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 in a beautiful Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have helped to represent thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Unfortunately, sometimes in our lives, things can get a little bit bumpy. We can fall off the road that we’re on. And what we want to do here at our firm is to help people get back on track. And so we’ve been doing that for a very long time. And over the course of 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 prosecutors behaving badly. We have judges who are not particularly interested in injustice, and it all starts with the politicians.

The people at the top, the ones who set the rules, implement them, require that all of us follow them, but then sometimes themselves, they don’t follow them. And so what we want to do with this program is watch the Watchers shine, the beautiful sunlight of transparency down upon the system to clean it up a little bit. And so on this program, what we’ve been covering very very in-depth lately is the election litigation. We’ve been really doing a deep dive into everything that’s going on in particular with Donald Trump and his team filing a number of lawsuits all around the country. And over this last holiday, we saw two new cracking like lawsuits. And so we want to go through those in a little bit more detail. I’m talking about, of course, if you’ve been living under a rock Sidney Powell who has been promising that these would be coming for some time now, they were actually filed yesterday and I want to dive into them.

The first one is King vs. Whitmore Whitmer, which was filed in the federal district court of Michigan. We have another lawsuit, Pearson vs camp that was filed in the Northern district of Georgia. And so we’re going to go through both of those today in depth. I’ve got a lot of the clips from the actual lawsuit, and then we’re going to go into some of the affidavits, the declarations, the exhibits that ms. Powell put into the Michigan lawsuit. So we’re going to go through them at piece by piece. But before we do, let me remind you. We go live at this time every day. So if you’re just jumping in here, you’re not a subscriber, now’s a good time to subscribe. We go every day of the week, right? At this time, we want you to be a part of the program. So hit that subscribe button.

And as a reminder, we do a live chat at the end of the program. So if you’re sending in super chats or any pertinent questions, miss faith and our moderator there, Manning and, and females in the chat there, keeping everything in control and faith is sending me those chats in those questions that I will address at the end of the program. If you want to be a part of the chat after the show ends and get copies of the slides, you can join the discord and the link is there in the description as well. So let’s dive into it. I want to start with Pence and I’m sorry, I keep saying Pennsylvania, we’ve been talking about Pennsylvania lawsuits a lot here. We’re not talking about Pennsylvania today. We’re talking about Georgia and I want to start with Georgia because Georgia is, it’s a lot of what we’ve seen.

Now, let me, let me sort of back up these two lawsuits today that we’re talking about Georgia and Michigan, very similar lawsuits, they’re both over a hundred pages. They both referenced a lot of the same experts in the same exhibits. And so what we’re going to do is we’re going to go through a little bit of Georgia, but because we don’t actually have the affidavits or the declarations, we’re going to spend more of our time in the Michigan lawsuit that does have 19 different affidavits and exhibits that have been posted. And I’ve gone through a significant portion of them. But that leads me to my next point about both of these lawsuits, many people, when they were critiquing Sidney Powell and the Trump legal team, they were very concerned that a lot of this stuff was taking so long to develop and put together and get filed.

And I will tell you what I was one of the critics I was thinking, man, you know, things are starting to go a little bit sour on this election. If you are part of the Trump team, what’s taken them so long. Well, now we kind of know what took them so long. They’re these, both of these lawsuits are massive and the declarations are also very, very significant. I mean, they’re, they’re not just a simple affidavit. Like we saw in previous lawsuits where it’s just a two page document. Somebody comes in and says I was a poll watcher. I didn’t get to see, you know, what I was supposed to see. Therefore I think the whole election should be overturned. Just two pages. Many of these affidavits are significantly longer and they’re from expert witnesses. They’re from people who want to come in and testify about some of the more complicated technical stuff.

Things like voter manipulation, literally in the software. There’s some guy who’s back tracing stuff to all different parts of the world, different servers. And so on. We’re going to look at some of that in a little bit, but it’s a lot, there’s a lot of material here. And so, you know, yesterday when we were all enjoying the holiday, I was people were sending me links and I was finding some of these links and finding the primary sources of the original lawsuits. And I was flipping through them and I was thinking, okay, you know, I can, I can go through these in a couple hours. I’ll do that tomorrow. Our office is closed. I’ll come in, I’ll have a little bit light leisurely, crack and reading, and I’ll see what’s going on here. They’re not quite the same lawsuits. There’s some of the same claims, but these are going in depth and the affidavits are pretty detailed.

And so it’s not one of those things that even though you’re a lawyer, you can just flip through and just kind of understand what’s going on. These are complicated issues with a lot of numbers and a lot of spreadsheets and different in a different technical jargon, which, which is different than what we’ve seen. A lot of it thus far has been sort of hearsay type of document, uh, of testimony from people saying that they were there, something went wrong and now they put pen to paper, but this is, this is looking like more evidence. And a lot of these people are very, very credentialed. We’re going to get into that. So we’re going to spend a lot of time on both of these lawsuits, but what I want to start with is by asking ourselves a couple different questions. So the first question is, is any of this stuff is everything that we’re going to view in the next hour, hour and a half?

Is it baseless? Okay. That’s the word that the opposing side has been saying about all of these claims. There is no basis for it, zero basis for it. Uh, last, what was it on Wednesday? We had had, uh, a couple of clips. We had some screenshots from some different websites, from different news agencies saying that it was all baseless. There was no basis for it. I mean, they couldn’t find a single basis. They weren’t even covering the story, let alone making an analysis on the evidence. They were just whitewashing the whole thing. And so that’s our first question. Is it baseless? Is it totally baseless? Is there nothing here at all? Because if there is then the next question we have to ask ourselves, is it, does it meet the burden of proof? Does it meet the requirement in court to move forward? And we’re going to tell you what that is.

So keep those two questions in mind. When we go through this data, ask yourself, is it baseless? And it’s probably not going to be baseless. I mean, if you’re being reasonable, then if it, if it has a basis for it, what is the next step? It doesn’t meet the burden that’s necessary in court to move the case forward, to set it for an evidentiary hearing, to take it to a trial, to enable discovery to happen. So both sides can communicate with each other. Let’s ask ourselves those questions. So let’s start with Georgia. This is the lawsuit. So you’ll see here. This is the first page of it. And a couple of things. We want to point out. Number one, being filed in the Northern district of Georgia over in Atlanta. And you see here, these are the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs are going to be the people who are initiating the lawsuit.

These people in this top box are [inaudible] Shaquan, Pearson, Vicky, Townson, and so on. Well, who are these people? These are citizen voters. So these are people who are living in Georgia and they live within the specific counties that they need to be living in. And there are also potentially Republican electoral nominees. So these people all have a stake in this case. Now this is a little bit different than some of the other lawsuits that we were seeing, where they were getting dismissed on standing. The argument against the standing was that the people who were filing the lawsuits had no basis to file the lawsuits. It wasn’t Donald Trump or wasn’t anybody with any stake in the outcome. And so these people clearly do now have a stake, their Republican electorate nominees. And these are people. If Donald Trump wins the state of Georgia, they’ve got a role to play.

They get, you know, they get nominated and they go cast the vote. So they are intimately connected with the entire process. They have a stake. And I think that they have standing. Now they are filing a lawsuit against the Republican secretary of state, Brad raffinose burger. We spent a lot of time talking about him and then the other members of the Georgia election board. And what they’re asking for is declaratory emergency and permanent injunctive relief. And as a reminder, an injunction is just asking the court to do something. You’re just saying, I want the court to order that something happened, something that’s declaratory is having the court dictate that something is the way that it is right now. There are a lot of issues that nobody really knows what the answer is. And so they’re asking the court to clarify things, to declare what is actually happening in the emergency part.

Part of this is obvious, right? We got to act fast on this. We can’t have a lot of, uh, continuances and pushing this thing out, down the road. We want declaratory relief. We want emergency relief, and we want the court to issue an injunction to do something. And we’re going to tell you about what Sidney Powell and her team, what they want here at the end of this Georgia portion of this. And so let’s take a look at what the burden of proof is. So remember I said two different questions. One, is there any basis for it? And then if there is, what is the burden of proof and ms. Powell talks about it here. She says early on in her complaint, she says a civil action. The plaintiff’s burden of proof is what’s called a preponderance of the evidence. So she says burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence to show.

As the Georgia Supreme court has made clear that it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to show how the voters would have voted. If their absentee ballots had been regular plaintiffs only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt, the result. So two things there, right? Number one, preponderance of the evidence. And that’s a standard that I’m gonna show you a definition for here in a quick second, but the other standard is whether, whether they can show that enough of the ballots were irregular as to place in doubt, the result, the plaintiff only had to show that there were enough irregular ballots to place in doubt the result. So it’s pretty low standard just to place in doubt, not beyond a reasonable doubt, just kind of questionable. Is there enough here? We’re going to ask ourselves those questions and the preponderance of the evidence standard.

As you can see here, this comes from a Cornell law.cornell.edu. They have a sort of a repository of a lot of different data there that’s related to legal news. The preponderance of the evidence standard is one type of evidentiary standard used in the burden of proof analysis. Under that standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden. So in this case, uh, Sidney Powell convinces the fact-finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial. So fifth, just, just, just 50% more like, so more likely than not, if it’s 51 to 49, then it’s, it’s enough to move the case forward at minimum. Right? We can just move it forward. We can have some evidentiary hearings, we can do some discovery. We can take this thing forward.

And it’s a pretty low standard. Think about the difference between that standard and what we see in a criminal trial beyond a reasonable doubt in a crime. So if you’re charged with a DUI or an assault case or any one of those other types of defense that we handle predominantly, then what you see is beyond a reasonable doubt. And so when we talk about it, in terms of percentages like this rule did in criminal law, we say kind of, you know, over 80%, if it’s closer to like 90, 95% likely that something happened, that’s more in the ballpark of beyond a reasonable doubt. The other way to sort of phrase that, if there’s any doubt that’s based in reason, then that person is not con not convicted or not guilty of a crime. And so it’s a much, much lower standard here. So people I think are, are, are of the opinion that Sidney Powell has to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’m not so sure that that is the case, right? It’s 50, 51%, according to the preponderance of the evidence standard. And that’s a much lower threshold. So keep that in mind again, baseless. And does it meet the standard? And when we’re talking about these standards, let’s take a look at the evidence in a, in a light that’s most favorable to the party, making the claim. We want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Remember one of the main criticisms that I have about not analyzing these election fraud claims is that if you don’t do it, there’s going to be a big contingent of the country that is very upset that nobody analyzed or ask questions or did an audit or a deep dive into any of these issues. And so what we want to do is make sure that those people feel heard, feel like they are part of the process, 70 something, million Americans who think that they did not get a fair shake in this election.

And that’s a problem. So we want to say, all right, look, bring all your claims. We’re going to lay them all out on the table here. We’re going to pick them up. We’re going to look at them. We’re going to deconstruct them, examine them and see which ones are good and which ones aren’t good. But if you just say, we’re not going to look at them and we’re going to throw all of those in the garbage, those people are going to feel neglected and not part of the process. So as we’re going through this, we want to bring them in and say, look, these are your claims. We’re going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s analyze it accordingly. Does it meet those standards? We’re going to find out. So a lot of what we have seen in this lawsuit are very, very familiar types of claims.

We’ve gone through a lot of this stuff at length on this channel. And so I don’t want to spend too much time rehashing the old arguments, but we do want to just give you a sort of a brief framework on again, how this is all being compiled, because Sidney Powell is assembling a lot of different claims from a lot of different parts of the country, from a lot of different experts, a lot of different types of claims and so on. And remember what I said, I think a few weeks ago, we were talking about how a lawyer really works. Remember a lawyer is not somebody who’s an expert at everything, right? I am not an expert on how to do DUI blood analysis. Okay. I’ve never run a DUI blood sample. I’m not a crime lab. I’m not a forensic scientist or any of those things.

