you. I did not clip this up. This is literally the next three paragraphs, rather than talking about the story at all. It says the president had planned on appearing in person, but two sources said the trip was canceled. The move came after Giuliani was exposed to another person tested positive for the coronavirus. Oh, no. One of Trump’s campaign advisors, porous, FC, and so on. And so on. He tested positive. Uh, it goes on Washington DC, six days ago, after a news conference, Giuliani’s son, Andrew also tested positive. And so they don’t even get into the whole story until I don’t know, several paragraphs down. It just keeps going on and on and on whining. COVID because they don’t want to talk about anything that happened at the hearing, which if you’re a Trump guy, that is a good sign.

If the media is going to write an article about this and the first three or four paragraphs, the first above the full part of the column is all about coronavirus. And they don’t actually address any of the underlying complaints that anything that happened at the hearing that’s because he was probably pretty effective. I had that initial instinct that this was, this was a, this was pretty good for team Trump. If you’re on that team and the fact that nobody else wants to talk about it, and nobody else wants to show, it shows you that it’s probably pretty effective. And this is the same type of election interference that we’ve been calling out this entire time. Right? They want to say that the Russians did it for the entirety of the election. They’ve been suppressing different claims about Hunter Biden. They haven’t told the full story on any of those underlying dealings.

There was a lot of just whitewashing about everything on the Biden team. We’re learning today. A lot of new policy positions. Apparently he’s got all these great plans for gun control. He’s got all these plans for immigration, major reforms. We haven’t heard yet if he’s going to pack the court yet, but maybe he doesn’t want to rule on that until this election stuff is over. But we’re learning a lot more about Joe Biden that nobody asked him about prior to the election. Now that a lot of these claims are coming out about voter fraud and the Republicans are throwing their arms up in the air. They don’t want to talk about any of that stuff yet. Again, they want to bury it again, and they want to talk about coronavirus because apparently that’s more newsworthy than any of the base, full not base lists claims that were made today at the hearing.

So let’s back up a little bit since CNN and Washington post, and none of the others will tell us anything about it. Here’s what actually happened today. So this was put on by the, uh, senators, uh, over at the GOP for Pennsylvania. So you can see here at the request of Senator Doug [inaudible], who’s a Republican, the Senate majority police committee. They’re holding a public hearing on Wednesday to discuss the 2020 election issues and irregularities. This hearing will feature former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani, the whom the Senate majority policy committee chair, David R gal. We got Senate majority leader. We have state rep, state rep, another state rep among other lawmakers who will be there, it’s clear. And they make this statement about unacceptable risks and so on. So that’s really what this was now. Yeah, this, this was, you know, it kind of turned into a little bit of a Trump rally and I wasn’t joking about that.

You know, it was, the audience was very clearly in favor of the Trump team, the Trump campaign, very, very friendly audience, very friendly senators. And this was something that, you know, I don’t know, I’m not, I’m not real familiar with local politics in Pennsylvania or how that works or what the formality, you know, what the formalities are surrounding these hearings, you know, was this unofficial hearing that was implemented by these politicians? I don’t know. It felt that way. You know, they were all, uh, it, it looked like an official hearing to me, what it reminded me of was what we see from Congress on the federal level, right? When that when the Senate judiciary committee calls in Facebook and says, Hey, what are you people doing to our free speech out there? Not too happy about it. What are you doing with that? When they call them in to ask them questions, this is basically what that was now.

Again, I don’t know if this is a formal on the record proceeding. That is something that takes place in Pennsylvania. It may or may not be, I don’t think it really matters. These are law lawmakers asking pertinent questions of individuals and getting some answers just because they’re in alignment in terms of their political parties, doesn’t invalidate the underlying information. And we’ve seen in some of these affidavits that many of these poll Watchers and many people claiming that they are disturbed about this election happened to be Democrats probably didn’t even vote for Donald Trump, but they’re more concerned about the integrity of the election and having somebody in office who didn’t legitimately win. So it kind of doesn’t really matter whether, you know, what it, what it was. I think the more important takeaway here was about the evidence that was presented and ms. Faith found another clip here asking whether or not there was any media there.

And so this is what the room looked like. Now, not a lot of cameras. Don’t see a lot of CNN cameras back there, or Fox news or any of those others. This was live streamed on, uh, Oh, I watched it live streamed on a YouTube channel. I forget which one, I think some of the other big ones, you know, some of the, some of the right wing, um, news outlets now people like Newsmax and one America news, I think right-side broadcasting network. And some of those others, I think they were covering it. But largely this is something that, uh, has been ignored by the media. Nobody even they’re talking about it and we have some clips now I would really encourage you. If you’re following this stuff along, I would really encourage you to go through and watch the whole hearing. You can go on YouTube, put it on 1.5 speed.

Not going to miss a thing. Lawmakers talk very slowly to milk all of the time and it can be tedious to watch, but you can, you can fly through the hearing pretty quickly. And the important reason why I think the whole thing in context is relevant is because there’s, there’s a lot there and you can start to sort of piece together what’s going on and you get a bigger picture for the weight of the evidence that I think is out there. A lot of these people that we don’t have clips from today, because I, I would encourage you to go watch. The whole thing are very credible. And this is why it’s important to have people in court and testifying. You can only get so much from an affidavit. You can only get so much from a declaration, but when you have somebody come in, who talks with authority and can speak very articulately about what happened and they can detail their credentials, it’s powerful.

And we saw a lot of that today. We saw several attorneys speaking, who, you know, they swear an oath to be honest and candid. And I would, I would imagine that they are credible people. And I don’t know any of them personally, but the fact that they’re willing to come on essentially national television. And I, again, I don’t know if any of the major networks broadcasted it, but it’s broadcasted all over the nation. I sure watch it as did many others. They come on and they stake their reputation. And it’s not just one guy. It’s multiple people with multiple credentials. People who have forensic backgrounds who do this type of work for a living. They had some good individuals out there today. And it’s, it’s it’s pertinent because of, I would say the scope of, of the scope and the variety of the different people who were all coming in and saying, there were some very big problems.

People from different angles, you know, you can find it sort of like going to a doctor. You know, if you go to a doctor, if you go to a kidney doctor, you say, Hey, I have this rash or something. You go to a kidney doctor, he’s going to say, Oh, your, your kidneys causing it. You go to your, your lung doctor, how’s your breathing. You go to your skin doctor, he’s going to say, cut it off. You have, you know, a number of different doctors, whatever, whoever you speak to, they’re going to find a problem because that’s what they do. And when you see this from multiple different people, all kinds of identifying the same pattern of problems. To me, it just seems more credible. It means that many people from many different backgrounds are seeing that this thing has some problems and, and some good basis for a lot of these complaints. So let’s go through some of the clips, uh, before I do well. So we’ll open up here with Rudy Giuliani, taking a call from the president. So president Trump called in, and it was like a little bit of a rally, kind of a fun call, not pertinent legally, really, but let’s take a listen.

And I’m in the oval office right now. And it’s very interesting to see what’s going on. And this was an election that we won easily. We won it by a lot official was on this morning, uh, on a, uh, important show and said, there’s no way Trump didn’t win Pennsylvania because the energy industry was all forum. Uh, I saw with my eyes what happened and he told me horror stories, absolute horror stories. So this was a very sad to say it. This election was rigged and we can’t let that happen. We can’t let it happen for our country. And this election has to be turned around because, uh, we won Pennsylvania by a lot. And we won all of these swing States by a lot. Anybody watching television, the night of the election was saying, wow, I was called by the biggest political people, congratulations, Sarah, on a big win. And all of a sudden ballots were dumped all over the place. And a lot of horrible things happened and everybody in that room, I want to thank.

Yeah. So, you know, again, this is what Trump is good at, and this is what Giuliani is good at. Now, if you have been following the program here, I explained that in my mind, there are really two different Wars going on. Legally. One is taking place in the courts. One is taking place in the court of public opinion. And even though the court of public opinion is not a legal court, it is influencing how the rest of the legal process will unveil itself. So if, if in the court of public opinion, Donald Trump is successful in convincing enough Americans that this thing was fraudulent, or just by proving it through evidence that they think is the case. So not using the word convincing, because let’s take this, let’s break down this premise for a little bit. If, if you’re a person on the left, if you’re a Joe Biden supporter and genuinely believe that the majority and I’m talking factually, the majority of Americans voted in favor of Joe Biden than Donald Trump and his people are the resistance and they’re sour grapes.

And they’re making a lot of complaints about nothing. It’s all, it’s all essentially irrelevant conspiratorial and not consequential. It’s not going to change anything in their mind. And they think that they’ve got the legitimate argument because they have more voters. That’s their premise that the numbers are legitimate. We actually won this thing, Joe. But look at the numbers, go on CNN. And they’ll tell you who won. But the Trump people are saying, that’s not the case. They’re saying this whole thing was fraudulent. So it’s not about convincing Americans that, that it was fraudulent. It actually was fraudulent. And what you can deduce from that is that these legislatures, if Trump and his people are right, if their premise is correct, that the truly, the majority of Americans did vote for Donald Trump and that it was stolen from them. If we believe that to be true, you can make your arguments about it.

But if that is true, then these different legislatures will see the fraud they’ll execute the will of the people, which is truly the majority, even though it doesn’t mean it doesn’t look like that on the news sites, it really is the majority. And they’re going to modify, or, or actually not, not modify anything. They’re going to just implement the will of the people who want to see their electoral votes, because they are the majority. They don’t believe the numbers. They say, we actually do have the majority of support here. So just do the will of the people legislature, even though the secretary of state, the judicial branch, uh, everybody else in the elections offices, even though they’re claiming it was lawful and legitimate, it wasn’t. And so we’re asking you to throw out their fraudulent claims act, do the will of the people. And then that is what the premise, that that’s how they win in the court of public opinion.

And so there is some legal mechanisms that take place there and what Trump and what Giuliani are doing here, I think is very effective in that arena. Now, this is sort of a pseudo court hearing. So they have an opening argument. They have questions that are being presented by the legislatures. And Rudy Giuliani is presenting witnesses, presenting evidence, but it’s not an official court proceeding, but it kind of mirrors one. And this was the first time that we heard any of this stuff in this type of a format. And I thought it was pretty effective and it may not have any, any impact in court. You know, this information, these details may not be enough to convince a judge to do anything. Although I, I, I think that a judge should certainly hear the cases on the merits, do something very similar to this, have a trial calling certain people or an evidentiary hearing.

