Hello, everybody. Welcome back to yet another episode of Watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Gruler. I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the R&R Law Group in Scottsdale, Arizona, where, my team and I over the course of many years have helped thousands of good people facing criminal charges, navigate the justice system and help, you know, get their lives back on track. Just a little bit. We all have bumps in the road. We all could use a little support and guidance, and that’s what we help people do. Now over the course of that time in the legal field, we’ve seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I’m talking about misconduct from the police. We’ve got prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judicial malfeasance and of course, we even have political misconduct and the political misconduct is what we’re talking about today.
We’ve been talking about it for quite some time because it all starts at the top. The politicians, they’re the ones in the office. They’re the ones who write the rules that will then trickle down to the prosecutors and to the police. And so they’re part of the solution. They’re part of the problem. And so we want to talk about them and make sure that we are holding them accountable. So that’s what watching the Watchers is all about. It’s to hold the system accountable, hold the people in power to the same standards that you or I would be held to and to dissect a lot of what is going on because a lot of it can be confusing, especially if you’re a non-lawyer. It’s confusing. Even if you are a lawyer, I’m watching everything that’s going on around the country, multiple lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions, sort of half-assed reporting across the board stuff that is difficult to sort of break down.
We want to dissect it here. We want to take a look at this entire ordeal stuff that is going on across the country and peel the layers back so we can really get to the root of what’s going on here. And so on today’s program, what we’re going to be talking about is more lawsuit stuff. A big day today for the Trump campaign out in Pennsylvania, the big case that we’ve been following on this channel for some time, Trump versus Boockvar is, is literally, probably still right now, wrapping up a hearing in the federal district court in the district of Pennsylvania. So we want to tell you about that, but there have been some other things going on in Pennsylvania as well. We have one judge or one, an attorney who is part of the Trump team has an allegation that opposing counsel that the attorneys representing the government or being a little less than courteous.
And so she filed a written motion with the court. We’ve also got a Supreme court ruling, literally, that happened, I think just 30 minutes ago, maybe an hour ago that said that the the Trump campaign loses a case in the state Supreme court for Pennsylvania, which is a different case than what we’re talking about in the district court. So you can see here, a lot of stuff going on, we’re going to break it down. We also have the big news of the day, which is that Sidney Powell released the crack-in or, or, or, or something. She released something we’re going to talk about what it is, what it means and how that fits into the whole Trump strategy. We’ve got an update on Matt’s brain art. If you remember him, he and his team are doing this very intensive voter identification project, where they’re trying to identify votes that may be ineligible or illegal.
We have a little bit of an update there as well. Claims out of Georgia claims out of Nevada have flying around. We have Ted Cruz. Who’s been in the judiciary committee all day today, beating up on, uh, Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg. And so there is a lot to dive into. And so let’s get started before we do. I want to make sure that you’re a subscriber. Of course, we go live at this time every day of the week. We want to make sure you’re a part of that program. And as the live chats are coming in, Ms. Faith is keeping the good questions and especially the super chats and taking screenshots and sending those to me as the program goes on we’ll address, live chat. We’ll answer all of your questions at the very end of the program. So let me give a big shout out to Michelle and Bergy up and to Goliath who both sent over some super chats, we’ll get those questions addressed at the end of the program.
So let’s dive into it. We have a lot of news, a lot of material, actual documents and literature that we want to go through today. Show’s going to be a little bit light on legal theory. We’re gonna be able to break some of this stuff down, but today was just fact intensive. A lot of new stuff is going on a lot of activity from all over the place. And we always want to start and find out where we’re at in the process. So let’s wrap some context around some of these conversations that were taking place. And here is the election certification bouncing, smiley face that we’re following along. Remember today is two weeks out from the election. Literally two weeks, it happened on November 3rd and we’re just two weeks out of it. And you can see here, we’ve got a lot of time until we have the electors day, which is when the States actually have to send their votes in and basically confirmed them for the electoral college.