But I know about five of them who have done that, who used to work for the government, who used to be people who are doing this type of work. And so we can call them in as expert witnesses and use them. And I do know what kind of questions to ask them and what type of responses I need from them in order to win my case. And if my case doesn’t initiate the response that we need, then maybe the case isn’t so good. And we don’t use that expert witness. So what Sidney Powell here is doing is she’s pulling the pieces that she needs. She’s sort of the puzzle master taking all the pieces and assembling them into this lawsuit. And so let’s take a look at some of her main claims. One is obvious that we’re very, very familiar with this. We spend a lot of time talking about this lawsuit specifically, but here she says in, in one of these paragraphs, paragraph 50, she says the defendant’s unauthorized action violated the Georgia election code and caused a processing of defective absentee ballots.

And we spoke about this. She said here, not withstanding the clarity of the Georgia legislature’s actions. The secretary of state in Georgia entered into an agreement. Remember this, this is the secretary of state. His name is Brad raffinose Berger. He’s a Republican. He was sued by the Democrats and he entered into what’s called a settlement agreement. It’s specifically entitled here, a compromise and settlement agreement and release with the democratic party of Georgia, the democratic Senate campaign committee and the democratic congressional campaign committee all here labeled the Democrat party agencies. They all got together and they had this little bit of a kumbaya party before the election took place, where they modified some of the rules that were supposed to be implemented in Georgia. They just had this agreement. They said, Oh, COVID is coming around. Everything’s a problem. Now, uh, we need to make some serious modification.

So they went back, even though the legislature, the state legislature had a set of rules, Brad Rathmines Berger, according to this complaint and three different democratic parties, they came together. They entered into a settlement that changed the rules a little bit. Remember the state legislature passed one set of rules, but they didn’t like those rules. So they modified them. And then they implemented those rules. And so what Sidney Powell and her claim is saying is that, that that was unlawful. You can’t just on your own change. What the underlying rules are. We see this a lot with a lot of these types of lawsuits around the country, Pennsylvania just moved their election day, three days back, even though the legislature never authorized them to do that. Judges did that here. This was a settlement agreement between a secretary of state and three democratic agencies who were the ones who initiated the lawsuit.

And remember, this is something that has been going on. We’ve been covering it a long time. Priorities, usa.org, funded the retired association, people of America who filed lawsuits, I think in six or seven different States all to move the rules and change things around a little bit. And one of the ramifications of that was what we see here, the settlement agreement. And so one of Cindy Pal’s first claims is that was unlawful. That was unconstitutional that the secretary of state does not have the constitutional authority to go in and just on their own change, the underlying rules, the people already voted on the legislature and on the legislators to go into the legislature and then pass the rules. So having somebody else modify that is not allowed. And that is I think, a compelling, legal argument. Quite frankly, you just can’t do those things. And if this stuff gets forward, it gets moved up to the U S Supreme court.

We’re going to have a lot of originalists and text textualists on that court who are going to say, you just, you can’t take power away from one branch of government, the secretary of state, can’t just go in and start scanning with all of the powers and rights of the legislature. The judiciary can’t do that, just like the executive can’t do that. And this is going to be this big separation of powers battle that is sort of lingering right in front of our eyes right here. So we’ll see where that goes. Sidney Powell, another one of her claims here, and we’ve seen a lot of this is that she’s going back in and doing a deep dive into some of this smart manic, dominion, Venezuela election stuff. And a lot of, you know, a lot of my original thoughts around this issue, it was like, all right.

And I was on this channel explaining the same thing to you. So what, so what if the software was created in Venezuela? So what if it’s, you know, it was used in rigging their elections. What does that have to do with the United States of America? Just because something has a sort of a bad history doesn’t mean that it’s a bad thing today. You know, it could have been created for that purpose, but bought and sold, you know, 10 different times and been modified and vetted and implemented around, and then triple checked by all of these different security researchers and, you know, some States have their own auditing process. And so, you know, people would just go, okay, so what that happened 20 years ago, what does that have to do with 2020 election? And I was of the same mindset, and we’ve seen some of the same declarations and the affidavit from this individual, but here, what she’s doing is she’s late.

That was the framework that was sort of the foundation here. And we see that coming out in this complaint. She says, she, she talks about it here at the top. She says, as set forth in the accompanying affidavit, which we’ve already read that this was designed specifically to manipulate Venezuelan elections. This is a block quote from the, uh, from the affidavit itself. And she says here in paragraph seven, a core requirement of the smart medic software design, a core requirement core was that the software had the ability to hide its manipulation of votes from any audit. As the whistleblower goes on to explain Chavez was most insistent that the smart MADEC design the system in a way that the system could change the vote without being detected. And so that is just the backbone of it and say, this whole thing was sort of birthed in this original sin, this, that everything was corrupted because it was created to be corrupt.

This wasn’t something that started out as a legitimate, lawful credible software or a program. This was designed literally from the ground up to be used and implemented incorrupt elections around the world. And she goes on to expand on some of this and we’re going to get there, but I wanted to make sure that we laid that framework out. Another main claim that she talks about. So remember we spoke about the constitutional violations, Georgia, literally changing the rules unlawfully in violation of the constitution. We also have the dominion claims. We also have some more claims about not being able to observe. And this was a new little thing that I had not heard, but she’s talking about what happened in state farm arena over in Fulton County, in Georgia. And she says that there was specifically a video from the arena that on November 3rd, after the polls closed election workers, falsely claimed a water leak, required the facility to close all poll work, poll workers and challengers within evacuated for several hours at about 10:00 PM.

However, several workers remain unsupervised and unchallenged working at the computers for the voting tabulation machines until after 1:00 AM. So from 10:00 PM to 1:00 AM, they sent all of the challengers home. Apparently they fake some sort of a water leak and, uh, they just kept counting the votes until, until early in the next morning. And you know, this is one of those things that you think would be pretty easy to check who reported was there a, was there a water leak? Did they report that? Did they send them home? If they did, why who’s responsible, who initiated the report of the water leak? What was all that about? You know, did somebody turn a hose, a hose on, and then just forget to turn it off, did something break? What’s the story there, right? This, this is the type of stuff that somebody can really dive into.

You hire an investigator who originated the original claim, where did this all come from? What’s the story behind it. But that itself is certainly suspicious. I don’t know how good of evidence it is, but it’s, it’s very, very suspicious. Now with more, with more information about that, who reported it, how did it break down, uh, you know, specifically who gave the order to send these people home, some more details about them actually counting the votes and so on would be helpful, but we just don’t see that there, you know, it’s a, it’s sort of one of those paragraphs that’s Oh, okay. That raises some eyebrows, but where’s the rest of it. And so we’re going to dive into some more of the specifics when we get over to Michigan, but let’s finish out here in Georgia and here is what they are asking for. So Sidney Powell has a number of different claims and remedies.

Remember we spoke about this a lot on this channel. And at, at the early stages of this election litigation stuff, we were seeing that there was a pretty big disconnect between what the campaign was asking for legally and the harm and the harm largely was that they didn’t get to see the counting. They were kicked out of the observation room. They weren’t a part of the challenges. They weren’t able to verify any signatures and so on. And so the claim was by Rudy Giuliani and, and, and others at one point was that all of the votes that were not observed need to be thrown out. Everything needs to go away. And we made the point here that that’s just too big. That’s too big of an ask. The harm doesn’t match the, the remedy, the remedy in this case would be to throw out six or 7 million votes.

And we thought there’s no way a judge is going to do that. You need to specify some more detailed issue, some bigger claims and bigger problems in order to justify a result that big. And so what we’re seeing now in this lawsuit is a narrowing a bit, just a, a sort of a more focused request. The remedies are now matching some of the harms a little bit more closely. And so here is what ms. Powell has to say for her relief. This is what she wants out of the lawsuit. Number one, she wants governor Kemp, secretary wrappings, Berger, and the Georgia state board of elections to de-certify the election results. So those have already been done, but now she wants them to be decertified. She also wants an order enjoining governor camp from transmitting the currently certified results to the electoral college. So number one, decertify them, number two, don’t transmit them.

And number three, in order requiring governor Kemp to transmit certified election results that state Donald Trump is the winner of the election. Now that’s a pretty big ask, right? Is the court going to grant that? Probably not, but they’re asking for it. They’re also asking for some more interesting things. Actually, it looks like a total of 14 things. Let me give you a quick synopsis of what these other 14 items are. So number four, they want to impound all of the voting machines. They want to pull them out and analyze them. They don’t want any votes that were counted on the machines to be counted because they’ve got some problems with the machines specifically with dominion, which we’re going to get to next in Michigan. They want number six. They want a declaration that Brad raffinose Berger, the secretary of state, that his absentee ballot change was unconstitutional.

So remember that settlement agreement with the Democrats. They want to say that that was totally unconstitutional. Shouldn’t have done that. They want a declaration that says that sh I’m sorry, signature verification, failures in Georgia violate the constitution. They want a declaration that this violate that this election is a violation of due process. Due process. We talk about you before something is taken away from you. You have to have the proper process in place before you can go to jail. You have to be charged. You have to be convicted in a trial. Then you can go to jail. You go through the proper process. They’re saying that didn’t happen here. Number nine, they want Malin absentee ballots to be manually recounted with a proper signature verification component. This was the, the main complaint at the last, the last recount in Georgia and Rudy Giuliani at the Pennsylvania hearing did a pretty good job of explaining how that works.

He says, look, you get this envelope that comes out and, and Rudy Giuliani is pretty effective. He speaks with big, with big hands and big arms, and he’s waving around and he’s sort of getting animated, but he went through this process where he pulled out an envelope, opened it up, took out the ballot, looked at the signature. And supposedly as you’re supposed to do in an election match the signature to the voter file. And then the signal, the envelope goes away. You have to, you throw that away. You don’t, you don’t even care about that anymore because now you have the ballot. But once you go through that process, now you have just big buckets of ballots that have no identification because it’s a secret ballot. And so you can just, you know, if, if you are interfering with the election, if you can get the ballots inserted past the point or the weak spot in the entire verification process is the signature part.

So if you can sort of manipulate the signature process, you can get an unlimited number of ballots in, and that’s what they’re claiming a number 10. They want an emergency order, seizing voting machines for a forensic audit. So they’re asking the court for that number 11, they want a declaration that absentee fraud occurred in violation of the constitution. 12. They want an injunction preventing the transmission of certified results over to the electoral college. So remember last, uh, it wasn’t last week. It feels like last week, but a couple of days ago we were talking about, well, what happened? You know, they, they’re already saying that this stuff is certified and that all of these legal challenges are moot, not so fast, right? They’re, they’re technically certified in the state, but they’re asking for decertifications, they’re asking to prevent the transmission over to the electoral college and so on.

They want an order that, that, that prevents literally the certified results from being transmitted from the state elsewhere. And a judge can do that. Number 13, they want production. This is interesting. They want production of 36 hours of security camera footage from the recording of all rooms in the voting processing center at state farm arena arena. And then, uh, you know, other equitable reef, really things like attorney’s fees and so on. So those are the remedies. That’s what Sidney Powell in the lawsuit here in Georgia is asking for. But now let’s go into Michigan because Michigan has some even more interesting things here. We have a lot of the same types of claims, but we’re going to get into some more of the facts, some more of the affidavits that have been submitted along with this complaint. So when you file a lawsuit you’re going to, or a complaint or a motion, typically what you’ll do is you’ll, you’ll write the motion, you’ll, uh, attach a memorandum, then you’ll attach your exhibits, your affidavits, and other things.

