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 and R law group where my team and I over the course of many years have helped to represent thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Sometimes things like DUI, drugs, domestic violence, some of the more serious offenses, things like sexual assault, even murder. We have handled it all. We’ve worked on a lot of cases. And over our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. In particular, we’re talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges engaging in egregious conduct and even politicians where all of this starts, they’re the ones who are responsible for implementing and passing and making sure that we all follow the laws.

They’re the ones who started off. Even the politicians have problems themselves. And that is what we’ve been spending a lot of time talking about on this channel, all of those different categories of malfeasance of misconduct. We want to make sure that somebody is watching the Watchers, because if we have a different two tier justice system, if we have too many people who are supposed to be governing us and running our cities and running our States, running our country, and they’re not being held accountable the same way you or I would be, that’s a problem. And we want to help balance that by shining the beautiful sunlight, no new transparency, disinfectant on the whole system. That’s what we’re doing here. And so I want to thank you so much for being a part of the broadcast. Now, as a reminder, if you’re not a regular of this channel, we do a live stream on this program, which is then later sort of cut up and put on the podcast and, and, uh, on YouTube and so on and so forth.

But during the program, we have a live stream. And so during the show, feel free to send your chats, send your super chats, any message messages that you have. Miss faith will capture those and send those over my way. And today what we’re going to be talking about is a lot of the stuff that was sort of leftovers from the weekend. The big news that we all know and we’ve been following on this channel is some of the Trump election debacle what’s going on with that. And we learned over the weekend that one of Trump’s main lawyers in my mind, I thought this was the lawyer, uh, is no longer with the team. So we’re going to tell you about that. We also have a situation that is sort of percolating out there in Michigan, new lockdown orders across the country, California, Michigan, different States are all implementing more and more sort of draconian locked down orders in response to COVID and that’s causing some legal hurdles, some legal problems.

Many people are upset about this. Why, why, why are we getting locked down again? We already did this in March, April, may, and June. What are we doing again? Where’s your authority? Where’s your power? Where do you get the legal capability to come in and tell us that we can’t run our business? This is America. And so we want to analyze that. We want to dissect some of those claims because in Michigan that is becoming more and more relevant. And I think that’s going to be continuing to be relevant for some time to come. So we want to break that down. And then finally a case that we’ve been following for months and months and months and months, Kyle Rittenhouse is now out of custody. We’re all happy about that. Well, not everybody. There’s some people on the other side of the aisle who are not so happy about that, but we are here.

We think that this is a good, a good development. We want to tell you a little bit more about that. So let’s go ahead and dive in. Before we do hit the subscribe button, by the way, if you’re not already a subscriber, because we want you to be a part of this conversation. We have this live show every day of the week. We’re going to be live every day, this week, except for Thanksgiving. We’re, I’ll address that at the end of the program, but we want you to be involved. As a reminder, there is also a discord link on our description in our different platforms. So that will take you over to the sort of persistent chat that takes place both before and after the show. So head on over there, if you want to get a copy of the slides after the program and just hang out, all right, so let’s take a look at what is going on in the news.

We know that Sidney Powell, we spent a lot of time last week talking about Donald Trump and his election team. We talked about Rudy Giuliani. We had a lot of clips last week from the press conference where Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, everybody came out to detail. They’ll what they called their opening argument. What, what was going to be their case for the American people as to why this election should change course, as it stands right now, Joe Biden and his team, they have the numbers. They have the majority of the States, the majority of the electoral votes. They have enough to satisfy the constitution and the electoral college. And so many of us were sort of analyzing what we know, how is this all unfolding? What are the claims that are being proposed by the Trump team? What is the Biden team responding to and how is this all going to unfold?

Cause it seems like there were some, some legit you to make claims about some of this election integrity stuff that has been in the news. We’ve covered a lot of it here. We talked about bet Benford’s law. We’ve talked about dr. Sheeva’s analysis. We’ve talked about all the different sort of permutations of the, you know, the algorithm changes that have been going on. We analyze a lot of the different claims. We’ve read a ton of different affidavits from different different people, filing lawsuits in different States. We’ve covered Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia. I think we covered some in Nevada. We talked about some Arizona lawsuits. We’ve been really covering it. And at the forefront of a lot of these claims are sort of the spokesperson who has been at the forefront of Trump’s claims was Sidney Powell while we learned over the weekend. I think this was yesterday.

Yeah. On, on Sunday that she’s not even a part of Donald Trump’s legal team. What the heck is this about? So Donald Trump at, through Jenna Ellis, they released this pertinent claim here that says Donald Trump, the Trump campaign statement on their legal team. This was Sunday, Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own is what they said. She is not a member of the Trump legal team. She is also not a lawyer for the president in his personal capacity. So it doesn’t represent him personally. Doesn’t represent him on the team, Rudy Giuliani and attorney for the president, Jenna Ellis, Trump campaign, senior legal advisor and attorney for president Trump. So as soon as I saw this, I was a, I was actually at the gym on Sunday and I was watching the, I watched the statement coming, uh, several people, you know, DMD me and told me that this was breaking news, what the heck was going on. And I thought this was a joke. At first, when I originally saw the press release

From Jenna Ellis, I was thinking, this, this can’t, this can’t,

This is crazy because on Tuesday, Sidney Powell was literally the second person

Speak at the press conference. It was Rudy Giuliani, then Sidney Powell, then Jenna Ellis, and then sort of a, you know, some question and answer,

But she was literally the second person.

So how can Donald Trump and his team come out and say, well, she’s not, you know, she didn’t work for the president, by the way. She’s also not on the team. And you know, we’ve got to put this statement out, well, seemed

A little bit as skew to me. So I

Wanted to go ahead and provide some of the news and then the context of what’s going on. And then maybe we can do a little bit of speculation. We can wonder, is there something else going on here? Is this what everybody thinks it is? Or is there something more let’s dive into it? So as we are seeing here, uh, somebody over from, uh, Josh Dawsey, I think he’s over at the Washington post, he had a little bit of an explanation. So as soon as this hit Twitter, everybody was retweeting it and anybody on the left was having a lot of fun with it, slam dunking on it. Trump’s a circus, this whole thing’s a clown show. And, uh, you know, they were sort of relishing in it. And I think this guy is in that camp a little bit. He’s over at the Washington post.

I believe I could be wrong about that. Josh Dawsey says that Trump told allies that Sidney Powell was too much. Even for him after Thursday, he says, he sees the fight as uphill, but fleeting and doesn’t see her as helpful anymore per several advisors. And so, you know, you can take that stuff for what it’s worth. A lot of people in the media have for a long time for several weeks now have been saying, you know, sort of the Donald Trump doesn’t really believe as hard. It doesn’t have his heart in this that he’s just fighting to turn this into a media empire or in to satiate. Some of his supporters, a lot of different rationales I think, are being attributed to Trump. And I don’t think he said anything to that effect at all. I think that, you know, he probably, um, probably is a pretty realistic guy, probably knows that it’s a hard Hill to climb, but I’m not so sure that this is something where he’s just ready to throw in the towel.

I’m not seeing it that way either. And so Josh Dawsey is out here saying that maybe he kind of is, you know, maybe he’s looking at these facts in front of him. He’s looking at his different attorneys and he’s making a judgment call. We did hear from general Flynn. So if you don’t recall, general Flynn, Sidney Powell has been working with general Flynn for a long period of time. General Flint has been in the news. We haven’t covered it a lot on this show because this show sort of started after the general Flynn case really got underway. And so I kind of didn’t want to go back and re litigate a bunch of stuff. That’s already history. And so you may remember this case. This was general Flynn during the 2016 Trump campaign during the transition after Donald Trump won general, Flynn was brought on Bart on board to be a part of the government, had a phone call with a Russian ambassador called Vasyl yak, where they were talking about basically not imposing, you know, he was talking to the Russians, basically telling them, hold on, okay, there’s a new administration coming in.

You, if you recall, if you were winding the clock back, this was a time in which the, the, the sort of the Democrats, the Obama administration, Joe Biden, and all of those individuals had a lot of thoughts that this was all being stolen from them as a result of the Russian collusion. And so general Flynn had a conversation with somebody on the other end of the phone saying, look, Russians, don’t come down on this administration. There’s a new sheriff in town. Who’s going to be coming into power, hold off a little bit. Well, he got in, he got just reamed for that phone call. I got caught up in a big, uh, you know, sort of Dragnet of surveillance. He was eventually unmasked. And then he was indicted for a number of different charges, actually pled guilty, then wanted to withdraw his plea, which is still it’s.

It’s, it’s a huge ball of yarn. Anyways, Sidney Powell was brought in at the last minute to sort of change the course of that case. And she did a good job on that. She has, in my mind, I thought that this case was a done deal. He had already pled guilty. What else can you do? She came in and the DOJ now is recommending no charges. She’s also recommending no charges. Basically the only holdup in that case is the judge. And it, from what we’ve seen out of her, she’s somebody who can perform and she can deliver fairly well. Now, a lot of people on the other side, and especially in the legal commentary at, they like to sort of lump everybody in as a clown show and say, this is all, you know, uh, subpar legal claims, but we haven’t seen much of that from Sidney Powell, especially not on this channel.

We’ve, we’ve talked about some of the claims that Rudy Giuliani was making. We did a deep dive on the Lynwood’s woods claims, but we haven’t seen really anything from Sydney that has been filed in court. And so, uh, you know, there’s, there’s, there’s some, some, some people breaking both ways on this, you know, is she credible? Is she not? What’s going on? Well, general Flynn, who is her client, who she did a great job for, or at least it’s getting him out in the process of doing a great job. He had something to say about it. So he on Sunday said that Sidney Powell has been suspended for, from Twitter for 12 hours, which is a little bit strange. I’m not sure why she would have been suspended. She understands the white house, press relief and agrees with it. She is staying the course to prove the massive deliberate election fraud that robbed we, the people of our votes for president Trump and other Republicans.

And so she’s going to keep on moving. She’s going to keep on trucking, according to general Flint. And then we’re going to get to a statement from ms. Powell, herself, that corroborates that. And so you can see here, another one from general Michael Flynn, he says, thank you, Tracy beans. You know, I’m on team Sydney, hashtag team Sydney, and he’s going in and tagging a bunch of other people saying, God bless America. And so Sidney Powell released a statement also. So this was, it looks like 12 hours ago from earlier today. So it released a statement here and I want to read through it so that we can put some context around this thing before we dive into some of the more fun speculation game that we can play here. All right. So statement from Sidney Powell to we, the people says, I agree with the campaign statement that I am not part of the campaigns legal team.

I never signed a retainer agreement or sent the president or the campaign, a bill for my expenses or fees. My intent has always been to expose all the fraud I could find and let the chips fall where they may, whether it be upon Republicans or Democrats, Ooh, that’s spicy there. The evidence I’m compiling is overwhelming that this software tool was used to shift millions of votes from president Trump and other Republican candidates to Biden and other Democrat candidates. We are proceeding to prepare our lawsuit and plan to file it this week. It will be Epic. And this week is the date that we had in mind. She says, we will not allow this great Republic to be stolen by communists from without and within, or our votes altered or manipulated by foreign actors in Hong Kong, Iran, Venezuela, or Serbia, for example, who have neither regard for human life, nor the people who are the engine of this exceptional country, hashtag we, the people elected Donald Trump and other Republican candidates to restore the vision of America as a place of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You may assist this effort by making a non tax deductible contribution over a www dot, defending the republic.org. And then she finishes with hashtag cracking on steroids, not even kidding, hashtag cracking on steroids. And so what are you supposed to make of that statement? I mean, Oh my goodness. You know, this whole thing has been a bit of a roller coaster. So Sidney Powell, who I just went through the rationale as to why she’s pretty, pretty credible, pretty competent. Somebody who’s actually turning the Titanic around of the general Flynn case is, is actually taking that massive object and turning it around in his favor in a situation that many people thought was a done deal. She’s somebody who can deliver, she can perform. Is she saying on this week we are proceeding to prepare our lawsuit and plan to file it this week. It will be Epic.

That’s her quote. So you know it at this point in time, it’s a, it’s, it’s very interesting to S to let we can just wait and see, we already had this week dotted down on our calendar because last week, Victoria town Singh said there are lawsuits. The Trump team lawsuits were going to be filed this week. Last week, we heard Sidney Powell make, uh, sort of, uh, uh, kind of, uh, a goalpost moving claim that her lawsuits would be filed within the next two weeks. But we just learned today that it’s going to be this week and it’s going to be Epic according to her. And you know, we’re going to dive into that. So let’s maybe analyze a little bit about, you know, is, is this, is, is this what it looks like? Are there other potential explanations for this thing? First, I want to make a quick point about what we’re seeing.

You know, she opens up her statement saying that I never signed a retainer agreement or set the president or the campaign, a bill for my expenses or fees, which sort of seems to me like, kind of not talking about that. We’re kind of talking about whether or not you were a part of the team. You’re not a part of the team anymore. That means that you’re fired. I mean, that’s kind of how I am interpreting that, you know, one day you’re on the Trump legal team the next day, you’re not on the Trump legal team. And so one of the quick and dirty explanations for why she’s not on the Trump legal team, it could be very simple, right? It could be about finances. Maybe she sent them a bill. They said, ah, you know, it’s too much, it’s too expensive. We don’t want to pay for that.

