loader image

All right.

My friends, I just pressed the let’s go live button. So once again, we are waiting to make sure that the stream is cracking on all cylinders. That’s right. We just unleashed the kraken here of the live stream. So let’s make sure that that is up and running and then we’ll get moving and it looks like things are up and, uh, well and alive and let’s get going. Hello everybody. Welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the beautiful, always sunny and sometimes a little hot Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years to have helped represent thousands of good people facing criminal charges. We help them navigate through the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, maybe you’ve been in the situation, but sometimes life will deliver some bumps in the road for you, and we want to help get people back on track. And so what we have done is built an entire law firm that is dedicated to helping those people get through the system. Now, over the course of our time in practice, we have seen a lot of misconduct, a lot of problems with that very justice system. And that’s why we started the show called watching the Watchers. We want to monitor police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, even judicial misconduct, and of course, political misconduct, which is what we’ve been really focusing on here on this profile

For the last, last several weeks. It all,

It starts at the top. It all starts with the politicians. And so today we’re going to be diving into more of the post-election debacle. What we’ve been following since the beginning of the last couple of weeks on November 3rd is the different claims that the Trump team had been making to make their case to the American people, that the entire election was illegitimate. So yesterday we spent some time talking about the Trump’s strategy that the legal team had a press conference yesterday. That was about two hours long, where we heard from some of the key people who are making up this team, specifically, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis. And that led to a little bit of fallout. A lot of the conservative media, a lot of the left wing media, everybody was sort of unhappy about that press conference. We gave a little bit of analysis on it, but we’re going to dive into it today because Tucker Carlson, who is by many accounts, somebody who is know sort of a champion of the right, he, him and Sidney Powell on team Trump are sort of getting into it.

So we want to dive into that. We’re also going to do a little bit of a deep dive on dominion, the dominion software. Now for a long time, we haven’t really spent much time on this particular claim because it was, to me, it sort of felt like it was a little bit abstract. It was in the, uh, the, the category of ideas, not so much in the category of evidence, but as we discussed yesterday, Sidney Powell during her press conference, she made it pretty clear that she’s got some additional evidence that is going to tie dominion into this entire claim of electoral malfeasance. And so we want to spend some time digging into that. They actually put out a list of seven different responses to some of the most common claims on their website. You can go check it out right [email protected]. If you want, make sure you don’t navigate away from this website, of course, but we want to go through their claims.

We want to see if they carry any water and how they stand up. And then lastly, we want to give you an update on the 12th amendment. Now this is an amendment that is confusing. If you, if you pull up the statute, you’ll see, there’s a lot of texts there it’s been modified by the 20th amendment. There’s a, there’s a, you know, congressional history. It has actually been used before in our country. And so we want to break that down a little bit because I think this may actually be where the Trump campaign is going, where their ultimate strategy will be. So, as a reminder, if you’re not already a subscriber hit the subscribe button, we go live at this time every day, we also have a very nice discord chat. It’s our sort of our persistent chat server. The link is in the description.

You can go check that out. We got a super chat just before we started the program from N with no question, thank you again for that. And we had another one from Carolina flying, asking about a book yesterday on the program. I said, I was going to give a copy of my book out to anybody that’s in our discord. And we posted the PDF file of that in the discord. So you can go check that out if you want to do that. And as a side note, if you have any other super chats or any other pertinent questions, please feel free to send those. I’m going to go through the presentation, but we’ll save the live chat for the end of the program where I will get to the super chats and the pertinent questions. We have miss faith who is helping to collect those questions and send them over my direction.

So as we always do, while the stream is getting warmed up, let’s go check out our bouncing smiley face and see where we’re at in terms of the context. So as a reminder, many people are claiming that what Donald Trump is doing here is just ridiculous. It’s so out of the ordinary, this is an insane, how can he be possibly challenging this stuff? Well, the point is the rules say that he can, and he’s got some actually pretty significant time until some of these States start making some important decisions. This is what the calendar looks like. You can see, this is where we’re at. We’re about two and a half weeks out from the election. It feels like it’s been about 200 half years, but it’s only two and a half weeks. It was just kind of, you know, a couple of weeks ago when we had the total election.

Now we have three full weeks and a couple of days until electors day today is November 20th. That’s where we’re at. We are here and we’re going to keep moving along until we get some answers. We also have the vote balance. This is what it looked like yesterday. The Delta here, Donald Trump and his team, they were down by 316,000 votes yesterday across these six swing States. This is just our count that we kind of, we don’t want to keep an eye on because one of the main strategies from the Trump campaign is that they want to identify big buckets of votes that they can throw out. Now, this is where the number is today. So yesterday 316,000 today’s 313,000. So this is a little bit of an improvement, but you know, it’s still 300,000 votes. There’s a lot there and there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.

And so there’s a lot of conversation that’s taking place about what is the appropriate strategy. And we see this playing out in front of us and we’ve been a part of it for a long time. We talked specifically about this idea that the Trump team was holding onto this. A lot of the evidence, they were keeping it very close to the vest because they didn’t want the media to start burying it. They didn’t want any of, uh, you know, the, the, the, the, their opponents, the people who they’re making these allegations against to be able to go and support their claims, to basically know what their strategy is, and then go develop a counter our response. And so, you know, there are some different attorneys who have a lot of different opinions on this stuff, but yesterday, myself included, we were all watching this press conference from Rudy and Sidney and Jenna.

And we were wondering, is there going to be any new evidence? And although I made my point yesterday, that Rudy I thought was effective in terms of waging this political legitimacy war in the court of public opinion, we didn’t get any new information in terms of actual evidence that would be successful, or that would change the way our analysis was moving forward. In the court of law, they were really making a lot of, you know, accusations toward the media. They were becoming very agitated that they weren’t covering certain stories. A lot of pounding their fists. Some of it I thought was effective because it was the first time that many people in America were hearing these things. You and I, on this broadcast, we’ve been diving into this stuff, basically a new claim every day for the last two weeks, because we want to explore it.

We want to take a look at this claim, look at the numbers, examine it, pull it off the shelf, open it up, detail what’s inside and say, this kind of claim doesn’t make much sense, or maybe it does. And we’ve been doing that for a while, but yesterday was the first time that a lot of Americans heard it. And some Americans, I think, were, uh, throwing both hands in the air and saying, yeah, this is it. This is the evidence we finally got enough here. Clearly, this is fraudulent. And that’s all we needed to hear, but a big part of the country and myself included were wondering, all right, well, you know, there’s still, there’s still some pretty big holes here in this whole story. How are we going to connect? What happened in Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez with what happened in Philadelphia? I understand the software may be connected, but what is the con, you know, what is the evidence let’s see it.

And one of these claims actually came from what we were seeing it from Tucker Carlson specifically. Now, Tucker Carlson is somebody who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I’ve been following him for a long time. I think he asks pertinent questions. I think he’s a good actual journalist. He debates well, he, he, he kind of digs in, in certain areas where I would want somebody to dig in and he’s doing that same thing again. He was doing this last night on his show. One of the clips that he had during his monologue involves him having this, this sort of issue with Sidney Powell for not giving him information for not disclosing some of the evidence that he wants to him and his show so that he could broadcast it. And we’re going to hear a clip from him. Then we’re going to hear Sydney’s response.

So, you know, this, these are sort of two people who are ordinarily on the same side, and now they’re sort of, uh, kind of going at each other a little bit. Tucker Carlson says one thing, Sidney Powell says another thing. And the reason why I think this is so important is because these are both people who should be aligned. They should be sort of rowing the same direction. They’re on team Trump, by and large, at least at least Tucker from my understanding, I don’t watch his show all the time, but my understanding is that he’s at least open to investigating some of these claims that are being put forth by the Trump team. And so when you see this infighting between these two factions, I know Tucker Carlson has a massive show. Sidney Powell has this following of people from around the world who are really, you know, championing her as the, the, the only person who’s capable of delivering the goods in this issue.

So these two people now sort of fighting a little bit. It, it, it makes the foundation of the movement of the Trump team, sort of a little bit wobbly in my mind. And we’ve been seeing that across the board on Twitter today, and all of the social media sites, a lot of people are starting to say, maybe this is the first crack in the facade. Maybe the foundation here is getting a little bit, uh, quivery in other words. So let’s go through where I want to play the clip from Tucker. Then we’re going to play the clip from Sydney. And then I want to go through and give you some of my thoughts before we move in to dominion. So here is Tucker Carlson last night,

Depending to beat. So that’s a long way of saying we took Sidney Powell. Seriously. We no intention of fighting with her. We’ve always respected her work. We simply wanted to see the details. How could you not want to see them? So we invited Sidney Powell on the show. We would’ve given her the whole hour. We would have given her the entire week actually, and listened quietly the whole time at rapt attention. That’s a big story, but she never sent us any evidence, despite a lot of requests, polite requests, not a page. When we kept pressing, she got angry and told us to stop contacting her. When we checked with others around the Trump campaign, people in positions of authority, they told us Powell has never given them any evidence either. Nor did she provide any today at the press conference. Pell did say that electronic voting is dangerous and she’s right. We’re with her there, but she never demonstrated that he single actual vote was moved illegitimately by software from one candidate to another, not one.

I watched that same press conference. And I thought she did say that now I could be wrong on that. I could have just misheard it. But I thought there was a one point where she was actually pretty uncomfortable making the allegation. I kind of saw it in her body language where she said, and I don’t know if she intended to say this, but the dominion changed votes in this election. I thought I saw that I could be wrong. Obviously Tucker has a whole team of different researchers and he may not have heard that claim, but I got that from her. I thought that her entire testimony, uh, that of, of everything that she had to say during the press conference yesterday, that was kind of the one takeaway that I pulled from Sidney Powell. I thought that she said specifically, yeah, she went on this big, long tirade about what happened with Hugo Chavez and in Venezuela.

But then she also made the connection. I was listening close for it, that they did the same thing in this election. There was the connection of those dots. Now with Tucker on this issue, I understand his frustration and I’m going to get into that in a little bit, but I understand it. And I’ve made the same point on this program. I’ve actually explained specifically that they may be clean keeping this stuff close to the vest, to win in the court of law, but by doing so, by not telling the American public, they may be sacrificing and losing the bigger war because they, if let’s say they fast forward two weeks, they have some successful claims in the court of law. But the Mo the majority of the American public at this point, they’ve had another two weeks under their belt. They’ve been brainwashed by the media.

And you know, all the other people that they follow that this thing is done and over then they may, they may not even pay attention to what’s happening in the courts. They may just consider this election to be a done deal. And unless Donald Trump has some significant wins, then his alternative strategy of trying to maneuver this thing through the state legislatures is just going to fall flat. So from my perspective, the better strategy is to sort of, you know, wage the war from their pet per perspective on both fronts, both in the courts and both in the court of public opinion, which wouldn’t necessarily mean that you have to talk about some of this stuff and Sidney Powell, it’s her case. She is the lawyer, and she’s the one who allegedly has the evidence. And in addition to that, she’s got time. She actually has some additions. Some time we showed you the calendar at the start of the program. So I want to talk about standards a little bit and whose standards should we set. But before we dive into it a little bit further, let’s hear from ms. Sidney Powell, because she responded on Fox today and sort of said, look, I tried to cooperate with Tucker, but they were being difficult. Here is Sidney Powell

To be, I, I want you to respond to a Tucker Carlson said last night, Sydney, I don’t know if you watched it, but, uh, uh, Tucker calls and said that, uh, he had invited you on his show to share evidence of all the software flipping votes. Uh, and he said, you got angry and refused to provide evidence for your claims of voting software, flipping votes. How do you respond to Tucker Carlson? Did you get angry with the show because they texted you and asked you to please provide evidence of what you’re alleging?