If it’s not a full-blown trial and you call in and you’re calling people and you make their case and you debate it out in a court of law, we haven’t seen that yet. So what Trump did and what Giuliani did here is kind of make their own version of this and say, all right, look, if they’re not going to listen to us in the judicial process, that’s fine. We’re going to go to the American people and we’re going to make our claim and we’re going to let them decide. And if they do more of this, this is effective. And I think this is largely why they’re not covering it because it is effective. Now, a couple points on Giuliani and one of the, well, a couple of the things that I think are pertinent here. So Rudy Giuliani has been given, you know, has had some ups and downs, I think over the last couple of weeks and many people, one of the criticisms of him has been that he is washed up.

He’s, you know, old time, this is somebody who’s in over his head. Doesn’t know what he’s doing, he’s in it for the money. He, and, and, you know, there’s been some interesting things to support that claim. We’ve watched him on YouTube, where he’s giving his strategy to fight back and reverse the course of the election. And then he stops and sells a cigar in there or whatever it was. And you’re like, all right, man, what are you doing? You know, this is pretty important. If you need a couple bucks, I’m sure some Republican donor somewhere is going to help you with that. You don’t need to be selling ads in the middle of your YouTube videos, but, uh, you know, look, that’s, that’s beside the point. I think it’s bizarre, but it’s beside the point in this case, this was good. Rudy Giuliani. This was somebody who was persuasive and effective.

And his opening argument was, was pretty good. And you know, you, you may disagree with it, but this is something that convinces people to this moves the needle when somebody does this stuff. And I want to go through some of the evidence that he presented. So he said he sort of reframe this a little bit. So on this channel, a lot of the criticism that we’ve covered from the courts and from a lot of people in the commentary at have been saying that Rudy Giuliani wants to disenfranchise Oh, 6 million people, right? And the judges have essentially responded and say, we’re not going to do that. That’s ridiculous. And we’ve had a lot of discussion about this harm versus the remedy. What is the harm? Well previously the idea was that they haven’t been observing anything that Republicans couldn’t observe the counting of the ballots, the opening of the signatures or any of that stuff.

So their response to that was that’s a pretty big harm. We should invalidate all of those 6 million votes that went through. And I was in agreement with that. I thought that’s no judge in America is going to do that, nor should they just because you didn’t watch somebody count the votes doesn’t mean that it was done fraudulently. Now, if there was malfeasance behind that, if they were throwing you out, if they were boarding up windows, if you had a lawful basis to be there and you were illegitimately thrown out of there with, there’s a lot of evidence that, that happened, that’s a different story, but still you have to provide something more substantive in order to convince a judge, to throw out an entire state or to order a new election. It’s a big thing. But what we saw today out of Rudy Giuliani was this narrowing of the argument.

And it is interesting. It goes on. And he says that, uh, he reframes it. He says, listen, we are not disenfranchising 6 million people. We are getting rid of 682,000 illegal votes that were illegal. And therefore we are making sure that the votes of the 70 million people who did vote legally are counted. We’re not disenfranchising (680) 680-2000 votes. We are in franchising, 75 million votes, 70 million votes. So he’s, he’s sort of flipping that a little bit, which is interesting. And you can see here that the number he used 682,000 is significantly smaller. So they’re narrowing down the funnel a little bit start, excuse me, started big at 6 million dropped down to about, I think it was about a 1.8 million. And now it’s dropping down to about 682,000. And this is just the narrowing of their claim. They’re getting more and more specific, which is exactly what we were expecting.

We were saying that that was going to be happening. We’ve been talking about it for two and a half weeks. Been saying that a lot of these lower level lawsuits are garbage. They’re necessarily garbage. It’s just people pulling up claims, filing lawsuits to meet deadlines and get extensions on things. But now that the claims are developing, we have affidavits. We have people willing to come to Pennsylvania and appear in court proceedings that is changing the game and the arguments are getting a little bit more focused. And so I thought that was pretty powerful. He also went through some numbers with some detail and some of these numbers we’ve sort of speculated about, but he talked about it today in this public forum, he says 1.8 million ballots by mail were sent out in Pennsylvania. 1.4 million were received back, but somehow there’s a total count of 2.5 million that are voting for the president.

So 1.8 went out. 1.4 came back, but the mail in ballots for the president or 2.5 million, sounds like that might be something that’s pretty easy to count in the check, but it was removed apparently from the Pennsylvania public website. And I think their justification for that was, well, the vote has been ascertained. We’ve already made a decision. So we’re going to pull that off the website. Now, a lot of the different state senators and state representatives who were in, in this hearing today, we’re making the same claims. We don’t know what happened. Nobody’s answering our questions, why they pull all this data down. Even one Senator was asking for people to send her pictures and stuff. Hey, if you took pictures or screenshots of this stuff, send it over to me. And you got to just be thinking, wait, what the heck is going on?

Why are state senators in localities? Having such a difficult time getting information from their own government, from their own co-equal branch of government? Are they not sending subpoenas out what’s going on here? It’s very strange. Rudy went on. He said, very interesting. Lots of ballots were returned on the same day that they were mailed. He said 22,000 were returned the same day that they were mailed. How did that happen? He goes on and says 32,000 were returned the day after they were mailed. So when in the mail, got it back the next day. Pretty impressive. I don’t even think Amazon can do that. Now you have, he also goes on, he says 20,000 were returned before they were mailed 20,000 were returned before they were mailed. So it’s kind of sounds like a problem. Is there any basis to investigate that? I think so. Even though mr. CNN over there said, it’s totally baseless. Are there, is there a question about that? Does he have no questions about

That? I think many of us do. He also says that there were 8,000 votes that came in from dead people. And then we went into the testimony. So there was a lot of testimony from different people. We have some clips that I want to play through. I think one person is an attorney. One person is not an attorney. Uh, let’s listen to them. They go on and on and on. So let’s just jump a little bit. Like I said, this hearing was, I think three hours long. I don’t want to play big, long clips of this stuff, but I just want to get you, give you a feel for what was going on here. So this is our first, this, this, uh, individual, isn’t it

Here today. My name is Julie Vahe and I’m a resident of Montgomery County and the executive director of the Montgomery County Republican committee. I’m here to speak with you today regarding my experience as an observer of the pre canvas and canvas of the mail-in ballots in Montgomery County, we had over 250,000 mail-in ballots requested for the general election and the weeks leading up to the election. I personally trained over a hundred volunteers to inspect and monitor the counting of these ballots to ensure the legitimacy of the vote in Montgomery County. Unfortunately, they were never given this opportunity on Sunday, November 1st, during a walk through of the mail and ballot facility, we learned that no Watchers were permitted to inspect or even see the outside envelope of the ballot after some significant pushback by our chairman, Liz Havey, the accounting agreed to allow two Watchers inside the room of which I was one as an observer at the canvas, I was corralled into a small narrow holding area, which is blocked off by tables, plexiglass barriers in the corner of the room, due to the room layout and location of the holding area within the room.

I only had visibility to the space where ballots were flattened and scanned. This was a huge area and the closest scanner was roughly six feet away. And the farthest approximately 25 yards away from my position within the holding area, I had no visibility or access to the room were ballots, resorted outside envelopes were inspected and both outside and secrecy envelopes were open. This space was divided from the scanning room by a large white wall, blocking all visibility to the slicing machines, the blue Cress sorter from the ballot storage room. In my opinion, this was a totally separate room and not one room as the County election board argued during our walkthrough of the campus facility. On Sunday, November 1st, we argued that this was a separate room and was told by the County chief operating officer that we would be able to view this space by security camera footage. The footage from these cameras was streamed to televisions in a conference room on the other end of the building, um, which was approximately a four minute walk away from where the ballot canvas room was. The system was not set up on our walkthrough day and it was not until I arrived back at the facility on 7:00 AM on election day that I could see the footage was extremely poor quality. And you could only see pixelated images of workers moving around the room and had no meaningful visibility of the ballots.

So, uh, enough of that one. So we’ve talked about this previously and I showed you, uh, I think on the show, uh, a or we talked it in the discord chat, which by the way, if you’re not on discord, that’s a good spot to be. The link is in the description. So I want to explain that this is something that we saw in Maricopa County. They have the ability to watch what’s going on in the tabulation centers. They have cameras on there and we were looking at them now, you can’t see anything. So if they’re going to be using something similar to that to say, yeah, you can just go over here and watch it. Then that is in my mind, totally inconsequential. And this is, this is a bigger evidence of, uh, an intentional manipulation of their ability to go and observe. And so she’s saying that she trained a hundred people to go in and be a part of this. And there are a lot of statutes out there saying that the, this is part of the election process.

So many people want to complain and say, well, uh, they’re just observers. You know what? They don’t have a right to go look into this stuff. Let me tell you something. We’ve analyzed a lot of different statutes on this program, stuff from Pennsylvania stuff, from Michigan different States, they have very detailed rules about this process specifically about observers, because this is an issue by the way, this is something that has already been litigated. And a lot of people have issues with how the counting is done, which is why this different States have lengthy statutes addressing it because it’s already been litigated. It’s already been identified as a problem, and there are remedies for this. There are different repercussions for violations of this, and this is what we’re talking about now. So we, now we have a number of different affidavits. This woman obviously has a lot of experience in this type of stuff.

She got two people into the room, out of a proposed 100. What was the basis of that? COVID I don’t care if it’s COVID right. If it’s COVID, that doesn’t mean you to get, you get to invalidate statutes. You don’t get to have an executive who comes in and says, well, it’s, COVID therefore your constitutional right to go in there and observe what’s going on so that you can verify the integrity of the election. Can’t do it this year. Sorry, doesn’t work like that. COVID bends to the will of the constitution, or it should. I’m not sure that that’s happening around our country at all, but it should, the constitution doesn’t bend for COVID and people need to come in there and do their duty, not get kicked out. And it sounds like that was done in a, in a collusion type of manner. I mean, they were really, really working hard to keep them out. 98 people got thrown out of there, not good. And there was a lot more of that. We have another clip from, uh, from another individual. Let’s take a look at this one. Yes, we got you loud and clear.