So she’s now out on her own, she’s pursuing her own claims and it’s something that’s a little bit more disconnected from the Trump team could be. That could be something just as simple as, as money or an agreement. And Donald Trump has his own lawyers already. He’s already got Jenna Ellis. And he also has Rudy Giuliani and some other people, uh, secular and some others who are on the team. So maybe he just didn’t need Sidney Powell. It was a financial problem. The other reason it could be a procedural problem, right? This could have been something where there was an internal disagreement about the nature of the claim that needed to be filed. We’ve sort of seen two kind of competing theories for how Trump is going to reverse course on this election. The first has been from Rudy Giuliani and I haven’t thought it’s been too good.

Quite frankly. We’ve had a lot of discussion about it on this program that what they’re trying to do is identify big buckets of votes. We’ve seen this in Pennsylvania, they just tried it in Michigan. They’ve tried it elsewhere where they’re trying to disqualify certain types of votes. So absentee votes or votes that don’t have signatures that match or votes that came in three days after the originally prescribed deadline and so on and so on. And when we were going through the different lawsuits and the different claims we were saying, okay, well, first of all, we can’t find buckets big enough that are going to change the course of the election. So in, you know, let’s say in Pennsylvania, for example, the original prevailing theory was that if they were able to take the, the extension that the Supreme court in Pennsylvania granted moving it from November 3rd to November six, if we could take all of those ballots that came in after November 3rd, because the order from the court was illegal.

It was unconstitutional in my, in my reading of it. And let’s, let’s, let’s say that the Supreme court agreed and they said anything that came after November 3rd shouldn’t count. Well, what, how big is that bucket? How many votes were in there? What we learned, it’s really not that much. It wouldn’t close the deficit allegedly. Now I don’t know the numbers hard and fast, but apparently that is the problem. So what happened then is, is Rudy Giuliani and the Trump campaign, they altered their legal argument a bit. So they switched it from, well, you know, w we need to, to make sure that all of these votes are, are legitimate and that we’re not trying to modify the votes that came in after the deadline and so on too, because we didn’t observe the counting that those votes should be thrown out. There’s a big difference.

One is, is massive. The other is not so massive. We’re talking about a small bucket, uh, you know, maybe the, the absentee votes, but we’re talking about a massive bucket. If you’re making the claim that any ballot that you didn’t observe properly should be thrown out. And so we did an entire show on that, this concept between a claim and a remedy. So technically, yeah, maybe Giuliani and the Trump team are a hundred percent right. That their observers were thrown out of the court, uh, out of the, uh, I say courtroom, cause that’s what I’m used to talking to, but thrown out of the tabulation room and as a result of them being thrown out, yes, they didn’t get to see a bunch of ballots counted, but is that justification enough? Is the remedy for that harm that you throw out 7 million votes that you invalidate the entire election.

And my perspective here was that no, of course not. You can’t, you can’t throw out 7 million votes cause you didn’t count them. Right. It’s just like playing a game of chess. If you turn your back and somebody makes a move and they capture one of your pieces. Well, just because they captured a piece, doesn’t mean that their move was illegal. Just because you didn’t see it. It may have been a perfectly legal move. You just didn’t happen to see it. That’s your fault. Not theirs. We’re not going to cancel the game or get your piece back because you weren’t a party to that. Right. If you got up to get a soda, that’s your own problem, not theirs. And so it’s the same sort of strategy here. Okay. So you had a bunch of votes that you didn’t see. How many was it? A couple hundred, a couple thousand.

You want to invalidate 7 million votes? No, we’re not going to do that, but if you’re claiming somebody didn’t vote, who should have voted, okay, we’ll count their vote. If you’re saying somebody voted, who shouldn’t have voted, okay, we’ll, we’ll subtract their votes, but they weren’t able to find buckets enough that are going to move. That, that was Giuliani’s theory. Now here on this program, we’ve said, Oh, I’m not sure how well that’s going to work. We were waiting for more. Everybody wants to jump to conclusions. Everybody’s saying it’s enough already. Liz Cheney came out over the weekend. Donald Trump needs to decide and so on and so on and so on. Well, there’s still time everybody. There is still time. And there’s still a lot of very, very,

I would say a perturbed people

On the right side of the aisle who want more answers, who want to continue to investigate this. And so my position has always been well, let’s continue to investigate it because the last thing you want to do is just tell everybody who’s upset to sit down, shut up and stop talking. They’re just going to get angrier. And it’s going to be problematic for the next administration, whomever that may be. And so as we’re going through this, we want to just keep all of that in mind, right? That, that there’s, there’s still some time. There’s still a little bit of ballgame left on this in this game. It’s not looking so good in my mind, but that is one potential explanation. So, uh, we we’re, we’re going back to Sydney

And let’s, let’s, let’s hype

The size. Some other reasons as to why maybe she is no longer on the team. So it could be financial. It could be procedural,

Procedurally, Sidney Powell, and her, her claim to

First of course of the election is significantly different than Rudy Giuliani’s. She was saying that we don’t need to find big buckets because the whole system is the bucket. Everything is invalid, everything is bad. We have this, this, you know, these affidavits and these people who saw what was going on in Venezuela, and we’ve got software code and source code. I’ve got videos, I’ve got pictures, I’ve got everything. It’s going to invalidate the entire system. And so many of us were thinking that’s, that’s a pretty incredible claim. Let’s see, but we were waiting. We wanted to see what it was. Well now, if she’s not a part of the Trump team anymore, if she’s on her own, that takes a big claim away from the Trump team under Rudy Giuliani’s

Theory of the case. I don’t see a real

Clear path to victory. We were waiting to see and hear more from Sydney, but then the Trump team kind of just candor or, or something, they’re doing something. So let’s see if we can maybe tease out what some of these, some things are. All right. So the first thing that I wanted to mention was maybe Sidney Powell is, is onto something, right? This is speculation. We don’t know, but we’re going to play some mental exercises. We’re going to stretch the mind a little bit. She could have been onto something, right? She could know something about this, but the Trump team, his legal team could have made the decision to just create some distance between the two because of the sensitivity, because it was too spicy. It was too much. And here’s, here’s one way that that may have worked out. So let’s say you’re going into court and you’ve got a really good claim.

And you’ve got kind of a crazy claim. You kind of want to separate that crazy claim out because it can just sort of, sort of by osmosis, just bleed in to your good claim. And that will make you look foolish. And so this is a big part of difficulty in practice. When you’re going through the law, oftentimes your client will want you to bring something up or say something or do something or say, you know, tell the courts that will bring up this. My ex did this 35 years ago. Okay. I know you’re I know that’s really hot right now. I know, I know that’s turning your volume up yours. You’re lit over that issue, but that’s not a good claim here. That’s not pertinent today. That’s not relevant. And we don’t want to bring that into court. So the Trump team, they may have made that analysis.

They may have said, yeah, you know, uh, Sidney Powell, all of this claim, uh, all of her insinuations about dominion sort of hinting that, that this may be a bipartisan thing that both the Democrats and the Republicans are responsible for some of this misconduct. It just may have been too spicy. It may have been, may have been a little too toxic for the Trump legal team. And so they’re, they’re making a mutual decision. They’re saying in a, in other words, don’t take this to mean that the claims that she was making are bad. They’re just saying we don’t want them as part of our case in chief. So we’re going to just section you out. You’re going to do your own thing. You’re going to be a little bit of a rogue agent, but we still want you to move forward. Your claims are good.

You know, you’re, you’re sane, you’re legitimate. You actually do have the evidence it’s forthcoming. It’s just too spicy for what we want to do. And you can see how this might work out because you could have the Trump campaign literally going around and trying to negotiate, which I think they’re currently doing with different state legislatures to see if they can find a different route to reverse the course. Not many people are calling this accou. I’m calling this something. I’m not sure that it’s a coup yet because it’s, it’s, it’s allowed under the constitution. But I think it’s, you know, it’s a little bit troubling. If there is no evidence, if they have evidence of massive voter fraud, the state legislatures are the pressure relief valve. That’s what they’re there for is to make these decisions. And they’re allowed to operate that way. We just haven’t seen that evidence yet, but just because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Sidney Powell is making the claim that it’s coming. She says, it’s coming this week and it’s going to be Epic. It’s cracking on steroids. So you can think of it this way, where the Trump team and the Sidney Powell team, they’re, they’re sort of working together still, but they’re approaching the problem from different angles. It’s too toxic to have them joined as a team, but they’re just agreeing to separate and they’re going their own.

That’s one theory. Another theory, Sidney Powell has just totally lost it. Right?

You have to consider that. You have to think about that. If Donald Trump and his team are reviewing her claims and reviewing her evidence,

And it doesn’t exist, you got apart right

Ways with that person, because that person may be making a bunch of claims that are going to undermine your claims. So it’s sort of the same analysis, right? You want to protect your best claims. And if somebody who is a part of your team is bringing in additional claims that is going to be too toxic, too detrimental to what you’re trying to prove in court. You want to siphon that person off and get, and remove them from the legal team.

And so you could, you could, you could definitely go that route. And it’s not something that I want to jump to conclusions on, but

I could come to the possibility or come to the conclusion that Sydney with her claims has just sort of gone off

The deep end. And they sound

Like they’re really close to the deep end. You know, that the entire system of American democracy, all of our electoral security security has just been jeopardized. Every election that we’ve been having for the last however many years is literally

Illegitimate. Foreign actors

Are electing our officials in America. I mean, these are really, really,

Really strong claims. And you’d have to imagine that this would be,

Be the conspiracy to end all conspiracies. This would be something that would be a nuclear bomb that went off in the United States. We would all never trust our election process. Again, we have a lot of doubts about the people who are in power right now.

It would be a big, big deal. And so is that possible? Sure. I think it’s possible. Is it likely, probably not.

Has any Powell totally lost it and gone off the deep end? Probably not. It’s probably not that either. Right? It’s probably not the case where all of her claims are 100% true. It’s probably also not the case that all of them are 100% false. It’s probably somewhere in the middle. For some reason here, the Trump team has just

Decided to part ways with them a little bit. The other thought that I had originally was that

Maybe Donald Trump just wanted to change things up. Remember, he’s very, very known for doing this. He likes to just change the game in the middle of the game. We’ve seen this in his campaigns. He swaps campaign managers all the time. He swaps know different directors for different departments, different heads, different chiefs of staff. I mean different secretary. We’ve had, you know, it’s sort of been a revolving door in the white house. That’s one of been one of the main criticisms of the Trump team. I actually don’t think it’s such a bad thing. If you have somebody who’s not doing a good job, you get rid of them quickly. All right, hire slow fire fast is sort of the popular, uh,

Conception of how you do it in business. Take your time, get to know somebody, bring them on. If they’re not any good, get rid of them quickly, hire slow fire fast, you know, just get, get the ride

People on the bus. If they’re, if it’s not the right person in the right seat, you got to get rid of that person. So Donald Trump is known to do that now for somebody who is as, as invested as high stakes, as involved as Sidney Powell was, I had a tough time believing that, that, you know, this would be the rationale for it. And that he would just decide to change course, literally in the middle of this thing, about the week before they said that they were going to file lawsuits. So I’m not sure that that is it either. Um, you know, we also have seen here and let’s take a quick look at this again from ms. Powell, we see here, let the chips fall where they may, whether it be upon Republicans or Democrats. So we can see that down here at the bottom, right?

Whether it be upon Republicans or Democrats, which is very interesting. So the next thought was, well, maybe the Trump team needs to distance her because this, this release is going to implicate a lot of Republicans that would be troubling. What if it even implicated some people in the Trump team that would not be good either. So at this, if that were the case, you know, if she’s going to release this information and all of the Republicans, all of the Democrats, everybody in power is going to be throwing their up and their arms up in the air about this thing. This may be a good reason for the Trump team to distance themselves for her to say, no, look, we got rid of her. She’s a little bit crazy. You know, none of those claims are justified. She’s even making claims against Republicans. Now that’s not the case at all.

She releases the crack in it smacks both political parties right here, square between the eyes. And they both are now anti Sidney Powell. And so you could think this might be a premeditated distancing from Sidney Powell, from the Trump team. I’m not too sure about that. And finally, you know, this could be something where she just doesn’t, she just, she served a purpose. You know, she served her purpose as part of the Trump team. She could have been brought on to just fulfill this key point is just to come out there and sort of muddy the waters a little bit, introduce some other claims and give the Trump team, give the Trump people some time. She, and I think she’s been very effective in that. She’s done a good job of really, really sort of extending people’s concerns on this. We saw last week, literally last week, a lot of the Trump team’s claims, not, not particularly their lawsuits, they themselves have not filed a ton of lawsuits, but a lot of other people have.