The only the complaint, we we’ve only seen the complaint out of Georgia, but in Michigan we have everything. And let’s take a look at it because there some interesting expert witnesses here. So let’s start with the first page again. And you’re going to see here that there are some interesting little, uh, underlying red lines on this complaint. Why is that? Well, in the United States district court, Eastern district of Michigan, well, district is spelled wrong. It’s missing an eye and Sidney Powell was getting a lot of grief in this document for some of these misspellings. And I think for good reason to be fair, uh, this is this, this is, you know, it’s not the end of the world, but it’s concerning. And you’re going to see what I mean, as we go forward, Eastern district of Michigan, the very, very top title is spelled wrong.

We have another typo here, Michigan board of state canvassers. There’s a missing space and so on. And we’re going to see that sort of repeated throughout the document. But I just wanted to highlight that now. I don’t think it changes the substance of the document. I think the underlying allegations here are still, uh, of, of serious consequence, but, uh, but this is important, you know, and, and we’re going to run through this now. I know she’s super pressed for time. I don’t know who her team is, but what she’s been able to put together in these last two weeks is seriously impressive. These are massive documents and massive undertaking. So in my mind, it is, you know, forgivable. If you’re going to have these mistakes, I it’s forgivable. I think it’s a subpar. It’s not exactly what I would want to see. Uh, and I think it takes away from some of its credibility.

Unfortunately it gives a lot of people, the ability to come and make critiques on this saying, she’s just copy and pasting this stuff. She’s just filing this Willy nilly. This is not a professional. And I would agree with that. Uh, but again, you know, she’s, she’s highly pressed for time and I don’t know what the size of her team is, but if it’s her and a couple of people, what they put together here is seriously impressive. And, uh, I’m willing to overlook some spelling stuff, but we are going to see why it’s problematic here in a minute. All right. So one more time, who is suing whom we have citizens and voters and Republican electoral nominees, but this time in Michigan and they are suing now, Gretchen Whitmer, who is the democratic governor over in Michigan, we’ve had some criticisms of her in particular related to her lockdown orders, but also she’s suing the democratic secretary of state Jocelyn Benson, who is another person that we have spoken about before the election.

Remember, many of these people were involved in litigation before the election took place. And a lot of, a lot of the legal commentators are forgetting about that. They’re all saying, well, Donald Trump’s filing all these lawsuits. Yeah. But he’s doing it after the fact, a lot of the Democrats and the democratic action committees, they were doing it well before the election. And a lot of this stuff is a problem because of the rule changes that were implemented as a result of their lawsuits, not anything Donald Trump has done. So let’s go through and go take a look at the rest of the complaint. And I want to just point out here that we’re gonna go, we’re gonna spend a lot of time on dominion with this particular lawsuit, because that’s mostly new. We’ve already spent a lot of time talking about the inability to observe and some of the other election fraud claims.

But I think we went through 15 of them when I added them all up. But this one we’re spending some serious time on dominion. So let me show you some of this other, some of these other issues, uh, at least with the, with the, the way this document is formatted. So you can see here in this red underlined stuff, protecting the integrity, and there’s just no spaces here of election, including the prevention of voter fraud and other conduct, right? Whether maliciously, there’s no spaces in that sentence. And then the same here under paragraph 43, just no spacing in here. It just looks kind of sloppy. And it’s, it’s something that a lot of people are, um, you know, sinking their teeth into. They’re saying that this, this is a major criticism. It is hard to read and it just doesn’t look particularly professional, but I don’t want to spend a whole lot of time on that. Like I said, I think the underlying claims are very interesting. So the first one I want to talk about is here in paragraph number eight, they start talking about dominion and it says the design and features of the dominion software do not permit a simple audit to reveal its misallocation redistribution or deletion of votes. First, the system central accumulator does not include a protected real-time audit log that maintains the date and time of all significant election events. So there’s no, there’s no protected real time audit log. That’s a, that’s kind of astounding to me. Key components of the system utilize unprotected logs. Essentially this allows an unauthorized user, the opportunity to arbitrarily add, modify, or remove log entries causing the machine to log election events that do not reflect actual voting tabulations or more specifically do not reflect the actual votes or the will of the people, which is a new a new-ish claim. You know, a lot of this is a little bit different. We’ve heard from a number of people that these types of, uh, software systems are right for hacking, but people just said, well, just go check the logs. But now with Sidney Powell is doing, is she’s making the claim that listen, dominion and smart MADEC and all of these different backbone, software structures, they’re literally built to cover their tracks. So this response from the other side that you just go, just go check the logs, just go do an audit, just do a recount, just do any of those things. It’s no problem. She’s saying she’s making an entirely different argument. The entire backbone is literally, we’re really built to hide this information from you.

It’s designed to do that so that it can not be found. And so just referring back to the surface level user manual that says, Oh, we have a log. Oh, well, yeah. We just keep track of everything. Just do a, just do a quick recount, just press the button. And the spreadsheet will spit out the answer. And you can trust that. She’s saying you can’t do that because the entire infrastructure is not credible. That complaint goes on. And she says, here in paragraph 18, she’s expanding on this underlying problem with dominion. And she’s got these two, uh, two people that she refers to. And so let’s read this because this is interesting. So she says here in deciding to award dominion, a $25 million, 10 million or 10 year contract, and she goes through a, you know, the software was implemented in Michigan, even though it was rejected in Texas. She says an industry expert, Dr. Andrew Apple, which is interesting, a Princeton professor. So listen to this credential, to this guy, uh, PR uh, Princeton professor of computer science and an election security expert he’s recently observed specifically regarding these dominion voting machines quote, I figured out how to make a slightly different computer program that just before the polls were closed, it switches some votes from switch, some votes around, from one candidate to another. I wrote that computer program into a memory chip, and now to hack a voting machine, you just need seven minutes alone with it and to scrutiny.

Hmm. Okay. Okay.

And then in the next paragraph plaintiff’s expert witness Russel James Ramblin has concluded that dominion alone is responsible for the injection or fabrication of 289,866 illegal votes in Michigan. They must be disregarded. This is almost twice the number of mr. Biden’s purported lead. And therefore it is grounds to flip the election. Right.

And so the question, as I asked, is it baseless? Okay, we have, we have two different people who are pretty credible. We’re going to get to their affidavits in a minute. Is it baseless, but does it meet that burden? Does it jump over that burden? If you just relied on this evidence alone, you might say, okay, sounds far out there. It’s interesting that this guy, Andrew Appel, the Princeton professor of computer science, it’s interesting that he could do it, but did he do it?

Or what is the evidence that this was done? And so just on those basis alone, I don’t think that there’s enough from those statements, but there are more statements and what she’s doing again, and she’s laying down the foundation for it. All right. And then we move on and she’s really detailing what these expert witnesses are going to be talking about. As this lawsuit continues forward. She says, in addition to the above fact witnesses, we also have these expert witnesses that demonstrate that several hundred thousand illegal ineligible duplicate or purely fictitious votes must be thrown out. So she references this gentleman by the name of Russell Ramblin jr says there’s a physical impossibility of nearly 385,000 votes being injected by four precincts on November 4th, that resulted in the counting of nearly 290,000 more ballots process, then available capacity. So in other words, the machines couldn’t even accept the ballots fast enough.

They’re saying those votes came from somewhere, but the machines physically could not have taken them because it’s outside of their specifications. Number two, there’s another report from a gentleman by the name of dr. William Briggs, showing that there were approximately 60,000 absentee ballots listed as unreturned by voters that either never requested them or that requested and return their ballots. Number three, there’s a report from another doctor named Eric quenelle that analyzes anomalous turnout figures in Wayne and Oakland County showing the Biden gain nearly 100% and frequently more than 100% of all new voters in shurtain certain townships and precincts over 20 2016 and believes that 87,000 anomalous and likely fraudulent votes from these precincts.

So baseless, I think there’s at least a basis for it, but does it get you over that hurdle? That 51%, I don’t know we’re getting closer now or getting close because now we have some specific numbers. We have some very credible witnesses. We have some doctors involved and at least maybe the opportunity to make their claim is warranted. They’ve got some pretty good numbers here, but is it over that? Is it more likely than not that this is the result of fraud? I think we’re getting a lot closer. All right, let’s move on. We have another very interesting witness and another interesting affidavit. And this guy, we don’t know his name, but here is what he says. He says, as explained and demonstrated in the accompanying redacted declaration of a former electronic. So this is not from him. This is still Sidney Powell. Speaking of a formal former electronic intelligence analyst under the 305th military intelligence with experience gathering Sam missile system, electronic intelligence, the dominion software was accessed by agents act.

This is big, was accessed by agents acting on behalf of China and Iran in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent us general election in 2020, the declaration further includes a copy of the patent records for dominion systems in which Eric Coomer is listed as the first of the inventors of dominion systems of dominion systems. So we’re going to look at his affidavit here in a quick minute, but let’s finish with this fellow. He goes by the name of expert Naveed Kesha, Rob Avaaz Nia. And he explains that the U S intelligence services had developed tools to infiltrate foreign voting systems, including dominion. He States that dominion software is vulnerable to data manipulation by unauthorized means and permitted election data to be altered in all battleground streets States. He concludes that hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for president Trump were transferred to former vice president Biden, and he’s got an exhibit.

And so once again, these are just kind of small, you know, little paragraphs in a big, a hundred and something page lawsuit, but what are the, what are the affidavit say? What are the declarations saying? Well, we have a lot of them. This is something that you can find over on court, listener.com. This is a list of all of the different exhibits. So you can see here one through 19 are all on here. And I want to go through some of the more pertinent ones. So as we have seen, this is the very first exhibit. This was something that we had already spoken about. This was the affidavit that has been floating around the internet for some time. This is the gentleman who says that they, he was literally in the room while this election fraud was occurring in Venezuela. So that is the whistleblower.

This is the one who she’s been really championing for a long time, and we don’t know who it is. And we haven’t seen any additional claims from this individual that we know of. Now it goes on. So the second exhibit, you’re going to see that there, there are different, uh, uh, what is it? This is an article. It says, ballot marking devices can not assure the will of the voters. And this is not an affidavit. This is not evidence from a new witness, but it is an exhibit that they want to use to make a point. So here they’re saying the complexity of us elections usually requires computers to count ballots, but computers can be hacked. So election integrity requires a voting system, which paper ballots can be recounted by hand. However, paper ballots provide no assurance unless they’re accurate accurately record the vote as the voter expresses it.

And so what she’s doing is she’s attaching this document to make her claims, to bolster her claims. And it’s the second exhibit, but the juicy stuff comes when we get to the next slide, which is going to be exhibit one, zero five. So remember we had already spoken about this military intelligence officer, not the individual who was over in Venezuela when all of that fraud was occurring. This is the other gentleman who we just read from. And so I want to show you what his exhibit it looks like. Cause it’s pretty in-depth. He says I’m over 21. I was an electronic, this is him speaking. Now I wasn’t electronic analyst under the three Oh five military intelligence with experience gathering Sam missile system, electronic intelligence. I have extensive experience as a white hat hacker used by some of the top election specialists in the world.

These methodologies, I have employed represent industry standard, cyber operation toolkits for digital forensics and O S I N T, which are commonly used to certify connections between servers, network, nodes, and other digital properties and probe to network system vulnerabilities. Uh, that’s a lot there, right? I think I understand what that means, but that’s a lot. He says, I’m a citizen. I live in the U S whereas dominion and Edison research systems exist in the internet of things. The internet of things is this idea that everything’s connected to the internet. This is your, uh, you know, your smartwatch and your, your, uh, smart lights and your smart refrigerator and all the smart things in your house. They’re all connected to the internet. And whereas this makes the network connections between the dominion Edison research and related network nodes available for scanning. So even they are connected to the internet.