Uh, no, I didn’t get angry with the request to provide evidence. In fact, I sent an affidavit to Tucker, uh, that I had not even attached to a pleading yet to help him understand the situation. And I offered him another witness who could explain the mathematics and statistical evidence so far better than I can. I’m not really a numbers person, but he was very insulting, demanding, and rude. And I told him not to contact me again in those terms.

So, you know, that’s kind of an alternative version right there, right? I mean, they, they don’t really match Tucker saying that, you know, they reached out, they gave her a lot of opportunity. She says I sent them some stuff. And whole thing is just, you know, it’s just kind of messy. It’s like mom and dad fighting, right. Mom and dad getting into an argument. You know, look, I know, I know that they’re fighting. This is normal parents fight. K. They still love you. They’re still gonna take care of you. Christmas isn’t canceled. Thanksgiving is still going to be here. All right. These two are just, they got to hash it out. So let’s take a look and maybe how we can analyze this and clarify this up a little bit. So we know from Victoria town sing that they explained on November 15th earlier this week, I think this was on Monday.

She said, specifically hubby and I are working with Rudy Giuliani and the Donald Trump legal election fight go to parlor, follow us, blah, blah, blah, um, declarations to make sure all the facts are accurate, but here she says, court filing start next week. Okay. So that is on Monday. That will be on Monday. And that is their standard. That is the Trump legal team. They’ve set that they’ve told us next week, which I’m presuming to me Monday. And if that doesn’t happen, then that may be a different, a different situation. But a lot of people here are upset with Don, with Tucker, and you can see here, you know, we’ve got, uh, Tim young, it looks like a blue check. Mark, you know, asked, has the, has he invited the dominion executives? We’ve got a lot of people here saying that, um, you know, basically Tucker is a sellout and so on and so forth.

You know, I don’t think that it necessarily is the case. I do think that this is something that, you know, this is Tucker doing his stick. This is what he does. He goes out there and he does this righteous indignation stick. I’m very mad about something. And we, as a journalist, the only journalist in America, who’s trying to go out and do something we’re trying to get to the facts. Sidney Powell is not giving us the facts. And so it’s just kind of this, you know, this, this mom and dad getting into an argument type of a situation. Now, that being said, I think Tucker has some pretty interesting points or at least some valid concerns. Some of the same concerns that I have already brought up. Number one, if this is something that they actually have the evidence on, and we don’t see it, then it may be too little too late.

If a judge sees it down the road, but 25 other States have already certified their elections. That may be something that undermines the results in that state, in that particular court with that bucket of votes. But that is not enough in order to ultimately affect the outcome. And so I think what Tucker is trying to get at here is that in the court of public opinion, we got to start knowing this stuff. We got to start seeing this. If you’re going to come on a camera and make the claim that you’ve got all this really damning information, all of these generals and all, you know, thousands of affidavits and hundreds of declarations and so on, we need to see that stuff because we’re already in the thick of the process. We just saw, I think today Georgia certified their results. Michigan looks like they’re right around the corner and so on.

And so I, I sense his frustration and I get it, but I also understand where Sydney’s coming from. If I was in her perspective as a lawyer, which I am, and I had somebody from the media barking at me to give them evidence about my case for my client, the answer to that would be, hell no, I don’t care who you are. I don’t care what media person you are, how entitled you think you are to the information you don’t get access to it. And the only people who are entitled to it, the only people who can order it, or, you know, a judge issue, a court order or a subpoena or something to that effect. But that’s not the situation here and Tucker, I understand what he’s trying to do and I get it, but he’s setting his own standard. He’s saying I’m Tucker Carlson.

I have a standard on this program. I want information to deliver to my audience and, and, and credit to him for being so aggressive with that. That’s what we want and expect out of our journalists. But that’s his standard. Sidney Powell doesn’t have any obligation to give him anything. The better way to approach these types of issues are to let your opponent set the standard. So rather than saying, miss Sidney Powell, I’m Tucker Carlson, you have to do things by my rules. I want the evidence. I think we’re entitled to it. I don’t know a w you know what basis I have to demand that you give us stuff, but I I’m setting this standard. And I expect you to abide by it. That’s not convincing that doesn’t work well. The better standard is to use that person’s own standard. Use the rules that they’ve already put forth and hold them accountable to what they’ve already said in this case town sing that I just showed you the tweet.

She said that the lawsuits would start next week. The filings will take place in court next week. I don’t know if that’s going to be Monday. I don’t know if that’s going to be Friday, but if we get to Friday and there’s no new substantive court filings, if Trump’s own legal team that set the standard, that it was going to be filed next week. If they fail that standard, if they don’t follow their own commitments, that’s the time where you can say, okay, what is really going on here? Look, look, you were just following what you said. You told us you were going to file this lawsuit. And more information would be coming out. You’re not following that rule. Therefore, I have a lot of issues with anything that you’re saying. I think you’re illegitimate and not credible. And at that point in time, because they failed their standard, not Tucker Carlson’s, that is going to be something where a lot of people can get on board with that.

They can say, yeah, look, now they’re changing the goalposts again, they’re moving the deadlines. They’re moving the rules. They’re changing the complaint. It’s going from one, you know, I’m upset about, about something to something else, to something else, and that is not credible. And that’s how people start to just sort of, I think, fizzle out of this, this momentum, they lose momentum on this. And we’re seeing that across the board. There’s a lot of people here on both sides of the aisle who are saying that what they saw is, is, is troubling and concerning. And there’s a lot of other people who say, this is just part of the process. You know, this is something that we need to let go out. We need to let this thing continue on. As I, as I explained at the beginning of the program, there is still plenty of time for them to make their case under the law.

And we’re going to see if they’re going to be doing that. Now. I think, you know, the Trump team, ultimately, they need to be a little bit concerned about some of these fissures. Some of these factions that are breaking up into bits, because as I explained, I don’t think this is going to be the situation where Donald Trump and his team come out and they have this smoking gun, you know, release the crack in idea where they have this bit of evidence that is going to be so definitive. So decisive that it just halts the way the election is going right in its tracks and reverses course, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Instead. I think that it’s going to be more of what we saw last night. And today it’s going to be more of infighting between people in the Trump team. They’re going to, there’s going to be more of these fissures.

More and more people are going to start peeling off. I called it yesterday, death by a thousand cuts. It’s going to be, you know, just the slow sort of puttering out this smoky dispersion of people who are, who are, who are just getting a little bit, um, a little bit tired of it. You know, they want to see more stuff. And so this could be the beginning of that. You know, this Tucker Carlson is a big guy, big audience. Lot of people really listen to him. They get their credibility. They, they, they find him to be the only source of any credibility. And if he is sort of abandoning ship here or making some infighting, some, some problems with the Trump legal team and they’re pushing back, I’m not real sure how those fissures are going to be repaired. And so ultimately, I don’t know.

I don’t think that that monologue helped us get any clarity on anything. I think Sidney Powell still has time to deliver. If she doesn’t deliver by their own standards. Then at that point in time, you can say enough already, right? We’ve given you the opportunity. You had the, the enough time to make your case. You didn’t, you broke your own rules. Therefore the credibility necessarily needs to fall by the wayside. And I know that’s not what a lot of people want to hear. You know, they, they want to hear that. There’s still hope for it, but you have to understand this is not so much even about what takes place in court. This is about what the public sees believes, feels, and is willing to accept. And the Trump team by keeping this stuff so close to the vest is making it difficult for those of us who are not on the inside circle to understand what they’re really doing.

One more point before we move on to dominion. I actually think that this is not so much about protecting the integrity of the Trump legal case. I think that the reason that Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani, the reason that they don’t want to give all of this information out is because they’re using timing as a weapon. They’re using it as a technique. They know more than anything, more than anybody, that there are some pretty important deadlines that are coming up. Very soon, we have the nomination of the electors on the eighth, we have the final delivery of the votes on December 14th. Many States are going to be certifying their results between now and then they know more than anybody that this is a really, really time compressed type of, but if they released all of the evidence, now let’s say they came out and publicly and they said, look, this is everything we got.

Here’s a Dropbox folder, go take a look at everything. Here’s everything. You know, we’re still going to redact certain information. We’re going to protect all of our witnesses and so on. And we’re just going to give it out in the court of public opinion. So you and I can do what we do on this show, break it down, analyze it, go through the primary sources and see what makes sense and what doesn’t. They’re not doing that. If they did that, then the court could accelerate the cases. The court could hear everything very quickly. They could say, all right, we got everything. You’ve got most of your case in order, let’s have a trial, let’s call in some jurors, let’s present the evidence. Let’s see what they have to say. Let’s have some ruling on the merits. In other words, the Trump team would be saying, these are our best claims, and we’re going to take them into the court of law.

That’s kind of what we’re all expecting. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I don’t think they want to have their claims heard in the court of law. I’m I’m not really convinced that they think that they have any claims that can win in the court of law. I think that they’re saying that they do. I think that they’re telling us that they’re optimistic and they’re telling us that these filings are going to come next week and the following week and so on. And that we all need to wait and see how this stuff unfolds in court. But I’m not real sure that that’s what their ultimate legal strategy is. I actually think that they’re delaying the release of this because what’s going to end up happening is as this legal proceeding continues to unfold, many of these cases are going to become moot. The judges are gonna say, you know, we already certified this.

We already certified it’s. Yeah. Th th there’s no argue about anymore. We reviewed the numbers. You made your claims, hold up. State went through with their certification. There’s nothing to fight about anymore. And Wisconsin. There’s nothing to fight about anymore in Michigan and so on and so on and so on. And the Trump team is going to know that they, they already know that it’s coming. And so I don’t think that they’re even expecting to win in any of these lawsuits. So if you start seeing these lawsuits get dismissed or withdrawn, I don’t think that’s ultimately their strategy. What I think is going to end up happening is that this is going to be ultimately a rationale a basis for saying that the legal process was also essentially fraudulent, that they didn’t get a fair shake, that they didn’t get their day in court that had, they had more time had they had more opportunity to present their full case, that things might have gone differently, but because these judges wanted to compress it because they excluded certain witnesses because they didn’t get a fair shake is going to be their argument in court.

It’s also invalid. Their argument is we all know fraud happened. The courts don’t want to acknowledge it. They’re all bought and paid for whatever. There are, whatever the excuse will ultimately be. That’s going to give them the justification to take it out of the judiciary. They know that if they go into judiciary, I really don’t think that any, any judge in America, including the Supreme court is going to invalidate 300,000 votes with the evidence that we have today. I don’t think there’s any, any that that happens if it does at all, I’ll eat my shorts on that one, but I just don’t think that it will. Now, if we fast forward two weeks fast forward to Monday and they file a lawsuit and they’ve got 10 witnesses from dominion software that release their algorithm that shows that all this stuff was, was fraudulent. That’s a whole different story, but we’re not, we’re not there yet.