We also have on the eighth, this is the day when the States will finalize their electorate appointments. So, you know, we’re, we’re getting closer to some, some deadlines coming up, but still you can see here four full weeks of potential activity. And Trump’s team has indicated that really not even until next week, are we going to see some legitimate filings from their team based on this new evidence? So the reason I want to show you this, this there’s a lot of time left. There’s a lot of, uh, a field left to play. And so that’s where we’re at. Now. This is another interesting article or an interesting graphic I got over from the Washington post that shows you some of the States deadlines themselves. So right now we are we’re, what’s the date, the 17th, you can see here. It looks like in Wisconsin and Michigan, there were some County certification deadlines.
And then in, uh, this Friday, we’ve got a state certification deadline or a meeting. It looks like on the 20th, and then next week we’ve got some more deadlines, some more meetings and so on. And so a lot of this stuff I think is relevant, of course, but the kind of, not really. And the reason I say that is because many of these dates, many of these certification deadlines have been part of the injunctions that the Trump team has been filing. They’ve been asking for actually holding off on some of these certifications in some of those meetings. So, uh, depending on the status of each of those lawsuits in each of the varied States, these things may move around. So I still think that the big date, the important dates to keep in mind, it’s going to be the eighth, when the electors are confirmed.
And then the 14th, when they’re actually nominated, when the votes are actually cast. Now, yesterday, we were taking a look at the vote total we are when we’re talking about what Trump needs to do in order to reverse the course of this election, which is still ongoing and nobody’s been certified yet, then he’s got to have a couple different strategies. And one of those strategies is to knock off buckets of votes. So to go in, say, there’s this big pool of votes. That mean I’m losing the election. How do we reverse this? We have to dive into that huge pool and pull out buckets of votes that are illegal, or that came in past deadlines, or that you have bad signatures or something to that effect. That’s the trumps teams. One of their strategies. The other strategy is to sort of when the persuasion war, when the legitimacy argument that is taking place, sort of outside of the courts on a national conversational level, and then they could convince the Republican legislatures across the country that there was too much fraud here.
Maybe they can’t quantify it. They can’t prove it in a court of law, but there’s enough there that would convince these legislatures to go ahead and nominate different electors that are going to still vote for Trump in defiance of the popular vote. Don’t think that that’s a really useful strategy or it’s, it’s useful for them, but I don’t know that it’s something that’s going to be useful for the Republicans in general, because I think if people feel like the vote is being taken away from them, that’s going to be a big problem, but that is an alternative strategy, but I digress. Let’s go back to the first strategy where we’re talking about Trump having to disqualify big buckets of votes, and he needs to identify where these votes are, what the numbers look like. And this is where we were at yesterday. So 292,000 was the deficit for the Trump campaign, the big bulk of that taking place in Michigan.
But a lot of the other States are relatively small. This is today’s numbers, Ms. Faith pull those, and you can see that it actually got bigger. So we went from two 92 to two 97 and the bulk of the difference was taking place. It looks like in Pennsylvania. So Pennsylvania votes are still coming in yesterday. It was at 67,000 deficit for the Biden campaign today up to 72, Arizona stayed the same. Georgia went down a little bit, but they found a bunch of votes in Fulton County. We’re going to talk about that, but really this is kind of trending the opposite direction for the Trump team. You know, they, they want that number to be shrinking, not growing. And it’s looking like as more and more absentee ballots, more votes by mail or whatever they’re counting still in Pennsylvania. It sounds like those are not splitting, uh, not, not going in Trump’s direction as, as most people suspected they would not.
So that’s the state of the case. Now let’s fly through some of some, you know, minor updates that are happening around the States. I want to start with Arizona quickly. We spent some time talking about the situation in Arizona. There were some lawsuits that were, have been filed and then subsequently dismissed. And there was, uh, the, the, the GOP, the, her name is Kelly Ward, who is the chairperson of the GOP here in Arizona. They filed a lawsuit and we spent some time on this. I think it was, uh, yesterday, even maybe the, maybe last week, but we were talking about this claim, which is a little bit different than some other claims that we have seen around the country. And in Arizona, what they’re talking about is the difference between a precinct and a voting center. Okay. So it may, they may sound kind of similar.