He says, whereas Edison research, his primary job is to report the tabulation count as received to provide a for decision HQ. And so on spider foot and robe texts are industry standard, digital forensic tools. And what he’s doing is he’s laying out the different tools that he’s going to be using in the rest of his affidavit. And he goes on and he says, uh, these tools were used to conduct public security scans of so on and so forth. Then, then in the rest of his affidavit, take a look at this slide. You can see here, he does a lot of data on this, and I’m going to open these up here in a minute, but I just wanted to show you sort of, this is what, this is what the entire document looks like. And on slide on the second page of his affidavit, he recreated this little network map, mind map, looking thing, same with paragraph three.

And he just goes on and he’s really doing these like trace routes. And he’s looking at servers and name servers and just connecting the dots in very, very technical jargon. That I’ll be honest. I I’m a pretty techie guy. I know a lot of this stuff inside and out. I’ve done a lot of work, uh, in terms of the technology style side of stuff, uh, you know, on our website and, you know, WordPress and some minor programming, some basic stuff, but this is is way over my head. This is something that this guy who has all of this experience with cyber operation toolkits, digital forensics, somebody who’s in to let you know military intelligence and so on. Yeah, this is his language. This is not my language. And this is where we start to see some of the evidence, right? This is persuasive, it’s compelling.

It shows a connection of the dots. And previously we were looking at, okay, so the software was being manipulated. Okay, Sydney, whatever you say, Sydney just keeps saying it. Sure. Dominion hack the software. Well, this guy comes in and he says, yeah, this is exactly how they did it. Uh, this website went to this website. I went to this website and, uh, the, this software flip here and did all this stuff and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so on, there you go. The election was hacked. So for many of us who were sitting here wondering, going, okay, it sounds really bad, but how the heck does that happen? How can software that has been vetted by some of the highest, highest level people in our state governments? How can it’d be so Holy, how can it be prone to being hacked? Well, this guy just comes out, types up 17 pages of documents and says, Oh yeah, I mean, I got all this back pretty easy. Here’s how it works. Pretty transparent.

So now when you look at that baseless, pretty good basis here, there’s 17 pages of it. Anybody in the media is willing to look at it and go read through those documents. And does this meet if all of this evidence was true, let’s say it, it was true. We’re looking at it in the light. Most favorable to this person is at 51, 1% more likely than not that this is election fraud. I think. Yeah. If you give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure. So at least the claim needs to make itself into court so that it can be argued, right? She’s saying I’ve got enough here to move this thing forward. I can show 51% more likely than not. I’ve got this document doctor. I’ve got all of this evidence, let us into court. The other side, they can come back and respond and they can show no, it’s not. They can, they can explain this away. They can cross examine this witness. They can present their own evidence. They can have their opening and closing arguments and they can have their day in court. That’s what the process is for now. We’re getting closer and closer and closer. I think we’re there with this, with this affidavit that this is enough to at least argue about a lot of the other stuff was kind of speculative. Okay. So something happened in Venezuela. Okay. You think a bunch of votes changed, but now we have some, some pretty technical stuff that seems to me in my mind to be connecting the dots. All right. Let’s move on. Let’s take a look at some other affidavits here. So this comes from, uh, I think this was the, this was the final page of the, uh, the military guy who we were just speaking about.

He says, in my professional opinion, the affidavit presents unambiguous this affidavit. It’s 17 pages on ambiguous evidence that dominion voter systems, Edison research, they have been accessible. And they were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China by using servers and employees connected to rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable, leaked credentials. These organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020. Right? So there’s a definitive statement that this person thinks that this happened in this election, not in Venezuela, not, not for Hugo Chavez here. Now, today, this represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cybersecurity is not a technical logical issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue. If it’s not corrected future elections in the U S will not be secure.

Citizens will not have confidence in the results. Yeah, exactly. Right. That’s exactly the point that we’ve been making here. Check it, just check it. If everything was kosher and buy the books. Great. We checked it. Now we know, but he’s saying that they’re not, and he’s got a lot of credentials that I don’t have that you don’t have that anybody in the Washington post and New York times CNN, they don’t have those credentials. He does. What about this other fellow? This other guy has got some pretty good credentials as well. His name is [inaudible] Nia. And we have another declaration here from him that says I am 59 years old. And I’ve been a resident of California. I previously resided in DC. I’m going to come forth and testify if you want. And here’s his credentials. I have a bachelor’s degree in electrical, computer engineering, master’s degree in electronics and computer engineering from George Mason university.

He’s got a PhD in management of engineering and technology from Cal Southern. He’s got a doctoral degree in education from George Washington university. And he’s also got advanced training from the defense intelligence agency, the central intelligence agency, the national security agency, the department of Homeland security office of intelligence and analysis and the Massachusetts Institute of technology. So I don’t know that you could find anybody with better credentials than that. He says, I’m employed right now by a large defense contractor as chief cyber security engineer and a subject matter expert in cybersecurity during my career, I’ve conducted security assessment, data analysis, counter-intelligence forensic investigations on hundreds of systems. My experience spans 35 years of performing technical assessment, mathematical modeling, cyber attack, pattern analysis, security counter-intelligence leak linked to I F I S operators don’t even know what that is, including China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, I’ve worked as a consultant subject matter expert for the department of the defense FBI, U S intelligence community agencies, such as the DIA, C I a N S a N G a D H S, ina and supporting counter-intelligence and supporting law enforcement investigations.

Okay. If at this guy has a problem with our elections, should we probably listen to him? I would. I would think maybe. So. Here’s what he says. Again, another really big affidavit, another big complaint. I’m going to open some of these up so you can see them, but this is what, this is the conclusion. This is his final conclusion here. He says, I conclude that a combination of lost cryptographic keys containing a stolen USB memory card, serious exploitable system, and software vulnerabilities and operating system backdoor in DVS Skydrol SOE, software, clarity and smart. MADEC created the perfect environment to commit widespread fraud in all States where these systems are installed. My analysis of the 20 election of New York times data shows statistical anomalies across battleground state votes. These failures are widespread and systemic and sufficient to invalidate vote counts. I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground States resulting in hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for president Trump to be transferred to vice president Biden. These alterations were the result once again of systemic. And so on. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming. And in controvertible pursuant to U S code, I declare under penalty of perjury and the laws of the United States. The foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge signed, right? They’re executed on November 25th.

So, you know, once again, pretty, pretty cool pulling evidence. And when we ask ourselves those two questions, is this something that is baseless? Is this something that meets the burden of proof meets that standard? Well, you have to be the judge of it. Let’s take a look over here at some of the other affidavit. So you can see this. If you go to court listener.com, you can take a look at some of these other affidavits. Some of them are interesting. Some of them are pretty compelling, some not so compelling. Let’s take a look at attachment number two. So that was the one I had already mentioned.

That was the, uh, that was the abstract. We have exhibit number three, which is sort of this handwritten document. It says, uh, Alexandria Seeley, kind of a, kind of an interesting document. If it’s, if it’s all handwritten a number of them, we have Abby Holman being, uh, being sworn. I’m personally familiar with the facts and you can see here there’s hundreds, or at least dozens sort of handwritten and other affidavits. This is just one exhibit. Okay. So we can see affidavit of Anna Pinot Pinilla throughout the day. I witnessed the pattern of chaos, intimidation, secrecy, hostility. So she would come in and testify affidavit of Patricia Bomer, same deal. I witnessed election workers, open ballots with Donald Trump and respond by rolling their eyes and showing it to other poll workers. I believe some of these ballots may not have been properly counted. I observed ballots with cursive writing notes at the top right-hand corner. I have, uh, approximately 500 ballots with this writing. They did not have ballot codes on them. I returned to the DCF center. I was not allowed in, there were no bag checks for taking or bringing ballots in and just goes on and on. I’m just scrolling, just scrolling here. If you’re listening on the audio only, I’m literally just scrolling and scrolling and scrolling.

And the little, uh, the little bar on the side is hardly even moving. Uh, we got Cynthia brew. Now we have, uh, to my surprise, all of the 200 8,268 ballots reviewed by the workers table were electronically processed and only forward rejected based on the erection election irregularities. I had expected more and it just goes on, right? So these are people who are not expert witnesses, who are people who are just voting. And this is, this is dozens. If not, if not hundreds of different affidavits. And now I’m actually grabbing the sidebar and just scrolling and scrolling and scrolling. Let’s see if we can see at 234 pages of this stuff, affidavit of Elisa valdan. I attended, I D credentialed myself at 7:00 PM. I was allowed into the vote counting room I observed and so on. Uh, I was intimidated by election workers and democratic challengers who upon finding out my political affiliation, uh, that I was not allowed in the vote count room. Let’s go over to another exhibit. Let’s take a look at exhibit six. What’s this all right, more affidavits. This one is from somebody named Jessica Connor Iran. And so you can just see here, right?

Entered, received date as 11 to 2020 on 11 four, 2020. So somebody’s backdating ballots here. You know, it just keeps going on and on and on. So there is literally hundreds of pages of material here that you could go through and you could analyze, but the two main questions are, is this baseless? I think absolutely not. There’s plenty of base. I think there’s been a lot of basis for this in a long time, even though most people don’t want to acknowledge that, but there’s plenty of basis. And number two, I think that with this evidence, there’s enough here to make a claim in court. It’s enough to get it into court. And we’re going to see that I think moving forward, I think that these need to be taken incredibly seriously. And, um, there’s a lot of evidence on a lot. So let’s take a look at some of the live chats.

Let’s turn on the chat box and see how everybody is doing on this lovely Friday. And we had some super chats coming in from miss faith. So let me get those first. It was a lot of them. Okay. And let’s take a look at what we have here. So she says, are there any mechanics that allow changing outcome of election after the eighth? I think it’s the 8th of December. Do courts have the power to change the election results? So this is a really good question. And last week we spent some time or on Wednesday, we spent some time talking through the different stages of the electoral process. And so there is a, there is a lot that, that I think courts can do. Some of those we’ve already seen from Sidney Powell, she’s requesting relief to de-certify the election or in, in lieu of de certifying it to just not send the certification from the, uh, from the, from the state secretary of state or secretary of elections or whatever it is from that state into Congress to be counted.

So, you know, decertify it or just don’t send them. So there are a lot of different things that these courts can do. Sidney Powell is asking the, the court in Georgia, the district, the federal district court in Georgia to not send the stuff over there. And remember if they do not send those votes over and there’s no, once they count the votes in January in the house of representatives and there’s now no majority. In other words, if Joe Biden doesn’t get George’s votes or Michigan’s votes, then he may, he may fall under the threshold of 270 electoral votes. And then that’s what triggers a contingent election, which will leave it up to the house of representatives. So that’s one way that a court could impact the final ruling just by preventing the state from sending the certification results over. It’s a good question. All right.

We have another one over here. This one comes from, let’s see here, we have Becky Faye who says, do you think if we get more legislative hearings like Gettysburg one is set for Arizona Monday. I think I learned here. Does Trump have a chance? You know, it’s a, it’s a good question. And I will tell you this. I think that the hearing that we saw in Pennsylvania was actually highly effective. I think it was very interesting, uh, in terms of persuasion. I think that if Donald Trump and his team, if they flip one state, if they get one of these state legislatures, not every one of them, but at least one to fall to flip, then you’re going to see this sort of domino effect going on, right? One state says, no, we look we’ve reviewed it. And we decided that this was not a lawful election.

This was illegitimate. We think that there’s fraud and we’re not going to certify the election. My understanding was is that one of the senators in Pennsylvania is introducing a joint resolution to take back the authority from the state secretary of state to nominate the electors. They’re going to take it back into the legislature. I don’t know why they delegated that in the first place. Why did they give that over to them? Right? The constitution says the legislature handles this stuff. So why are a lot of these legislatures, uh, sending that stuff over to other different agencies? Why not take it back? And then they can rule on it? Well, I think that’s what I think that’s what many of them are going to do. And the campaign that press conference that hearing I thought was effective. They actually presented evidence. A lot of the witnesses were very credible people that I saw.