There’s more time I’m open to it. I’m open to the possibility. And we don’t want to foreclose any potential opportunities for the Trump team to present their case. And we also don’t want to give anybody who’s on the losing side of an election. The reason to say, uh, the, the, the, the, the excuse to come back and say, I lost the election. I lost fraudulently. The investigation of the fraud was also fraudulent. And the court proceedings were also fraudulent, right? We, we, we don’t want to foreclose. We don’t want to give people the opportunity to make those claims. We want it to be more, more streamlined, more transparent so that they can, we can open the books and they can take a look at everything and say, yeah, this, this, we got a fair shake on it,

But we’re not there yet

Are 14, about three weeks left until we get to the 14th in December. And we’re going to see what the Trump team does if we get to next week, and then there’s no lawsuits or there’s lawsuits that mirror the same information that we’ve already been talking about, or we’ve already seen. Then I think you can make a pretty good conclusion that the legal, the judicial route to try to reverse some of these buckets is out the window. And the only remaining viable source is to go through the state legislatures to go through the 12th amendment in what’s called a contingent election. And so we’re going to talk about that in the final segment of the program, but that is the Tucker versus Sydney ordeal. I am very interested to see if Tucker, if his putting a stake in the ground, if that will trickle down into some other commentators, if that’s going to take off a big portion of the individuals who still have some fight left in,

We don’t know we’re going to see, Oh,

All right, let’s take a look at dominion. So speaking of a lot of these claims, I want to talk about dominion software.

We’ve sort

Of stayed away from some of the claims on this channel about the idea that dominion is literally getting into their software and changing the votes. We talked a little bit about it with dr. Shiva, which I think is, has been ultimately sort of debunked or there’s a debunking of him. And then a debunking of the debunk. There’s a lot of debunks going on, but the point is I haven’t actually seen any, any concrete evidence aside from statistical anomalies. We spent a lot of time here talking about Benford’s law. We talked about dr. Shiva. We talked about all of the different, you know, anomalies, it’s the statistical abnormalities that we have been seeing in, in different States like Wisconsin and Michigan. We’ve talked about them on this program,

But what about the actual

Evidence? You know, is there an actual algorithm? Is there an actual employee from who says I was involved in this, or I know how to access that, or I can explain the operation that will give additional weighted votes to Joe Biden versus Donald Trump. We haven’t seen anything that connects that chain, that missing link is still not there. That being said, dominion came out and they actually responded to a lot of the most common claims. And so they have seven of them that they posted on their website. And I want to go through them. I want to just analyze every one of the claims, give you some thoughts on them. Now, as you’re going to see when we go through the actual language that is in their website, it’s written pretty one-sided right. So normally what I like to do on this program is read something that looks like a primary source, and then argue both sides of it.

Take a look at what the Republicans would say, or the Democrats take a look at what a prosecutor would say, take a look at what a defense attorney would say, right? What would somebody who was being chased by the police? Do what would a police officer do? That’s kind of how we like to unpack these issues. When we go through the dominion response, you’re going to see that there’s really nothing that I need to do to argue in favor of supporting Dominion’s credibility. They write it very one-sided Lilly. This is, uh, a claim and bullet points about how they support their own software and their own mission and their entire company. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to look through this with a skeptical eye. We’re going to actually read it like we are maybe somebody who is a Trump supporter, somebody who is very skeptical of these claims.

So let’s take a look. Before we dive into the actual numbers. One through seven, I want to take a look at some of the language that I’ve identified. So there are three main problems that as we read through it, I think you’re going to be able to agree with me or identify at least that are issues with how they’re wording their claims. And let’s run through some of them here is the first one excessive language. So this is what I call a language that looks like this. Anytime somebody says something is 100%. Anytime they say something is impossible, or they use language like obviously K opinions that are, are reframed as facts. I call that excessive language. Some people call them just exaggerations. You can call them hyperbole. There’s a number of different things you can use, but it’s just a little bit over excessive, right?

It’s normal language that has been it’s it’s, it’s got some excess on it and they’re mostly unsubstantiated. So you’ll see here, they use this word a lot unsubstantiated, and we’re going to see a lot of that as we go through, but I just want to highlight that. So flag it for yourself as we go through some of this analysis, there’s also what I call self policing claims. We see this a lot with police departments. They say that, Hey, we investigated ourselves. And we found that we didn’t do anything wrong. Well, uh, how did you, how did you find out about that? Or how did you know while we did it? We’re responsible for it. We did it. And we’ll look at, we’ll see this type of language. When we go through dominion, we’ll see that they’re saying that we can’t do something because we said we can’t. Oh, okay. Does that mean you physically can’t or you’re you as a matter of policy, you can’t or what’s the deal. And the last thing that we’re going to see a lot of is this idea that there’s an absence of evidence. It’s called the absence of evidence fallacy also known as the argument from ignorance fallacy, which basically is saying that

If I haven’t seen it, it’s not there or because you haven’t produced it, it’s not there.

It’s kind of a logical fallacy just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or you can use the example of air or a sunset or China. Right. I can’t see it right now, but I’m pretty sure it’s there. And so these are, these are the types of issues that we’ll see when we go through dominion specifically. So let’s just take a look and dive in. You’ll understand what I mean when we get to it. So this is number one from dominion. You’ll see here. It says, if you go on their website, dominion voting.com, you’re going to see this list right on their homepage. They’re very aggressive with telling you that they’re in opposition to all of these different claims. So number one, vote deletion and switching assertions are completely false, right? And so they use a lot of this language completely false.

Well, you know, we’re going to be the judge of that. They’re going to say that it’s an unsubstantiated claim about the deletion of 2.7 million pro-Trump votes that was posted on the internet has been debunked by independent fact checkers. And the first bullet point here is about Edison research. It says that Edison research, which if you don’t recall them, this is the same company that a lot of the mainstream websites got their data from on election night. I think Bloomberg, I think New York times, Washington post, they all actually will plug in into Edison research and get their information from them. So they say here that Edison research has refuted claims that the company data suggests any voting irregularities. And they have a quote here that says, Edison research created no such report. And we are, I underlined it here. We are not aware of any voter fraud, right? So that’s just an absence of evidence claim just because they are, they’re not aware of it doesn’t mean that they actually investigated voter fraud. Did they look into that? Did they appoint a counsel? Did they have anybody from internal affairs in their office? Whatever that may be called, are they going and looking into this data? The next bullet point claims that 941,000 votes were deleted are impossible. So just like, you’ll see here, unsubstantiated claims completely false. We also know something is

Impossible. Is it

Nearly impossible? We’re going to see a lot of that. The U S department of Homeland security down here under this first bullet point, confirmed that it is not possible for a bad actor to change election results without detection.

Is that, do you believe that

That it’s really not possible that there’s no hacker, there is no country. If the Chinese took their entire espionage spy infrastructure and wanted to hack the United States elections, do you think it would really be impossible for them to do that? I don’t. I think it’s probably possible. I think it’s probably probable that they have at least tried because that’s what those systems are set up to do. And I would imagine the U S is probably doing the same thing elsewhere. So we have these entire cybersecurity infrastructures that are just constantly probing each other. But they’re saying here that according to our own government, the us department of Homeland security here says it’s not possible. Well, I just don’t believe that. I mean, I think you’d have to be a fool to believe that I’m sure it’s possible. It may be different. It may be unlikely. It may be difficult. It may be something that is very, very, very close to being impossible, but is it really impossible? Probably not. And then we see another claim here that we see a lot of dominion does not have the ability to review votes in real time as they are submitted.

They, they, I mean, they, they don’t, why not? Is that, is that not possible? Did they remove that from their software? Why don’t they have,

I have the ability to do that. I’m sure that they probably could program it to have the ability to do that, but they’re saying that they do not. And so we’re just supposed to sort of accept that as fact, and it’s it’s this, this, this whole list follows the same structure, assertions of some, uh, number two from them says assertions of supercomputer election fraud, conspiracies are 100% false. So again, another 100%, is it really a hundred percent? The cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency has debunked claims. And they really like to rely on CYSA over here, even though Chris Krebs was just fired by the Trump administration for you can, many people might say that that was a firing, that involved misconduct, that he shouldn’t have done that essentially it was a political firing because he was in opposition to the Trump team, but he’s still a part of the government and the guy who was in charge of the agency, who apparently did the debunking. He’s not around anymore. He’s not there anymore. And so, um, you know, more of this same language, they actually talked about the specific allegation that there was a raid of dominion servers by the U S military. They say that dominion does not have servers in Germany. SISA refused and refuted this claim on Twitter. And the U S army has also confirmed to the associated press

That it’s false. And so, right.

Think we can take that one. Sure. If we want to believe that. Okay, so they don’t have servers there. They would know probably no way for us to check the U S army has confirmed that they didn’t raid,

Uh, servers. Would they tell us if they did

Probably not. And I don’t know that associated the associated press would have any additional information that would shine any light as well. Number three from dominion says there

Were no, no, no zero,

No dominion software glitches and ballots were accurately tabulated. The results are 100%

Auditable. Uh,

Right. They also say that no credible reports or evidence of any software issues exists. That’s weird because we got affidavits from them. We’ve, we’ve talked about some of the claims on this program. We have people saying that there was a green button going on here in Maricopa County that they were pressing and, and that there were no, you know, there were, there were, there was a missing thumb drive. All of this stuff must have been human error, but there were zero glitches. We have, we had what, 150 million people voting on a lot of these systems around the country, no glitches anywhere, zero. And they’re all 100% auditable. I don’t know what they’re talking about in that regard, because we talked yesterday about the issue in Michigan, where the chairperson of the board of canvassers had said that they can’t, they can’t balance their votes. There they’re down 72%, 72% of the votes in Detroit were unbalanced.

I don’t know if they use dominion software, but if they do, that’s sort of a something that’s out of balance. And it’s is that really 100% audible auditable? I don’t know. And then again, no credible reports, no credible, nothing has been credible at all. When they use this type of language, it really just reminds, I think the, the entire credibility of the entire piece, that’s the, that’s the point here when they say no credible reports, that’s up for debate. And this is, this is a poorly written down document. I think this is actually, this does more harm than good. I think most people who read this recognize how obviously biased. And one side of this is this sounds like it was written by somebody who’s in marketing or public relations. And this is not very persuasive in my mind. And the first thing I look at, I say, it’s a hundred percent auditable.

Well then what the hell are we talking about? If there were no glitches here and everything’s auditable, and there were no credible reports or any evidence of any software issues, then what the hell am I, what are we, what have we been talking about here? And what have, not just me, but tens of thousands of other people who are more credible than I am, who have more background in statistical analysis, more, more background in elections, you know, have been handling ballots for 20 years and voting at these different places. They all seem to think that there were some problems here, and it’s not just limited to the ballots or to the observation. People are saying that it has to do with the software. So when they come out and say, no credible reports, everybody just, Oh, well, th those sound pretty credible to me. And when you start a statement like that, it automatically undermines the rest of your arguments.

We also saw here, there were a lot of allegations that dominion had some really close connections with other people in the government, specifically the Pelosi’s, the Clinton family and so on and watch how they just kind of couch this language. Now I haven’t done any fact check on this. We haven’t covered this claim specifically. Uh, I would imagine that dominion would be in bed with all of the politicians, or you would just expect that. And so this wasn’t a surprise. Yes, of course. The allegation that they’re, they they’re connected with dominion or that somebody is on Biden’s transition team or that there are lobbyists that are incestuous around all of these different, you know, companies just was not even a surprise to me, just sounded like that’s obviously right. And one of their claims is that they’re a non-partisan us company. So dominion here has no company ownership relationships with the Pelosi family, the Feinstein family, Clinton global initiative, smart MADEC, uh, Cytal or any ties to Venezuela.

Dominion works with all us political parties, our customer base, and our government outreach practices reflect this nonpartisan approach. So they’re saying here, the associated press says that dominion made a one-time philanthropic commitment at the cliff Clinton global initiative meeting in 2014, but the Clinton foundation has no stake or involvement. So this language here, no company ownership relationships, well, nobody was even claiming that as far as I could tell, nobody said that Nancy Pelosi owned a part of dominion software or that the Clintons or the ones who were, you know, 50% owners of their, their entity. Nobody was saying that everybody was saying that there’s, uh, there’s just a little bit of a too close for comfort relationship. Not this idea that Nancy Pelosi’s had the board meetings. I don’t think anybody was claiming that, but everybody was saying that feels a little bit gross. This person’s on the transition team.