Okay. Um, my name is Olivia Jane Winters, and I’m a professional organizer and a business management consultant. And I live in Philadelphia. Um, I actually was asked to be a minority inspector in, um, 36 15. That’s the ward in the division. Um, I was just purely doing this to help my mom out. She’s a world leader in a different area of the city. Um, I’m actually not, I’m a registered Democrat and I just wanted to help and make sure it was a fair election. I don’t, I don’t who wins. I care that it’s a fair cheers. Um, I showed up to the polls, um, uh, meeting totally. I was met with a hostile attitude from all of the people that I had to work with. That would be the majority inspector, the, uh, poll watcher, the machine operator, and a committee man who was electioneering in the polls. He was wearing, um, he was wearing shirts and a hat and a mask for who to vote for. Um, we are about like an hour and a half in, in the morning. Um, we have a long line of people we must have had, I don’t know, 60 people in line, um, in the building snaking around the building. And, um, a woman came up and said, I’d like to turn in my mail in ballots so that I can vote in the booth. And, uh, the girl who was clerking for me said, well, if you want to turn in your mail-in ballot, um, we’re going to need to have you fill out this form.

And the majority inspector is going to need to sign the form. The majority inspector had decided, uh, in the middle of the morning to go home and was not in the polling place for over 45 minutes. Um, to my understanding you as a minority as, um, I’m sorry, not the majority inspector, uh, the judge of elections, my apologies. She had gone home and to my understanding, the judge of elections is not to leave the polling place. Um, so she was out of the building. We needed her to sign this form. Uh, the man who was electioneering and was a poll watcher, but also a committee man, um, confronted myself and the clerk and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Anybody can sign the affidavit. Um, why don’t you stop trying to cause problems? Why don’t you shut up, started getting in my face, cursing at me, telling me that I needed to be quiet, that I didn’t know what I was talking about about, and I should just learn to sit down and not say anything and just let it happen.

And my clerk, and I said, no, we’re not going to let that happen. That’s ridiculous. It says very clearly in our training and on this sheet that an affidavit needs to be signed by the judge of elections. If somebody is going to turn in a mail-in ballot before they can go vote in the booth, we made her wait. Finally, the judge of elections came back. Um, not of course before he was threatening me, the, uh, majority inspector threatened to slap me in the face. And, uh, he told me that it was going to become a quote unquote racial issue. I’m not really sure why that would become a racial issue. It has nothing, it has everything to do with following procedure and making sure it’s an honest election. Um, I felt threatened. I called

My all right. So yeah, I mean, you know, that one was, I think, more of a boots on the ground type of interview. There were a lot of other ones that were very, very technical. There was a guy who was talking about a forensic analysis of a lot of different data. That was kind of a little bit over my head at two-speed, but compelling. You know, he, he, he kind of owned the room and there were a lot of other attorneys and people with a lot of experience who were coming in and making their claim. And so, you know, it was, it was a lot more persuasive than I think people are giving credit to, and they were talking largely about the mail in ballots. And so you’re seeing the focus just narrow in, on this mail end stuff. And you know, her, her point there was that somebody was trying to bring in a mail in ballot.

Somebody was really, really getting that ballot in. Somebody was opposing her, trying to avoid some of the signature requirements and get it in. And that was sort of the same theme that we’ve been following along through a lot of these different complaints. Now, Robert Barnes, I’m a fan of him and his show. You can check out their channel over, uh, he does a live stream with Viva Frey. He’s got another YouTube channel. Uh, you know, there’s a lot of the same type of commentary. We do. They do an excellent job. I check them out. If you’re interested in this type of content. And he posted a tweet, a tweet today, where he says, if the States simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Donald Trump wins the election cycle. So margin of victory. So the estimated rejectable votes versus the Biden margin of victory.

So this was the Biden margin of victory. And if this is, if the rejection rates were the same as they have been traditionally, then this margin would have been enough to change out Joe Biden’s votes, right? So this margin is bigger than the number of votes. He got same story in Georgia, same story in Wisconsin, same story in Arizona, not so much the same story in Nevada, but with those four States, he wins the election. And we’ve, we’ve talked about that. We covered before the election, all of the different lawsuits that were initiated by the Democrats in a number of different States. We talked about the retired people’s Alliance of America that was funded by priorities, USA, priorities.org, I think, or one of those websites funded a bunch of these different lawsuits in a bunch of different States. And we had the diagram, literally, I think 11 States priorities, USA, they’re retired association, all of the different legal suits that are going on around the country.

And before the election, we were analyzing some of the litigation and we were thinking, why, why all of these different lawsuits, why are they all being filed around the country? Isn’t that a little bit weird? It seems like it was a kind of a coordinated legal attack on all of these different election rules, all under the guise of COVID. They all said, Oh, COVID, we’ve got to change all this stuff. Grandma’s not going to be able to vote this this season because she doesn’t know how to sign her ballot or sign her envelope or stuff at the right way. So we got to wave all of these requirements. We got to reduce the signature requirement, reduce the witness requirement, make sure that anybody can vote however they want, because if you don’t allow these changes, then you are disenfranchising grandma. She can’t come in to vote because it’s COVID season.

And if we want her, we want her vote to count. You’re not going to allow her to do it. You’re a terrible person. And a lot of these different courts bought those arguments and they started moving things around and changing the rules, which is now what they’re litigating over. So remember, for those of you who say, well, Donald Trump’s, shouldn’t be litigating this stuff. Do yourself a favor and fact, check yourself on this. A lot of these lawsuits were originated months before the election took place. March, April, may, June go back into the archives, watch the show, go on to SCOTUS blog, the things SCOTUS, blog.com or.org. It’s the Supreme court of the United States blog. It’s written by law school students. They have a 2020 litigation tracker go click. Any one of those things go back to the original filing date. You’ll see. Most of this stuff was originated by democratic party itself.

Literally by the DNC, that case sits in front of the Supreme court right now was initiated by the DNC in Pennsylvania suing Boockvar and Boockvar is a Democrat. So what was going on there while they wanted to move the rules around? Because it gave them some strategic advantage. That’s all hypothetical. That’s all just a conspiracy as far as anybody can tell, but it makes sense why file lawsuits in all of these different States. If you’re not trying to secure an advantage, we’re not talking about going down and filing a small claims in your local court. These are millions of dollars of litigate litigation going on millions and millions of dollars of different law firms, filing suits to move the rules around. And if you can reduce the signature requirement, if you can waive any of the authentic authentication process, then you’re going to run into margins that look like this.

A lot more ballots were coming in. That should have come in. And if you’re not going to be authenticating any of the mail in ballots, then you can just throw in whatever balance you want, because you can’t match the signature to the voter. You can’t make sure that it’s a one-to-one thing. You can just have anybody deliver a ballot that’s connected to any, any voter, whether or not that voter actually did something with this. And this is something that Matt brain art has done a good job, uncovering a lot of data. He put it, I posted a video yesterday. I watched it. It’s a lot of details and a lot of numbers I’m waiting for more of a synthesis before we talk through that. But there, there is, there is some serious issues that are going on. And just because nobody wants to talk about it on the other side of the aisle, doesn’t mean it’s going to go away.

So let’s change gears a little bit. Let’s go over to the lowest court in Pennsylvania. So we just talked about the third circuit that was a federal court. We also were talking about what happened in, uh, right, right, right. Now the legislature let’s go down to the local judicial court. It’s called the Commonwealth court of Pennsylvania because there’s also stuff going on here. We see, this is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by this guy named Mike Kelly, who is a state Congressman locally here in Pennsylvania. He’s joined by some other people he’s suing the Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth, the general assembly. And of course Boockvar who is a subject of a ton of litigation complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Here’s what it says. They’re saying the absentee voting, okay. Which is what we’re talking about here. It’s constitutionally authorized under for limited circumstances under the state constitution, they’re referencing article four, section four 13, whereas act 77 opens absentee ballot voting to any other and all other qualified voters in the Commonwealth.

Even though they may not meet the constitutional requirements for the absentee voting without excuse for limitation and simply relabeled the voting mechanism as male and voting as opposed to absentee voting. So this is interesting. You know, this is where their claim is, is I think developing a little bit of meat around the bone. And what they’re talking about is that this absentee voting stuff was originally dictated authorized by the state constitution. And so when you think about the hierarchy of laws, you’re going to start with the federal constitution. You’ve got state constitutions. Those are the bedrock. You can’t, you can’t supersede those. And then you have sort of the lower level. So let’s say it starts at the top with the constitution. Then you go down and you have state statutes. So you have legislatures who will pass different laws. They’ll say, you can’t go over the speed limit, or you can’t use that drug.

So they’ll pass those laws. But if one of those laws conflicts with the constitution, then that law is garbage. That law doesn’t supersede the constitution. And then you can have, you know, guidelines and different procedures and sort of the hierarchy goes down. And it’s the further away you get from the constitution. The less weight that second tier of law has. And so what this argument is saying is that the state constitution in Pennsylvania defined what absentee voting is and act 77, which was passed very recently in modified very recently, we’re it is overriding it’s circumventing what the constitution says. It’s basically expanding this idea of absentee voting into all male voting. It’s taking a very limited provision in the constitution and it’s expanding it greatly and implementing it greatly, which is against the law. And so they’re saying you can’t do that. All of those votes, all of the, all this, this entire mechanism was unlawful.

And so this is, this is a little, a little bit of a new claim because now they’re saying that the state constitution supersedes act 77 is a little bit different. Remember previously, when we’ve spoken about act 77, we were talking about the Supreme court of the state of Pennsylvania going in and changing act 77. So they actually also modified that. So you have all these different government entities just doing whatever the hell they want. None of it’s actually based in the law. The constitution detailed something about absent, about absentee voting. The state legislature comes in passes act 77, modifies the constitution, doesn’t it doesn’t amend the constitution. Just stack something on top of it. Hasn’t been litigated yet. And we don’t know how that stands is act 77 constitutional or not. We don’t know. But then we have another modification. We have the Pennsylvania Supreme court who heard a challenge to, to act 77 by the Democrats.