And the lawsuits that other people are filing are mirroring are going to mirror the claims that the Trump team files, you know, these are not two totally different worlds. It’s it’s you count votes or you don’t. And you, you, you, you use rules to, to detail how you’re going to count those votes. And if somebody broke those rules, you bring your legal claims. It’s kind of it. And both sides are going to have different permutations of that different allegations about, you know, the printed ballots we’ve covered. I think 15 different types of voter fraud claims here, but maybe Sydney, she served her purpose. There was enough there to sort of extend the investigation process. So many people, even many of you and even myself on this, you know, last week we were concerned about what this strategy looked like. Rudy Giuliani was out there saying we’re going to invalidate big buckets of votes about the end of last week.

And today we’re learning that strategy is not so good. There was a, an order from, I think it was in Pennsylvania, they dismissed another one of, uh, their, their claims with prejudice, meaning they can’t refile it. They can’t amend the original complaint. There’s a lot of sort of bad legal developments going on while Sidney Powell, all of last week, many people who saw these devolving legal issues going on may have abandoned the Trump team and the whole campaign and sort of lost energy and lost momentum. What Sidney Powell was doing was keeping them all engaged. We have something else out there. There’s something else coming. We know more about this. It’s going to wipe out the Republicans and the Democrats and everybody’s involved and everybody’s implicated it. Keep the energy up, keep the energy high in order to get closer to some of these deadlines where they’re now going to go and interface with these different legislatures and continue to make their claim that there was some serious electoral fraud.

So it may have just been as simple as that, they brought her on, she came out, she threw some fire. She threw some Molotov cocktails over at the media, brought in some new claims, got some of the voters thinking a certain way, maybe planted the seed for a lot of different legislatures or senators or AGS or whomever. And now her job is done. And so they’re going to distance themselves from the campaign. So, you know, some people like to look at these things and say, well, the whole thing was just a, it’s been a clown show. It’s been a circus. This is, is one of those things. It very well could be. That could be the only explanation. It was a personality to just disagreement. It could be a financial disagreement. There are many, many reasons why, but we don’t know. And we do know that Powell says lawsuits are coming this week.

It’s going to be Epic. So we are going to continue to follow that along. A couple of other things from ms. Powell, before we move on. So she said, here, I understand today’s press release, press release. I will continue. And we, the people who had their votes for Trump and other Republicans stolen my massive fraud through dominion and smart MADEC, we will be filing suit soon. The chips will fall where they may, we will defend the foundations of this great Republic once again, crack cracking on steroids. And so over the weekend, before this actually happened, before we got the press release, that Sydney is no longer on the Trump team. She’s out there saying we’ve got a lot of additional evidence. So here she is on it looked, this was on examining politics, I think on off of the election wizard. So here’s a clip from her over at the Washington examiner. This is where this comes from talking about some of them, some, some new evidence that’s coming out. Here’s his Sydney software is capable of being accessed that way. Again, my question is, how does one prove that that’s what happened in this case?

Well, there are devices on the internet that can be used to see it. And we have multiple people who actually saw it as it was happening. And so we essentially have some pictures of it and it is terrifying and it is a huge national issue. Why the department of justice and the FBI have not done something on this immediately is beyond my comprehension. Dominion is closing its offices and moving no doubt. They’re shredding documents. And God only knows what else. More than a hundred dominion people wiped, any connection with dominion off the internet they’re taking down prior articles about them. Uh, Carolyn Maloney, I think it was wrote a letter to the secretary of the treasury or some, some government official back in 2013. I think it was complaining about this and raising questions about it and suggesting and saying it was foreign owned and shouldn’t be approved. Well, you know, they, all they did was create a shell company in the United States, but they’re completely intertwined. They share office space with, uh, one of George sources groups, his number two man heads up the operation out of England. But the money for it was all funded from Venezuela and Cuba and communists. And they did it. We’ve got an eye witness to all of it. Who’s given us for an affidavit that he saw it all done in. The purpose it was done for was to rig elections

Now. Yeah. And so I would encourage you to go listen to that entire, uh, interview. It’s 22 minutes. It’s a good interview. You can see that the host is getting a little bit irritated. Larry O’Connor is his name. He’s not, I wouldn’t say it. You could sense the irritableness in his voice, but he is like Sydney. Hey, okay. I know the Venezuela thing. I know that the software is terrible foreign servers, all this stuff, but what about this election? What about this one now? Because that’s what people want to know. They may have a lot of doubts about the software, but if a judge doesn’t know that it resulted in changing this election, not that it impacted it, but changing it, then they’re not going to listen to it. And she really kind of waffled on that. Now she said we have pictures, but I don’t know.

Again, is this pictures in general, is this pictures of this evidence of this election? Is this a picture in Philadelphia or somebody going like this? And literally, Hey, we’re changing votes for Donald Trump over here to Joe Biden. You know, what is it? That’s what people have issues with because a lot of it is speculative and it’s abstract and it’s just kind of floating out there in the ether. We need concrete, specific evidence here, and we just haven’t seen it yet. Now she’s promising lawsuits are going to be filed this week. I have said on this show repeatedly, let’s not hold them to other people’s standards. Let’s not hold the Trump legal team to Tucker Carlson standards or to Liz Cheney standards or to Joe Biden, Stanford standards, or to anybody over at the New York times, Washington post MSNBC or any of the others. They don’t get to set the standards on how an attorney runs their case.

They don’t get to set the standard on how the Trump legal team runs their election situation. That’s up to them. So let’s hold them to their own standards. And I said, this last week, last week, Victoria Townson, who apparently I think unless anything has changed recently is still a part of the Trump legal team. She said, lawsuits were filed this week. This one, right? The one that we’re in Sidney Powell, she had a little bit of waffley last week, but this week she’s saying they’re coming out this week and it’s going to be Epic. So that’s what we’re going to be monitoring. We’re going to keep, continue to watch, continue to wait and see when are these additional lawsuits coming and what’s in them. So if you’re not already a part of this channel subscribed over here, now’s a good time to do that. Because as soon as those lawsuits are filed and we have some additional claims, we will be covering them on this channel.

All right, let’s change gears a little bit. Let’s get away from the election. I want to get a little, a little bit away from the election because there’s a lot of other interesting stuff going on and it relates to the law. So we now know that the United States is apparently in the middle of another. COVID the wave we’re seeing lockdowns. We’re seeing shutdowns new orders all across the United States. We see them out of California. And I think something like 94% of their counties are now in purple, which means they can’t do anything. Even though governor Newsome goes to dinners and birthday parties. You know, if you, if you were, if you were just a, a native little peasant, California, you don’t get to go do those things. You get to go, you know, go have your, your Thanksgiving dinner outside of your residents with masks with only three families, three relatives or whatever the rules are.

We’re seeing more and more of it. Nothing happened yet in Arizona. Uh, some other governors have come out opposing these lockdowns and some of these orders. I think Texas, I think Florida has said, we’re not locking down again. Don’t ask for it. And we’re going to see what Arizona does, but a lot of other States they’re just shutting down again and we’re going to talk about it. Now, the last time I talked about this, I think this was in March before this, this channel, this channel must’ve been a 10th or 20th of the size that it is now. I got a lot of grief from a lot of people saying, you’re a lawyer. You’re not a doctor. You don’t get to speak about this stuff. Stick to your business, stick to your field, let the, let the, let the lawyers and let the doctors talk about this stuff.

You stick to the law. I wasn’t, I wasn’t going to do it. Then I’m not going to do it now. Here’s why is because a lot of these are a lot of these, you know, medical concerns, anything that the government wants to do ultimately ends up encroaching on our freedoms. I know it sounds so cliche. What are encroaching on your freedom because of COVID because of this. Yeah. Yes, literally. And we’re going to go through it. Okay. In March, April, may I could understand the opposing argument. I could understand a little bit of the sympathy here saying, yeah, maybe you should stick to your wheelhouse. Well, in March, April, may we all agreed for this. So-called 15 days to slow. The spread nonsense that turned into nine months, 15 months is what’s going to end up being, we were all a little bit frustrated with it, but we did it because coronavirus was new.

We didn’t know anything about it for what we knew. It was killing a huge swath of the population. Everybody 35 year olds up to 90 year olds and everybody in between was dropping dead from this thing. Well, now we fast forward. It’s November. We know a lot more about this. We know a lot more about its effects and how to manage it. We have vaccines right around the corner. We have a lot of additional things that are going to help mitigate the slow, the spread. And so the government in my mind, as somebody who wants to live in a free society, who wants to be able to maximize freedom for myself, for my family, for society, for other people, for the, the, the, the people at the lowest rungs of society, we want to help bring them up the West way to do that in my opinion is through freedom.

So when I start to see different governors and different individuals from around the country, telling you as a small business owner, as a person, you can’t do certain things. You’re not allowed that’s concerning. That is not something that I think we should stand for lightly. Even if it is coronavirus, even if it is something that is a big deal and we should all take seriously, we still have to examine these with a very, very, very, very close lens with a magnifying glass. What are these people doing? Because as we saw after nine 11, as we’ve seen with all of the surveillance state and the security apparatus, that’s just been bubbling up around us, basically my entire life. They don’t give power back lightly. As soon as they get their hands on it, the behemoth of government just keeps gobbling up more and more power. And we just give up more and more stuff. And we’re seeing that every single day in one man’s opinion. So let’s take a look and talk about what’s happening out of Michigan. Here is governor Whitmer just on the 15th. So that was eight days ago coming out and giving a new COVID order locked down on COVID 19 here.

So today we’ve got an apt today. The department of health and human services is issuing an epidemic order to help us slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives. The order takes effect on Wednesday at 12:01 AM and will be in effect for three weeks. And we will continuously monitor the data throughout to determine next steps. Public health experts are warning Americans everywhere to limit our indoor gatherings so that we can save lives. This new epidemic order is geared towards stopping the spread by limiting indoor gatherings. These steps are what the public health experts say. We must take to avoid overwhelming hospitals and death counts like we saw in the spring.

All right. All right. So let’s take a look at what the actual order says. So here is the emergency order that was imposed. You’re going to take a look at this thing. It’s like, I don’t know, 10 slides long. Here it is. So I’m not going to read through the whole thing. I just want to show you what, what are the HEMOC? This thing is all right. So what we’re going to go through, we’re going to see emergency order gatherings and face mask order, Michigan law imposes on the Michigan department of health, the duty to continually and diligently endeavor to prevent disease and so on. And so it lays out some of the framework that is vested into the department by law. It says the coronavirus is the worst thing ever to hit human, a human humanity in recognition. The legislature gave the M D H H S specific authority dating back a century to address the threat, the threats to the public health that were imposed by COVID.

And so apparently this order came about, or this rule from MD, H H S came about as a result of another, that took place. I think it was the Spanish flu or whatever. One of those things were a hundred years ago on March 10th, the same MD HHS identified the first two presumptive cases. And since October, Michigan has seen an, an exponential growth in new cases, daily cases are now over 6,000. All right, great. The state of Michigan presently has a seven day average. So they go through all of their numbers here. They’re now 4.5 times the hospitalization. So they always do this. They do this in Arizona to look how bad everything is, look how quickly we need to justify this stuff to protect the vulnerable individuals. So they’re going to pass an order that, that impacts everybody only to protect the vulnerable individuals. So to ensure the health care prevent the spread of, Oh, and all this stuff, considering the

Above, I have concluded that the Panda,

Um, it continues to be an epidemic in Michigan, and they’re using their authority here under 2020 PA two 38, which was just signed into law October 22nd, 2020. And they’re saying, I further conclude that control of the epidemic is necessary to protect the public health. And as provided an MCL, I have these emergency procedures, and they’re not limited to just the public health code. So you can see, look at this thing. So here is the order definitions, childcare organization, face mass food service. Okay. This looks like a statute. Okay. If you look up any statute in your local law, you’re going to see, it looks like this. They have a definitions section, they have all of these different, and we just goes on and on. So we start here at the definition, sports organizer, organized sports symptoms of COVID exercise facility, general capacity limitations, indoor gatherings, outdoor gatherings, limitations to gatherings.

Uh, we, we can go on and on. We have gathering restrictions, restrictions for particular types of facilities, gatherings at entertainment, venues, banquet hall, cinemas conferences, recreational facilities, amusement parks, arcade bingo, and so on food establishments, all these different rules, six, six feet apart gathering restrictions for at facilities at a retail store at a library and a museum capacity must not exceed 30% of total occupancy, 2025. And so look, it just keeps going and going and going school colleges, gatherings of public organized sporting events, face mass requirements at gatherings. This all looks like statutory code. Okay. And this is something that the governor is putting into place by executive Fiat. They’re just implementing all this stuff. It just keeps going, um, exceptions to the face masks. Now,

Then we contact

Tracing requirements for particular gatherings, contact tracings, okay. Gatherings are prohibited at the following facilities unless the facility maintains accurate records, including date and time of entry, names of patrons, contact information, basically everything that they want from you, all businesses. And so on, data must be collected. It’s just, it goes on and on implementation and so on. Okay. This order takes effect on November 18th. So it’s already in effect, I think at which time, October 29th

And, uh,

That’s what’s happening. So our, our governors are just sort of passing

Big, big bills, essentially legislative by

Executive Fiat and the Supreme court in Michigan has already said, you can’t do that. Here is what that order said. So this is from the Midwest Institute of health. What happened back? This was decided on October 2nd of this year, Midwest Institute of health filed a lawsuit against the governor of Michigan. And I want to read through some of what this lawsuit says, because this issue has already been essentially addressed. Governor Whitmer doesn’t have the authority to do what she’s doing, but she’s doing it anyways. So here we have, this is from the, the, uh, the case that I just referenced. And it says that the Midwest Institute of health originally filed a lawsuit. They were challenging the Michigan department of health, which prohibited healthcare providers from performing non-essential procedures. So this was way back when the original orders were in place. The order was originally instituted by Gretchen Whitmer as a resort of the executive orders in response to COVID-19 on March 10th, she issued EO 20, 2004 declaring a state of emergency.