And he worked for them. And this person has made a ton of donations. And there was a story that everybody on, on dominion, all the dominion, people on LinkedIn were all just, you know, vaporizing their profiles and stuff so that they couldn’t trace some of these connections. And they couldn’t find out who was on what boards and they didn’t want anybody to piece it together. And so this is a, a non-credible claim. In my opinion, you know, it’s nonpartisan. I doubted, I, I think it’s probably highly partisan, probably in both different areas. And they’re probably playing the same game that all of the other big companies are playing, right, Amazon and, and Facebook and Twitter and all of these big tech companies. They’re all playing the game. They’re buying politicians on both sides. So, so to say that this is, you know, a non-partisan organization that just wants to help the homeless and help good old Americans just go down and vote accurately.

That’s not the case. Okay. They’ve got agendas, just like the rest of all of us do. And this idea that they’re going to just come out and claim that they’re, non-partisan give me a break. All right. Number five. Dominion is not, they claim and has never been owned by smart MADEC. Again, was anybody claiming that was anybody claiming that smart MADEC owned dominion or that ever owned dominion? I don’t know. Uh, I don’t think so. Not that I saw dominion here is what they’re claiming is an entirely separate company and a fierce competitor to smart Maddock. They say they don’t collaborate in any way. Have no affiliate relationships. Dominion does not use smart MADEC software. The next question would be okay. Well, what, what, what do you use? Do you use any bits of smart MADEC software? Did you buy any software? Did you register license any bits and components from them?

It may not be called smart MADEC software. It may be bits and pieces of them that you incorporate in your own software, but that’s the allegation that people are making. Number three, they say that the only associations the company has ever had was with when smart MADEC licensed dominion machines. So there was some sort of relationship there in 2009 that ended in a lawsuit 2010, dominion purchased certain assets from Sequoia and smart. MADEC a previous owner of Sequoia pursued legal actions. So once again, what were these legal actions? What were these lawsuits? What were they fighting about? Were they fighting about incorporating or misappropriating certain data, certain resources that happens all the time. One company licenses, something you see these patent Wars that have been going on between Samsung and Apple and all of the other big tech companies for years, millions and billions of dollars in settlements and claims because they’re using little bits and pieces of stuff from the different software companies.

It’s not like Apple just sat down and invented literally everything on there. They’re licensing maps from Google, they’re licensed this and this and that and the other. And they’re compiling it all into one functional software suite, which is exactly what dominion is doing. And that’s what people are curious about. That’s what they’re concerned about. What’s what is that? What does that look like? And they’re just, you know, very, very pithy, very short claim. We don’t use any of that and nothing to see here, just move on it. Lacks credibility. Number six, they say that no unauthorized or last minute software updates occurred. So this is number six from them. You can see here claims about software updates being done the night before are 100% false, both Spalding and Georgia said that this type of authorized unauthorized update is impossible yet again, right? Another impossible claim. It can’t possibly happen. The actual logs from the equipment under the custody of the County, determined an update did not happen the night before the election. Where are those logs? Are they going to show us any

Of those logs? We

Will see. And the last one, finally, before we move on to the 12th amendment, is there are no issues with the use of Sharpie pens. None election officials provided writing instruments that are approved for marking ballots to all in-person voters using hand Mark stuff, DHS cybersecurity, once again, the referencing system, which is all throughout all of these claims, if a ballot has issues that impacts the ability to be scanned, it can be hand counted. Maricopa County board of supervisors said, Sharpies do not invalidate ballots. Sharpie pens are safe and reliable and recommended due to their quick drying ink. So no issues they save right in the headline. There are no issues with the use of Sharpie pens, but that’s interesting because in this email, we saw that they had some issues here in this was from Kelly Dixon. We already talked about this easy mirror, says that the Maricopa County vendor dominion voting systems are at the center of false conspiracies.

And that’s because Maricopa County uses them. And this email, which was published by one of our, uh, one of our individuals by the name of Barnett Barnett for Arizona is his Twitter handle. He posted this email, which we read on the show earlier this week says we’ve heard and know you’re, you’re having issues about the Sharpie markers starting tomorrow from 10 23 to November 2nd, we are asking clerks to use ballpoint pens. After that on election day, we want you to use Sharpies, so different pens for different days for different demographics of voters. And apparently there are no issues, even though this email from the assistant director for recruitment and training from America County elections says, we know that you are having issues, okay, but there are no issues. Come on guys. All right. We also know that they didn’t show up at a hearing today.

This came from the York. Dispatch says here, Grove Kiefer, who are two local lawmakers foster doubts about the election after the voting from abandons, the hearing. And they couldn’t put the name dominion in there, but that’s who it was two Republican state lawmakers representing your County on Friday. Continue to sow doubt. How dare they, the integrity of the 2020 elections after dominion voting systems backed out of a committee, hearing state reps, Seth Grove, and Don Keefer ramped up skepticism about the results. The night before the rescinded, the, the dominion people rescinded their intention to attend a state government committee hearing, which was scheduled today. And they are asking if they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding from us? The interim chair of the state government said, well, they’re going to, of course, they’re not going to want to. They’re not going to be there.

They want to be far away from this as possible. Their tactic dominion delayed, delayed, delayed, delayed, denied, denied, denied. And I do not talk, do not talk, do not talk. If I, if I was representing dominion, that’s the number one thing I would say, do not speak to anybody about anything. You’re going to go hide in a closet for the next four weeks until this thing is over. Let them make their claims. Don’t give them any fire. And it sounds like that’s what their attorneys told them to do. Not bad advice. All right, let’s move on over to the 12th amendment, the 12th amendment. Now the 12th amendment is a big ball of worms. The reason this is coming back into fruition is because if Donald Trump and his team, if they’re not successful in the courts, remember we talked about two ways that they can get back into the white house or reverse course of the election.

Number one, they have to identify big buckets of votes, big buckets that are going to equate to 300,000 votes in a number of different States that are going to reverse course and make the electors have to vote for them through the normal routine process, right? Just like in any other election, flipping the state from Joe Biden to Donald Trump, by invalidating buckets of Joe Biden voters, or by finding a bunch of Trump voters that would invalidate, that would change the Delta. That’s the one strategy it’s looking to me like that’s less and less their actual strategy. The actual strategy is to not particularly invest too much into the judicial process where they’re believing that they’re not going to get a fair shake. They’re not, they don’t think they’re going to have enough time. And they don’t think that they’re going to get to be able to present anything.

That’s going to convince a judge to throw out big enough buckets, as I’ve already explained. It is a big order to have a judge anywhere in this country say, yeah, a hundred thousand votes. Those are gone big ask. I don’t think that that’s going to be successful. I think they probably know that. So what we’re seeing now is this moving of resources, almost away from the court process. Remember the court process we need to get wrapped up in the next two weeks or so very, very quickly. I don’t think they have enough time to do that. So the alternative strategy from the Trump team is to use another legal mechanism under the constitution under the 12th amendment, which would take this out of the normal process. The process that you and I are familiar with, there is a different process under the constitution. It’s getting into some dangerous territory here because now we’re talking about invalidating an entire state’s popular vote, very dangerous, very tricky, very convert, uh, con uh, uh, what’s the word controversial, not something that even should be discussed lightly, which is why I’m a little bit skeptical to even talk about it.

You know, this is a big thing. If you’re going to, you know, if people go and vote with the expectation that they’re going to be selecting the next president, that’s an important thing. That’s a sacred thing that happens. Every single vote is an amazing piece of participating in democracy, and it should matter. It should matter. That’s the rules. Those are the, that’s the that’s the game we all agreed to play. If the Trump team says we’re not going to play that game anymore, they better have a good reason. We haven’t seen one quite yet, but it better be very, very good because what they’re proposing here in my mind speculating is that they’re not going to try to engage with the courts to invalidate big buckets of votes. They’re going to try to deal legitimize in the court of public opinion, the election they’re going to come out and say, we found this tremendous evidence about X, Y, and Z.

And that is something that’s going to be sufficient to convince the state legislatures that they themselves should go through. Ships should basically refuse to certify the States and that would invoke the 12th amendment. So let’s, let’s back up a little bit. I’m getting ahead of myself right now. There’s a certain number of electoral pro projected votes for Joe Biden. And for Donald Trump projected at some point on the 14th, we’re going to know what the number is. And if Joe Biden has over 270, it’s the end of the game, that’s it. If enough States go through and nominate their electors and he’s over two 70, that’s enough, he’s got, he’s got enough. And it looks like if everything goes exactly as it’s going right now, he’s going to meet that number. Not even going to be an issue, it’s looking pretty certain, but if he doesn’t and Donald Trump doesn’t either.

If the only thing that happens is that some of those votes get de-certified or some States refuse to certify in those States. Then those votes may be coming out of the Joe Biden bucket. And slowly he goes from whatever he’s at now, three Oh six to 300 to two 80 down to two 69. Even that’s not the majority, that’s not the, that’s not what the constitution provides. So Donald Trump doesn’t actually have to flip those States. He doesn’t, he doesn’t have to change Michigan from blue to red. He just needs to keep Michigan from not certifying their electoral votes. And if he’s able to do that and drag Joe Biden back down under 270, the 12th amendment may very well come into play. And that would result in this, going back down to the state legislatures or to the house of representatives who would then cast their votes.

And that would be what’s called a contingent election under the 12th amendment. All right, let’s take a look at how that works. This is the actual 12th amendment, right? It’s a huge wall of text. It’s very confusing statute. One of the more, uh, confusing statutes, I think in the bill of rights are in the constitution. This is in the 12th. So what we see here this whole first part is talking about how it works. If everything works according to plan electors, meet in their respective States, they vote by ballot for president. This is all how it normally works. Uh, they make the separate indistinct lists for presidents of all the people who are running the president of the Senate shall open all the certificates of the mail. They should be counted. Whoever has the greatest number of votes for president, she is going to be the president, right stuff that happens that we’re very familiar with.

However, if no person after they go through this process has the majority of those electoral votes then from the persons having the highest numbers. So it says here not exceeding three. What that means is they’re going to pick, let’s say five people are running for president. They’re going to pick the top three. So from the person having the highest on the list of three, the house of representatives and that, that doesn’t even apply here, we have to, the house of representatives shall choose immediately by ballot the president. So if somebody is under the two 70, if somebody is under the majority, then it goes to the house of representatives. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by the States, the representation from each state having one vote. All right. So what that means is it’s not the number of representatives in the States, but they’re going to go back to the States and the representation from each state, having one vote, a quorum for this purpose shall consist of members or members from two-thirds of the States.