They started the lawsuit, go look it up. They sued in Pennsylvania, initiated the whole issue. They had a problem with act 77. They said COVID is requiring all of these different changes. The world is melting down around us. We got to move these different rules around otherwise poor grandma and grandpa are not going to be able to go cast their vote for Joe Biden this year. So they filed that lawsuit. It went into court. The Supreme court out of Pennsylvania turned around and said, you’re right, poor grandma, poor grandpa. We’re just going to go ahead and buy our own accord. We’re going to find some, some kind of bizarre abstract, weird law. And we’re going to base our authority to go in and modify the deadline of the election. We’re going to make all these sweeping changes on our own. The legislature didn’t do it.

The people didn’t vote on this, but we think it’s fair in light of COVID. So they went ahead, made those modifications. And all of these people are just changing the rules as they go to suit them. And this argument is saying, you can’t do that. You are in violation of the constitution. Those laws are illegal and those votes are not lawful. So they should be thrown out. Here’s what that underlying court is saying. They’re saying, this is what they want. This is what they’re asking for in this lawsuit. They’re saying plaintiffs want this court to enter an order, declaration or injunction. They want to prohibit the defendants from certifying the results of the general election, which include the mail-in ballot. So they’re making a pretty big distinction here between the mail-in ballot. They’re saying defendants improperly permitted on a statewide basis. Number two, they want to stop the defendants from certifying the results of the general election, which which do include unauthorized votes, including mail-in ballots, which don’t meet the constitutional requirements and said, they want to compel the defendants to certify their results based solely on the legal votes or so let me stop there.

They want to certify their results on the legal vote. So basically anything that’s not a mail-in ballot, anything that’s a contested ballot, they want to ensure is, uh, is counted. They want the legal votes account. They want to throw out the, the, the mail in ballots or at least litigate about, about them in the alternative. They want to direct the Pennsylvania assembly to choose Pennsylvania electors. So if the court is not going to, uh, you know, listen to any of these arguments about the ballots are not there. They’re going to ask the court to direct the general assembly to choose the electors. I don’t think that is reasonable or on. I don’t think it’s going to happen at all. I would have a problem with that. Actually. I don’t think the court should do correct the legislature to do anything right.

They want to choose their electors. They’re entitled to do that. They don’t need to do it because of a court order.

Uh, the court could come out and find that it wasn’t unlawful illegal election, but to order a separate branch of government to do something I’m not super comfortable with that. Uh, there, if the, if the Pennsylvania people want to go ahead and nominate their electors, they can do that. Number three, award plaintiffs, cost and expenses. That’s not going to happen either. Number four, provide any other equitable relief as the court deems. Just, and so this is all sort of coming on the back of this. This is a new lawsuit in Pennsylvania. Let’s talk about this result that came out as well. So there was a, there was a order from the, from the court today, the Commonwealth court, in this case that granted some of those requests. So here we see, this is what they were asking for. Some of this was granted. This is the order that came down today on now on November 25th, the motion has been considered. And here’s what, we’re what we’re granting the court to the extent. Okay, here, here, let me, let me back up here as to the supplemental emergency application, the extent that there remains any further action to perfect the certification results of the election for the presidency. Respondents are preliminarily enjoined from doing so pending an evidentiary hearing to be held on Friday. The day after Thanksgiving, black Friday could be a very black Friday for a lot of people here. Now, as to the emergency motion, respondents are preliminary and joint preliminarily, enjoined from certifying the remaining results of the election pending the hearing.

So they’re, they’re just putting this, this whole thing kind of on hold for the time being. And I think the argument is persuasive. What is the rush? This has been my point for a long time. Why is everybody in such a hurry? There’s nothing that mandates that this go through the process that this gets over quickly. There’s a lot of people out there. So while the transition needs to start, uh, you know, this is putting America in a, in a state of peril. Everything’s at risk because we don’t have any, uh, we have this litigation that’s going on. It’s, it’s dividing the people and people aren’t going to be unified and we want unity. We want all everybody to come together and sing kumbaya and welcome and usher in Joe Biden. And the very, very esteemable Kamala Harris into the white house. We should just unify ourselves and just move along with it.

Well, that’s not going to be the case here, nor should it be. It doesn’t have to be. And I am of the mindset that a little bit of a, you know, a little bit of a back and forth here on some of these issues is not so bad for the country. We’ve got a lot of questions about the election. Got a lot of people who think a lot of things about the other side. Maybe it’s time to Duke some of this out in the court of law, in the court of public opinion. Let’s hash these issues out. Now. I’ve got no problems with that. Uh, the people who want to just sing kumbaya, they can do that on their own. Uh, the rest of us will continue to discuss these issues because that’s what, that’s what America is about. This is what, this is what this is. This is what free speech is about. It’s about debating these issues. I just picked up a copy of the Federalist papers here. Let me take a look at this.

So I read the Federalist papers when I was a political science student, uh, over at ASU, look at this thing, okay, this is the federal. These are all the Federalist papers, something like 80, 85 of them. Okay. This is what they did back in the 17 hundreds. So we’ve got 85 different essays that James Madison, Andrew Hamilton, John Jay, that they wrote to their fellow countrymen, talking about the constitution, talking about these issues, debating all of the different ideas, hashing it out with their countrymen, talking through these issues. And you know, things get heated. This is politics. This is our life that we’re talking about, but we want to continue to talk about it. We want to have those conversations. We’re having these conversations on YouTube. We’re having these conversations on Twitter. We’re not writing Federalist papers anymore, but people who want to talk about these issues, they have every opportunity to respond.

Just like they did in the 17 hundreds. It’s not ruining the country by having a conversation about it. Anybody who tells you that you are ruining the country is just trying to shut you up. As far as I can tell, they want to chill your speech. They want to tell you, you can’t talk about this stuff. It’s being destructive. When in my mind, the best way to get rid of a bad idea is to talk about it, to take the power out of it and to move on, to show somebody with reason and logic, that there’s a different alternative way of thinking. But if you just tell everybody to sit down and shut up and you keep throwing their lawsuits out of court, there’s going to be a big contingency of Americans who disagree that this is the right way to run a country and they’re, they’re going to make their voices heard.

So the appeal has already been filed on that case. Notice of appeal was sent over by Kathy Boockvar in her official capacity. They’re appealing to the Supreme court of Pennsylvania. They want the, uh, from the order that is enjoining them from certifying the election. And they submitted on here. There’s no verbatim recording of the proceedings, according to them. And so we had a great question about this. Come in over on discord. Once again, the link is in the chat or in the description. And this comes from talent. One, three, two, who was pretty active over there. He says, he’s asking are a very, very loyal and trusted moderator at ma. He says, I headed to an election legal question that might be interesting. A PA state judge issued a ruling that blocks any further certification of the election. We just read that the PA AIG, the attorney general said it was too late because governor Wolf already certified the state of electors.

But later in the article, the article was quoted as saying that they’re going to be filing an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme court immediately, which is exactly what we just showed you. So since they said it wouldn’t have an impact, why bother appealing? Why not just let it innocuously stand could a reversal in the Pennsylvania Supreme court allow it to be appealed to the Supreme court of the United States. Why give it any more life? And it’s a great question. And the reason they’re appealing it is because it does have life. There is some basis here that this could go a different direction for them, which is why they’re continuing to fight the entire case. And I want to show you a little bit about what that means. So they’re appealing it because they want, they want to win the case. They should be appealing. It, everybody is saying that these state certification deadlines are the end all be all, but that’s not exactly what we’re talking about.

Now at the very beginning of the show, I read a quote from justice Ginsburg explaining that in Bush versus Gore, they didn’t give a lot of credence to any of these congressional deadlines. This December 8th date, this December 14th date. If you miss that part of the program, you can rewind back. We were talking about the third circuit letter that was issued by Trump’s new attorney in Pennsylvania. And what they’re doing is they’re saying the November 23rd certification deadline, doesn’t matter. The, the deadline on the December 8th, the safe Harbor deadline for the board, for the electoral electoral votes that even kind of doesn’t matter.

And there’s some basis for that. And here’s what I found from the congressional research service. This is how the process works. All right. Take a look at this wall of text, right? You can go look this document up. And I think we have a link in the slides, which we will put back over on the discord, but you can see, this is how the process works. You have going through this, this left-hand side is taking us all the way through the election. Then it says from November 4th to December 14th, they’re counting the popular votes and they’re filing certificates of ascertainment. Okay. That’s great. Well, that’s kind of underway. That’s where we’re at right now. But look, we have a lot more paragraphs that we need to go through. So what else is going on on December 8th? We have a safe Harbor deadline. Then on December 14th, the election vote in their States. And that’s kind of the deadline that we’ve been following, right? Th th that’s when the States are done, they, these are we’re known as the certificates of the vote. The electors are then required to sign. They then pair the six certificates of ascertainment. The six certificates are distributed by distributed, by registered mail. And there’s all these different rules. One certificate goes to the president of the U S Senate to go to the secretary of state three, a two certificates go to the archivist for one goes to the judge of the us district court. And so, so on and so forth by December 23rd, the certificates must be delivered to the designated officials. And then there’s this whole section here that says, well, what happens if there’s a failure to deliver these certificates by December 23rd? What if the States haven’t done their ascertainment? What if they haven’t certified their elections? Well, there’s a whole section here. It says if the certificates have not been delivered by December 23rd, the president of the Senate or in their absence, the archivist is required to request the secretary of the state to send one of the copies through the president. And so on the U S code directs them to send a messenger to the judge. And there’s a mechanism here for what happens if the States don’t get their ascertainment completed, and then it’s not done there because on January six, we have officially the joint session of Congress where they count the electoral votes. And January 6th is significant because that’s the date that the new Congress takes the chamber. So it’s out what the old many people think that when the, the w the new sworn in that’s the same time that the new house is sworn, and that’s not the case, the new house is sworn in earlier than the president, so that the house can help settle the problems with the president. So if we get to January six and the state doesn’t have enough information, because the lower, I’m sorry, the house of Congress, the house of representatives in the federal Congress, if they don’t have enough votes, if they can’t get over to 70, then there are different mechanisms for that. What that means then is it will go to the house of represent additives. Okay? So they don’t even need to, you know, Trump’s team.

If their entire argument is to just stall, stall, stall, well, they can, they can get to January six, force this stuff to go, go over to the house. They also have a joint session here to challenge the electoral vote returns while the tellers announced the results during January six, hearing members may object to the returns from any individual States, as they are announced, objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one member of each state. If an objection meets those requirements, the joint session recesses, and the two houses separate in the debate, the question in their respective chambers for two hours, there’s a whole procedure here, and it’s all written in law. It’s all written in different votes. Then we have January 20th, which is the, uh, the, the election date, which I think that is the date, actually. Yeah. If no new president by January 20th, not the six. I misspoke. Um, if, if, if no one receives votes by January 20th, then uh, then it goes, the vice president takes the oath, followed at noon by the president.