I said, Oh, that guy sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. Doesn’t they, nobody came off as, uh, you know, sycophantic Trump lunatics. These were pretty reasonable people who said, listen, I’m a, I’m a lawyer. I practice here. I was down there at the tabulation center. Didn’t look so good to me. Here’s my testimony that is effective. It’s different than, uh, a bunch of documents being filed. And so I think the more they do that, the more beneficial it will be for them. All right. Another one comes in from, we have from Liberty or death, when they entered into that settlement, they violated article four in section two, section one, clause two. Yeah. So, so I’ll take your word for it on the, on the sections and the articles. But that sounds about right. And I totally agree with you. I think that a lot of these settlements and a lot of these final orders from the different judges, the different courts were in total violation of the constitution, regardless of what you think of Trump or Biden or any of these people.

When you have one branch of government exceeding their constitutional authority and acting on behalf of another branch of government that is not allowed, you cannot do that. The entire purpose of having the three co-equal branches is a separation of powers. It’s in the Federalist papers, it’s in the constitution for a reason. The other thing is that you have checks and balances. One branch of government is supposed to check the other branch and say, no, no, no, you don’t get to come over here and take that from me. That’s my power. So that’s my point. Why the legislature give this stuff up in the first place? I don’t know, but they did. And now this settlement, you know, these settlements agreements and all of these different modifications of the rules are going to come back to bite a lot of people in the butt, because you just can’t start moving things around because it’s convenient for you.

And I think, I think largely what they’re going to try to try to say, is that okay? We shouldn’t have moved that. So the secretary of state of Georgia says, okay, yeah. You know, okay. Technically, yeah, that was a, uh, you’re right. That’s a legislative duty. We should not have encroached on that. The settlement agreement was unlawful and illegal. However, it resulted in a hundred thousand extra votes. And so mr. Court, mr. Judge, mrs. Judge, you can’t throw out a hundred thousand votes. So therefore, why don’t we just kind of gloss over this problem and we’ll save it for the next election. I think that’s what the strategy has been largely. That’s why they’re moving so quickly to get these things certified. Do the recount. Yep. Well, sure. We’ll recount, recount, everything it’s recounted done. Close. Okay. Certified done. We’re done talking about it. Not so fast.

There’s more, I think, to be discovered as we’re finding out right now, we also have another one coming over from JB. 77 says Sydney has something very, has something on very powerful people, powerful people, never go to jail. They make deals. This is what Cindy does. This is why Sydney does not play her best cards. That’s from JBB seven, seven, seven. It looks like we got a Euro over there. Thank you, JB. I appreciate that. I think it’s a good point. I think you’re right. You know, sit a lot of the claims, a lot of the arguments that Sidney Powell needs to just put up or shut up. We never really took that side on this channel. Uh, Tucker Carlson, who was angry at her, a lot of people are angry at her. We said, listen, Hey guys. As I said here, you know, a DUI case in Arizona, it can take six months, a serious criminal charge.

It can take two years to resolve and that’s on a small, low level case. But when you’re talking about, I don’t know, national election fraud in multiple different States, implicating some of the biggest people in power, some of the biggest, you know, mega power structures with elected officials all over the country. Maybe we can give her a little bit of time. There’s no, there’s no clock ticket. It is taken, but it’s, it’s, it’s, you know, it’s still a ways away. We got plenty of time until December 14th, December 8th, January six. So they’re making their claims and we saw it. We saw, uh, and, and by the way, too, we were holding them to their own standards. Remember not Tucker Carlson standards, not anyone else’s standards. Everybody wanted the, all of this information immediately. Well, we don’t really care what you want. It’s she’s the lawyer. She’s got the evidence, she’s got the claims.

She can file the lawsuit whenever she wants, as long as it’s timely and it’s appropriate. And she did. And so we’re dealing with it. Uh, Joshua Leonard is here, says, did you see the new anomaly that popped up in Clark County, Nevada incomplete voter registration went from 68 instances in 2016 to 13,372 instances in 2020. Everything about this election just feels wrong and corrupt. And yeah, I did see that. I think I might have even bookmark to that. Let’s take a look and see if I did, because it was an interesting little chart and it looks like I did. Let’s pull that up quickly. So this is the chart that I think, uh, mr. Leonard is talking about number of 2020 voters in Nevada C3 whose voter registration lists, invalid birth dates and unknown sexier. So people filing registrations with no birthday and no, uh, sex. Well, in 2019, it was only 373, but in 2020, that’s interesting 13,000 of those 74% of those registrations took place between July and September. So a very, very anomalous. Okay.

Why is that good

Question? We don’t know, but they’re certainly taking a look at that. Good question. Thank you, Joshua. We have another one coming in from this is from, uh, mr. Mr. T Ferguson, who says one of the most frustrating things with the media coverage is they have no idea. Ignore that Civ pro generally requires facts most favorable to the plaintiff in determining a motion to dismiss I E baseless, especially for it before discovery. That’s exactly. That’s exactly right. Uh, is this a, is this another lawyer T Ferguson? Uh, exactly. Right, right. And you, you want to look at it most favorable to the side who is making the claim. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s been my argument here on this channel the whole time, rather than just dismissing it because you think it’s stupid. Let’s say, okay, well, what if it were true? Because don’t, we as Americans have a shared interest in that. What if all of these, even if you are a Democrat, you’re a Joe Biden person and you think this is all a bunch of hogwash, even if you are in that position, doesn’t it serve you to, just to just know, and that just jumped double-check right. Don’t you think that maybe government could screw something like this up? Is it possible? Is it even just a tiny bit? Could it, could it have happened? Shouldn’t we just double-check as All-Americans just to make sure that China and Iran aren’t hacking our election, that some dictator in Venezuela is not, you know, laughing from his palace while we’re all voting on his rig machines. Don’t we just want to take a double check on that. I mean, I think it’s okay. I don’t think it’s too much to ask and when we’re analyzing it, let’s look at it in a light, most favorable to the people who are moving to make the claim. Let’s analyze it accordingly.

That way they feel like they got a fair shake. All right. Thank you for that. Good question. We have another one from Bethany Lawson with a nice little emoji there. Thanks, Bethany. Appreciate you being here and appreciate your support. We have another one that just came in from, it looks like this is from a LaVoy date, poor TC. And that says, thank you for your work with a nice, uh, super chat there. Thank you so much for being here. We have another one that came in from this is from a disenchanted truth. Someone pointed out on discord that some affidavits aren’t notarized, this is an issue. Is this an issue? Yeah, and actually I was talking to ma about this, who is our moderator. We were having a little bit of back and forth before the show started. And here’s, here’s my take on that.

So there’s, there’s a distinction between an affidavit and a declaration and an affidavit is something that is notarized in front of a court or in front of a notary. And so in my, in my mind, it carries a little bit more weight to it because it requires an extra step. A declaration is not so much the same thing. A declaration is just a, you sign it, you declare under penalty of perjury. So both of them are statements that are, uh, sworn under penalty of perjury. So they both carry some, some, you know, some, some weight to them. Some people might say that an affidavit has a little bit more weight to it. Uh, but, but I don’t, I don’t really kind of view it in that, in those terms, here’s the, that I was describing it to ma and in a way, I think that is most helpful. This type of, of doc, these types of documents are just, just kind of getting your foot in the door. You know, they’re not going to go in to court and just plop down a bunch of affidavits or declarations and say, here you go rule on that. This is it right.

It’s just sort of an admission ticket to get them into court. Then we’re going to have some additional hearings, some evidentiary hearings, or maybe even a full-blown trial under the allegations. And at that point in time, that’s when you would call those different people into court. So you would, you’d bring them in and you would say, ah, okay, you wrote down in this affidavit, X, Y, and Z. I’m going to ask you some questions about it. Sidney Powell could bring in the doctor who said that, uh, you know, all this voting stuff was happening by these massive spy networks. Okay. Bring him in, get to ask him questions, uh, seal the courtroom, because he’s a top secret person, whatever that is.

And the other, the opposing side, the government in this case would get to cross examine that individual. So they would get to say, well, isn’t it true that, uh, you didn’t really go to MIT. Isn’t it really true that so-and-so’s this and the data that you were using is bad because of X, Y, and Z. And they can bring their own expert witnesses to contradict everything that he said. And then Sidney Powell can cross-examine that expert witness. So we call it the battle of the dueling experts. You can have multiple well experts come into court and hash it out. But the affidavits, the declarations, it’s just enough to get you in the door. It’s just enough to say, look, judge, I’m making all of these claims and I meet them because there’s 50 people here who are going to come in and testify accordingly. So, you know, if you’re going to be asking yourself, is there any smoke here? Remember what happened with Giuliani over in the third circuit and his team, uh, the court looked at all the evidence and they looked at, I wouldn’t say they looked at any evidence. They looked at some of the allegations in the original complaint and then said, Oh, there’s not enough here. I think there was an erroneous decision. They’re going to be appealing that to the Supreme court. We’ll see what they have to say about it.

Largely they haven’t, they haven’t met that. They haven’t sort of, and over the hump, they haven’t gotten their day in court because a lot of these complaints have been dismissed prematurely. And so now what’s in these doing is saying, we’ve got all these claims. They’re very specific. They’re supported by a number of witnesses. These are the people that we intend to call. And so, you know, is the distinction between an affidavit and a note and a declaration, I think are they’re interesting, but I don’t think it’s particularly relevant. It’s just showing her cards. In other words to say, look, this is what I got. This is what I’m coming in with. Uh, here’s my claim. Let me let, let’s get over this current hurdle, this procedural hurdle, and let’s set it for something else and evidentiary hearing or a trial or open up discovery, or, you know, start, start having oral arguments on certain motions here and there.

So, um, it it’s an interesting distinction, but I don’t think it’s particularly a dispositive. I don’t think it’s going to matter too much. All right. We have no questions today. I love your analysis that comes from Sharon, Annie. Good to have you Sherry, uh, Sharon. And once again, there’s your little . You thank you so much for being here and for the support, we have another one that came in from one 80 UK music, the spacing issues, and some spelling as a result of converting a document PDF, depending on, uh, how it’s converted. It can do weird, weird things. Yeah, I know. I know. I know. I know exactly what happened. I mean, she, the complaint is very, very similar to another, to the, to the, um, Georgia complaint. They’re very similar. I’m sure she’s copy and pasting. And you know, I just would’ve preferred. I w I would have preferred that she take that argument away because that’s what everybody’s talking about. That it’s all, not, not everybody. We’re not talking about it, even though we did a little bit, but a lot of people on the other side of the aisle, on the, on the commentary at, from the other side, they’re saying things like, well, it’s all sloppy. It’s just par for the course, they’re idiots over there at the Trump campaign.

It’s not really, it’s not really that, that, it’s just that it’s poor formatting. And it’s a little bit unprofessional, especially in something that is as important as this type of a complaint. But I don’t know that that’s gonna ultimately deviate it from its goal, but it is a good question and a good point. And I think there are bigger. I mean, the, like they, they made this, they made this claim. In what case?