And she used the emergency powers of governor act, which we’re going to call the LPGA. Okay. So the emergency power of governors act, which was put in place in 1945. So that must’ve been, uh, it was right around the end of world war II and the emergency management act of 1976. So the point here is that this is where the governor is getting her power from. She’s claiming I can go do all of these things because I was granted powers through the emergency powers of governor act, the PGA and the emergency management act, the EMA. Okay. Those are, those are going to come up again. On April 1st, she issued a state of emergency under the PGA state of emergency under the EMA. So she’s using two of these legal sources as a basis for her, her power. But then she requested that the state legislature extend the state of emergency and the state of a disaster declarations by 70 days.

Okay. So see how that works. Now she uses the 30 days, she’s granted the, the power and the ability to do that. Then when she doesn’t have the authority to do that anymore, she takes it back over to the legislature and says, Hey guys, I need more time. I don’t have the authority to do it. You guys do. So why don’t you pass it? So in response, the legislature, did they extended the state of emergency and the state of disaster through April 30th. Okay. Then on April 30th, the governor issued another one, which terminated the declaration of a state emergency and the state of disaster, but then immediately after she issued another one. So she ended the first one and then issued another one. So obviously that’s a new one. So she gets to renew all the time limits, right? This indicated that a state of emergency remained declared under the PGA at the same time.

She should another one under the EMA. So the plaintiffs are now saying that, uh, the person here in this lawsuit couldn’t get a knee knee surgery because it was not an essential, uh, uh, business or whatever. And the argument here is that although EO has been rescinded, the federal district court held that the case is not moot because these new orders are coming out and they’re putting more restrictions on healthcare. The federal court certified these two questions. So these are the, these two questions are the basis of the lawsuit. Number one, if my slide will change, whether the emergency powers act. So whether the governor acted, whether she has the authority after April 30th to issue or renew any executive orders related to COVID-19. Okay. So she originally

Passed an order that expired after 30 days, she deleted that order and put in a new order that covered the same exact thing after April 30th. Right. Okay.

And is she allowed to do that? Can she issue or renew any orders related to COVID-19? And the second question was whether the EPA GA, so the emergency powers of the governor act violates the separation of powers or the non delegation clauses of the Michigan constitution, right? So let’s reframe that. Let’s do a quick revisit to our civics class, social studies or whatever you call it. But in the United States, we have three different branches of government. We have the executive branch, which enforces the law. We have the legislative branch, which drafts the law. And then we have the judicial branch, which judges the law, it governs between the two and says, whether something’s constitutional or not are allowed or not. And so what’s happening here is that the court is coming through and they’re saying, you can’t, you can’t do this. The authority to extend

The COVID lockdown

To extend any of these executive orders comes from the,

And so ms. Governor, if you’re going to just take over one of the powers of the legislatures, that’s not

Aloud because you’re not the legislature. You can only enforce the laws. You don’t get to just draft them and write them and come up with whatever you want. That’s what the people do by electing their representatives. You’re the governor you’re supposed to enforce it and dutifully, execute the laws, not just draft up whatever the hell you want and put it into law. And so that’s really where the two claims are coming from. The second main claim is about this, this, uh, this EPG, this emergency powers of governor. Yeah.

Where they’re essentially saying that they can’t the legislature, can’t delegate one of the,

Their powers to the governor. So remember this also, you can’t one branch can’t delegate something to the other. So let’s say we all sort of naturally understand that one branch can’t come in and take over your power. So if I’m the president and the legislature comes in and they say, Hey, we want to be commander

Chief. I’d say, what are you nuts

Out here? I’m the president. I’m the commander. And chief don’t even think about it, right? So you’d push the Congress out. But similarly you can’t delegate either. So if I’m the president and I say, listen, I don’t want to be commander in chief anymore. This whole foreign policy thing is just way over my head. I would like to give that over to Congress. I think, you know, why should one person be the commander in chief? That’s insane. Let me just give that over to Congress. I’m going to delegate that over to them wrong. You can’t do that either. You can’t delegate and you can’t sort

Of trample all

Over a different branches powers. And so that’s what they’re talking about here in Michigan. Sounds sorta like the legislature at some point, delegated some of their rights and responsibilities over to the government that may have been back in 1945. And the question then is whether any of that is true or not. So let me go through what we’re going to go through. This. It’s a, it’s a big wall of texts. Let me read through it. Cause I think there’s some interesting stuff here. It says, this is, this was from justice, Markman, justice, Zahra justice, Clement. They concluded the governor lacked the, this is from a Supreme court case, by the way, in the state of Michigan, the governor lacked the authority to declare a state of emergency. And one more, one more thing. This case came out before the order that I just read to you.

Okay? So that order from the governor, the executive order that was 18 slides or seven slides or whatever it was with all these different statutory requirements. This Supreme court case came out before that. So they’re using different authority. They’re using they’re, they’re, they’re implementing this executive order. In spite of this case, this was already in the law, in the state of Michigan. Here’s what it says. Justice Markman joined by Sohara and climate concluded. The governor lacked the authority to declare a state of emergency or a state of disaster under the EMA, after April 30th. So she got her, the initial request was okay, but after April 30th, not anymore, at least on the basis of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPG violated the Michigan constitution because it delegated to the executive branch, the legislative powers of the state government, and it allowed the executive branch to exercise those powers indefinitely.

You can’t do that. You can’t give that stuff over there because they’ll never give it back. First under the AMA, the governor only possessed the authority to declare a state of emergency once and then had to terminate that declaration. When the legislature did not authorize an extension, the governor possessed no authority to re declare the same state of emergency the same state of a disaster, and thereby avoid the legislature’s limitation. Second, regarding the statutory language of the PGA plaintiff’s argument that an emergency must be short-lived. And the legislature’s argument was only intended to address local emergencies. They were unconvincing while the EPA only allows the governor to declare a state of emergency. When public safety is imperiled, public health emergencies can be said to imperil public safety. Third, as the scope of powers conferred upon the governor by the legislature becomes increasingly broad in regard to both subject matter and duration, the standards imposed upon the governors must correspondingly become more detailed and more precise.

And so the first question that they were talking about here, it says it’s partially answered in the negative. The governor did not have the authority after April 30th to issue or renew any executive orders related to COVID-19. The second certified question is also partially answered in the affirmative. The governor did not possess the authority to exercise emergency powers under the LPGA, because the act unlawfully, delegates legislative power to the executive branch and so on. And so there is now some information that there are people locally in Michigan who want to see her impeached as a result of this. So we have a Supreme court order, not from the United States Supreme court, but from the local Michigan Supreme court that says you can’t keep extending these orders to the end of the earth. Governor Whitmer turns around and says, yes, I can watch me. Then we have somebody named Bo Lafarge over in Michigan, who is explaining here that he is actually filing four articles of impeachment against governor Whitmore. And they include failing to respect the separation of powers, violating constitutional rights, issuing executive orders against the interest of the people and using state resources to reward political allies. All right. So here he is

Representative LaFave and others offered house resolution three to four, a resolution directing the impeachment of Gretchen Whitmer governor of the state of Michigan for a corrupt conduct in office, in crimes and misdemeanors, the wrestlers referred to the committee on government operations.

All right. So that will be forthcoming. I actually don’t think that that’s going to, I don’t think that’s going anywhere, unfortunately. Uh, let’s see. Here we have, we have, ms. Faith was doing some clipping for me. I was literally skidding in here to get to the program. I had court this afternoon that went very long. So, all right. So here’s what reps Bolafade and Matthew Maddock were saying, they’re saying they announced articles as new coronavirus restrictions went into effect on Wednesday. The articles accused governor Whitmer of corrupt conduct in office having exceeded her constitutional authority during the pandemic. It reads in part, whereas in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gretchen Whitmer has acted in conflict with her constitutional duties as governor. She has exceeded her constitutional authority, violated the constitutional rights of the people of Michigan issued orders that are not in the best interest of the people of the state and use a pandemic as an opportunity to reward political allies.

These actions are a matter of public record, primarily in the form of executive orders and the enforcement thereof now therefore be resolved and so on. She’s impeached for corrupt conduct in office and for crimes and misdemeanors. All right. So that’s that. So that’s going on around the country and quite frankly, I think there’s gonna be more of this. I think as more and more of these lockdown orders come into play businesses. Can’t, can’t, can’t succeed. People can’t live their lives. It’s a huge, huge concern. Now I am all for reasonable measures and for helping those people who need the help. But I don’t think that includes literally everybody under the sun, which is unfortunately what a lot of these States are trying to implement. We’ve I’ve, I’ve made the point when this all first started a long time ago. Why are the healthy people being penalized for trying to continue the economy for trying to continue to be out there?

Why are we not passing laws that just really, really restrict the people or, or let’s say assist the people who are the higher risk categories. To me, this seems like using a what’s it called a cannon to kill a house fly, right? And that’s just not what we want in this country. So we’re going to continue to follow that story around as well. All right. Let’s turn our attention over to the final thing I wanted to mention somewhat briefly today because it’s, uh, it’s still developing. We all know, or if you’re a regular, this channel, Kyle Rittenhouse was very recently released or this past weekend from custody out in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Finally, finally, finally, so two things on this number one, I’m very happy that he’s out of custody, hats off to his team

For getting him there.

John Pierce Lynwood, he’s got another attorney. Who’s actually a criminal defense attorney local in Wisconsin, and they got him out of custody. My critique on this it’s two and a half months too late. I already explained this. I’ve had a lot of criticisms for Linwood and for John Pierce and for his legal team, because they’re not criminal defense lawyers. And they spent the last two and a half months fighting over this extradition stuff in where, where they lost everything. And they had real, no, really in my opinion, no legitimate basis for even challenging it. I understand what they were doing, but it was a boneheaded strategy. And we were proven right on this channel. Now I don’t like to generally, I don’t like to toot my own horn on this channel, but beep beep on this one, all right. I said two and a half months ago, they should drop the extradition stuff. They should send them back over to Kenosha. It’s a $2 million bond. I had no doubt in my mind that he could raise the money to do it. As we saw, I think Michael and Dell and some

Other people donated the, the

Fulsome he’s out of custody, which is good news. It’s great

News. But this could

Have happened a long, long time ago. You may remember if you’re a regular here that previously we talked about a different case out of Kenosha, out of the same district attorney’s office with very similar facts. Her name was crystal Kaiser. We talked about her at length. She was in custody for very similar murder charges and she got her bond reduced down from a million to 400,000 and she’s also out of custody. So our, uh, thought process was the analysis on this thing was, well, why

Don’t they, if, if, if Kyle

Rittenhouse and his legal team wanted to bring him over to Illinois,

He was going to sit in custody

For two and a half months pending the outcome of the extradition hearing. Because according to Illinois law, if you’re, if you’re home, if the home state where the original claim was, won’t let you out of custody. Then they’re going to honor that, or they’re not going to let you out of custody in Illinois. So he was sitting in Illinois for two and a half months while his attorneys were filing these, these re uh, these, um, habeas Corpus petitions, trying to get them out of custody. We all knew that that was a long shot, that that was not going to happen. And so he just sat there for two and a half months now, after they lost the extradition hearing argument in court, John Pierce was on Twitter the very day saying, we’re going to appeal this thing. We’re going to appeal this thing to the end of the world. We’re going to fight, fight, fight, hashtag fight back, just go here and donate some money. And we’re going to keep fighting

This thing. Well, before

We knew it, that was strange because

Literally like within 12 hours,

Kyle Rittenhouse had already been transported back to Wisconsin and they were already gathering the funds supposed to bond, which should have been done at the very beginning. They should have just, okay, send them back over there. We know we can get ’em out of custody. We know we’ve got a somewhat sympathetic jurisdiction because the, and the, the, uh, judge, at least in the building, granted somebody else, a major reduction in a bond for a very similar case, look up the case for crystal Kaiser. Watch our old videos. If you want, where she got hurt, bond reduced down dramatically. So good news that he’s out. I think he sat in custody for two and a half months too long. And that leaves a lot to be desired. I think from his legal team. Now another little, another little, you know, all right, let’s talk about it.