Okay. The 20th amendment, 20th amendment sets the deadline there on this date, the president and vice president are to be inaugurated. The 20th amendment 20th amendment set the date since 1981. The ceremony has with one exception, but held the vice-president takes the oath followed by the, the fall by noon. Okay? So all of this stuff is, is if it goes according to plan, now, if nobody gets 270 votes, we just had a super check come in for Adam K, which is literally right now, which is on point. Then it goes over to the house. So we talked about that. It’s a contingent election, which means that each state essentially gets, it gets one vote. They have a delegation, they have a conversation about it. Then each state votes, if that were to be the situation, Donald Trump has more house, more, more States that are Republican than the Democrats do.

So this, the house of representatives that they don’t have a majority of two 70, then that’s when it goes to the house, the house votes, Donald Trump could theoretically be the next president, uh, or the continued president. And so that may be a strategy. And we’ve talked about that here on this channel, that one of the tactics that I have teased out of this entire process is timing. I’m not sure that Trump and his team have any desire to get any of this evidence out member. Many people were screaming, throwing their hands up in the air. Tucker Carlson was about Sydney, uh, Sidney Powell talking, saying, she’s got to give us the evidence. Well, why does she have to give you the evidence? Maybe her entire strategy is to push this thing out. As far as they can then drop the maximum amount of evidence, the stuff that has the maximum impact when it matters most.

And that’s as it’s getting closer to ascertainment or even past ascertainment. Okay? Because what if they released all of their groundbreaking evidence, the state saw it and they still ascertain the votes. Anyways, tactically, they lose a maneuver there because then they, then they can’t come back and say, well, the, the ascertainment was made with the evidence. If the officer, if the, if the certification was made with the evidence, then the certification presumably is taking that evidence into account. And so you lose the argument to say, well, yeah, they, they, they certify the election, but they didn’t know anything about it. Therefore, mr. State legislature, we need you to go in there and, and Swisher, electoral votes to Donald Trump rather than what your secretary of state fines. So there’s two different ways. And I understand how confusing this can, because through the

One, through the one hand, you can prevent 270 electoral votes from being ascribed to any one candidate that sends it back over to the house, and then the house would vote on it. But you can also, you can also just influence the state legislature to award their votes just over to Donald Trump, to put him over, over there, the edge on that. So there’s, there’s several different paths in order for the Trump campaign to succeed. I think they’re all still a very long shot, right? Just because today was a compelling day for the Trump team. Doesn’t mean that they’re just going to start walking away with this thing. I think this was, this was, if you’re a Trump fan, this was a good step in the, in the direction for team Trump. I think largely that is been, uh, confirmed by the lack of coverage from the mainstream media anywhere. And that’s what we’ve got for Pennsylvania. Let me give you a quick update on a couple of other States, we’ve got Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia, then we’ll dive into some final good news of the day. And then we’ll take some super chats. I know this is a super long show, but tt’s Friday. It’s actually not Friday, but it feels like Friday. It’s basically Friday because tomorrow we’re not working. We’re eating all day long. Let’s talk about Arizona, Arizona petition to inspect the ballots has been submitted by Kelly Ward. She is a Republican here and let me move myself out of the way. It says Kelly Ward filed a petition today with the court to allow discovery, to begin in advance of a challenge to the November 30th statewide election canvas. So Arizona’s not over either out there folks in 2020 Arizona counties mailed out 3.4 million million ballots. Every voter must present acceptable voter identification. The only form of verification here for state mail-in ballots, his signature on the outside of the return envelope, a formal legal election challenge is expected to be filed as soon soon alleging the process used to validate the ballot was legally insufficient. And she’s saying the Republican party has received signed affidavits from numerous observers who have testified that they were kept at a substantial distance from those performing the verification process, rendering and impossible to know whether the verification protocols are being followed, no lawsuit challenging. The statewide canvas can be filed before the canvas is complete, which will likely occur on November 30th, five days from now. So, uh, you can expect another lawsuit to come out of Arizona. We go over to Nevada and we will see that this is also pending. A judge in Nevada has set a date in December to hear from Republicans alleging widespread voter fraud in the state James judge, Russell of the first district judicial court. We’ll hear from attorneys representing Trump on December 3rd, at which up to 15 witnesses may be deposed. So this is actually a little bit more of a substantive hearing. Unlike a lot of the other legal filings that we have seen previously, Trump campaign attorney, Jesse banal said that the bulk of the evidence will come from depose witnesses. We have a whistle, we have whistleblower testimony showing that overnight the disks that were used to hold votes would magically have votes appear in appear on the same desk. Hmm. Okay. And lastly, you have Georgia. So out of Georgia, Sidney Powell, uh, for some reason thinks that she can just issue a tweet and then that’s going to be considered an open records request. She says, Uh, dear Georgia, secretary of state, please consider this tweet. And open records act request for your zoom meeting today, uh, as of today’s date with electors and your refusal to perform a real audit and all documents required. And so on. I don’t think that’s going to count. I don’t think that they’re going to honor that request. This article says that attorney Sidney Powell said Tuesday on Lou Dobbs, that she expects to file a lawsuit no later than tomorrow pertaining to the state of Georgia. And so, uh, that article was clipped today at eight 30. So maybe they’ll file it on Thanksgiving. Powell who alleges that a massive election fraud tainted 2020 described the suit as a massive document and said, it will have a lot of exhibits and that’s in quote, a lot of exhibits. And so that’s, what’s going on with the legal stuff around the various States today.

We also saw that Donald Trump pardoned general Flynn, he says it here on Twitter. It is my great honor to announce the general Michael Flynn has been granted a full part in congratulations to general Flynn and his wonderful family. I know you will now have a truly fantastic Thanksgiving. So there is Donald Trump once again, just needling everybody as he does so well, ms. Catherine, Herridge over at CBS. She said from my justice department, official of the department was not consulted. We were given a heads up today. We would have preferred to see if judge Sullivan would act and the matter for plus for the matter to be resolved in court, we were confident in the likelihood of our success in the case, that being said, this is obviously an appropriate use of the president’s pardon power. So that is over from the justice department, as a reminder on general Flynn, you know, this is one of those cases that was just like, uh, looked really bad at first.

And then it more and more of the documents were being, uh, sort of, uh, revealed to us. This turned out to be a case of, in my mind of just a total political prosecution, something we read the transcript on the show that he, that, that started all of this. Uh, and I thought it was totally legitimate. I didn’t think that there was any violation, no spine, none of that from Michael Flynn, he was indicted prosecuted, uh, spent time in custody. And I think this is a good use of the pardon power. It was a political prosecution in my mind that was implemented by the outgoing Obama administration, including Joe Biden, by the way. And it started at percolated general Flynn. Uh, it was put through the ringer on this thing. And then as soon as the department of justice reviewed the case and they decided that they wanted to dismiss the case against him, which is normal happens all the time.

That’s what prosecutors are supposed to do. They’re supposed to judge evidence and then make decisions on whether charges have enough to move forward or not. And in that case, in light of the new evidence, that was revealed, that came from our own intelligence agencies, that there was this massive sort of collusion in order to implicate president Trump and derail his initial term in office that started to come out. The justice department reviewed the case and they said, no, we’re not going to prosecute this anymore, but the judge didn’t let them do that. The judge said, no, you already pled guilty. And, uh, you don’t get to just dismiss the case against him. And I’m going to keep holding this on and started holding additional hearings and just turn the whole thing once again, into a political circus. So now Donald Trump is closing the door on that.

Good for him. All right, let’s go over to some of the super chats. I’ve seen a lot of them coming in. Thank you all so much for those. And thanks for your patience. Let’s turn that chat on and let’s get on over to some of these questions because there are some good ones say is a big, big day. Uh, starting the show out. We had the wandering Marriner started the super chats offset highlight of my day. Let’s get it started and make America great. Again, exclamation point Eagle, eye gardens. Super chat. No question. Thanks. EagleEye gardens. Appreciate that. We have general biochemistry, one who is a, a high school science on the program. Thank you. General biochemistry. One. We have, uh, two super chats that just came in. We have one from, let’s see here from super plat, a banana man who says, if you think the country will be ungovernable because of sore loser, Trump bots. Imagine how the other side will feel when Trump wins by throwing out millions of votes. Yeah, I totally agree with that. And this is something that, uh, I made the point on this channel. I don’t know how this goes, right? If, if, if something happens and Donald Trump changes the course of this election, which like I said, I think it’s still a long shot. I think he’s, I think the arguments are getting better. A lot of what we’ve seen previously has been kind of a lot of speculation, a lot of this, you know, released the crack and stuff, which is fun.

It’s entertaining. It’s like, all right, uh, what’s coming next, but it’s kind been, uh, sort of a big nothing burger and a lot of the questions that we’ve been talking about on this show, a lot of the claims that have been filed in court have been, well, we want to throw out 6 million votes. I mean, that’s literally what they said. And then, and then now that the claims are getting refined, they’re becoming more reasonable. They’re becoming more in alignment with what I think actually matters in court, whether the harm and the remedy are closely aligned, whether they match, because if they don’t match a judge is not going to grant the remedy. Even though there is some harm. So you can’t ask for more than the harm you can’t ask. If you’re hit, hit, hit. If your, if your Toyota Camry is destroyed, you can’t go and get a new Lamborghini as a result of that. And so the claims are coming more in alignment, but that being said, if Donald Trump wins, there’s going to be some serious cognitive dissonance going on. People in America, who’ve already considered this election to be over and already been moving under the idea that Donald Trump lost the election are going to really, really struggle with that. And I’m not sure what the answer is on that. I really don’t.

I don’t know how, how you get around that and I don’t, we’re going to see all right. So that’s a good question from super plat anonymous man. Now, just because people are gonna be upset about it one way or the other doesn’t mean that you don’t stop investigating it. You still want a legitimate election and, uh, let’s go onto the next one. We have a general biochemistry, again, says good. The people that voted for Biden because they were uninformed due to the censorship form, a class action suit against the mainstream media, Facebook or Twitter. It’s a good question.