And a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And then it goes on to talk about, uh, what happens next. If the house of representatives does not choose a president before the fourth day of March, then the vice-president shall act as the president and this, the rest of this really talks about the vice-president. All right. So that is very confusing. Okay. It’s a big wall of text. It’s difficult to decipher. The question that I had was what is the most recent interpretation of this? What are they talking about now? Because there was the 20th amendment that comes in and modifies this thing. And there was, there were two times in our electoral history, or this was actually used. And so I wanted to read, how did they use this? Because what ends up happening often is the constitution will set a series of rules. It’s going to be modified by D not, not modified, but I would say interpreted by different acts of Congress and you’ll have different internal house rules that can all can all sort of tweak the implementation of the rules. So even though the 12th amendment prescribes a specific set of, you know, what needs to happen, congressional statute and different house rules can interpretate interpret how those are actually in motion. All right. So let’s take a look at something from the congressional

Research service. So they actually

Updated this. So if somebody was thinking about this in October of this year, this idea of contingent elections, I’d be very curious to see who actually initiated this little investigation, this inquiry, because it is relevant and pertinent. You can see here contingent election of the vice president and the president by Congress perspectives and contemporary analysis. Ooh, from the congressional research center. So talking specifically about this, the contingent election, and let’s take it. Let’s, let’s break this down because I think it’s very good. If you want to read the whole thing, uh, the link is somewhere. I thought I posted it somewhere. Uh, just type that into Google. It pops right up. All right. So let’s take a look with a summary here. It says the 12th amendment requires that presidential and vice presidential candidates gain a majority of the whole number of electors appointed. And that, as I already explained, means 270 electoral votes. It’s the magic number. It is the majority that’s necessary to win the presidency. And if they can’t get there, because some States don’t certify

Why their electoral votes,

Then it’s going to drag Joe Biden under that number. So we can see this already happening. And if one state falls think about the domino effect that that might have, what if in Michigan? I think they certified their votes. I think the state is still pending on that, but let’s, let’s say that the state certifies it or doesn’t certify it. Let’s say that the GOP is meeting now. And they’re leaning on that, that representative from the board of canvassers, from Wayne County, who we’ve talked about on this channel, who refused to certify then certified and then rescinded

Her vote. Well, what if that

Is cover for the state GOP than to not certify the entire state? Well, then those Michigan electoral votes, I think at 16, 1260, whatever it is, those come out of the Joe Biden column. And that starts knocking him back under the two 70. So if he can get dragged down, if Michigan falls and then another state says, well, Michigan had problems. We had some pretty big problems ourselves. And then Nevada falls and Arizona falls, Joe Biden may very well come under that magic number and that’s may need to trigger the 12th amendment. So the, the actual, the, the research paper goes on. It says here, there’s one scenario that they’re concerned about here. They’re saying this could happen when there’s too closely contested candidates. We saw the situation where there could have been a two 72 70 tie. No, that didn’t happen. How about one where there’s multiple candidates like three presidential candidates and they split it down the middle.

Well, that doesn’t really apply. But what about when an election where a number of electors sufficient to deny a majority, to any candidate votes against the candidates, to whom they are pledged? Ooh. So what happens if they’re supposed to give them to Joe Biden, but they don’t, and those votes don’t get, don’t get voted anywhere, or they actually go over to Donald Trump and it evens out and they fall under that magic number threshold. Well, then what happens? So we already read the text from the 12th amendment. Let’s read some of the explanation here, because I think they do a better job than even I could do, uh, explaining it off the cuff here. What we, here’s, what we have in a contingent election. The house would choose among the three candidates already talked about that. Each state, regardless of population cast a single vote for the president, every state gets one vote in a contingent election representatives would meet.

They would, they would need to conduct an internal poll within their state delegation representatives of, of States, and that they would need to decide, which would receive the single States votes. A majority of the state votes 26 or more is required to elect. And the house must, must vote. Excuse me, it must vote immediately. And by ballot, additional precedents exist from 1825, but they would not be binding in the house and a contingent election. The Senate selects the vice-president and so on. DC does not get a vote. Each Senator would cast a vote for the vice-president. It goes on a contingent election would be conducted by the newly elected Congress. So that would be the Congress that just got elected because

They would, they would already be in session

By the time of January 6th of next year. It’s occasionally rescheduled. If the house is unable to elect a president by January 20th, the 20th amendment provides the vice president elect would

Be the president, but if neither

The vice president or the president has been chosen, then it goes over to miss Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house until the president or vice-president qualifies. So you see how this is all going to play out. If by January six, we don’t have, you know, if, if Joe Biden or Donald Trump does not have the total number of electoral votes that’s needed to qualify, then this is going to go over to the house of representatives to vote one vote

Per state. And then if that doesn’t happen by the 20th, the Nancy Pelosi’s the president. Can you,

I believe that. All right. So there’s some additional language that we’ll see here voting by ballot. There’s. This is where I’m talking about, where some of the rules get a little bit murky here. We see here voting immediately and by ballot 12th amendment provides that they shall choose the ballot immediately, which means the house must literally proceed to the election without any delay. It should also be noted that the rules adopted for the election required the house to ballot for president without interruption, by any other business, until the president has been chosen. So everything goes on hold until the 12th amendment settles who the next president is going to be. And there’s some discussion about the debate at the time in 1801 and 1825, they wanted secret ballot, secret paper ballots, but they, they, I read somewhere else that essentially that even though they cast secret ballots back in the 18 hundreds, when they came out of Congress, everybody already knew how they had voted.

So it wasn’t really a secret. It was technically by secret ballot, but they all came out and, and detailed for the public, how they voted. So very fascinating article. If you wanted to read more about it, it’s actually very, very interesting. There’s a lot of information in there. They talk about how, how the, the, the original constitution before the 12th amendment had some different language and why they modified that they were running into problems in some of the earliest elections in American history. And they settled that by the country has been through this before. In other words, we’ve already had these types of issues. We had, uh, major fights that went over to the house of representatives, John Quincy, Adams, w I think he was our fifth president. He had, you know, he had this issue where he needed to go over to the house of representatives and convince somebody else who was running for president, but who was the head of the house of representatives to come over on his side?

They call it the, um, something of a bargain, you know, uh, um, I can’t think of the word, but a gross bargain, something that was really, really wrong at the time. And then he only was a one-term president. I mean, there’s some significant fallout, but my point is, the country has been through this. This is all in the rules. This is all has been, you know, people are thinking about these issues. What Donald Trump is doing is not anything that is earth shattering. You know, this is not the end of America. There are rules in place for this. There’s a whole congressional research paper, that details how it works and how it worked in the past and how it would work again, if they continue to pursue this strategy. Now, whether you want to endorse that strategy strategy or not is a whole different can of worms.

And, you know, unless there’s more evidence, I don’t think that this is going to be successful because nobody’s going to want to invalidate the votes of their own constituency. So there’s still time. It’s still a couple of weeks. Donald Trump and his team have indicated that they are going to be filing lawsuits next week. That was from Victoria town saying, I saw another headline today that Sidney Powell said, it’s going to be over the next two weeks. Yeah. But that’s not what Victoria said. So keep an eye on this. If they keep moving the goalposts a little bit, we want to be cognizant of that. If they say, well, it’s not next week, it’s the week after, or the week after that, or it’s not going to be the full case because we want to file the full case somewhere else. We’re only going to address these two issues here. We want to talk about these other three issues over here. That’s not what you said. And that’s the standard that I think that is the appropriate standard to hold them accountable to. It’s not Tucker standard. It’s not the Washington post standard. It’s not what the New York times wants them to do or what Joe Biden wants them to do. They’re the attorneys on the case, let’s hold them accountable to their own words. If they fail their own words, well, then that’s their fault, not ours. And we weren’t holding them to unfair standards.

All right. So let’s go through it

And read some of these super chats because they’ve been coming in heavy. Thank you so much, everybody. I appreciate that. All right. So the wandering Marriner let’s turn the chat on here. Uh, backing up earlier today, we have from the wandering Marriner says no questions, but love what you were doing. You make it easy for people to follow the chaotic state of where things are. Thank you. And thank you. The wandering Marriner. Thanks for being here and appreciate the super chat we have Jamal, who says, as a lawyer, would you join

Trump’s legal team if

Asked and the answer to that would probably be no on that. Um, and you know, the reason it would be an honor, it would be the,

The, um, it

Would be a fight, right? To be asked to be a part of any legal team like that. Trump’s team abide in team, you know, a presidential team like that, but I just don’t know that it would be the best fit for me. I don’t know that I would add anything to the team, uh, because I don’t like to, I generally don’t like to take orders from almost anybody, and it’d be difficult to do that as part of the Trump team. But it’s a good question. Thanks, Jamal. And I don’t think they’d want me on the team anyways. So Ron B has a question Rodney, with two super chat says, well, today the GOP pen had a meeting with dominion systems, dominion decided to lawyer up and canceled the meeting. What do you think should happen? So it’s a good question. I mean, if I was the dominion people, I would for sure refuse to do anything.

I would not be a part of any of this stuff. And Dominion’s got a pretty good defense until the Trump campaign or somebody filing a lawsuit somewhere until they’re successful in court, until they can get a subpoena for dominion or a court order to come in and talk about this stuff. Dominion doesn’t have to talk about anything, right? Unless they’ve made some sort of contractual agreements with the state governments, you know, with the secretary of state, if they had entered a contract and said, we’re going to put systems all across Georgia, uh, we’re going to put your systems in. We’re going to enter this contract with you. But if, if, if we will have questions of you, we were going to demand that you come in and answer those questions. You know, there may be some contingencies in some of those agreements for that. I don’t know. But again, the only person who would be able to exercise

That would be the state, the state. And if they don’t,

You want to call dominion in and there’s no teeth in order to do that, then I would do to exactly what they’re saying and say, no

Things are fine. Here are the seven reasons why Donald Trump’s a lunatic. Uh, this was all normal. And

We’re not going to talk about it anymore. Referring back to the website, because if they,

If they engage this more there,

Everything they say is just going to get taken advantage of. So what you would really want to do, if you want to put some pressure on dominion is you’d want to make sure that your local legislatures, your, the people who are responsible for getting dominion into your States and allowing them to operate your election, you’d want to make sure that whoever’s in those negotiations knows that you’re not happy about dominion, not answering questions

And ask your representatives to change

Whatever software they’re using and canceled dominion, right? That’s the only way that you’re going to hold their feet to the fire in a way that’s going to bring them to the table. Otherwise they have no obligation to go and talk. Why would they? We have uncivil law, uncivil laws in the house, Hey, on civil law. Uh, I follow that channel if you don’t follow on civilize is, uh, another, another, uh, legal commentator out there as a nice channel. So go check him out. He says, I’ve had my crack and detector out for a while, but so far I am unhappily crack and free. If there’s anything that is filed in court that matches Sydney rec Sydney’s rhetoric, I will be surprised. And I think I’m with you on that 100%, this idea that there was, there was something big. I think it was a mistake by the Trump team.

This idea that they know they’re going to release the crack and we’re all waiting for something. What is it? What’s the smoking gun? I don’t think it exists. And I’m losing hope. I made the graph where I showed you over time. The likelihood of cracking being revealed. I think as time goes on, the likelihood goes down. So it’s a, it’s a relationship where the longer this thing goes, the less inclined I am to believe that they actually have anything. I think what makes more sense in fact, is this delay, delay, delay strategy. And then when they’re unsuccessful in the court of law, then turn around and claim that the court prejudice them and make the case to the state legislatures. I think that’s, I think that’s where this is. Ultimately, we’re going to see next week. We’re going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Like I always say here, we want to give the disadvantaged party. We want to give the party that are making the claims the benefit of the doubt. How can we look at them in a light, look at their claims in a light, most favorable to them. Let’s give them all the benefit of the doubt. Let’s hold them to their standard. They said the lawsuits were coming next week. All right, let’s see. And they said that the evidence is going to be in the lawsuits and that more stuff is going to be revealed. They want their day in court. That’s their words, not ours. So when they start filing these lawsuits and appearing in court, they better come prepare with the evidence. We better see something because if not, then it’s like, it feels a little bit disingenuous to me, but it’s good to have you here on this civil law.