All right. So this is a picture from Linwood. This is, uh, he posted this. This is John Pierce here over here. Apparently this is some guy named Ricky Schroder, an actor. Then we have Kyle Rittenhouse right here. Now this look, you might call this poor form. I don’t know. Um, I, I personally wouldn’t take a picture like that with my client. I wouldn’t do it. I think it’s poor form. I don’t think that it’s proper etiquette. I think that it’s something that, um, is sort of looked down upon. Now look, let me, let me distinguish this. Maybe at the very end of the case, maybe when the case is over, maybe when it’s all said and done, you have your victory in court and everybody can go home and sleep at night on their own pillows. Maybe then you go out, you have a drink, you have a steak, you have a fat burger, you become friends and life’s good.

This is not there. We’re not there yet. Okay. Kyle Rittenhouse has probably two years left of this case moving forward, unless something happens and the da just changes course and decides to dismiss the case. I’m going to guess that doesn’t happen. So this is in my mind. It’s a little premature. I think it’s a little bit improper. Remember Kyle Rittenhouse is like 17 might be 18. Now. I’m not sure a young guy and to have an attorney like literally go and like thumbs up and just want to be next to him and just promote this stuff over social media. It’s just, it just rubs me the wrong way. I that’s all I can say about it. There’s no formal etiquette about this. There’s no, nothing improper about it. I just don’t like it. I don’t think it’s good. I think that Kyle is probably a very young, he’s very young, very fragile.

He just came out of custody and maybe I’m making too much ado about this whole thing, but it just doesn’t. It just doesn’t feel right to me. I have always gotten the impression that both Lynnwood and John peers are media personalities. First and foremost, they’re not lawyers. They’re technically lawyers. I read Lynwood’s complaint on here. And I thought it was a good complaint. I thought it was interesting. Now it got dismissed for a lack of standing, which is a whole separate issue, but I, you know, they’re they’re attorneys and they do, uh, they, they, they, they do legal work, but first and foremost, I’ve always considered them to be just kind of Twitter people. You know, they just, they’re always tweeting about Lord knows what? And I thought that this Rittenhouse case was something where they were just really just trying to kind of encroach in on the limelight a little bit and steal some of the thunder.

And there’s some other people out there who’ve done some really deep dives. We’ve covered them on this program about a lot of their, their personal problems, you know, all these credit problems and significant amounts of debt and all this stuff. And so when I see pictures like this and the seed has already been planted in my mind that maybe these guys are just sort of, you know, kind of grifting on the Rittenhouse train. And I see a picture like that and it kind of just confirms it for me. So it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t know what you have to say about it, but that’s, that’s, that’s, that’s my opinion on it. I know it’s probably not a popular one, but I do want to get it out there. Here’s another statement from Linwood, just off the phone with Kyle, with tears in my eyes, I listened to the express, thanks to the people for your prayers, donations and support.

He prayed every night and said, God lifted him up. Every time he fell, Kyle’s a hero. So it was his supporters. Keep him in your prayers. So nothing really to disagree with there. Uh, I think that’s all, that’s all well and good. And I’m glad that he is out of custody. What’s next for Kyle? Well, on December 3rd, it looks like he has a preliminary hearing. And for those of you on YouTube, there’s a YouTube link there. So it sounds like they may actually be broadcasting. This, it is set for a preliminary hearing in front of Lauren Keating and it is at 10:30 AM over in Kenosha, Wisconsin. So Mark that down on your calendar as, and even plugged that channel in if you want to follow along. So I don’t know exactly what the, what the proceeding is yet. It says it’s a preliminary hearing. That can mean a couple of different things.

Generally speaking, a preliminary hearing is preliminary. It’s very basic and essentially at least how we do things in Arizona. And for most other jurisdictions, they call up. I’m also licensed in California, but I’m not licensed in Wisconsin. So I don’t know specifically, but I can just sort of, uh, speculate based on my experience in two other States. And so preliminary hearing by and large it’s when it can be something that is very significant in terms of presenting evidence. So in order for felony charges to be filed and move forward in court, they have to show that there’s a basis for filing them in the first place. It’s a little bit different than like a traffic ticket. You just get a traffic ticket. The cop says, I saw you speeding. Here you go. Here’s your ticket. Can’t do that for a murder charge. Well, I kinda saw you murder.

Somebody think, think you murdered him. Here you go. It doesn’t work like that. There’s actually a lot more procedure that takes place before you get into court. And so in a situation like this preliminary hearing could be involved. It could involve the officers, the investigators, they could be challenging the probable cause for the original underlying charges, or this could be just a very basic procedural hearing where all the attorneys show up, they make sure that certain things have happened. Like discovery has been provided discovery. We call disclosure. It’s the government’s file. When, uh, when the, when the, when you’re arrested for something or charged with a crime, remember that the government has most of the evidence. If not all of it. In, in many cases, they have basically everything. They have all of the witness statements. They may have surveillance footage, they have the investigators, they have the recordings of all the interviews.

They did. They have the body cameras, they have it all. And so as part of disclosure, they got to give that stuff to us. And so that’s, you know, that’s sort of what the judge wants to know has that stuff happened? Have you disclosed anything that, that, you know, you intend to be using at the preliminary hearing, they want to make sure both sides have equal footing. They both have, I would say the relevant pertinent documents that are necessary for the next proceeding. And so the preliminary hearing may just be something where the, everybody just goes into court, stands up and announces and says, yeah, your honor, everything’s good. We’re all set. So we’re going to have our, our next hearing on this day. And or they may address a couple of little things while your honor, I send an email for that. I haven’t gotten that back yet.

Judge will go back and say, well, get that stuff over to them and hash out the details so that the case can move forward. So we’re going to see, of course we Rittenhouse since the very beginning, some of our, uh, some of our most watched videos were the Rittenhouse analysis where we did a frame-by-frame analyze the sound, the gunshots and all that stuff. It was, uh, it was an interesting case and it is going to continue to be interesting and we will follow that along. So we want to make sure that you’re subscribed and a part of that conversation. So, all right, my friends let’s go ahead and jump into the chat. We had some super chats come in. We have Wayne Janssen who says, uh, we’re probably talking about Trump. This came in earlier. He says another example of 40 chest media not reporting.

So water was tested with Tucker’s help now media taking the bait sheep back, checking Sydney’s posts. Okay. So somebody, so Wayne is, is thinking that, uh, that, that maybe, maybe Sydney, you know, this is all part of that, that four dimensional chess board going on, that this was all strategic and all coordinated. And you, you really can’t, you really, I think that’s probably a long shot, but you really can’t put it past them at this point. You know, there they are. It feels like they’ve been talking about a lot of this for a long time. This may just be part of their strategy. Now, I don’t know what kind of a strategy it is. I will, I will say this, if this was something, let me, let me just detail this part. If, if we’re Sidney Powell and I was on the Trump team and I woke up and got a press release like that, I’d be pretty furious about it.

Okay. Especially after a Tuesday proceeding, when I was literally the second person to speak at the conference. So if my, you know, my, my team, the people who I was fighting for, if they turned around and just said, we’re gonna write a press release and just post it on Twitter, you’re gone. I’d be pretty furious about that. Right. And rightfully so. So would you, so I’m going to guess that that didn’t happen. So Powell, you know, sh her, her press release was know, we understand it felt like it was a little bit amicable to me. Like they may have had a conversation about it. And like, this was a mutually agreed double separation for what it’s worth, uh, Durango Sullivan. Who’s always here says Trump observers didn’t turn their back. They were blocked audits, still blocked millions of Trump votes canceled by illegal votes on the margin.

Okay. So I understand, I understand that criticism. And I understand this idea that Donald Trump and his supporters and, and all of the observers were rightfully allowed to be in there. And so when I make this, when I make the example of the chess board and turning your back and them doing something, I, that I know that it’s a little bit high hyperbolic, it’s a little, you know, obviously it’s an analogy. It’s not, what’s actually going on. We’ve covered a lot of the claims from the observers. We said, they’re locked out of the rooms. We’ve, we’ve showed videos of them putting stuff up on the windows so that people can’t see all of that is problematic. And we even went through the Michigan statutes where they talk about specifically, they call them Watchers. It’s one of those States where they call them, you know, Watchers, which really stood out to me cause that’s the name of this program.

And they’re very, very, very detailed rules on what is required for them. And if you violate those rules, it’s a pretty big problem. Now, I agree with that. And I agree that observing is important and I agree that they should be given access and all of that stuff. The issue here is the remedy. The remedy that has been proposed by the Trump team has been way too. Over-broad in my mind just by saying, well, we didn’t get to observe those that we should invalidate. The entire election is overbroad. The remedy needs to match the harm. And I made this example before that if somebody rear ends you, and it’s just a, just a little bit of a bump, you don’t go rearrange your Camry. You don’t go and ask for a Lamborghini as a replacement because it’s, over-broad the remedy doesn’t match the harm. They hit and ruined your Camry, not a Lamborghini.

Therefore you don’t get a Lamborghini. And so that’s kind of what the Trump team was asking for, or to use the chess analogy. It would be like, okay, well, I didn’t see that move. Therefore, we need to invalidate the entire game. No judge is going to do that. And so we needed more specificity as to what the harm was. The remedy has to match the harm in this case, it wasn’t observing, but, but not observing by itself does not mean that there was underlying malfeasance. You can, you can apply that. You can speculate about that. It’s probably true. There’s probably a motive for that, but, but a judge would not invalidate an entire state or, or remove the vote from that contingency of voters. But I understand your point drug. I know, listen, I know that some of this stuff is bad news. I know that there are a lot of people who are a part of this channel, who, who, you know, are, are Trump supporters.

They want him to succeed. I am not a Biden fan. I will tell you that in many people have picked up on that. And so the audience has, has a certain demographic. I would, I would speculate, but this is what’s happening. And I have to tell you what’s happening. And there, I think there are a lot of people out there who are commenting on this stuff, and they’re sort of, they’re, they’re, they’re kind of misleading people down a path. And so I don’t want to be in a position where, where, where my relationship with you was less than full of integrity. And if I’m seeing something that, that looks concerning, I have to tell you about it. Uh, and that’s my commitment to you. And sometimes people are going to unsubscribe and hit the in bail out of here. I understand that, but this is what we’re seeing.

This is what the, the primary sources look like. And so we just need to, you know, we need to think about it. And regardless of what happens, we need to keep this, you know, this, this conversation, this movement is bigger than any one candidate or any one cause or any one politician. It’s about, it’s about freedom. It’s about, it’s about participating in self-governance. It’s about minimizing the intrusiveness of the government onto our lives. It doesn’t matter what it is, whether it’s governor Whitmer and her COVID-19 lockdown, whether it’s a stolen election or whether it’s a police officer illegally executing a warrant on your property. It’s the government they’re intruding on us. They’re intruding on our, our freedom to live our lives in peace in many, many ways. And a lot of people disagree with that. And I catch a lot of heat for this type of commentary, but that’s how I feel most of the time when something is going on

Wrong, you can trace it back to the government most of the time.

All right. Uh, let’s go on. We have one from Pat D who says, when does the burden of proof shift from Trump’s team having to prove fraud was committed to election officials having to prove fraud wasn’t committed after it’s established laws rules, weren’t followed in a substantial way. So it’s a, it’s a great question from Pat. Yeah. A very, very good question. And this is something that I haven’t spent a lot of time on this channel because you can really dive into some legal Lees on this and this can get very abstract. But when I think about it, think about it. W w we’ve always talked about the two different waging competing theories. Donald Trump has the court claims that he needs to make. And Donald Trump has the public court claims the, the opinion of the public world. What does everybody else thinking about what the president is doing? Because it’s all about legitimacy. It doesn’t

Matter what side of the aisle you’re on

Legitimacy. The government needs legitimacy, anybody running for office, anybody making legal claims, there needs to be a legitimate basis for it. And so the question here is kind of interesting because it, it goes, it cuts both ways. So on the one hand, the mainstream idea that Joe Biden is the next

Or the, the, the projected president elect

Has a lot of legitimacy right now.

Whether you agree with that or not, okay,

The numbers are currently in his favor. Now you may not believe the numbers. You may think they’re unjustified, but they’re literally in his favor. And so you have to deal with that fact. It’s a bad fact, many people don’t like to acknowledge it, but it’s a bad fact. And so if you want to undermine that claim, you have to go do one of two things. You have to either disqualify a big bucket of votes, or you have to show that basically the entire election was invalid. And we’ve, we’ve analyzed both of those claims from a number of different angles. And so the presumption there in that world

Is that everything is okay. And

Donald Trump now has the burden of over of over shadowing, that, of overcoming that. And so in my mind, I was trying to think about what the practical burden of proof was. And when you talk about burden of proof, it’s it’s, who has to do what in order to prove their case and what amount do they have to prove. So when we talk about it in the context of criminal law, you probably have heard about this concept called beyond a reasonable doubt, right? You have to prove somebody guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it’s just likely, if it’s just, they probably did it, it was just, they might have done it, or they could have done it. That’s not enough. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt, which means if you have any doubt in your mind, that’s based in reason. Then if somebody just sent me a, some breaking news, if you have any doubt, that’s based in reason, then that is enough to invalidate the charge.