I don’t think so. I don’t practice class action. Uh,

I don’t know what the harm would be or how they would prove that. I, I don’t think that that would be a successful claim. I understand your point though. And I think that there is no question about it that many of these, these companies, we saw president Trump was being censored well up before the election and during the election, literally censoring his tweets, the president of the United States and Facebook, I think had some restrictions on the ads that he could run. And there was a lot of manipulation by the, by the media all through and through. I mean, I would consider that if you want to be consistently logistically coherent and not have contradictions in your way of thought, you’re somebody who thought that the Russians influenced the election because they spent some ads on Facebook. And you don’t think that CNN, Facebook, Twitter, New York times, Washington post, if you don’t think that they influenced the election, then you have something wrong there, right? If you think that Facebook spending $50,000 on, I’m sorry, the Russian spending 50,000 on ads is important and matters. And the mainstream media sort of censoring and filtering the news or reminding people to vote who are Democrats or whatever it is, whatever the claims are. And you don’t think that’s interference. You might want to ask yourself why that is, because it sounds to me like it’s very similar. Uh, but it’s a good question. I don’t think there’s a class action lawsuit. And I’ve also expressed my, uh, lack of any belief that our politicians are going to do anything about it. With regard to section two 30 reform or any sort of litigate legislation that would curtail some of the power of these mainstream companies, because they know how much power they have.

They know how much Google can really impact whether they’re reelected or not. And they don’t want to wake the beast in many ways. I think Google is more powerful than Congress, uh, which is a scary thought. We have Mike Husker who says, uh, uh, nothing. It’s a super chat. Thank you, Husker, Mike, thank you for that. We have TZ one Oh five to New York. He says, thank you for this. I spend my nights taking care of COVID patients, but I feel like an American again. Good to have you here. Uh, TZ one Oh five two. Thank you for taking care of the COVID patients. Um, we need, we need that right now, unfortunately. So you’re doing God’s work. Appreciate that. We have Bethany Lawson out there, says Bravo with the Superchat. Thanks, Bethany. I appreciate that. We have the wandering Marriner breaking Twitter has suspended col Doug mastery.

After leading the Pennsylvania Senate, hearing today about election fraud in this state, uh, it just keeps going. Doesn’t it? They don’t like it when you speak out and we’re seeing this more and more. Uh, I gotta be careful with this channel. All right. So, uh, it makes me a little bit nervous. You know, we’re, we’re analyzing the issues. I’m not trying to promote a claim that there was voter fraud or anything like that. Uh, you know, this channel is very important for our firm and for, for the livelihood of a number of employees. So we’re not trying to do that, but you can see here, see what I had to do there. See, I had to chill my speech a little bit. I had to sort of walk some of this stuff back because even talking about it is dangerous. And if Twitter really did suspend that guy, they’re canceling YouTube channels. They’re canceling, uh, Twitter accounts. I mean, they’re, they’re going hog wild on this stuff. I’ve seen. I thought it didn’t didn’t OAN get suspended or get, Um, reprimanded or something for promoting hydroxychloroquine it’s concerning out there. We have super plat Anana man who says the will of the people have already spoken Biden, one stop being biased.

Um, I would, I would say that that’s factual inaccurate, right? The, the electoral votes have not been cast. The, the house of representatives hasn’t ascertained the next president. We don’t mean it looks like he won projected to have one. If nothing changes, I think he will win, but there’s still a lot of ball game left to play. We have Mitch, Jacob who says good to see real legal app, real legal affidavit, evidence of fraud all up here from all from here for Trump all up from here for Trump. Uh that’s for Mitch, Jacob. Thanks, Mitch. Appreciate your support. And your comment. The wandering Marriner says news. The 11th circuit, granted my emergency motion for expedited review of lawsuit, challenging the validity of the GA election procedure that comes from L Lin wood. So he, we went through his complaint as well, and I thought it was a pretty good complaint. Now his original lawsuit got dismissed for standing issues, but then he filed an emergency appeal to the 11th circuit.

And they’re going to be, it looks like hearing it. I entered my emergency motion for expedited review, so you can see how this works, right? It’s a lot of wins, a lot of losses, a lot of wins again. That’s just how the legal world is. We have Kevin Horelly who has a super chat with a nice Ninja karate. What does that dog, what do they call those Sheeva’s is a Shiva Shiva something. Thank you, Kevin, appreciate that. We have test one who says the Barrington declaration? Why is it being ignored? It’s genuine. Everyone must read it. Get our freedom back. Tens of thousands of doctors specialists signed it. So the Barrington declaration, not never heard of that, uh, Adam K chimed in says, what happens if no one receives 270 votes? We answered that if there’s no majority of electoral votes, it goes over to the house of representatives and what’s called a contingent election. If you Google contingent election, there was a great paper from the congressional research service. That details what it is. It’s actually a fascinating read because it has happened a few times in our country.

I don’t remember the dates, but it actually has happened. We’ve had the, I think it was even back during, uh, James Madison, when he, when he was a president, that’s why he was a one-term president because he had what’s called a corrupt bargain with the house of representatives. So as soon as he won and was installed as the president, he then just kind of plucked the house of representative. Uh, majority leader out, made him the secretary of something important and everybody thought, Oh man, you just bribed his way into the presidency. And that sour stained did not leave for the next four, four years. And he didn’t win re-election history might be a little off on that, but I think that’s what happened. Uh, previously Liberty or death says this election makes me want to focus my practice on constitutional civil rights and election law.

Yeah. So that must be another attorney. And, uh, I’ll tell you what it has been interesting. I’m a criminal defense lawyer, largely. That’s what we focus on here. That’s really what the majority of this channel is about. We’ve been talking about all of the criminal legal cases, uh, you know, cases like Brianna Taylor and Ahmad Arbery and Jacob Blake. And of course, uh, George Floyd and Ray shard Brooks and all, you know, all of those cases. And typically my, my political position is more in alignment with the Democrats on those issues, because I think the Republicans are largely wrong on a lot of the criminal justice issues now, because I’m sort of somebody who is, is more, uh, I would say pro you know, less pro pro small government. Um, my, my political commentary kind of feels like it’s more in alignment with some of the right a little bit more this time.

And so the people on the left are not happy about that. When I talk about the criminal justice issues that people on, uh, on the, uh, on the right are not happy about that. So it just kind of, you know, it goes both ways. What we’re trying to do here is just give you a fair analysis using some of the primary sources with a little bit of commentary, a little bit of color speckled in there, but it is very interesting. I’ll tell you. I mean, it, it reminds me about, uh, about the reason I got into law largely was I was very fascinated by the constitution. I was a political science undergraduate, and I love that stuff. And this has given me an excuse to go back and read through some of this stuff. And I, re-read a good portion of common sense. I picked this one up to common sense by Thomas Paine.

So you may want to grab that one and it’s, it’s, uh, it’s, it’s profound. You know, they were talking about a lot of the same issues that we talk about today, 17 in the 17 hundreds 250 years ago. And it’s weird to kind of time travel back to that era and say that they’re still, they were angry about a lot of the same stuff that we’re angry about and it’s it’s good company. So if you’re a little bit upset about what’s going on in the country today, take a look at some of those old founding documents. You may get a little bit of a relief from them. Tim McDaniel has another super chat. Thank you, Tim. Appreciate that. No question there, but thanks for your support. We have hockey D who says, I hate law. I hate quote law when it goes against me. I love it when it works for me.

And a lot of people feel that way, you know, uh, the law is fickle as it were, and there are, there are many situations where it just feels totally unfair and like the system is out to get you, but it’s not personally, you know, it’s just a, it’s just an operation of the law. And that’s kind of how we try to analyze stuff here. I try to read the complaints, tell you what I think is good. Tell you what I think is bad. I’ve seen a lot of, kind of ridiculous stuff from the Trump team. We’re starting to see some pretty good stuff from the Trump team, and we’re just gonna keep continuing to call it as we see it, how, however it may go, we have pure clean who says, what can we, the people do in, in capital, in proper grammar, he says, uh, proper capitalization to help uphold our laws and constitution.

What is your call to action for us? That’s a great question. You know, I, to be honest with you, I haven’t really settled on that. You know, I didn’t want this channel to be so much about, uh, championing for a cause, because I think that that sort of takes away from some of your credibility to analyze both sides of the issue and in law. That’s what I try to do. You know, of course I have my personal political opinions. I’ve detailed what they are on this show, just because I want to be transparent about them. I mean, I like freedom. I like justice. I like accountability. That’s really what I, that’s really kind of the point of this. What can we do to maximize the most freedom for the most people? That’s my political operation. It’s about as simple as that, the maximum amount of freedom for the most people.

And that’s where I start. We also want equal justice. I don’t like this two tier system of justice. The cops get away with a lot of stuff that you or I would never get away with. Hunter Biden gets away with stuff I would never get away with. You can even make the argument that Donald Trump gets away with stuff that I would never get away with, nor would you. We want equal justice. I get really tired of this aristocracy, this oligarchy of people who are untouchable, they pass laws for us, but then they’re not held to the same standard. And that’s where accountability comes into play. That’s why this show was created to watch the Watchers and that splits both ways. It’s really difficult for me to just beat up on the Democrats or beat up on the Republicans. When I have an issue largely with government in general, I think government is way too big.

It’s not in alignment with any of the underlying principles of what make America great. And I ha I’m an equal opportunity critic of it. So if there is a call to action, I would say it’s to educate yourself, it’s to get plugged in. It’s it’s to keep thinking about these issues. You just can’t imagine how fascinating some of this stuff is. I mean, I just it’s, I love reading about it. It’s it’s very interesting. And it’s, it’s pertinent, it’s more eye opening than, uh, you know, dumping a ton of hours into Netflix or a video game or something like that. So I would just encourage you to, to just, you know, stay plugged in on it, especially for now, there are times when you can, you can sort of let that stuff go by the wayside, but this is, this is important. You know, we need to know what is happening in our country.