I think it was the Wisconsin case. Well, there’s another, there was another complaint might’ve been over in the third circuit in Pennsylvania where they’re saying, listen, we know that there are some procedural problems with this. I know what it was. It was when Rudy Giuliani was trying to get admitted over into the third circuit. He had somebody who was admitted into the third circuit, write him a letter and say, let’s let him in and argue the motion. He couldn’t technically get admitted, even though he’s admitted in the second circuit because of COVID problems, let him in. And, uh, let’s hear the case on the merits. So even though it’s technically kind of an issue, let’s let him in because we want to have this litigated. We want to hear what the rules are, what the ruling is, what the outcome is, because if you just dismiss it and we don’t get to actually hear the underlying argument, a lot of people are going to feel like they weren’t heard. And that is a problem. All right, we have some others coming in. We’ve got one from, we got one from Adam asks. He says, I hope you and the viewers had a great Thanksgiving. I did Adam. I had a very nice Thanksgiving, very small, very low key. Spend it with my family. Had some Turkey, had some, uh, candied yams. Pretty good. I hope yours was good. Also. Thanks for being here and being part of the show today, we have Lindsay, you says, do you think they should admit the 47 USB missing, Uh, of 15 TA

Each, they denied mail-in ballots both in Pennsylvania. Do you think they should omit the 47 USB missing a 50 T H E S. So, so maybe that’s 50 votes each. They denied mail-in ballots both in Pennsylvania. You know, it’s a good question. And on those types of, uh, on those types of issues, I think this is where it comes into evidence, right? This, this is where these evidentiary hearings are important. And I would like to hear from both sides, because right now, for some bizarre reason, we’re hearing a lot of these claims 47 missing USB drives, uh, you know, all of these irregularities going on, but, but, and people are keeping track of them. And there’s a lot of them, a lot of claims and a lot of websites are springing up to track all of these fraudulent claims, but we haven’t seen anybody really pushing back or making a massive database on, on a response to that. So what’s the response to these 47 missing USBs. What really happened there? I’d like to know what that was and, and, and the best way to hash out the details on specific instances is to go into court and present some evidence and hear it out. I’m open for that. And I think that I’m hopeful that we actually get some court proceedings, because what we saw in Pennsylvania with that legislative hearing was almost like a trial almost, but it was also almost like a Trump rally.

You know, it was, it was very one-sided. We would like to see this in court. And we would like to see how the government explains a lot of these anomalies. But so far, we haven’t seen anything from the government addressing these. Okay. Do they have a response to this chart that we just showed you in Nevada, where it’s literally 13,000, this year, 13,000 more than last year, last year was only 370. This year is 13,370. So how does that happen? Is there an explanation for it? Maybe there is maybe they just had a massive voter drive and they got all these people who don’t have a sex and they don’t have a birthday that they know. Maybe that’s what it was. I don’t know. I doubt it, but do they have a good explanation? I’d be curious to see what they have to say. All right.

We have another one from miss. Awesome says any news on the Hunter Biden on the Hunter Biden laptop and the evidence of Biden’s pay to a pay to play scheme. What happens if it finds crimes were committed and he is president? So it’s a good question, miss. Awesome. I haven’t been following that story too much because we’ve just been buried in the election lawsuits, but it is something that I think is relevant. Now, if Hunter Biden is charged with a crime and Joe Biden is a president, I’m not sure that that has anything to do with Joe Biden. So I think Joe Biden still is the president, and that’s all said and done, and it’s it’s between Hunter and whatever that country is, or the United States, if he gets prosecuted, which I don’t think will happen if Joe Biden is ultimately the president. So if Joe Biden wins, then I think that whole thing just gets thrown under the radar.

All right. We have another one coming in from hidden profit. Hey, RNR, if by some way, Trump wins in court. Do you think people would be arrested and prosecuted on this also awesome channel, keep up the great job. Thanks. Hidden profit. I appreciate that. So, um, you know, it’s, it’s a good question. I think that if they can prove, so, so let’s, let’s, let’s go back to what the legal rules are in a civil case. It’s preponderance of the evidence. If it’s more likely than not that a crime was committed or that there was fraud, or that you were at fault for the car accident or that you breach the contract, it’s a much lower standard. Now the criminal charges are a much higher standard beyond a reasonable doubt is the name of that standard. So if there’s evidence that comes out that shows that somebody was responsible for this beyond a reasonable doubt, then certainly I would, I would imagine that they would be prosecuted, but I’m not sure if they’re gonna be able to do that.

I’m not sure if they’re gonna be able to connect the dots in a way that’s going to implicate implicate one particular person or a group of individuals responsible for this massive conspiracy. If they do, if they’re, if, if they’ve, you know, truthfully been sort of infiltrating these groups and they have details about how this whole thing was orchestrated than you would imagine, they could put together a pretty compelling case and prosecute somebody. But if, um, Donald Trump doesn’t win and the DOJ changes hands, then I don’t think that that is going to be forthcoming, but it’s a good, good question. All right. We have the wandering Mariners has everyone needs to like 6,000 people watching and only 900, like America needs to see more. Well, thank you very much. The wandering Marriner. I’d appreciate that. I think he’s right. If you do like the channel hit that like button, because, uh, we would love that, you know, it does help us sort of spread the word.

And if you could also share it, send it to a friend, send it to some family and say, Hey, we’re having some good, good, nice clean, wholesome dinner table discussions on this channel. Come check us out. And so thank you that for the plug, thank you for the plug on that. The wandering Mariner. All right. We have another one from SHA SHA hin, uh, who says, thank you for your amazing service. What do you think of the district court rejecting Trump team’s claims of fraud having no merit? So I think so if, if I’m referencing the same case that, that you’re talking about here, which is the case that was in the district court for the third circuit, which is over in Pennsylvania, I’m not really sure that they heard the case on the merits. I think that they were just looking at the complaints.

They gave them some leave to file a second amended complaint, but then they were, they were supposed to have an evidentiary hearing. The judge vacated the evidentiary hearing, then rejected the underlying complaint, saying that there wasn’t enough there to even substantiate the underlying claim that it didn’t justify an evidentiary hearing and it was dismissed with prejudice. So I don’t think that there was anything that was heard on the merit. The judges read the original complaint. Didn’t like it, and just said on that basis, we’re going to, we’re going to dump it. Now they appealed that to the third circuit, which my understanding is I think I saw a headline that they also rejected it. And they’re going to be appealing that according to Jenna Ellis, up to the U S Supreme court. So we’ll see what they have to say. And, um, you know, I, I I’m in the camp that we should hear the claims we should hear, what are they saying?

What what’s the evidence let’s, let’s get the evidence in court. So a lot of these courts that are just kind of doing their best to keep this stuff outside of their courtrooms, I don’t think it’s doing anybody a service. All right. Another one comes in from Liberty or death. The media and political elite is full of lawyers that were absent the day they taught law in law school, enjoy listening while prepping for finals. Thanks, Liberty or death. You know, I would, I would agree largely with that. There are, there are some conservative attorneys out there. There are some people who like to analyze things, I would say from a more, uh, freedom oriented perspective. But a lot of the lawyers out there are very, very liberal, just very liberal. I noticed this in law school, I noticed this in practice. I’ve had a lot of friends, quote, friends and colleagues reach out to me and have issues with this channel specifically.

And not like what we’re talking about here, but that’s okay. They don’t have to watch, they can watch a different channel. They can turn on any other mainstream news media site and find some lawyer on there. Who’s going to tell them exactly what they want to hear and what makes them feel good. And that’s not what we do on this channel. We like to just analyze the, the primary sources, make some arguments for and against and let the chips fall where they may. So, uh, we’ll see. And, uh, and, and to be fair, I have also had some people who are conservative lawyers reach out to me and say, dude, I don’t know, uh, how you have the stones to go out there and say what you say, but keep doing it. So, you know, I, I am getting some positive feedback from some of the, I would say the, uh, the shy, conservative lawyers.

There’s not many of them, but there are a few of them, you know who you are, you know who I’m talking about. All right. We also have another one comes from Robert. Gansky a big, super chat. He says, what, what can Trump supporters do to effectively help keep the momentum going? What meaningful measures? So it’s a great question, Robert, and, you know, I try not to be too much of a brigader, too much of somebody who tells you what to do, but I will. I will tell you this, uh, the Trump team, what they’re doing is they’re really trying to focus on local. They want the state legislatures to get more involved in fighting for the cause, or at least investigating the underlying allegations. So right now a lot of the courts are just not, are not assisting them. Uh, a lot of the claims have been dismissed and they’re not being heard on the merits as we saw in the third circuit over in Pennsylvania.

But now what Trump is doing is my understanding is he’s coming to Arizona. He’s going to have a hearing in front of the legislature. He’s going to different States and he’s going to recreate what they were doing in Pennsylvania. And I think that would be persuasive. If, if you know, you are dealing locally and you want to help the Trump team, I think the best way to do that is call your local representatives, call the Republican legislature, legislators in your legislature and tell them, tell them what you want to hear. Tell them, listen, I’ve looked at the numbers, I’ve done Benford’s analysis. I saw this YouTube video. I watched this attorney. There are some serious problems here. I am asking that you investigate a little bit further. That’s it. And see what they do because you know, the legislature is sort of more of more of the will of the people.

It’s kind of the people’s branch, right? Those are our most closely connected representatives. The state senators, the state representatives, there are more they’re, they’re, they’re closer to you than you are to your, your, your state representative. Okay? It’s one state representative per whatever. It is 180,000 people for a local representative. It’s a, it’s a much smaller ratio. So you have a closer connection to that person. So make your voice heard to that individual. Then maybe they can take it to their, to their legislature and do something with it. And by the way, if you’re on the other side of that, if you’re saying, I want to either pose all of those same thing, call your legislature, let them know that you oppose it. And then that is going to be the best way to handle it. I think calling, you know, calling your, your state Senator, you know, uh, I’m sorry, your, your, your, your federal Senator for your state.

Are you going to get a response from them? Probably not. Are they gonna be able to do anything about this? Probably not, but your local people, they certainly will. We have another one coming in from T Ferguson. He says, I’ve worked on civil Rico complaints and the amount of meat included with this complaint. And the quick timeframe is impressive. Also think likely that Trump distances Sydney because of the Flynn. Pardon? That’s a great point. Oh yeah. That’s a great point. I didn’t even think about that. Yeah, they did that right before the Floyd or the Flynn. Pardon? That’s exactly right. That’s a great point. Very astute observation there T Ferguson. And I would agree with you on this. I, uh, I read through this complaint, you know, when I came into the office today, I thought I was gonna do a nice little leisurely reading of the cracking complaints.

And I started looking through them and I was thinking, Oh my goodness, there is a ton here, significantly more stuff than we’ve seen in the other complaints thus far. And largely because of the affidavits and the declarations are massive. A lot of detail, a lot of technical jargon. You could really spend some time sinking your teeth into that as we will. I think articles are going to keep trickling out more and more news is going to be made from these declarations and from these affidavits in the coming days, because I don’t think, I don’t think anybody has really wrapped their head around the breadth, the massiveness of these two complaints. There really is a lot there. Uh, another, another great comment from T Ferguson. Thanks team. Uh, we see here, uh, let’s see. Another one that came in from SSW lamb. He says greetings from the UK.

Thanks for the great coverage. It is a travesty that legacy media is not covering this. Can Twitter get sanctioned for banning Senator Mastriani his Twitter account? You know, I don’t know what they would be sanctioned for. I think they have, I think they have the authority to do that. Uh, and like, you know, like I’ve sort of complained about on this channel that I don’t, I don’t know what these Congress people are going to do about it. We’ve seen Facebook, we’ve seen Twitter hauled into Congress multiple times. They were just there. They were literally just there like last week and they still, they still just go through politicians to just ban them, just throw them right off Twitter. They just don’t even care. They know Twitter knows that they’re more powerful than any, you know, any of these Congress, people Google knows that Facebook knows that they know that they helped to alter the course of the election.

Let’s be real. They know that, uh, and they don’t care what these senators have to say because the senators, the senators want to get reelected too. And they know if they anger, Google, that might be the end of their, uh, their career in politics, which is unfortunate. So I don’t know what they would be sanctioned for. I think that they’re operating within the confines of the law right now, if section two 30 is repealed or modified, or there’s a new digital communications, privacy act, whatever that looks like in place that would penalize them for that, then you could penalize them under the law. But right now I just don’t know what they could be sanctioned for. Um, but it’s a good question. I’ll tell you, it’s frustrating as hell to see it, but it’s the landscape that we’re in right now. And so that’s why, you know, shows like this, uh, people like you who help to spread the word and support the program are so essential.