Right. And that’s kind of what we’re talking about here. What level does Donald Trump have to prove in order for it to invalidate an entire election? Would it be some w would it be something lower than beyond a reasonable doubt? I don’t think so. If Donald Trump could go into court and just say, well, it’s more likely than not, that this thing has gone bad, then that would be, that would not be enough. A judge is not going to overturn an election for that. Alright. Uh, Adam S just says, Trump has authorized the transition. So let’s take a look at that, Adam, that would be big news. All right. Let’s see if we have anything that I am seeing here on the Twitter, and let’s see if there’s any other questions while we’re hopping in there. Anybody confirm that is, that is, that has that happened?

All right. So we have here democracy party of Canada says, great show. I’ve watched everyday for two weeks since YouTube recommended it. So real remedy, wouldn’t a redo of the state’s election. Be most fair remedy so that nobody’s votes are invalidated. Yeah. So, um, that’s a good question. Let’s take a look. Yeah. So a redo of the state’s election. So, you know, they’re going to say that it’s already been done and it’s already been done properly. And that the, the appropriate remedy for that is an audit or a recount. That’s going to be their claim, not to redo the entirety of the election. They’re going to say, it’s already justified. It’s already kosher. Everything’s fine. And we’re not going to, um, we’re not going to just redo the whole election because then at that point in time and think about this also every single time that somebody has a complaint about how an election was run, and they just claimed and said, why didn’t have an observer?

Would they have to just redo the entire election? No, the burden is on the person, challenging the claim. And, um, I don’t think that the, the, the Trump team has done that quite yet. All right. So Adam S sent another one. He says, great show. Great attorney London, England. Thanks Adam. And thanks for giving us the ping on this story over here. So we can see that we have Biden transition, live updates. Trump authorizes the administration to begin working with Biden on transition. Interesting. Michigan certified its results. President elect Joe Biden is expected to announce his picks. The GSA administrator has formally designated Biden. The apparent winner of the presidential election. We got some more breaking news. Looks like it’s literally going on right now. So ms. Faith sent me this one, breaking news in, uh, Oh, here we go. Um, we have on November 23rd from Donald Trump, it says, I want to thank Emily Murphy at GSA for his steadfast dedication and loyalty to our country.

She has been harassed, threatened, abused. I do not want to see this happen to her family. Our case continues. We will keep up the good fight and I believe we will prevail nevertheless, in the best interest of our country. I am recommending that Emily and her team do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols. And I’ve told my team to do the same interesting, very, very interesting folks. All right, John Noel says, Sidney Powell keeps saying all she needs is preponderance of the evidence for her case. I know she’s saying that. I think it’s a much higher standard than that preponderance of the evidence means if it’s more likely than

Then not, then, uh, then that’s all that’s necessary. So

Under reasonable doubt is a very high standard. When we talk about percentages in criminal law, we typically say that it’s basically anything that’s over. Uh, anything that’s over about 80% is like, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence is like 51%. So if it’s more likely than not that something bad happened, then that person is responsible for that offense. And, uh, it’s looking like multiple people are now confirming that Donald Trump

Has officially authorized the GSA to recognize Joe Biden. So that’s pretty exciting.

We’re going to see what happens, Sidney Powell. Let’s see what some of the comments are here, because this is,

Is literally a first time I’m seeing this probably the same time. Many of you are Joe,

Who I think is another attorney what’s up. Joe says, yes, it’s confirmed Trump authorized the transition. He tweeted it. There was a letter from the GSA. GSA is just American talk, radio, red meat, nothing substantial happened as a result of the delay that comes from Ron Jarrah, AF FX,

Paul fund says

Not like Trump to give, to give an inch game over. Yeah, yeah. That is a little bit, I would agree with that. Right. Um, I, I don’t see

Trump giving inches. I think, I think honestly,

A few more of these things, Beth Roberts says for me, this isn’t about Trump. I’m not a Biden fan at all, though, if I’m honest, but if the Dems can get away with fraud, like this will only get worse over time. Biden is illegitimate in my mind that comes from Beth Roberts and Beth. I think a lot of people have that same concern. There are a lot of, a lot of people who are, and I’m one of them actually. And you know, w when was the last time we did it

Overall, all of our election systems, not,

Not as long as I’ve been alive. I mean, there’s been incremental, I think, improvements with the different systems. And I know a lot of this stuff is being dealt with at the secretary of state level and all

Of that, but could we do

A little bit better? Why does it take five days? Sometimes six days, sometimes 12 days to get election results in, in different States. It is 2020. Shouldn’t we be able to do this a little bit better. I would imagine that we can, and that’s kind of why I was open to having this fight. You know, let’s, let’s see what we can

Root out. Good stuff

Comes from people trying to Duke it out. Almost iron sharpens iron as it were. All right. Let’s take

Some other comments here.

It was in the house. If they prove fraud, everyone will agree. Yeah. James, James Connor says many people who complain about the elections. Now didn’t in Trump 2016. Yeah. I saw that over this weekend. I don’t know if you follow him. He’s actually hilarious. His name is Jack [inaudible]. Jack was Sobek he’s on Twitter. He had this like mega tweet thread storm. I think it was on Saturday night where he was going through and he was re-tweeting and reposting all of the old complaints back from 2016, 2018 from all of the left wing media saying that we need to do audits. We needed to check on the, on the voting systems. There was a lot we need to do in order to verify that our elections are working well. And now suddenly they’re all quiet because they’re guy one. Isn’t that funny? We have Dan Hill who says, uh, let’s see, Dan Hill.

Rob, do you know anything about Phil clients? Honest DOD project suit against Zuckerberg using CTCL to pay democratic voting and democratic judges? No, I don’t know about that lawsuit. Uh, that’s interesting though. I know Zuckerberg and a lot of other people were throwing a lot of money into this election and it would not surprise me if it went to certain candidates for certain priorities, CNN admitted, smart MADEC can cannot be trusted. There’s a video from Borg clone on YouTube that comes from Mars. Jupiter. We have Kenneth Slayer says, doesn’t it sound like he is starting transition to stop attacks on that woman’s family. I think it does sound like that, but I think it’s probably more likely because Trump, Trump today was kind of the end of the road if Michigan certified it. And I think, I think he understands that if Michigan certified the election and all of the other States are going to certify the elections, then it’s going to be very unlikely for him to be able to unwind that or unring that bell, they certified it.

I don’t know how he’s going to go to the legislature and then ask the legislature to overturn the certifications. I just don’t see how that’s possible because their own state is certifying that their votes are good. We checked it’s good. And so for the legislature to come through and say, yeah, well we know the votes are good, but we’re going to throw out, we’re going to throw out our results. Anyways, I think would doom them for the rest of their lives. I don’t think they’d ever run for office again. And so how are you going to get a bunch of Republican legislators to go ahead with that plan? I don’t think that they can. And so what Donald Trump wanted to do, and this may, this may, may be a perfect way to tie this back, all in to what I was talking about with Sidney Powell, that she was there to cause some of this discourse to, so some of this doubt in the election and she did that and it’s no it’s, it didn’t work.

And so she’s no longer with the team. So they’re going to continue to file their claims. But if Trump is starting the transition and Michigan certified their results after he had already met with some of the legislatures legislators over there, I, you know, it’s hard to read that statement from the president himself as anything other than an acknowledgement. I don’t think that we’re ever going to get a concession from Trump ever. I don’t think he’s going to come out one day and just say, I can seed good game, nice wind Joe Biden. You’re right. I lost the election clear as day. I don’t think we’re ever going to see that. I’m not sure that that happened, but I don’t think Donald Trump has ever going to say that regardless. Even if, uh, even if, uh, at the end of the day, it’s all said and done, and it’s clear that he lost. I think

I’m going to just, uh, sort of, sort of, um, wind this down, you know, become less vocal over time, but without making a concession, I’m not sure McCain

Says, Rob, when is it? Time to acknowledge? So, so this one looks spicy. Let’s see if we can get it at just

Right. Uh, the messages go fast. Dang it. What happened to that message? There it is. Uh, all right. Mic

McCain’s revenge says, Rob, when is it time to acknowledge that Hunter Biden’s laptop Tucker’s drive, Sydney’s cracking Rudy’s cases. Trump’s claims of election fraud are all 100% nothing burgers.

Well, I guess we’ll all, we’ll all see, right? We’ll all. See when it’s, when,

When the timelines expire, my position on that has been let’s just use their timelines. So Sydney Sydney’s cases, she said that lawsuits are going to be filed this week. Rudy, his kind of already been addressed. Tucker’s flashdrive I don’t know what that’s about. Hunter’s laptop, I think did have some problems on it. And we covered a lot of that here. Trump’s claims of election fraud. Um, those are still percolating. I mean, just because he loses in court doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any

Election fraud. I don’t know. Uh, but I guess

That was my attempt to McCain’s revenge to acknowledge some

Of those things there, try to do that.

Student does calculus is in the house. It feels as if the media is more happy about the election than America. Even in 2016, you could feel the energy of Trump’s victory. But now it’s great. Awesome show. Thank you, student does calculus Antonio. He says, Robert, have you heard

Of Eric? Coomer the Trump hating and T for loving product.

The director of product security for dominion says Trump won’t win. I made effing sure of that. I have heard of that, but I haven’t verified that. And I don’t know that that is anything that is consequential. And a lot of people say stuff like that, but can they do anything about it? If he, if he would’ve said something like, I’ll make sure about it because I rigged the entire voting system. That’s a different ballgame. You know, a lot of people just say stuff and unless there’s more, I am a I’m a little bit skeptical of that stuff. Rob, did you see the interview of the dominion representative? What do you think? Yeah, I did not see the interview. I just saw the headlines. Elliott says shouldn’t we be concerned that the mainstream media and social media companies can be so biased and contribute to the results of the election. That is my biggest concern going forward. And I completely agree with that one. I mean the main look, if there’s any election interference, how is

It not the big social

Media companies? Twitter has been interfering with this

Election, the entirety of the election. I mean, they were, they were marking Trump’s tweets. They were reducing delivery on retweets.

Uh, I, I saw it many times before the election try to retweet something. This is fake. You can’t retweet it. How is that not interference? Now they’re saying that they’re doing it to protect us, to protect us poor people from a dangerous language from, you know, fraudulent claims from scary words that are out there on Twitter. They’re trying to protect all of us and they can’t let dangerous words go out there on Twitter because we’re too stupid to think for ourselves. We have to just follow whatever Twitter tells us. And if, if the president tweets something that may have some, you know, questionable information in there, we need to rely on Twitter and Facebook to correct that for us. Cause we’re too stupid to analyze things ourselves or to go look up a different website on a different news article and read the news for ourselves.

We have to follow what they say. That is times, times millions of people every, every, every day. And when Trump first got elected, one of my first thoughts was, man, this guy is going to have to have a skin of steel because he’s going to have to constantly every day for the next four years, not only fight the Democrats in Congress, not only fight people in his own administration who are literally trying to undermine him, he’s got to fight the Obama administration and the impeachment inquiries and all of this stuff. I mean, he’s coming into a big ball of yarn, but in addition to that, he’s also got to deal with the media who is lit every day, 24 hours a day. Just be rating this guy thinking, Oh my gosh, what a thankless job, no matter who you are. And Donald Trump has had it worse than any president that I’ve ever seen in my life.

I mean, it’s been very, very, uh, very, very brutal on him. And that necessarily is going to change minds. That’s necessarily going to influence people because if they see every day that Trump’s a racist, Trump’s a racist, Trump’s a racist. They’re going to vote that way. And I’ve had this conversation with many people in my life. Many people are saying I’m so happy Biden one, and you go, are you what policy of Joe Biden’s? Are you happy about? Well, things are going to be normal again. And what do you mean by that? Well, you know, we’re going to be accepted back into the world. Well, what does that mean? Well, I don’t know. You know, the world hates us. Why do they hate us? Well, because Trump, uh, did a bunch of bad stuff. Well, what did he do? They have no idea. They can’t tell you Trump’s a racist.

Well, why is he racist? What did he do? That’s so racist to you. Well, he kept kids in cages and he said, okay, well, do you know who started that policy or where that came from? We’ll know, but, but you know, and, and it’s just this constant just droning on about why he such a horrible person, but nobody can actually articulate it now. Not everybody. There are a lot of people who have very good gripes and good claims, and there’s a lot of stuff that Trump has done that I’m not a particular fan of, but I can think about it and I don’t need Twitter to tell me about it. And I can go and find the information on my own and come to my own conclusions. I don’t need social media to come out there and dictate how I should be thinking about things.

But they did that. Facebook did it. They, they were modifying that the whole organization of, of a big tech just sort of aligned in order to remove him from office. And I don’t know how you win against a machine like that. All right. Momo paintball says best channel on YouTube. Thanks, Momo. We have Zora says, Trump never thought he’d win. So he wasn’t prepared for it. It’s likely why he hired all the wrong people. Cal guy says he separated kids from their parents. Only his administration did that. All right. We have Aaron CV who says, great job, Robin faith, keep it up. We will. Aaron, thank you so much. We have Zulu who says, Powell is not with the team because they need to take down some Republicans in order to win this, but can’t be associated with it. Yeah. That’s interesting. Interesting Zulu. Yeah.