Thanks for the super chat. Keep up the great work with your channel. Once again, uncivil law, go check them out. Have hockey D who says, reporter spoke with Lynwood said he spent days with Cindy. Well, he said evidence was a game changer. All right. So that comes from Lynwood. I actually read through Lynwood’s complaint. The other day, my understanding was it was dismissed because the judge said he didn’t have any standing, which seems a little bit weird to me since he’s a Georgia resident and a voter and a lawyer, but I haven’t read the dismissal. My understanding is Linwood is going to be appealing that as he should, that’s what the appeals courts are for. Uh, you know, many people will say, well, you lost, you lost, you lost. And that’s why we have multiple levels of appeals. Appeals is a whole separate area of law.

I mean, there, there are lawyers who are appellate lawyers just for that purpose. If everybody who lost a trial just said, Oh, that’s the end of the game for us. Maybe we gave it a good shot. I guess we’re going to go back to our offices and think up the next scheme that we’ve got going on. And that’s not how it works. Appeal, appeal, appeal. It takes 20 years to get a ticket, to get a victory. Look at these people who’ve been in custody who get released from the justice project. They’ve been in jail for prison for 25 years. They get released because the DNA evidence comes out. They’ve been appealing, appealing, appealing. Finally, they’re out of custody. That’s what appeals her for. Uh, so we’ll see, you know, Linwood, Linwood. I’ve, I’ve had my critiques of the guy. I think he’s very, very dramatic in a lot of ways. So when he says the evidence is a game changer, you know, take that with a grain of salt.

J D says, look

At Dominion’s website says we deliver dominion is ready to make a difference in your next election. Really? Uh, exclamation, uh, a question Mark question Mark. Question Mark. Question Mark. Question Mark from J D. Yeah. It’s pretty interesting. Their website’s interesting, I think is very poorly written. It didn’t, it didn’t satisfy me at all. It actually just angered me. I was like, who wrote this? This doesn’t, this doesn’t satiate satisfy any of my concerns at all. It just makes me feel like they’re trying to hide even more and be manipulative about it. So that’s, that’s just one man’s opinion on that. Jeff DOE says, if Trump loses in all the courts, will he still have a chance, a chance of getting approved in Congress? So yeah, he could, he could actually go through and invoke if they’re able to, to cause enough, we can call it chaos.

If they’re able to sow enough dissension, if they can convince enough people in America, which is not, I not, I think going to be difficult to do quite frankly. I mean, a lot of people have concerns about this election, myself included. I don’t think that that necessarily based on the evidence that we’ve seen thus far justifies invalidating the election, just because we have some concerns and talk about it and have some questions doesn’t mean that I’m in the camp that says, yeah, we got to invalidate 300,000 votes and just give this thing to Donald Trump. That’s insane unless there’s more evidence

Then, and this is a done deal. And thus far, they haven’t proven they haven’t shown us anything, but they haven’t told us they were going to show us anything until next week and tell the lawsuits have been filed. So can you blame them for not giving us anything they have? They’ve said specifically, we’re not going to give you anything until this thing moves forward. But my point here, Jeff, is that if they, if they, if they are able to convince enough people outside of the judicial process, maybe they think they don’t get a fair shake in the judicial process. They said that they think the evidence is damning enough that the American people would be convinced of it. But a judge may not. They make it just take their case to the American people. And the American people through the state legislatures could refuse to certify their electors that would drop Joe Biden underneath the required majority threshold of electoral votes. And there would necessarily have to be a 12th amendment contingent election in which the house, the house of representatives, the delegations from the States go and vote. And then that would be the next,

The president. And that would be woof. That would be something

Right. And I think right now, the evidence that the Trump team has presented, doesn’t meet that at all. I really think it’s a hard, a hard push. As I said, if this damning lawsuit, if this evidence that Linwood seen comes out and it’s really compelling, this whole thing could, could change immediately, right? Every single state could refuse to certify. We could, we could have a whole different morning if the evidence is that damning, but I’m just, you know, every day that goes by, I think the likelihood of it actually coming to fruition diminishes, we have Ryan Broderick who says dominion refuse to testify today in Pennsylvania, PA state reps had a press conference. Dominion closed their offices in Denver and Toronto. Oh boy. So yeah, I, you know, I don’t, I, I just, I covered the story today. Of course they didn’t appear at the hearing.

I didn’t know that they closed their offices in Denver and Toronto, uh, you know, double, double check that just to confirm it, but it doesn’t surprise me at all. Right. Th this, this organization is going to clamp up like a turtle going back into its shell. They’re going to be on red alert for the next four weeks or so. Um, or maybe even through January 20th until we have a conclusion, I don’t think it’s going to get there. I think what’s ultimately going to happen as I’ve said, is that this thing kind of just putters out Trump makes their claims. They don’t have enough momentum to have the States decertify this stuff. And then the States certify it, Joe, Biden’s next president. I think that’s probably what’s going to happen, but we’re all not done yet. There’s still time left on the clock and there’s a lot of smoke.

We just need to see some fire. And if there’s some fire, then we have more evidence and we can make some adjusting, but we’re not going to hold them to the standard until we get there. And all the all dominion needs to do is just hold on, just hold on tight, wait till this ride’s over. And then they can change their name and they can reform as a new company. None of the state legislatures are going to do anything. We’ll be back in the same predicament in the next four years. If from JB seven 77 with a super, it looks like those are in euros. Good to see you JB being. And he says, what if Trump promises to pardon everyone that comes out now with a confession that they committed election fraud? Very interesting idea. I like that idea. It sounds, it’s a very Trumpy idea.

You know, that would be something that, uh, that, that no other person I think would ever do, except Donald Trump, Donald Trump could make that, uh, make that move and probably get away with it. I think it’s a good idea. Interesting idea. And you know, the, the, the issue here, it’s fun. I need to watch a lot of people in the political commentary yet sort of talk about a lot of the issues that are very, very prevalent in criminal law. They’re talking about these affidavits and these declarations and talking about evidence and whether it’s credible evidence or non-credible or whether it should be, um, you know, even admitted and how strong is it? And, and, and how truthful are each of those different declarance, you know, the people signing those, they really see what they saw. How do you challenge that? Well, you challenge it all the time. Eye witness testimony is, you know, it’s kind of, kind of garbage. A lot of the time people think they saw something, they didn’t really see. They misremember stuff. They fill in holes. You know, we have different lineups that are, that we’ve used in our criminal cases where the police will try to point our clients out of a lineup and people get, you know, different people that are not even close. It’s difficult


Approve these types of claims. And so you’d have to ask yourself, you know, of the people who are coming forward to confess in your hypothetical JBB if they all came forward, how many of those would really be true? You’d have, you’d have to ask yourself that because a significant portion of them probably wouldn’t be right, and you’d have to apply the same argument to both sides. One argument as to why there’s massive fraud, but there’s not a whole lot of evidence about it is this idea that people who are at these voting centers, these tabulation centers in these majorly democratic States, they have this idea that Donald Trump is literally Hitler and they have a moral obligation to get him out of office. And this is an argument I’ve seen from a lot of people that say, well, if you’re, if you’re literally looking at a ballot that has Donald Trump’s name on it, and you think that Donald Trump is actually literally Hitler, then what do you do with that ballot?

If you’re a good person, well, you get rid of it. You throw it in the garbage because you can’t support Hitler. And you’ve got a moral duty to your fellow man to save America, save democracy, democracy, and prevent the downfall of America. So you just throw it out, innocent, little, uh, you know, anti Hitler, maneuver, not a big deal. So if you’re gonna apply that standard and say, somebody might be less than honest or might be willing to manipulate their morals, lie a little bit cheat, a little bit, do something that’s a little bit disingenuous. You’d have to apply that same standard over to these Trump people over to these, these people who are, you know, might be coming out and confessing over to these people who might be signing the declarations, signing these affidavits. Well, do you think that that like, like them, many of those people certainly must think that Joe Biden is almost the reverse of that.

He’s a, he’s a harbinger of socialism. He’s going to tax us all to death. He’s going to put us on a six week lockdown, mandate mass. He’s going to take away everything. Right. And so would they be inclined to maybe fib the truth a little bit? And if it’s not even malicious, is it something where maybe they just, they just misremembered something, you know, they they’re in the heat of the moment. They’re all this activity going on. They don’t have a lot of familiarity with how this stuff works. It’s a high stakes, high intensity environment. Maybe they just saw something that was perfectly legitimate, but they didn’t know any better. And so they signed a document. That’s not intentionally malicious. It’s not intentionally lying, but it is just inaccurate. And so the standard, we need to be applied to both sides and you need to, you need to weigh all the evidence thoroughly.

It’s very good question though. We have Laura Smith who says search October, 2019, Texas evaluation of dominion software. I saw that, I think we might have even read the final conclusions on this channel about what Texas said, that the reason why they didn’t decertify, like I might be mistaken, mistaken, but I did. I did look at it. And I know that Texas and another, a number of other States, I think even including Canada, where they were stationed in Ontario doesn’t even use their software. There were a lot of concerns with it. So when you go on Dominion’s website and you see them saying that everything is 100% legitimate and everything, it’s it, you know, any, any hacking is impossible and there’s no credible sources. And there’s nothing that ever went wrong ever in the history. We have no, no, no connections with anybody. It’s like, come on guys.

Like how dumb do you think we are? Give us a break. All right. Seth G says, do you think some sort of election reform will get, will come from this? They need to at least get rid of dominion for the next election. Yeah, I think, I think there will be some, some serious, you know, re recourse here across the different States. I’d be, I would be very surprised if we hear about dominion again. I think that between now and the next major election dominion is that that name is not back anymore. That name is tarnished. You can see them clamming up into their turtle shells. They’re going to be running for the Hills. It’s going to be something else. I, I, you know, I was a kid when this stuff was going on, but I remember the conversation about, uh, bald, I think was the name of the company back during, I think it was like, um, Clinton Dole, you know, one of those elections when I was just in grade school.

Well, I remember hearing about this as voting software voting technology, but they’re not really around anymore. You don’t hear much from them. Now we hear about this new company and I think there’ll be probably another new company and so on, but your point is well taken. I, I, you know, we saw this debacle actually, Jeb Bush, as much as we’d like to kind of poke fun at, uh, uh, guacamole, Jeb, he exclamation point jab, jab, jab, jab. You know, he had a tweet that I thought was, was right on point. He said, Hey, in Florida, we had this major problem during the Bush Gore years. And as Floridians, we sat down, we hash this thing out and you’ll notice this go round in 2020 Florida has had basically no problems, none. Right? Nobody’s asking for a recount there. They got their votes in on time.

There were no weird spikes. I don’t even think there’s a lot a lawsuit going on in Florida. There’s no, uh, no, no claims of abnormalities. I haven’t seen any graphs in Florida. Nobody’s making YouTube videos about Florida. It’s all pretty well and good. And Jeb Bush hopped on Twitter and then spiked the football as he should. Because he said after 2000, we made some serious changes. We revisited our voting process and it’s pretty good now. And it looked pretty good. It looked like we had the results in one of the biggest con big, biggest States in the country pretty quickly before a lot of these other States. So we may want to actually look to Florida as a model, which is one of the beautiful things of this country. Different States can tinker with different things and we can find what works and incorporate them across the States.

Just like what we’re seeing with the marijuana reform and some other interesting stuff going around. All right. Another one from uncivil law says gets get States to select Republican electors. Number two, get Congress to throw out electors and pick the president themselves. That should go over super well. Yeah, it would not go over well. Well, I think it’s a long shot that that happens. I mean, I really, I really have a hard time believing, even if you’re a staunch Republican, even if you can’t stand Joe Biden and you want this, you want Donald Trump so badly. If you’re an elected official in a state legislature, I have a difficult time believing you tell your own constituents, the people who vote

That you’re going to invalidate their votes.