And we appreciate that. And SSW lamb is always here. So thank you for that. And that, uh, that great question. Another one just came in from essential hard worker with a nice super chat. Thank you, sir. He says we still don’t have someone who actually did it though. It seems like they’re just saying it’s possible. Not a person who did it, if it’s all true. Do you think it will be addressed next election or this one? Yeah. So this, this is a good point, you know, and, and from, for somebody who acts as a practice as a criminal lawyer, I, I, we have a whole law firm here. We’ve got, uh, you know, I think seven, seven attorneys. Now, when, when I analyze a situation like this, my inclination is to go find the person who did it, or the group that did it. If it’s any one, you know, sort of, sort of individual, like you would see in a movie, there’s one mastermind person who is orchestrating all this stuff going on.

I’m not real sure that it, that it is that I think this is probably a much more of a distributed effort. In other words, there’s no, there’s no mastermind. You know, George Soros probably had a role to play. Zuckerberg probably had a role to play all of the, the, sort of the, the, the liberal elite, uh, you know, tech people in all of the different industries, donating millions, if not billions of dollars to all of these different groups, you know, they were, they, I don’t know that they had a playbook. Like they’re like, Oh, Hey, this is the, uh, this is the election fraud playbook. We’re just gonna follow this thing from beginning to end. And we’re just going to manipulate this whole election. I don’t think that was the case. I think that there was a lot of people acting in concert with one another, all with the same end goal in mind.

And there’s probably, there’s probably 50 to a hundred different types of electoral and voter fraud that went on. It’s probably not one thing, but people are looking for that. Cause it’s easy. They want to find the one mastermind and the one technique they want to say, it’s George Soros. And he hacked a minion or Sidney Powell says, it’s, it’s a Hugo Chavez and its dominion. And it’s the, it’s the dominion software guy. Like people like to latch onto those things because they’re simple, they’re easy. We can all understand it. Somebody went to the bank and robbed the bank. We know the guy who did it when he did it, where he did it. And he, and he got caught. So that’s it case closed in the story. This is not like that. I think this is much different. There’s a number of different actors. There’s a number of different techniques, a number of different moving parts all the way from lawyers down to the people on the ground.

And if you can segment those different, those, those layers of involvement, you want to keep it all compartmentalize. You don’t want the poll worker who’s down. Who’s, uh, who’s responsible for checking signatures. You don’t want to tell that person, Hey, throw out the signatures because we need Joe Biden to win. And we had somebody else somewhere, somewhere deliver a hundred thousand illegal ballots with bad signatures. So we need you to make sure that those 100,000 ballots get in. You don’t tell the poll worker that you just tell the poll worker, Hey, listen. Uh, we just, we, you know, we had a settlement agreement in Georgia where the Democrats, you know, sued and the secretary of state, they entered a settlement agreement. And so now what we’re going to do with the process is going to change. Don’t ask me why here’s what we’re doing. Just make sure it’s signed.

If it looks close enough. All right. It’s good. And, uh, and we’ll just throw that over there. Throw that over there. You’re good to go. Okay. But I thought that now I know, I know that’s what you thought, but they told me, I don’t know where it came from, but somebody told them and somebody told them. And so this is what we’re doing now. That’s all there is to it, right? And that person has no idea what they’re doing. They’re just following the rules might be a nice innocent person who just wants to be there and be a part of ballot watching poll, watching, and democracy. But that person is involved in this entire scheme, which has been sort of trickling down to all of these different distributed agencies. Th th th the whole thing is sort of networked out so that there’s not one part that is responsible for the entire operation.

It’s sort of in, in individual cells and distributed across the country. And I think that is really what’s going on. And that’s tough to prove. It’s really hard to prove. So how do you do that? How do you bring that into court? We’re going to see, but it’s a good question. We have another one that came in from LK LA Rose, where his chief spy guy, John Radcliffe, we’ve heard nothing from him since he confirmed the FBI had Hunter’s laptop. Yeah, that’s a good question. Where is John Ratcliffe? Good question. Now, Kayla Rose, thanks for the support. And I don’t know the answer to that one, uh, but we’ll keep an eye on it. I do know that Carter page just filed a lawsuit. Carter page filed a lawsuit against a number of, uh, a number of different people involved with the FBI and the entire Flynn scandal.

So we’ll see, Mike Butler says, my buddy moved into an apartment in Cleveland, Ohio, and he received someone’s ballot from Detroit, Michigan, which was marked as being delivered on 11 four. The apartment was vacate though bacon though. How does this happen? Well, Mike, your question is as good as mine. I think that the speculation at this point is that some people had access to voter registration lists. They identified people who they thought would be Biden voters, who would be unlikely to vote in elections, sent them a ballot, whether they wanted it or not expecting that they send it back, or if they didn’t send them a ballot physically to that person’s address, they just took those ballots. Use that person’s name signed off on it with a fake signature, sent those ballots back in knowing that the signatures weren’t going to be checked. That person technically voted, even though they didn’t vote.

That’s one of the main allegations, but it’s a good question. I don’t know specifically what happened with your friend, but it could have been something like that, or it could’ve just been a clerical error who knows. We have Daniel dressers as just wondering what are the next steps requirements to have this case heard at the Supreme court, thanks for all your work. All right, Daniel. So it depends on what case you’re speaking about, but, uh, both of these current lawsuits that Sidney Powell filed are in the, in the district courts. So it’s sort of like the, the lowest level court you file them in, in a us district court. The next court up would be the circuit court of appeals. And so it’s almost certainly going to go there, uh, depending on what happened, Sidney Powell could bring her claims. The court could dismiss it.

She could appeal it to the, to the, to the next circuit up. Uh, she could be successful. The court could set an evidentiary hearing. Uh, the opposing party could file a motion to dismiss that could be granted or denied. There’s a number of different ways that the case could be litigated in the district court. But if somebody is unhappy with a ruling or something happens that dismisses the complaint, then it would go up to the circuit court for that circuit. And then again, depending on what happens there, it can go up to the U S Supreme court. So you’re kind of one court away from the U S Supreme court, but there’s still a little bit of time to get there. So another example would be an illustrative example would be what happened out of the third circuit. So Giuliani and, uh, Jenna Ellis filed their lawsuit in the district court, in Pennsylvania, the district court dismissed their case.

They appealed it to the third circuit up to the circuit court. They dismissed it apparently, and now they’re going to be appealing it to the Supreme court. So kind of, it’s kind of three tiers up in the federal system, but it’s a good, good question. All right. Another one’s coming in from, we have hockey D says, what can you do? Check out voter integrity, project, a powerhouse for the common American. Yeah, the voter integrity project. I believe hockey D that is from Matt Brainerd, which is that guy’s impressive. Uh, you can check out his YouTube channel. He’s solid. He’s a really, really good Pelling. Uh, I would say analyst like to watch him and listen to him. He’s, he’s of got a calm about him. You can see he’s very methodical. I trust his work implicitly. I mean, he’s, he has said that he’s going to have somebody come in and audit his expenses and he’s going to make all of that public.

I mean, the transparency on his work is so, so impressive. So I would certainly go check him out. I think he is also somebody who is closely connected with the voter integrity project. And so that’s what we want. We just want voter integrity. We want election integrity. I don’t know why any American in this country, as opposed to that, honestly. Uh, but there are, I guess if your guy wins suddenly, you don’t have to worry about election integrity anymore. Uh, but that doesn’t make that much sense to me. All right. We have one from Joel Lowery who says, if Powell proves for an actor is how does Trump’s 2018 executive order play out? Could Trump have additional powers under national security? So, Joel, I don’t think that he gets any additional powers. We did read through that. I read through that, uh, executive order on this channel, we spent some time talking about it w really what it does is it gives him additional foreign policy powers, or it gets a framework for the big, the big takeaway from that executive order was that 45 days after an election, the different national intelligence agencies.

I think it was the, uh, the FBI, uh, DHS department of justice department of treasury. There was another one, there were five total, and they’re all responsible for doing an analysis on what happened in the election. And it was to identify foreign interference. And it was very interesting that the 45 day deadline was right about the same time that the, uh, run around December 18th. I think it was so right after, uh, electors day where they needed to nominate and certify and send over their electoral votes. So this, this framework of doing an intense election integrity analysis needed to be due and back over to the president within the 45 days, and the executive order detailed a framework that required that the different agencies had to put together in order to do this analysis. So it implemented this, this process of reviewing the election, and then the remedies were that if a foreign entity was responsible for being involved in any of that interference, that the president has additional powers that he can use to go impact them.

He can cut off certain funds, he can sanction them, he can cut off trade and all sorts of different things. And that’s what the executive order really got down into. So I keep in mind, I don’t think that he has any additional powers, uh, domestically because he’s the commander in chief and that executive order impacted the foreign policy aspects of it. But what Sidney Powell was claiming is that there’s a lot of this stuff going on and you saw it in the, in the complaint itself that they have some claims of, uh, Iran and China being involved in this. So whether that’s true or not, we’re going to certainly see, but there, there, there are, you know, there’s, there’s some interesting things in that executive order for sure. And the fact that he implemented it in 2018 and then sort of set a deadline from about 45 days from the election, which would put it on December 18th.

You know, we’re getting close to that date. We’re going to see what, uh, what the intelligence agencies found and what they reported. James Connor says, Wisconsin just finished their recount Trump grifting grifting his supporters of 3 million and got 132 new votes. In the end. It was a very transparent process. Wisconsin just finished the recount. Trump drifted his supporters of 3 million and got 132 new votes in the end. It was a very transparent process. So that’s from James, um, uh, which is not good news. If you’re a Trump supporter, right. 132 vote difference is not too good for 3 million bucks. We have another one from Trey Contrarez. So you believe there was voter fraud? Uh, yeah, I think so. I think that there’s voter fraud probably in every election. Don’t you? I mean, I’m just, I’m certain that in the United States, somebody was fraudulent.

Somebody voted twice, somebody sent in a ballot that wasn’t theirs. Somebody got, you know, their old neighbor’s ballot, the person who lived at their house before they did, they signed it and sent it back. Somebody did that. The bigger question is, is there enough voter fraud to change the course of the election that we haven’t seen yet? The allegations I think, are there, I think there’s enough evidence there to have a hearing in court. For sure. We just went through Cindy Powells claims. She’s got some pretty compelling expert witnesses that have a lot of documented evidence. Is it baseless? Is voter fraud, baseless? No is voter fraud, something that meets the preponderance of the evidence standard. We don’t know yet, but wouldn’t it be helpful to have a court proceeding to decide? That’s all we’re asking for. We have another one that comes from lava. Java lava says, let’s say voter electronic fraud quote was found and only implicates a foreign entity.

What is the next process to determine our president? So, so it depends on what the nature of that fraud is and how the courts handle that domestically. So it would, it would, it would relate back to the nature of the fraud. So if the fraud was that they were literally, you know, swapping votes from Biden to Trump, then you would just unstop those votes. You would reverse those. Give that back over to Trump. If that makes Trump win the state, then that’s it Trump’s the next president. Or if it were something where they were identifying big buckets of votes that were fraudulent. So we’ve, we saw some claims in prior affidavits that many people are claiming that there were these ballots that were essentially printed, that the bubbles were filled in perfectly for Joe Biden and, and, and really didn’t have any of the other down-ballot races bubbled in.

And the reason for that is that the, the lower level down-ballot races, those are scrutinized at a much higher threshold because the margins are much closer. If you have three people running for the County commissioner, well, they’re going to look at their votes pretty clearly. And they’re going to know how many people are in their counties and just about how they vote or what, you know, whomever’s in their precinct. They’re going to scrutinize it a lot closely, a lot more closely. You see some of these other elections where people are winning by 20 votes or a hundred votes. They’re getting scrutinized a lot. So if you’re going to have a bunch of fake ballots going into an election, you don’t want all of the lower races to be effected by that because that’s going to lead to more scrutiny, which is going to lead you to uncover the plot.