And that was one of my points is that the kill zone, the blast zone was a little bit too big and this may be something where they just, they, you know, this is going to be a big issue and those are going to be a lot of splash. It’s like sitting in the first row at Sierra, you’re going to get splashed. And if Sidney Powell was making these claims that this is going to implicate both Democrats and Republicans, that’s a problem. All right, Pat D says, Rob missed my, you missed my point. If it’s proved that the election, the election officials didn’t comply with the law, then do they have to prove that the votes were legit instead of Trump having to prove the votes were not. So, you know, I don’t, I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head.

Um, good question. So I understand what you’re saying now. I understand your question. So you’re saying so, so here here’s, here’s how I think the burden shifts now you have, so you have to present a case that gets you over the hurdle. So let me, let me speak about this sort of in criminal cases, fence law. Cause that’s what I, that’s what I really know if you are, let’s say for example, you are charged with a crime, let’s call it an assault crime and you’re charged with hitting somebody in the face. Okay. You’re charged with that crime. The burden is on the government to prove that you’re guilty. When I go and I say, I am now, uh, I’m not guilty. I am, I, I did hit that person in the face. It’s called an affirmative defense. I hit the person in the face, but I did it out of self-defense.

I did it for another reason. Then it’s back on the defense. The defense has that burden now to approve that part of the claim and then the burden shifts back over to the government. So if I can go in and say, yeah, I punched him in the face, but I did it out of self-defense. Okay. Now it’s my job to prove that I got to prove I got to come up with some level of evidence to say, aye, I’ve got a self-defense here’s my evidence. It’s a showing. And so you make that showing and then it goes back over to the government. And then the government has to say, okay, we now recognize your affirmative defense of self-defense, but now we’ve got more evidence to overcome that defense and, and then go in and implicate you. So I think it’s probably going to be the same thing here.

Right? And the initial hurdle for the Trump team is they’ve got to prove that they were, they were doing something in a way that was sort of maliciously interfering with the election or that it was intentionally a violation of the underlying election rules. They have to find something concrete like that, just because they found an observer or a, a watcher or a candidate or somebody who was a part of the team who didn’t get to watch that or who was forcefully, thrown out. They need to make the showing that something bad happened. And then the government would respond to say no, that it didn’t. And that first part in my mind hasn’t been done yet because we haven’t found anybody at a high enough level at a high enough threshold that would warrant the burden shifting back over to the government. So the first person in the courtroom, they got to bring the claim.

They got to bring enough evidence in order to flip it back over to the government and Trump’s team. They’ve gotten, you know, they’ve, they’ve, they’ve gotten a lot of evidence. They’ve gotten a lot of affidavits, hundreds of them. We haven’t really seen, I would, I would call it like a home run court filing. We’ve had some good ideas in some of them. We read some of, uh, Rudy Giuliani’s claims. We read through some of Lynn woods claims, interesting claims, good claims. But these are all from sort of lower level, you know, volunteers and canvassers and lower level elected officials. If we had a secretary of state who wrote a memorandum that said, yeah, we want you to throw out all the Trump ballots using this protocol. Don’t sign this sign that use this Sharpie, use that pen, whatever that would be a different situation. But the Trump team team needs to show that and where the Trump team is having, I think an issue is that there, the harm doesn’t match the remedy and it can’t, this is where their problem is.

If they could go into court Pat, and they said, all right, look, we have a hundred, a hundred problems here. This one precinct there’s 75 ballots or hundred ballots or 200 or thousand ballots, whatever it is we want to invalidate those ballots. Then I think the court will go, yeah, you’re right. You’ve made your case here that this is that there was a problem here. And we’re going to give you the remedy. We can give you a remedy for that particular cause. And so that cause of action can move forward. In Trump’s case, they’re saying, yeah, your honor, there was some problems with the election. Therefore we want to throw out 707 million ballots. Well, the judge is now looking at that underlying claim and he’s saying it doesn’t match. So this claim doesn’t meet that if they could show that this was unintentional, malicious, orchestrated attempt to invalidate the votes and the claim matches the remedy.

Then I think at that point, the court would be more inclined to allow that claim to proceed further, but they haven’t jumped over that first threshold threshold. And so I think the burden of proof still lays with them now, preponderance of the evidence standard. Again, even if it is the preponderance of the evidence standard, I don’t know, Sidney Powell probably knows better than I do, but even if it is 51%, more likely than not, it’s more likely than not that there was some election fraud. They still have to go in prove that case. And then they have to make the remedy match the claim, the remedy still can’t be, we’re going to throw out 7 million votes. So what is the remedy? And when the remedy falls underneath falls below the, the Delta, the differential, then the claim is essentially moot. It’s not going to change the course of the election. So even if they did find the, you know, these big buckets of votes or they found a legal claim, or they were able to invalidate, you know, 50,000 votes, but that happened in Michigan. Well, Trump’s down by 150,000. So 50,000 has nothing who cares. Uh, the judge is going to dismiss that as, as being mood. It’s not going to change the course of the election, which I think is actually what we’re seeing. So it’s a good question, Pat. And, and

To, to, to be perfectly honest, I don’t know the specifics

Details of what the burden shifting looks like. And I don’t know that there is much precedent for that. I think this is why people are actually saying this is going to go up to the Supreme court because

A lot of these claims just haven’t really been settled yet. What does a government, or what does a candidate need to show in court to invalidate an entire state’s results? I don’t know that that is a legal question that has ever been answered in this country. And that is, is bubbling up right now. And so if Sidney Powell was claims

Good, if Victoria town sing from the Trump team, if their claims look good and that all, you know, all of that goes through the process is filed in district court, goes up through the circuit courts or they bypass them and go directly to the Supreme court. The Supreme court wants

To get involved. They’re going to answer those questions for us, but at this point in time, I’m not sure that that, that a claim of right,

Not being able to observe is going to invalidate an entire state because the remedy doesn’t match the harm. It’s a good question though.

And I think it, you know, I think a lot of people have that question. Thank you, Pat. All right. We have Clinton

I’ll says this was simulated before the election. The simulation is called transition integrity project. All right. McCain’s revenge says these election antics are going to cost Republicans a lot more than the special election for two GA Senate seats in January, because once credibility is lost, the Americans constituents are too educated. So I totally disagree with that one. There McCain’s revenge. I think that, uh,

I, I think

That there are going to be even more

Or people who are in alignment with getting tired

Of what we’re seeing in terms of, I would say the mainstream narrative. I think a lot of people are sick and tired of being told that we can’t talk about things sick and tired of being told

All that. Just accept the results. If you ask

The question, you’re a racist. If you want to read a criminal complaint, you’re a racist. You can’t even talk about this stuff. You’re a Republican conspiracy person. The American constituents are too educated, which was, which must mean that we’re all uneducated and you know, nobody’s buying it. It’s very insulting. There are a lot of people on the other side of this election who are not Joe Biden fans. And I would say probably most of the country is not particularly a Joe Biden fan. I would think that most

Of Joe Biden’s, uh,

Demographics, most of his base are in it because they don’t like Donald Trump. Not because it has anything to do with Joe Biden. We saw that around the country. There, I think nine Republican house seats that were lost by the Democrats lost to the Republicans. When this should have been something where they actually gained seats. The Senate is still currently in Republican control. I mean, this wasn’t a blue wave. There’s not this big unifying event behind Joe Biden, which is why I think a lot of the people in the media are really freaked out about all of these Republicans and all of this conversation from taking place. If they weren’t so scared, then why are they trying to shut everybody up? Why is it all that we’re all idiots and racists and conspiracy theorist and, uh, you know, more derogatory language than that just from having these conversations because people, people can kind of sense that something’s a little bit off on this one. And it feels, it feels more like this was an anti-Trump election ever than it was anything, a pro Biden or a pro liberal or

Zero left. Cause they lost by every other metric. And it was

Even closer than many of them were speculating. So this, this idea that there’s going to be this massive wave that goes more towards the left and liberals I think is, is a, a Mirage. Quite frankly, I think it’s going to go the other way. I think a lot of people are really discontent and they’re disappointed in Republicans. I think the Republican party by, you know, is

Probably in some hurt over on McCain.

Cain’s revenge his point. I think that there are a lot of Republicans that are in, in a,

In troubled waters, let’s say, but yeah,

That is largely because I think that Donald Trump is going to become something bigger than even a presidency would have been. People are going to look at this whole situation. Like he was a martyr in many, in many respects. All right. Hugh McDonald, because people are making, making those fraud claims are trying to claim the Easter bunny is real. There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anything is off about this election. All right. Well, I mean, whew, we’ve been talking about it on this channel for like two weeks. So I think there’s some evidence. So to say that there’s no evidence, I think is a little bit too one-sided

Dig Marr says

It is humiliation and inhumane to be barred as an official poll watcher or being downgraded as a vote watcher, not being allowed to challenge a vote. We have Jorgen Johnson who says maybe the plan the whole time was used Powell as a scapegoat.

The Trump team

Knew that they would need to be distanced from the situation once they started going after Republicans. Yeah, I think that’s a, I made that point at the beginning of the show, Jorgen Zulu made that point. A number of people have made that point, but I think it’s a good one.

All right. We have Adam S few reasons the world doesn’t like Trump withdraw from the following world court, Paris accord, who? NATO Iran deal stealing serious oil. Let’s see what else? Souring souring relationship

With allies. Multiple trade Wars.

I mean, I’m, I’m pretty good with a lot of that stuff. I don’t know what we need to be a part of. Most of that for, I don’t know.

I’m a local government type of guy. I don’t think that big world entities, big government entities, these international coalitions. I don’t, I don’t know what those are.

Do four for most Americans sound good, but are they? Why do we think it’s just good to be a part of these big global orders? I don’t know. Alright. Banana, Amanda says LOL, isn’t it. The longest

Ever vote count in the history of the U S in 2020, that’s suspicious. We have Sarah Brown who says I’m with her Rob. We got Zorro. Best thing Trump did was reject the climate hoax. Uh, McCain’s revenge against us. Yes, it was an anti-Trump election, but we were talking about a state that just flipped blue. Those seats will flip the Senate complete.

All right. Uh, super plateau. No, man.

It says you have been arguing this crap for the last two weeks and Trump is not even close to winning anything. That’s it it’s over. So that’s true. We’ve been talking about this for, for some time on this channel and I acknowledge that, right? A part of what we do here is examined some of the claims. Now I have done it largely to be helpful just because I talk about a claim. Doesn’t mean I endorse the claim or I believe in a claim, but many people do and it’s making the waves around the internet. So we like to dissect those claims, analyze them, look at them, open them up, peer inside and see how it all works. Put it back together and then have a conversation about it. The reason I talk about it is because everyone tells me I can’t talk about it because I’m an idiot. I’m a conspiracy theorist, or I’m a racist. If we talk about some of these claims, I think that more people should be talking about these things because it is a good way to alleviate people of their preconceived

Notions. If you just

Tell them, you can’t talk about this and they need to sit down and shut up. Those people are still gonna think that way they were originally thinking. And now, in addition to that, they’re going to be resentful at you for telling them that they can’t talk about it. And so by us talking about it on this channel, we are giving a little bit of a pressure relief valve we’re allowed to talk about and explore these ideas as we should. This is America. We have the first amendment, which is freedom of speech, which is the first amendment for a reason. It’s to talk about these issues, anybody in the audience who just says, you can read one headline and just say, that’s it. I guess I’ll just take that at,

At face value. Biden’s the president.

Yes, that’s it. That’s all I need to think about. Have a good night. Okay. You can live that way. I don’t live that way. I don’t, I don’t think that that’s particularly a healthy way to live. I mean, I think people should be thinking and using their brains and asking questions and having conversations and talking about stuff. But I understand that other people don’t want to do that. We have Timmy, Carl who says, have you watched [inaudible] video today reviewing the audio of Rudy Giuliani case. Rudy did a poor, did poorly presenting a case to the judge. I did not watch that video. Uh, but somebody else has mentioned Rokita law. So I’m going to have to take a look at that. Hugh McDonald, no one is calling people racist for making fraud claims, but trying to Gaslight people into believing Santa Claus is beyond the pale for reasonable people.

We have Zulu. Uh,

I was talking to somebody else, James Conner read. The reason why it took so long to count votes was because the GOP legislature, in many States of the night, the ability for a pre canvass of the mail-in ballots could only start counting on the day of we have Paul fun. It’s okay to talk about the spread of misinformation without misinforming

Some say

Federal circuit courts can’t overhaul the certification. Is that true? I think that, I think that only the state legislature can actually impact the final certification because they’re the ones who write the rules on the certification. Now the federal court come out and make a ruling that something is unconstitutional or, or, or, or something to that effect. You know, they could, they could say that the statutory construction did something wrong. And then that would obviously go all the way up to the Supreme court. Aaron CV says, if the roles were reversed, we would still be talking about that. Yeah, exactly. Right. I mean, I, I look on this channel. If you’re not a regular here, let me just let me lay out the framework on this thing. I like freedom. Most freedom is the number one priority for me. It’s why I do what I do in law.