I have a hard time believing that many people would do that. And I think what Donald Trump needs is he needs the first state to go. He needs one legislature to not do it. And, and to, and to basically decertify or to appoint somebody who’s going to make the elect doors faithless. Something needs to happen. If one state goes and there’s this domino effect and other States start falling, then that’s when everybody, you know, would start raising the red flag a little bit. But I just, I, in my, in my gut, I don’t think that that is going to happen. I think that most local representatives are going to want to carry out the will of their local constituents. And that’s why we won’t see anything go on there, but it’s a good point. Thanks again. On civil law, we have set. Gee, who says, do you think any of this will make, makes it to the Supreme court of courts? Won’t even hear them out? I can’t see his supporters letting that slide good times ahead. So, you know, it’s a good question, Seth. I originally did. I thought that this Boockvar case was going to be, it’s basically knocking on the door in Pennsylvania, but here’s where I have some issues with, with where I thought it was going to go to the Supreme court. It may not. And the reason I,

You say that is because the argument that the Trump team

That was ripe, that I thought it was a good argument. And I think it was illegitimate. What Pennsylvania did remember, let’s do a quick refresh in Pennsylvania. I think the Pennsylvania case of any case is the one that’s most likely to actually be heard by the Supreme court, because it was already there. And judge Alito got involved in it after the fact. And he actually sent over an order demanding that they start segregating votes and so on. So as a refresher in Pennsylvania, the deadline to vote was on election day, November 3rd, the Democrats filed a lawsuit. They sued Boockvar. They started moving their dates around the Supreme court, came back and said, okay, look, we’re

Going to go ahead and move the date in violation

Of what the state legislature law says. The Supreme court came out and said, we’re going to move it. We’re going to move it from the third to the sixth. This is the state Supreme court. I think that that was done in violation of the constitution. They should not have had the authority to do that. They leaned on this, uh, excuse that this was all a result of their sort of emergency powers to declare that they need to make these things in order to ensure a fair election and all this nonsense, they changed the law. The legislature is the one who governs the elections Supreme court by the stroke of a pen, changed it. All right. They did that. I think that that was done illegally. And I think that any of those votes that came in after that November 3rd date technically were illegal. They’re technically in violation of the law.

Now you can argue both ways on that. I think that, I think that that is probably the most compelling argument that the Supreme court would have ruled on. They would have said, Nope, you can’t do that. This is a separation of powers issue. I know you told all these people to bring in their votes, but you shouldn’t have done that. And the punishment is those votes that came in, that came in after election day. Don’t count. I think the problem here is that it may not matter. Those votes may not matter. Even if all of those things were thrown out out of Pennsylvania. I still think that Joe Biden has a margin. That’s big enough. According to the numbers, we ran through some of the, in a previous show. I think that it’s inconsequential. So if the Supreme court came out and said, you’re right, all of those votes that came in after election day are gone.

Does that change the outcome? Probably not. And if that’s the case, I think the Supreme court is less inclined to get involved. They’ll just say, Nope, we send it back down. It is what it is, Pennsylvania. You guys fix it the next go round, but we’re not going to get involved because this is a political issue. This is something for the political branch to deal with the judge that the courts really don’t want to get involved in political issues because it’s, it’s not, it’s supposed to be apolitical there’s even there’s there’s there’s issues about this. Have you file a lawsuit and it’s a political question. The courts will say, that’s a political question. Go send that, go talk to your representative about that. Don’t file a suit in our court. Take that elsewhere. That’s a different branch of government. You’re in the wrong building brother.

And they will go in and actually dismiss cases on that basis. So, you know, at this point in time, I’m not real sure that the Supreme court is going to weigh in and I’m not real sure that the Trump team has really, it was really, you know, moving that direction. I think that they probably are recognizing that the judicial maneuvering is, is, is sort of closing up a little bit. And that’s why they’re there doing this sort of time, delay, tactic, and moving some resources over into convincing local government to not certify their elections. All right. We have Radhika Dulles who says, why is Georgia recount netting? So little to Trump? Didn’t they find three separate flashdrives plus 10,000 vote discrepancy into Cobb County. You know, I don’t know what the numbers are off the top of my head, but my understanding was is I think they just certified it today.

There was a lot of hubbub about that. They, they said they certified it. Then they reversed that and said, Nope, we didn’t certify it. And then I saw another headline said, Nope, we did certify it. So who knows what’s going on out of Georgia? I know Lynwood. And a lot of others have some serious complaints about it. Some that I think are pretty justified. We went through the affidavits that Lynn filed and there was weird stuff going on in Georgia. And you know, this idea that there are missing votes. I have no doubt about it. I saw a number of those headlines, but is it enough to flip it? Is it gonna, is it gonna close that Delta and reverse the state? I don’t, I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s looking like it’s going to all right. Another one from Michelle [inaudible] who’s always here. She says, thanks for calmly and objectively reviewing Tucker in Sydney, still mad at dad, but less than before. Yeah. You know, mom and dad, they can be, you know, they still love you, Michelle. They love all of us. This is something that people do when people love each other things get a little bit heated. And so even though

They’re upset, Christmas is still on.

All right. We have S McKay who says, I think this dominion thing would be too big to be exposed. It has worldwide effects and to the powers that would be crossing the line, Tucker keeps Tuckers keeping it under wraps.

You know, there’s there, there’s some, uh, some interesting theories about that, right?

W w it’s conspiratorial as hell, but you would have to imagine why I’ve made point many times. Why would all of the people who are in office, who most of them got into office on the backs of dominion software, right? It’s in like 26, 34 States, whatever it is, they all got elected into power on the back of that software. If they came out and said the software was bad, illegitimate, it was being hacked by the Chinese or the Russians or the Venezuelans. I don’t care who it is or Q or Antifa or whatever. It would invalidate their own legitimacy. Their own claim to power would be gone. It would be tarnished. They couldn’t come out and make the claim that I was elected by my people. They couldn’t do that, even if, even if they were right, even, even if in their specific election, they were the entire basis for their election would be on quicksand and the foundation would fall.

So they all have a very strong, very vested interest in ensuring that this thing stays on the tracks. Cause if it doesn’t, what would the American people be demanding? Every single politician. Now, if dominion, if the backbone of the American voting system is problematic, every single politician elected in office today might have a claim, a potential claim against them for the, the legitimacy of their claim to power. Every single one, somebody could make a claim and say, yo dominion was bad. In 2020, what happened in your local race in 2018? What happened to your Senate race? In 2016, people would be diving into that stuff. And it would, it would really shake a lot, which is why I’m inclined to believe that even if there is a problem, we’re not going to hear about it. But that is the cynic in me. As you are all coming to know, all right, student does, calculus is in the house.

He says, hi, Rob. I was very disappointed by Pelosi’s victory. She claims to understand the struggle of the American people, yet as a millionaire, playing politics with stimulus. Great unbiased show. Thank you. Yeah, student does calculus. Yeah. It’s not just Pelosi. My friend. It’s everybody, all, all these politicians, you know, the one, the most recent one that really just irked me was the Gavin Newsome photos. When these locking down his entire state, and he’s sitting at a table, shoulder to shoulder without mass in this alleged outdoor space, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s these people, they, they implement all of these rules and they speak to us a certain way. And then they live an entirely different lifestyle. So cynical it’s so insane. It drives me bananas. That’s exactly why we started this show, watching the Watchers. Cause there’s this double standard that goes on. Government wants to impose certain rules, certain regulations that they don’t have to abide by you and I do, but they don’t.

It’s very, very frustrating. And the Democrats are not the only ones doing it. Pelosi’s not the only one doing, they’re all doing it. And unfortunately we just have to, as the little peons, just the little people, we just have to go about our business. Well, they go to dinners. We can’t have Thanksgiving, but they can go to dinners with medical associates without mass having a grand old time celebrating somebody’s birthday. All right. We have Charles Ashley who says kind of like an episode of brain games about memory, about when someone gives eyewitness testimony about a crime. Yeah. Eye witness testimony is, and memory is fascinating. Remember, actually, if you, if you have been following the project Veritas stuff, we talked about that us postal worker who originally came in and said, yeah, I was, I saw this fraud. My boss was talking about moving, uh, backdating ballots and mail that comes in, you know, reversing the date back.

And apparently he had a conversation with somebody from the us postal service, some sort of investigator. And during that conversation, there’s a recording of this interview and the person who is doing the interview of this us postal service guy is telling him I’m going to pressure you. I’m going to make this uncomfortable. I’m going to need you to essentially remember things a little bit differently. Go listen to it. It’s fascinating. Uh, it, it, it’s, it’s, it’s wild and you can see this a lot. You can actually watch a lot of this stuff on Netflix. I’m a criminal defense lawyer. People think when I go home, I don’t want to talk about criminal defense law. That’s not true. I love those Netflix documentaries, as much as anything I watch almost all of them. They’re they’re great. And, uh, w what you can see is that there are some, during some of these interrogations that are taking place, they’re essentially planting ideas in, you know, people create ideas, they create memories.

It’s a very weird thing that the brain does. When you learn a little bit more about it, you kind of see it everywhere, and you kind of catch yourself doing it, but it is interesting. So, you know, who’s to say what, what anybody saw. That’s why our court of law allows cross-examination. You can bring an eye witness into court, and you can say, tell us what you saw, tell us everything you saw that person, uh, you know, shredding that ballot, or circling that box, whatever it is. And the opposing side gets to cross examine them. They get to challenge their memory to come in there and shred them to bits, ask them, isn’t it true? You did this and that and that, and isn’t it possible that X, Y, and Z happened. And didn’t, so-and-so tell you that, but you told us this, you get to, you know, to blow them up in a cross-examination. And the reason is you want to challenge their memory because through that fire, by sending, by sending sort of two opposing sides into the Coliseum,

The winner comes out, the person wins

Better argument with the better evidence with more credibility will be the one who the court believes the judge believes the jury believes, but it’s, it’s been very wild to see just how badly people remember things. All right. Another question from my block

TV says, do

You think there be a, do you think they’d put their reputation on the line if they didn’t have real evidence? Um, also, can you briefly explain the 14th amendment section three? So I don’t recall what that section is, but we can take a look at it on another show, but, you know, I answered this question yesterday. It’s a good question. And I’m sort of split on this. You know, Sidney Powell is somebody who I think did a very good job with the Michael Flynn case. That was a case that everybody just forgot about it. We all just kinda thought, Oh, this guy, uh, is a trader a liar, right? That, that was the main, you know, I never thought that, but a lot of people in the mainstream did, even Donald Trump did Donald Trump kind of threw him under the bus there for a little bit. While Sidney Powell came, uh, relieve some other garbage attorneys who were not doing anything on his case and change course, I mean, that was a Titanic of a ship. And she just turned that sucker around. And now it’s looking pretty promising for Michael Flint. So her record is I think more impressive than this, this sort of this reputation idea. You know, she was a former prosecutor. We went back and did a lot of detail on where, who she is and where she comes from. And it’s all very credible. Her reputation looks good, or her, her credentials look good. Her actual recent case history looks good. This is

Somebody who, you know, to, to

My, to my knowledge, even though some of these claims currently seem a little bit out there, this has been somebody who

Delivers, right. They deliver. And

The distinction here is that, do they have to deliver here? Do they, is their career over? Is Rudy’s career over Sidney’s career, Jen, his career over, let’s say that they move this thing forward in. They’re totally unsuccessful. They’ve been sort of, you know, a little disingenuous with us for these last couple of months, hypothetically, and none of this evidence actually comes out. What does that mean? Are they going to be the laughingstock of the country? A lot of people will be laughing at them, right? I’ll be very disappointed in them. I will think that it was unbecoming of them, that it was disingenuous. That it’s not what we want out of lawyers in our profession. You know, false claims, frivolous claims, if that is the case,

But what does

That mean for them personally? Does that mean that their careers are over? No, it doesn’t. They’re going to get book deals. They’re gonna get movie deals. If Trump ultimately loses and he starts, his media empire is they’re going to beat me. The primetime shows, there’s going to be a big contingency of Americans who no matter what happened, happens in this, they’re going to believe that Donald Trump was robbed of this election, that this whole thing was stolen. And what Donald, I’m sorry, what Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell are doing.