And this is a great time to get a refresher on how the civics in America works. And it’s a good opportunity for you to maybe bring some other people into the fold. So, I mean, if I have a call to action at the end of the show, I’m going to tell you to share the broadcast. I’ll tell you to share it with somebody who also wants to be a part of the conversation. My idea of how to add value to the conversation is to treat this whole thing. Like it’s a dinner table. You’re like, we’re all having a big dinner. And we’re all talking about the issues we’re doing, what the founding fathers did in the Federalist papers were we’re coming up with ideas. We’re having dialogue. We’re using reason or being rational. We’re being seen, we’re being level-headed or not telling each other that they’re destroying America.

Cause this isn’t destroying America. Whether Donald Trump wins or Joe Biden wins. His idea that we as a country are so fragile that we can’t figure this stuff out is, is it’s historically ignorant. First of all, we’ve been through a lot worse than this and it’s hysterical. It’s just hysterical nonsense, and it’s doing more harm than good by I think overly demagoguing the other side of the aisle. If we want to explore some of these ideas about a rigged election, we can do that. If they want to explore some ideas about whatever they want to do, they can do that. We may even chime into some of those claims. If the Democrats were claiming fraud here, I’d be covering that story too. Or if they had a response to the fraud claims, I would be covering that. We have covered it. We’ve covered the responses from the ACLU and many other entities, but they’re really not.

They’re really just sort of saying that you’re all idiots for talking about this stuff and that you can’t respond to that. And the only thing we can do is keep hashing through these issues and having a conversation about it. If they want to join the conversation, if they want to make their own claims, we’ll cover those. But we just haven’t seen much of them. Yet. Much of this has just been laughing at the Trump people, laughing in his supporters saying, uh, they’re all idiots, look how absurd this is. Go on Twitter. They all just retweet. And they just high five each other and slam dunk. Anytime that there’s any development that they think favors their side and that is not productive. So what we’re trying to do here is be productive. Invite people over to the dinner table, remind them about the ideas that our founders thought so pertinent and encourage them to get more plugged into the process.

That would be my only call to action. Other than that, you know, call your Congress. People, let them know how you feel about this. Because I think a lot of this is local. I would really encourage people to think more locally. Currently we think a lot about the federal government and this idea that the federal government is everything that the government is life. In fact, let me read you this quote from Thomas Payne’s common sense. It’s in the first chapter actually. So it says here he starts off by distinguishing between this idea of society versus government. Just like I said, right now, it feels like government is everything. Because everything we do has the touch of government on it, right? Every time you wake up, you check your cell phone, which was approved by the FCC, uh, that it doesn’t leak radiation or whatever that is.

It’s authorized by them. You get on the phone. Everything you go to is, you know, got, got some sort of government regulation built around it. You hop in your car, there’s about 10,000 different statutes that you could violate on your way to work. You don’t even know what they are. There’s so many stinking laws. Every time you purchase a product, you’re paying taxes on it. Fill your car with gas, more taxes, pay your mortgage more taxes, uh, get on an airplane, 10 different taxes, everything you do and touch and see is implemented. It’s it’s impacted by the government. And so what we as Americans tend to believe is that we need the government that it’s so important that we can’t live without this. If there is no government, the whole world is going to melt down. Who’s going to make sure the houses don’t fall over.

Who’s going to make sure that we don’t start shooting each other in the middle of the streets because government is the solution. Government is going to save us from all of these, these moule, these, these, these maladies, all of these ills. That’s what we sort of are bred to think we’ve been indoctrinated that way. Well, they felt the same way back in the 17 hundreds. So this is from Thomas Paine. He says, uh, chapter one of the origin and design of government in general, with concise remarks on the English constitution. So this is an Englishman who wrote this document and he’s living in the founding era in the 17 hundreds. He says some writers have so confounded society with government. So as to leave little or no distinction between them, whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants in government, by our wickedness. The former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse. The other creates distinctions. This first is the first is a patron.

The last is a Punisher, right?

And so he’s making the distinction between society and government. One is good.

One is not so good. Society is good. This is this idea of a social fabric of a society. That’s interwoven because we have similar interests, similar cultures or different cultures, but that compliment one another, or we’re all rooted in a foundational doctrine. And he goes through and he lays out the problems with the English constitution and how they did things back across the pond. Then need details why the, the founders needed to make a change in the Homeland, in the colonies.

And it’s, it’s still relevant.

There is still a distinction between society and government. And so we just want to flesh that out a little bit more. We want to remind people, let’s get plugged into society. How can we help society? Is there a way that we can do that maybe without the big government passing rules and regulations that don’t work that lead to a bunch of bureaucracy, a bunch of wasted money, wasted time, wasted efforts, massive amounts of corruption. Let’s plug things back in locally. We don’t have to be so invested in who the president is. For many of us. They’re thousands of miles away locally.

We can impact change. That’s where we want to get people more plugged into. All right. Thank you for that question. Pure clean. That was a good Superchat over from pure clean. Got me off on a tangent there. All right. So James Scott says, if the DOJ, CIA and FBI are not doing the job, why not fire them? It’s a good point, James. I don’t disagree with that. I think they’ve been largely, uh, irrelevant, uh, for, for a lot of issues. And I’m not sure why that is now the counter, the con, the converse of that is that Donald Trump is the chief executive officer, right? He is the president. He has the most of those branches. So in my mind, if the buck stops with him and he’s not doing anything about it, that’s on him, not on us. All right.

Oscar Mike also says, when do you think the mainstream media will crack with the current proclivity of the media? We need individuals just like you more than ever. I think, I think you’re seeing it, Mike, honestly, Uh, I I’ll tell you what the, you know, th th the channel has exploded beyond my wildest imagination. People are really hungry for this type of content. And I think more and more people are getting to the point where they’re, they’re, they’re getting a little bit more comfortable speaking out in along a year ago. I’m not so sure that I’d be doing this live stream. That’d be too, I’d be a little bit too, you know, um, go along, get along. You know, I don’t know. This is something that I’ve matured into and I, and I’d love to see more people do it. I’d love to see more people speak. I tell all my friends, Hey man, if you’ve got an opinion on that sucker, why are you keeping it to yourself? Why are you letting it just, uh, you know, boil up inside, you make a video, start a YouTube channel, get your voice out there.

Uh, because we want more of that. I don’t, I don’t hardly watch any news anymore. Most of news that I watch or, or read it’s to do this show, that’s it, uh, you know, otherwise any of the mainstream media sources, I are, they, they are just, um, incidental, you know, I, I have to go to them, but most of the good analysis, most of the in-depth conversations are taking place off of their platforms. And I don’t think they have a good answer for it. And by the way, if Donald Trump does not get reelected, if we go through this whole thing and he is not in the, in the white house anymore, what are they going to talk about? Really? What are they going to talk about? I mean, we just, we looked at some of the screenshots from the Washington post and the New York times.

It’s pretty bland. If they don’t have somebody to beat up on the Trump administration for the next four years, if they’re going to be, it’s going to be this love affair with Joe Biden, they’re not going to hold them accountable. They’re not going to ask them any questions. They’re not even going to complain. If he calls a lid on him his day at 1130 in the morning, they’re just going to let him go. What are they going to talk about there? I think their numbers are going to drop Bob dramatically. If that happens, we’re not there yet, but I think, I think we might be in the midst of it. Quite frankly, we have white stork who says a big super chat. Thanks. White stork. Very nice of you. He says, president Trump said the world is watching. He is right greetings from Poland. I am following the situation very closely and discussing with family and friends.

Very proud of you. Thank you. He says, cheers. Thanks. White stork. Cheers on that. Let me take them my big, my big mug years on that. Thank you for that. And thank you for, uh, you know, thank you for the support on that. Sometimes I catch a lot of grief on this program can be a little bit de-motivating, but messages like that are very welcome. And I appreciate it. I appreciate your support, and I’m glad you’re interested in it, you know, from, from over there, because it is important. And, uh, and, and we’re glad that you’re watching. Thanks. Thanks again for that. We have lava Java lava who says what a proper population census have determined an accurate election process. So I think you can make the argument that there’s a good correlation there. Um, you know, I haven’t seen any arguments that, uh, well, two, two, two thoughts on that.

So when you, when we talk about census, one of the first things I think about is the legal battle right now, between counting undocumented immigrants and citizens. Right now, there’s a legal battle that’s going on in the courts. Not sure how that’s cleared up just yet. I think the ACLU just joined in on a motion or on a brief, that’s going to the Supreme court to say that the constitution says that, uh, undocumented immigrants should be counted in the total sentence. And, um, if that were the case, if documented immigrants were a part of the census, I could imagine the census is done every year so that we can apportion the representatives amongst the States. So if you have certain States that have high populations of undocumented immigrants, and we’re just speculating here, those undocumented immigrants, that demographic has the tendency to vote for Democrats, which I think is accurate.

I could be wrong on that. Then you could say that if you’re counting the undocumented immigrants in your state, that those, that additional population would afford you more representatives. Remember the representatives are proportional to your population. Every state gets two senators, but you get a proportionate number of representatives. And so if, if one state that has a higher demographic of undocumented immigrants who vote for Democrats gets more electoral votes, which is a combination of your Senate and your house of representatives, and they get more representatives, meaning you get more electoral votes, which would mean that they would be able to potentially, uh, I would say, tip the balance or, or move some electoral votes into their demographic. They would get more representation under that scheme than they would if they were not counted. And so, uh, I don’t think that’s happened yet. I think the census was done this year, and I don’t think any of the reinforcement has taken place.

I don’t think right. There’s no way I could’ve missed that. But, um, but yes, you could, you could come to the conclusion that if they were, if they made up a substantial portion of the population, then that would, um, adjust the representation and it could impact the electoral votes, which could ultimately impact the election. It’s a good question. Don’t know that it impacted this election, but it certainly could. We have one from Liberty or death who says law student in Atlanta actually agree maximum amount of Liberty with the least amount of interference and coercion of the government shares on that Liberty or death. Yup. I totally agreed. Good luck in law school. Uh, it’s a fun journey. It’s well worth it. And we’re looking forward to having you getting out there and getting after it because a lot of those principles I think are, are critical in the legal field.

Unfortunately, a lot of lawyers are very, very liberal, very liberal. I’ve gotten contacted by a number of colleagues who say they got a lot of concern for me. You know, I could be, uh, it could be really ruining my reputation here by doing this program. And they’re just looking out for me. So they’re really recommending that I stopped talking about this stuff, which their advice is appreciated. I know they probably mean well. Um, but we’re going to keep moving on. Thank you. Uh, James Clark. He is here in the house with a big smiley face and the nice super chat. Thanks James Clark. Good to have you here. Always irregular on the program. SSW lamb also says thank you with a nice, super chat over in euros. It looks like, uh, thanks, SS Lam. Thanks for being here. We have quibble who says the Brutus papers. The anti-federalists are also a good read today.