I want more people to have more freedom. I want to help people not spend their lives in prison. I want to help them get better and get well and get back to their families, get back to their jobs, get back to their lives. That’s what my passion is. And so that’s sort of the operating framework for this channel. That justice is another pretty important thing that we need to be talking about here. But in addition to those two underlying values, I am going to take and cover the stories on this channel that are provocative. That’s the point we’re sort of pushing the boundaries on things. What we can talk about. We like provocative stories. We like stories where there’s more energy. We like to take the contrarian position. Okay. I became a defense lawyer because I like to fight hard cases. I like to take the unpopular position, the side of the argument that everybody hates, that everybody thinks is wrong.

Uh, you know, when I, when I first became a criminal defense lawyer, even my own mother was like, how can you represent those people? Well, that’s what we like. I like to be the underdog. I like to be David versus Goliath. And so I will always take those arguments if it’s Donald Trump in that position, if it’s Joe Biden in that position, if it’s somebody else, I got skewered on this channel. Like I said, when it was about a third or a 20th of the side, when we were talking about the Jacob Blake case. Right. And I said, they shouldn’t have shot that guy in the back blood bath on this channel. Downvotes for the end of the earth for a week because I just kept talking about it. But that’s okay. I’m going to continue to do that. We want to talk about hard conversations and if it’s provocative, it’s fine.

If it’s conspiratorial, it’s fine. We’re going to talk about it because it’s more important to talk about things than to not talk about them. And that’s what I’m going to make the commitment to on this channel. All right. We have Adam Matthew who says big following in London. Great show. Great attorney. Thank you so much. Another one from Adam. We have one from Rachel S who says no question. Just thank you for presenting the facts in an unbiased, pragmatic way. Breath of fresh air. Thanks Rachel. S I appreciate that. Uh, let’s see. Hugh McDonald naturally, those are good cases to take. As long as you get paid, we have the best, uh, M says the best way to deal with bad ideas is to shine a spotlight on them. Not to censor them. What have the Dems got to hide? I agree with that. Zora says, Robert sounds like my first lawyer who defended me in Philly for possession of seeds on a few twigs of raw marijuana, the lab’s own words. Yeah. They try to prosecute people on a stems and seeds. Yeah, it’s ridiculous. Fortunately many,

Much of the country is actually, uh, now legalizing marijuana. All right, man, while Manwell choices. But Rob, the way you talk about these issues is totally different. Husker. Mike says, what happens if widespread fraud is proven after Biden is in office? Well, I think he just stays in office, uh, because he’s, he’s lawfully elected at that point. Brooke B says, what the hell would Powell claim what she did without being able to back it up? Why the hell? Yeah. It’s a good question. All right, Jamal, Jamal, uh, Bussa knot says you’re based. Should I commit a crime so I can hire you? Don’t do that, Jamal. Uh, just get a copy of my book. That’s all you need. Just a little bit of love there. Beginning to winning. Check it out on Amazon. If you want to buy a copy. Angie Hoffman says there’s a first amendment, right?

To peaceably assemble apply generally do lock downs violated, or is it limited to petitioning the government? You know, that’s a very good question there, Angie, and this one is up for debate currently speaking. So there is some, uh, I think there’s a circuit split on some of this stuff. And Amy Coney Barrett actually weighed in on, on some of this. So we’re going to see how far this rabbit hole goes. But we have seen that some of these lockdown orders have been upheld as a result of the government’s limitless power. They can just do essentially whatever they want. And when you challenge it in court, for example, in Arizona, we had a big entity here who owns there’s a, there’s a fitness chain here called mountainside fitness that had got 12 locations, big box gym, tons of people, tons of employees, thousand employees all over Arizona.

When Arizona locked down, he filed a lawsuit against them and said, you’re violating equal protection. You’re violating due process. You close our business without giving us any notice. You close our business without, uh, giving us an opportunity to comply with certain rules and things. That’s, that’s a due process violation. You are taking away a Liberty interest from us, the ability and the freedom to operate our business in the state of Arizona on our own. You’re taking that away from us and you haven’t done anything to prove anything. You haven’t said that gyms are more dangerous. You haven’t said that there’s a higher likelihood of catching it here or that the equipment’s dirtier than a hair salon. You haven’t done any of that. So you’re not only are you taking away our Liberty without due process. You haven’t given us a court proceeding. You haven’t given us a time to challenge any of this.

You’re just taking it away from us. That’s one number two, it’s equal protection violation. You’re violating. You’re taking away our rights, but not their rights. You’re leaving. The golf course is open, but not my business equal protection under the law mandates that it’s equal. You are being unequal. Therefore we’re going to file a lawsuit against them. Well, I thought it was a pretty good claim. Guess what happened? Went over to the courts. Courts are also part of the government. The court said, yeah, the governor has plenty of power government. The governor has a basically limitless authority to just shut you down. And so they lost that lawsuit. And here we are. Now, some of this stuff is, I think, is going to continue to be litigated, but, uh, we’ll see where it goes. It’s a good question, Angie, in

Other words, to answer your question, I don’t think that you are going to be able to go and make a claim under the first amendment for freedom of association and get around any of the lockdown orders, Michelle. And brucella says, thank you for defending our freedom. We have Pat D says the remedy is not to throw out the votes directly it’s to require the government to excuse me, to prove each vote is legit. The votes would become invalidated through the process though, the process of a proper audit in which the government must now prove votes are legit. All right, one more time from Pat D cause I kind of botched that the remedy is not to throw out votes directly it’s to require government to prove each vote is legit. The votes would become invalidated though, the process of a proper audit in which the government must now prove votes are legit.

Okay. So I see what you’re yeah, I see what you’re asking there, Pat it’s I understand what you’re saying. The government is going to say that they’ve already done that, that they’ve already counted the ballots and they’ve already made sure that they’re valid. So you would need to show a, a, a big, there need to be a big claim to show that that was not being done. Several things need to happen. The claim needs to show that this was done intentionally maliciously, that somebody was in charge of it. It, it, this, this really mirrors the same memorandum that bill BARR put out for his prosecutors to investigate these claims one it’s not, it’s not, uh, inconsequential and two, it actually changes the course of the election. So something significant and something that has enough of a, of a problem, enough of an impact that would reverse the course of the election.

And until Trump and his team do that until they say that two of those things are true. Not only that we see something happened that was bad, but it also changes the course of the election in a way that they have to match. They have to mirror each other. And I understand your point about, about some of the votes and things. I think that’s where a lot of the original lawsuits were coming into play just to stop the certification process. And, um, and, and then, uh, those deadlines came and passed. All right. We have one from Freddy. The fake ballot says, can I legally ignore my wife? I think so. You know, I don’t practice family law and, uh, these questions, these super chats. Can I illegally ignore my wife? Um, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t think, I don’t think there’s any law against that. I think you can legally ignore her for, for sure. Just stick on this program. All right. We have Jamal Bussa on. He says, yo man, you look blazed AAF. You smoke in that sticky, icky. I can’t believe I just read that. Thanks, Jamal. Uh, no, I’m not. Nope. Pretty, pretty straight narrow today. Just doing the program. You know, sometimes I think my face looks a little bit red. I got five lights on right now. This room gets really hot and uh, and uh, no, I’m good. Take a look. I’m good. All so we have,

Let’s take a couple more questions.

Two more questions coming in. We have, what if Sydney exposes major multi-state votes swaps to the Supremes before inauguration? So Mike Meyer. Yeah. I mean, if something like

That happened, I, um, I’m still laughing.

Jamal’s uh, Jamal’s message. Uh, so, so look, if something like that happen, I saw this, this recent video. I think it was over on rumble from a guy named,

Oh, I can’t remember his name, but he, he was,

Was doing this analysis where he was taking the votes and he was looking for patterns in different precincts. And he saw the same precinct where there would be a ratio that started at like 7:00 AM.

And it would be, you know, 45 to one

Biden to one Biden to Trump, 45 and one 45 to one. This race

Would be visible at the early days of it

Precinct or several precincts. Then that same pattern later in the evening, around three or four in the afternoons, that same pattern would show up. And so his argument was they were taking these votes from one precinct to another and dominion was just manipulating and swapping these votes all over the place. Yeah. Look, if something like that happened,

That would be a, a crisis,

A legal crisis in this country. If there was a

Evidence that supported that, uh, all the cards are off the table at that point, anything, all the cards

On the table is that the, is that the phrase they’re all on the table, you can play whatever you want. I think the Supreme court would get involved. You’d have Congress get involved.

You have, uh, you know, local legislatures

Would get involved. It’d be all hands on deck. And we’ll see if we

All right, one more.

Let’s take a look here. We have a Philip Riley who says, maybe people are aware enough for accurate voting to occur paper ballot separated from the internet, recounted a precinct level, then recounted at the County election office. And so on, we have Calgary 82. He says, when does the health and safety of the public supersede the rights of an individual? Yeah, for example, seatbelts. So that’s a good question. I mean, I think that a lot of people are having that conversation right now and I’m one of them. Yeah.

I’m not real sure. Uh, I’m not real sure where it’s going to fall. You know, a lot of people like me are on the freedom side.

Just let adults deal with adult things. We have viruses, we have pandemics. We know how this stuff,

Let people just be people. And

If you are somebody who is in a high risk category, if you’re somebody who’s elderly, if you’re somebody who has some of the comorbidities, you can stay home. You have the freedom

As an adult to do that.

And if you don’t have the capabilities to do that, well, we, as a society will help you do that. We’ll help you, you know, find a place to live or whatever that looks like for the most part

Honorable. But why are we imposing the same restrictions that the vulnerable people need on

Literally everybody else? Okay. And this is speaking to somebody who had two people in the hospital for COVID for 48 days and almost died, right? I have been touched by this virus. This is not me speaking as a 35 year old, healthy young. This is me speaking as somebody who almost lost his brother and debatably his, his mother to COVID. Okay. I know how this works. That being said, we still should not be locking people up and locking people down. I think this thing is causing more harm than, than, than good. I think that there’s, and I’m seeing it in my profession. I’m seeing a lot of alcohol crimes, a lot of domestic violence, domestic violence this past year has gone through the roof. Many people know I’m involved in a suicide, uh, sort of a post suicide grief organization. Suicide calls are up. Alcoholism is up around the country.

People are really, really hurting as a result of these lockdowns. I think that the cure is worse than the virus itself. And I think we’re going to see the effects of this. Think about these. Think about the hundreds of thousands, millions of kids who are not getting an education. It’s just a loss year. What are we, how are they going to be impacted from this 15 years from now? I don’t know. I don’t think anybody else knows either, but I do think that there’s a smarter way for us to handle this other than just locking everything down and making people wear a mask. All right. Uh, all right. All right. All right. Well, let’s leave it at that. Everybody it’s been a long show. There was some breaking news today in the middle of the program, and I need to go get caught up and start preparing for tomorrow’s show.

So we’ll leave you at that. I want to thank you so much for being a part of the program. As a reminder, if you’re not already a subscriber here, hit that subscribe button because we go live every day. We’re going to go live every day at this time. And it’s it’s, uh, all except Thursday on Thursday, we have Thanksgiving. I asked my mom, I said, mom, can I please live stream? And she said, no, you have to come to dinner. So I’ll be at dinner. Of course loved. My mom loved that Turkey. I hope you all get yours as well. So hit the subscribe button so that you’re here. When we do go live, it’s going to be every day. We’re going to be back on Friday. I think I convinced ms. Faith back there to, uh, to help me on Friday. And she has agreed that she will.

So we want to make sure you’re a part of that. And that’s how you do it. You hit subscribe. We are also now on Facebook, so you can actually share the Facebook page. YouTube. Doesn’t let you share so much, but sharing is good. We like when we get more people who support the program and like what we’re doing, it keeps us motivated and energized and we love more people being a part of the conversation. It’s good. We like to talk and you see here that as we are talking to people in the chat, even those who disagree with me, I want to make sure we give them some attention too. And, uh, we’re gonna we’ll, we’ll leave it right there to other reminders. Check us out on discord. If you haven’t already discord, the links are there in the chats, in the description box. And then once again, a copy of my book. So on the discord, you can, you can go buy a copy of this if you want on Amazon. Uh, but there’s a, there’s a, there’s a free copy, a PDF right there in the discourse. So go and get that as well. I want to thank everybody with a special thanks and a special shout out to Jamal. Bussa not cause it’s it’s. I think

It might be time for sticky, icky time, whatever that may be. Thank you, Jamal, for the nice comments. Thank you everybody for being here. Thank you to ms. Faith. Thank you to mob the moderator and thank you to all of you for being here. I will see you tomorrow. 4:00 PM. Arizona time. No 5:00 PM. Arizona time. Let’s back up 4:00 PM, California, Western time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM. Eastern. This is the place to be who knows what we’ll be talking about tomorrow, but it will be good. You don’t want to miss it. So have a wonderful evening. I will see you then bye-bye.