So you would just fill in the top, the top ticket, which is the Joe Biden ticket. And they’re saying that a lot of these ballots were preprinted and they’re all fraudulent. And so if that were the case, if they were able to prove that, then you would just lob a job out. You just pull those back out. You would take those illegal ballots out of the big bucket, separate them out, throw that bucket of bad votes out. If that changes the numbers, then that’s going to put the next president in place. And so, uh, you know, if, if a foreign entity was involved, you would just have to figure out what their level of involvement was and then reverse that back out of the results. But it is another good question. All right. So I think, I think that’s it for the super chats thus far. All right. Let’s take a look over here and see what else we’ve got coming in.

Okay. We have one. Whoa. All right.

The chat is moving fast. Okay. We have a couple other questions. Uh, hair H says, do you really think SCOTUS will see the case differently? I actually do. You know, I could be a, I could be out on a limb on this. I’m not sure that a lot of other attorneys, uh, you know, I don’t, I don’t think so. I think there are other attorneys who would agree that if this gets to the Supreme court, it might, it might change a little bit. And the reason why I say that we have, we have more and more originalists and textualists on the Supreme court now. And we have thus far seeing the John Roberts has no issue at all, joining with the liberal wing of the court. Uh, I think he just did that recently. And the most recent opinion about going to church during COVID lockdowns five, four decision Roberts went over with the liberals again now, previously in a court that had Ginsburg on it.

Uh, I think that Roberts would probably say with the liberals and you have a five, four opinion that certifies whatever the underlying issue is in favor of the Democrats, because Roberts in my mind has not been somebody who’s particularly originalist. So he might look at a case like the Georgia situation, where they entered into this settlement agreement in violation of my mind, the constitution and of the legislature’s duties, they entered into it. They modified the whole election process. That was, uh, that was a non originalist thing to do. And so if the Supreme court gets a hold of that, they’re going to say, you can’t do that. And they’re going to draw the line hard and fast, again, same situation in Pennsylvania, where the idea would be the courts change. The election deadline courts can’t do that. The legislature has to do that. And I would think the Supreme court would come back down and say, listen, sorry, I know you modified it.

You shouldn’t have done that Supreme court and the penalty for doing something bad like that is that sometimes it’s pretty harsh. Sometimes it’s pretty serious in criminal law. If you illegally obtain evidence from somebody and that person raped somebody or killed somebody, but you got the evidence illegally, that person goes free. It’s a harsh penalty for the government really stings that that person went free, but it’s to remedy the government’s misbehavior to remedy their inaction, their failure to do something and, or, or illegally obtaining evidence here, the same situation would mean they, you know, they, they screwed up the election. So it’s a good question. Alright. Uh, LRC says, I think your comments on it being a piecemeal approach is very naive. Voter fraud has been going on for decades that comes from LRC. Uh, so yeah, I mean, so my point is my point LRC on that comment was that I, that I’m not sure that you’re going to find a mastermind spearheading election fraud.

You might, you might find some lower level people in different precincts who are running these different operations, but, uh, but I’m not sure that you’re going to find somebody at the very top. Who’s a mastermind for all these different lower level operations. So yeah, you might have pretty consistent, pretty cohesive, cohesive, really robust voter fraud operations that take place in Philadelphia or Detroit or any one of these cities where people are saying it took place. I’m not saying that that’s not the case at all, but if you’re going to tie it all back to somebody who’s at the top of America or top of a global order, who’s orchestrating sort of the puppet master between all of these different attempts. I, I’m not sure that you’re gonna find somebody like that. And if you’re looking for one, uh, I think you might be looking for awhile.

All right. Somebody says a Philly mob boss in media saying he was paid. He paid his team to fill out ballots and deliver them to polls 300,000 in Pennsylvania. Yeah. So you probably will see more stories like that. I did see that story too. I didn’t verify that. I haven’t, I haven’t seen any follow-up on that, but, but yeah, you could imagine that there would be these little cells of voter fraud all around the country that are all independently working towards ousting, the orange Hitler that they all think Donald Trump is that it’s a coordinated thing because their goals are all in alignment, but the mechanisms are different. And that the hierarchy, the structure, the people who are, who are running the whole thing, that’s, that’s a difficult, more abstract concept to flesh out. Rather it’s a lot of lower level, Uh, coordinated, ongoing temps to continuously win elections. Brent Grafton says, do not forget who Sidney Powell has. Client attorney, who has client attorney privilege with and what he knows about worldwide intelligence. It’s a good point. Yeah.

That is general Flynn.

I have a gene. Let’s see here we have ms. Faith sent me a couple others. We have a GN bright with a super chat. Thank you so much. She also says there were people jailed for getting 8,000 skid row votes. Did not see that one. Thank you for that. Uh, GN. We have Lois Schwartz who says, why don’t you do the work and find the information you need to, and I lost that one, but I don’t think that was, uh, uh, you need to, so you can really talk, why don’t you do the work and find the information you need so you can really talk well, uh, Lois, you know, we, we do the best that we can here. You know, we have, uh, I have a full law firm and the show is something that I like to do sort of, uh, because I think it’s important. It’s also a lot of fun for me to do, but I can’t, I just physically can’t educate myself on literally every question that comes in on the live chat, I do my best to try to piece it together. But the majority of the show, the majority of the presentation that I, that I did before this live chat, that’s what I want to be prepared on and present. But these other questions, I’m just sort of, they just come in randomly.

It’s hard for me to prepare for the questions as they come in. We have another one from du du GC, Renee says, hi, Rob, different question. If Trump were to release the JFK files, would there be any route back to a court investigation? Uh, yeah. Yeah. I think that there would be. So it’s a great, great, great question. A little bit of a non-election question, but the JFK files, I’ve seen some people calling for that. I would love to see what really happened with the JFK stuff, uh, along with a lot of the other stuff, but yeah, there are potentials for reopening court cases.

There’s, there’s a concept in law called the statute of limitations. And what that says is that there are certain time limits on the different types of claims and allegations that you can make. So if you stole a candy bar from a convenience store, they can’t prosecute you 20 years later down the road because it’s 20 years old, the government has an incentive to bring claims quickly. They don’t want a bunch of claims to just kind of float around forever and then people can bring up claims whenever they want. So there are certain deadlines like in Arizona, if you get into a car accident, you got two years to bring your injury claim. If you don’t bring it within two years, you lose the ability to make that claim. So when you’re talking about JFK files, that kind of doesn’t apply in many instances. Now I’m not an expert on national security law or confidential information or any of that stuff.

But so just generally speaking, if the JFK files were released and somebody now has a claim that they didn’t know about, that new evidence would come forward and they can say, look, I just learned about this. Therefore, the statute of limitations, the ordinary rules that would prevent me from bringing a claim don’t shouldn’t matter anymore, because I just found out, therefore, I want to go start a new claim and move forward. That way. It’s a good question. All right. Another super chat came in. This comes from T Ferguson says sophisticated conspiracies follow distributed cell model to isolate individual actors, Roberts Roberts might side with conservative, or Thomas writes the opinion. Yeah, yeah. He might, you know, he might, this stuff is, this stuff is, is, is pretty important, not so much because look, the elections absolutely important. But what you’re seeing here is sort of a blurring of the lines between the different government bodies, the executive branch, the legislative branch, you have secretaries of state who are part of the executive branch now sort of taking some powers away from the legislature, the legislature, and so on. And, and I think the judges are going to get a little bit tired of that, the Supreme court justices. And they may come back down and say, listen, this is a reaffirmation of our separation of powers. These th these different lawsuits, these different settlements, these different, uh, on their own modifications of court, election deadlines, and so on. We can’t let those things continue to stand because it’s going to happen again, next election and the following and so on. Why wouldn’t it happen in every election? If we, if sides can just move the rules around to serve their ends, that’s a problem. Right. And I don’t know that the, that the Supreme court is going to want to have that Stan. Okay. Let’s do a couple more. And then we’ll get going with our Friday night. We have a rolly Moray who says stand-alone complex accidental collectivism made up of detached individuals resembling a highly organized conspiracy and lacking a deliberate origin. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting stuff there. Good questions. Let’s take a couple more questions and then we’ll wrap it up for the day. We have a manual choice, Manwell choices, Robin affidavits are done under oath. How did Trump lawyers find a couple of them to be false and presented those that could be proved false? Uh, I just lost that. Uh, the chat is moving so fast. All right. Um, let me, let me move on to this super chat because I can see it.

Okay. We have Matthew Ryan who has, has a very nice Superchat. Wow. Thank you, Matthew. He says here in the Phil, we don’t trust smart. MADEC pending case a vice-president fraud using that machine. We win our president by overwhelming votes, uh, overwhelming votes, 74%. So here in the field, we don’t trust smart. MADEC pending case of vice-president fraud using that machine. We went our president by overwhelming votes, 74%. Yeah. You know, there, there are a lot of issues in Philly. And I think, I think people are getting a little bit tired of it. And this is where I think the distinction comes in between, you know, there are a lot of people saying that Donald Trump lost and he’s a sore loser. And to just accept the results of the numbers are what the numbers are. But there are many people who just don’t believe that that premise is not accurate them. And they think that they really have the majority, which might be the case. And if they really did have the majority, then wouldn’t, they be able to influence the legislature because the legislature wants to respond to the will of the people. If the true will of the people is actually the Donald Trump one, because they literally voted more than the Biden people. Then you would expect that the legislature would respond.

We will see, we will see there’s a lot more to go. And so, listen, everybody, we’re going to wrap it up right there. Couple other quick, couple quick reminders. You know, I want to remind you that if you’re not a regular of this channel, if you just jumped in here, just to check out what’s going on with the Sidney Powell lawsuit, please do subscribe. We would love to have you here. Again, we go live every single day of the week, and we want you to be a part of the program. We have a lot of fun having these conversations. I love fielding good questions. And we love that you’re here in a part of, one of the most important, I think legal battles in the history of the world.

And where else could you be? Where else should you be? Also do me a favor, share this because a lot of the time, YouTube doesn’t want you to talk so much about these election issues. So if you could share it to your friends, share it to your family. We have a Facebook page now hop on there, share it with local people there as well. Um, also join us on discord. We chat before and after the live stream. And we put a copy of the slides that I shared with you into the discord chat server. So we want to have you gone go on over there so you can get access to the slides and then hang out with us before and after the show. And one other quick reminder, my day job is a criminal defense lawyer in Arizona. So if you know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime who wants to clear up an old record, who wants to get their mugshot removed off the internet, we love to help good people.

Unfortunately, especially around the holidays. Sometimes things can get a little bit heated. You can be talking politics around the Thanksgiving dinner table. You can get into, you know, a little bit of, uh, uh, heated conversations with your spouse and so on. But if anything like that happens and you need some help getting through it, that’s what our team does best. We have an awesome team of people here. We love to help good people navigate through the justice system and get their lives back on track. And we’d be honored if you would refer your friends, your family, or anybody in need over to our office. And so I want to thank you once again, for being part of the program, we’re going to get off to our lovely Friday night. I hope everybody is still a little bit full from their feast last night and has a wonderful evening. I will see you back here next week. It’s going to be the same time, same place. So it’s, it’s 5:00 PM Arizona time, which is mountain time. It’s 4:00 PM in California on the West coast. It’s going to be 6:00 PM for Texas and the central folks. And then it’s going to be 7:00 PM for the East coast. People will be back here. We want you to join us. So hit subscribe, share the show. We’ll see you back there next week. Have a wonderful evening, have a very wonderful weekend. Bye bye.