They’re positioning themselves as the spirit

Head of this entire movement. And they’re going to retain that regardless of what happens,

But the case. Right? So I don’t know that I would rely on that to

Determine whether or not they’re actually going to be releasing

The evidence I would instead

Look to their records and their reputation. And they’re, they’re, they’re modern, they’re modern case performance, which with general Flint has been pretty good. And I guess to reverse that Sidney Powell has not done anything that has made her look to be like somebody who is not credible. So until she fails her own standards or proves that she doesn’t have any credibility, the bet she gets the benefit of the doubt. Let’s look at this thing in the light, most favorable to her claims. She’s already told us that this stuff is coming out in the courts. And another attorney on the team said those lawsuits start next week. So we can wait. We can wait a couple of days and review this stuff next week. All right. L I P 76 says, mr. R I am one of those people that believe Trump is Hitler, but I did not commit voter fraud.

I appreciate your legal analysis. Well, that’s good. I think, I think there’s a lot of people out there who would agree with you. Um, I, I, I get what you’re, you know, I, I get, I get that you’re joking, but I think that there are literally people who, uh, who actually do think that I’m not sure that is based in reality, but not committing voter fraud. That’s a good thing. Right? And I, uh, I didn’t commit voter fraud either. And I’m sure most of you, didn’t, that’s a good thing. We want less of that. We don’t want any voter fraud, which is why we want to just take a look at things. Let’s just take a look at both sides. Let’s, you know, let’s the Republicans do any fraud. We’re the Democrat. If I was a Democrat, I’d be screaming fraud for the Republicans. Say those, those, those stinking Republicans, they stoled what state is close right now that the Democrats just barely lost.

I’d go pick that state. And I’d say the Republicans are full of fraud, right? Somebody should be making that claim. I don’t know why they’re not, but the Republicans own the fraud. Good, good point. A lip. Thanks for being here. We have Laura Smith who says, please look up the Ukraine announcement on, on a new page. It proves Biden’s guilt and knowledge of Hunter. Why is everyone ignoring it? Well, I’ll tell you, I saw the headline. Apparently Joe Biden has been charged with a felony in, in Ukraine. Is that right? I don’t know about that, but I will tell you that, uh, anybody in America is probably not going to put a lot of credence on what happened in Ukraine. Doesn’t mean that it’s, that it’s not justified. It may be perfectly justified. I don’t know, but anybody who’s in power is going to be laughing at, at this idea that the Ukrainian government is going to charge Joe Biden, the next president in America with a felony, you know, it’s just going to be one of those things.

Okay. That’s, that’s, that’s neat. That’s very cute. What are you going to do about it? And they’re not going to talk about it. Everybody’s sort of already moving beyond that. Just presuming that Joe Biden is going to be the next president, even though it’s not over yet, the game’s not over yet. And they’re not going to want to amplify that message. They don’t want to talk about it because if, if Joe Biden does become president, well, you might get the little bit of a, the wrath from his administration. If you’re somebody who’s amplifying those types of claims. So I think that’s why it’s sort of on the hush hush, but who knows? I don’t know much about Ukrainian inner workings other than what we’ve commented on this channel, but it is interesting. Anytime, anytime another government indicts and charges your government, somebody in your government, a prospective president with a crime, a felony probably should take a little bit of notice there.

All right, happy go. Lucky says if GA wish a Wisconsin, Arizona hand counts aligned with dominion, no case. Yeah. I would agree with that. Right? I would agree with that. Totally. If, if there’s a confirmation of these different things, if there’s an audit, a recount, a re canvas something, and as a second set of eyes, I think that goes a long way in, I would say de emphasizing or taking the power out. A lot of, a lot of these voter fraud claims currently, there’s a lot of those claims and a lot of people are a little bit uneasy about it. They may be uneasy for no good reason. You may believe that yourself, those people are being ridiculous. They’re all conspiratorial, but you still got to deal with it. It’s still America. You can’t make those, those 73 million people just vanish overnight. You got to deal with it. So you’ve got to explain how this stuff is working. And if those 73 million people would be satiated satisfied with an audit or recount, and somebody can come out and say, yeah, look, we did the hand recount, we did the audit. It matches. Everything’s good.

Don’t worry about it.

Then I think you can take some of those people in that camp and move them more towards the, the, the reasonable center,


If you tell them to just sit down and shut up, that’s not going to happen. So we will see what happens. Uh, Zulu drops in with the Superchat says, hi, faith. That’s all I have today. Good to have you there. Zulu. Thanks for chime in. And thanks for your continuous support. We have Adam asks, you says Supreme court judges have been reassigned today. Does that have an impact on elections or Roe vs. Wade. Thanks. Great show. A great attorney. Thanks Adam. London, England.

Another, another

One from England across the pond over there. So good to have you here, Adam. So the Supreme court judges were reassigned today. I didn’t see the headline on that. I saw the headline on it. My understanding is that they’re, they’re assigning different judges to different circuits in order to monitor those different circuits. That’s all that’s that’s as far as I got with the Supreme court assignments from today. So I don’t think that that’s ultimately going to have any impact on Roe vs. Wade. I, I think it’s a separate issue. Roe vs. Wade would be something where, uh, you know, the, the, that issue bubbled up into their court. And I don’t think that the, the assignments have anything to do with that. The judges have different assignments to different circuits so that when the circuits have issues, they have a point of contact over at the Supreme court.

And I think that’s all that it was in terms of the elections. I don’t think that that’s going to have much, much impact either because the full process in order to get a case in front of the Supreme court is you got to file a registration Rory. And that is the formal process. And that, that needs to take place before the court, not these individual judges. So even though Amy Coney Barrett may have been assigned over to, you know, whatever circuit is, whatever, um, ultimately the legal claims still have to follow the same procedures in order to get in front of the Supreme court.

All right, well, that was

A lot of questions, a lot of super chats, a lot of support. And I appreciate everybody being here. I want to take a quick moment to, uh, to say thank you to miss faith and to mod the moderator and invite you to come on over to our discord server. So on discord, it’s where we chat before and after the show. And I put my slides in there, the same slides that I presented today. And as a reminder, we also, I also threw my book in there. So this book right here, if you want to support the show or, or, or get a hard copy of it, it’s called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. And it’s got this nine step framework that we use or that I use to think about, you know, how to analyze criminal legal cases.

And so it’s probably applicable to almost none of you, but if you, if you know somebody or, and have a friend who’s been charged with a crime like that, it’s a helpful book. The PDF is available in the discourse. So we would invite you on over there to have a look as another reminder, if you’re not already a subscriber, if you’re just kind jumping in for the live stream, we go live at this time every day of the week. So on. Uh, let’s see. Uh, so another super chat just came in. I’ll get to that here in a minute. So, uh, every day of the week at 4:00 PM, Western time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM Eastern. We, we, we do the show and, uh, we want to have you a part of it. We want to have you part of this dialogue, because what we do is we explore different ideas in the marketplace of ideas.

And we analyze them. We pull them off the shelf. We take a look at it. Some of them are good. Some of them, we want to take home. Some of them that we want to put back on the shelf and we’ll just leave out there. But what we’re doing is we’re exercising the mind. We’re talking to, uh, the primary sources, where are the documents? What do they look like? What is the language say? And we’re breaking it down so that we can understand it. And this works better. If there are other, other people here, other people who are a part of the conversation. So I’d encourage you to invite your friends, invite your family, have them come be a part of the program that helps the channel, uh, grow. It helps keep us motivated and keep us sustained. And we, we love it. I think it’s a, it’s a fun thing to do.

And we’re glad that you’re here. So before I hop off this one person, that one time at said, you skipped my super chat on Wisconsin indefinitely confined. So let’s take a look here. Yeah. Happy go. Lucky set one up earlier. If Georgia and Wisconsin and Arizona hand counts aligned with dominion, no case you skipped my super chat. Um, uh, yeah. So faith is trying to actually find your question and we couldn’t find it. So get that on over to us that one time. And I’ll answer that after the program in the super chat, I’m sorry, in the discord channel, if that is available in there. So he says, here we, uh, Wisconsin, I had 169,000 new indefinitely confined ballot requests. This year, Wisconsin had 169,000 new indefinitely confined ballot requests. This year, no ID required always been under 15,000 before it doesn’t qualify. Illegal is what he’s asking indefinitely confined ballot requests this year.

No ID required. That sounds curious to me. So I don’t know if it’s illegal. So w w when you’re asking about election illegalities, the best way to do that is to go and look at the state statutes. So you’d actually want to go and find the Wisconsin law. We talked a little bit about this yesterday. I think we were even looking at Wisconsin statutes last night on the discord. We were specifically looking at this may versus shall language where they, they, they say under the election code, that it’s a shell, which means it’s not discretionary. Then in a different section, they use the word may, which means it is discretionary, but we reviewed it. And we thought that the shell supersedes the may and so on. So when you’re asking about illegalities and you’re talking about indefinitely confined ballot requests, or what that is, the process would be to go and look at the statute and say, well, is there any limit to the number of ballots? Is there any, uh, you know, author authentication procedure that we’re going to, we’re going to use here. We know that no identification is being required, but there’s still gotta be some sort of mechanism there to ensure that it’s a legitimate lawful vote. And if they’re not doing that, then maybe those 169,000

New ballots were illegal.

We just don’t know. So you would need some more specifics. I know these super chats have just, you know, a little bit of text that you can put in there, but that’s what you’d want to look for. Why would those ballots be illegal? And I’m sure it’s not just because it’s a lot just because this year there’s 169,000 last year was 15. Just that difference doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s illegal, unless there’s some sort of a cap or limitation in the Wisconsin election code, which I’m guessing there’s not. So the alternative would then be to look and see what were they investigate or of those 169,000. How did they get there? Where they circumventing something that was

Required in the law, or, or how

Did it, you know, it’s somewhere where you can start investigating

Eating, and you can focus your investigate

In, on that area. But just because there’s a lot of ballots itself doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily invalid. So thank you for that. That one-time ad hopefully answered some of that. All right. My friends, well, that’s it for me for the day. I’m going to, uh, invite you also, if you, if you know anybody in the state of Arizona who has been charged with a crime, that’s what we do. We have an entire law firm here with amazing people. We love to help good people facing difficult situations, navigate through the system and just get things back on track. It can be scary. It can be very overwhelming and we’re very good at what we do. We like to help them through that. So a referral from you, an endorsement from you would be very, very welcomed. I want to thank you once again for being a part of the program, remind you one more time to subscribe.

Otherwise I will encourage you

Have a wonderful weekend, a very restful restful night, and I will see you next week on Monday. Same time, same place. Bye everybody.