When the people, once part of when the people once part with power, they can sell them or never resume it again, but by force. Yeah. So that’s a great point, which I didn’t mention. So, uh, the Federalist papers for those of you who don’t know this is, this is a, this is a brilliant, a brilliant book. Now these were back during the founding era, there were, there were two camps or the Federalists who wanted the States to ratify the new constitution. And there’s a lot of ideas in here that are part of the discussion about what should go into the new constitution, but they don’t actually make it in there. So Alexander Hamilton had some things that he wanted in there that didn’t make it, but a lot of it is in here. We talk about James Madison and the separation of powers and some of the powers of the executive branch and how to resolve conflicts.

There was a, uh, there’s a, there’s one in here from Andrew Hamilton that establishes, or sort of the, the bedrock for judicial review, which is how our justice system works. And so they, they really kind of won out, but there was a competing camp called the anti-federalists who said, no, no, you know, we want, we don’t want that government. We just left Britain. And they were, you know, this big psychotic government that we’re just taking all of our rights away. We’re not going to recreate that here in America. And so there was these competing essays that went back and forth, and that’s what quibble is talking about. The Brutus papers, the anti-federalists, uh, uh, very good stuff. And this is a good, this is a fun time to go in and, uh, just sinker sink your teeth into some of this stuff again. Uh, the test one says again, the great Barrington declaration came out on October 3rd.

It’s from Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard, top scientists and epidemiologists. It would be a good topic. I think he’s saying. So, uh, I’ll take a look at it. Yeah. I haven’t, I haven’t even heard about that. Sounds like it might be COVID related, which I’m not sure how pertinent it will be to this channel, except when they start taking away a lot of your ability to live your life, like with lockdowns and different mandates and say, you can’t go to church anymore. You can go burn down some buildings if you’re a part of a Antifa, but you can’t go to church. Those are when the constitution comes into play. That’s when my blood gets boiled in a little bit. And we are, um, uh, more likely to talk about that stuff on the channel, but thank you for the recommendation test one, we have one other one from Wolfgang Dayo who says regarding the PA tabulation video, maybe the security camera footage was fake.

Just something on repeat while everyone else was taking while everything else was taking place online. Yeah. I mean, you could, you could certainly speculate to that. I don’t, you know, I haven’t seen any evidence of that. The only thing that I’ve seen is sort of what Maricopa County had in place, which was, which was cool. I mean, to be honest, I was surprised that they even had what they had, the capabilities there were, were pretty basic. I took a screenshot and we showed it on the show or on the, on the discord where they were, uh, everybody, I, I tuned in and watched the live stream that was coming out of the TCF tabulation center or something. And, uh, this was at the same time when there were protesters outside the tabulation center, all the Donald Trump people saying, count, those votes, count those votes. And everybody inside the ballot, counting center, nobody was counting the votes.

They were all on their phones. They were all on Twitter. Like what the hell is going on outside? This is crazy. And so nobody was counting votes. So the protesters were saying, count the votes. They were inside saying, what are these protesters doing here? Not counting the vote. So wasn’t the most productive use of anybody’s time, but it was interesting to watch. And I will notice that the footage was very grainy and you’re not going to see anything. So if the idea was to put that on the internet so that we could all watch and observe and monitor it, you can’t monitor anything. I mean, you can, you can see, you know, people moving around and boxes flying around, but you can’t see the actual verification process. And that was actually one of my ideas. I thought, you know, I have some gear here in our little office studio and you could easily set up sort of this like a horseshoe shaped table that has cameras on all three tables.

So you set up like this, uh, this square looking thing where you’ve got, you know, somebody sitting in the middle and you’ve got cameras looking down on every single area of the table and the votes, you know, ballots in the ballot, uh, envelopes will come onto the table. You can see it. And basically the person just keeps it on the table in view of camera the entire time. And th and you just let the public do the observation. You just let the public just go in there and just watch what’s going on. Now. They can’t object or do any of those things, but we can, we can see, okay, does that, does that signature match or, or, you know, that wouldn’t work because then you could probably identify the voters that way, but you understand what I’m saying? You know, give people a little bit more technology that allows them to beep to, to participate in the process, just like a crowdsourced election monitoring.

Right? And, and you, you see what happens when the internet sets its mind to something, they accomplished something. They accomplish it very, very quickly. Soon after this election debacle started to unfold, we saw all of these detailed charts and analytics and spreadsheets and all this stuff. You’re like, good Lord. You know, you can really utilize the power of the people to, to be, to be more involved. And I think it’d be interesting if something like that happened. All right. So that’s it for the super chats it looks like. And, uh, we’re getting close to, to that time. So let me just take a couple of quick questions over from the other chat here. It looks like, Ooh, we got a lot of people here. It looks like that chat is moving quickly. All right. So, I mean, let me see here.

All right. So Chad toss as the audio for the recorded clips, videos you play is way too quiet compared to the volume of your voice. Love your content, keep it up. Thanks, Chad. All right. Well, I’ll have to talk to ms. Faith about that. Miss ms. Faith is right back there. She does most of my clips, and I’m going to have to, uh, you know, I’ll go over there and have a word with her. She’s typing something right now. Let’s see what she has to say about that. She says, tell him, turn your volume up.

That’s her, that’s her solution on that?

So, uh, we’ll, we’ll work the kinks out on that there. Chad Toth. I appreciate that. And, um, let’s see here T Fox, the last comment I’ll take, he says comment on the 600,000 votes for Biden compared to Trump’s 3,200 within 90 minutes. Yeah. That was part of the press conference, the hearing today. And, uh, it was funny because Rudy Giuliani was asking questions of another individual there who was specifically talking about the, uh, the, this issue specifically. They were going through a graph and there was this, uh, graph that has a chart that has a line that goes vertical, right at like 4:00 AM. We all saw that, remember we were doing a live stream here. We were on the, on the program for five hours. And we were talking about, uh, about that. W w when we ended the program, Trump was up, we were back the next day Trump was down. What happened? We all saw those graphs with those major spikes in votes. And during the hearing today, Rudy Giuliani asked the guy about it. He said, okay, how many came in? The guy said, Oh, about 600,000 for Beida. And he says, okay, well, how many for Trump? He goes, Oh, um, I don’t know, 300 1800, you know, proportion that is impossible. Unless these ballots were already looked at, they were already segmented. They were already, you know, tallied, or they were just a bunch of fake ballots that they saw at 4:00 AM. He’s the state. They just siphoned in a bunch of votes. I mean, that’s the, that’s the claim, but it was very interesting. All right. So let’s leave it at that. My friends, a couple of things before we head out, I wanna, of course, make sure you’re a subscriber of the channel. Uh, it’s very, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s something that is, I think very important to be talking about. We’re going to continue the program and I want you to be a part of the conversation. So you can do that by hitting subscribe. And by joining us, when we go live, as a reminder, we go live every day of the week, except for some of the holidays.

And sometimes I have some legal stuff that I need to go attend to. So I can’t make it all the time, but by and large, because this is happening near the end of the day, I can get most of my stuff done in the mornings and the afternoons and come be with you. So we want to have you around and subscribing is the best way to do that. Also, as a reminder, if you could share the program, so either share the YouTube or check out our Facebook link, which is now in the description, so you can share it on Facebook. Fakes, Facebook makes it a little bit easier to share. So if you want to send it to your friends or your family just hit that share button, we would appreciate it. We also have a discord server, which is where our live chat takes place before.

And after the show. And we put copies of the slides that you just saw into that, into that software. So you can come and chat with us before chat with us after, uh, sometimes I’ll hang out afterwards and also converse with you. I’m also trolling the, the chat quite a bit, and I’m watching, uh, what everybody’s saying. And, uh, I may be checking out some of the news and incorporating some of that stuff into the program. So we want to make sure you’re part of that. It’s a fun community. And we have a lot of, a lot of good times over there. And then I also want to mention, you know, our and our law group, this is what we do on a daily basis. We do, we represent people, charged with crimes, good people charged with crimes. Unfortunately, we all have been there. We all have bumps in the road.

Sometimes life gets a little bit off track. And what we want to do is help people navigate through that justice system, come out on the other end, a better person, not a worst person. Unfortunately, the justice system, I’ve seen it happen may many way too many times. People come out worse and that’s not what we want. We don’t want a system that punishes people. We want a system that helps to rehabilitate people, and we want to be part of that solution. So if you know somebody in the state of Arizona, we only take cases in Arizona that has been charged with a crime, or need some legal help as it relates to a criminal matter or an old warrant, or they want to clear a mugshot up or any of those things. I’d love a referral from you. We have an awesome team here. We do a great job.

We’re very passionate about our work and this, this is, this is how we really perform, you know, the shows a lot of fun. I enjoy doing it. It’s, it’s, it’s very rewarding. And I have a lot of, uh, a lot of fun being with you. But our business is to help people literally on the ground, charged with crimes, help piece their lives, back together, get them through the system, make sure that their jobs, you know, not destroy their families, not destroyed. They lose custody of their kids or something like that. We want to help them through it. So we would be honored if you would send your referrals our way. All of our information of course is on our website or in the description below. So I will leave it at that. I want to wish everybody just a tremendous Thanksgiving. Hopefully you are going to be spending some time with some friends, some family, even if it’s virtual or in spirit, or just by, uh, you know, by phone or whatever is, let’s

Take some time to maybe maybe unplugged from some of this election stuff. Just a little bit recognize what’s important and go enjoy time with the people that really ultimately matter. That’s what I’m going to be doing, which is why I will not be here, but we will be back on Friday as we are for the rest of the following week. The rest of the year on at 5:00 PM Arizona time, which means in California, it’s 4:00 PM. In central time, it’s going to be 6:00 PM on the East coast. It’s going to be 7:00 PM right here. We want you to be a part of the program. So I’ll leave it at that. I want to wish you all once again, a very happy Thanksgiving, a very warm, loving, fun restful night’s sleep. And I will see you back here on Friday. Thanks so much for being here. Bye bye.