What’s the difference? Well, there’s, there’s sort of a big difference actually in Arizona, under Arizona law, when you vote, you vote by a precinct and your votes go into a precinct bucket. And when the election is completed, they’re supposed to go around and audit 2% of all of their returns from all of the precincts that’s under Arizona law. And so that’s what Kelly Ward wants them to do is go around and take the check. The bucket of precincts got 2% over here, 2% over there, walk around, check a different one and audit those votes and say, we’re going to check those votes and make sure that they’re even across the precinct. Well, what Arizona did is they created these voting centers, which are big amalgamation, sort of big, huge, big, big barrels. We’re going to take all these individual precinct buckets. We’re going to put them into a big barrel.
And then we’re just going to take from that barrel and audit the 2%. So that’s the change that has been, has been made. And the Arizona GOP said, you can’t do that. You can’t take all of the precincts and throw them into one big barrel because now you’re, co-mingling all of these different precincts. And so in other words, you don’t get as granular of an audit if you’re just consolidating them all into one big barrel may not seem like it’s that big of a deal. I didn’t really understand kind of mathematically how this was all gonna play out or what the reason for this was. But we did identify, we thought, at least that this is just kind of a wedge issue. This is going to be something that they’re going to lean into and say, this was done wrong in violation of Arizona law.
Therefore that’s justification for a full audit because the big question, when we last talked about this case was were they actually co-mingling those votes? So in other words, if I am a voter in Arizona and I normally vote in my precinct, but instead of going to my precinct and voting, I went to this newly created voting center, which they set up all across Maricopa County to make it easier for voters to go vote. Because people, you know, there’s sort of big warehouses where people can go in and vote. It’s just more convenient than having to travel home to your local precinct. Many of us, you know, our, our, our voting places are right in our neighborhoods. And so people may not want to drive all the way home to go vote. They may just want to go to one of these voting centers on their lunch break while they’re at work.
So those were set up to make it easier. But now we’re talking about this difference between the two and Arizona law says you got to vote at the precinct. So we were wondering, what are they doing with it? You know, w what’s what’s this all about? Well now, because they’re technically in violation of the law, the claim is that those votes that should have been going into precinct buckets were taken out of those buckets and just put in the barrel, putting them in the barrel. Co-mingles all of the precincts together. That’s a violation of the law now because they’re co-mingled, you can’t do an effective audit, which means the only way is to do an entire hand recount. And that’s exactly what a number of legislatures legislators here in Arizona actually are seeking. So they wrote this big, long letter over to our attorney general Mark Barnovich.
And they’re saying, we want a manual hand count. We want audits. And here’s what they’re saying, given that the ballots that are cast in Maricopa County are commingled in such a fashion that a hand recount by precinct can no longer occur because they’re all in the barrel, the voting center barrel, they’re not in precincts anymore. It would appear that the only solution available that does not violate the plain language of this statute, which actually one viewer has asked about several times 16 [inaudible] is so immediately is to immediately begin the process of hand counting and auditing each and every vote received by the County. So they sent that over to the attorney general, and that’s their claim, right? They’re using this problem with the law. Something that seems pretty minor barrels versus buckets, precincts versus voter tabulation centers, and, you know, audits and 2% of a bucket or 2% of a barrel.
What does that look like? They’re saying, ah, that, you know, that’s, that’s all well and good. That’s a problem, but the solution, the remedy here is to do an audit. And so I think, you know, an argument like that is actually fairly convincing. They’re saying that you, you co-mingled stuff in violation of the law. That’s illegal, not a big deal. We just have to audit everything. So let’s go ahead and take a closer look. So I think that’s a persuasive argument. One that’s that’s, that’s interesting. Uh, I don’t know what the judges in Arizona are going to say about it, but we will see, and we’re going to see what attorney general Mark Barnovich wants to do about it. He’s already on record is saying that he believes, uh, essentially that the integrity of the election is, uh, is, is without questions as far as I can tell.
So that’s, what’s going on in Arizona. Let’s turn our eyes over to Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania. I wanted to start off a lot of the headlines surrounding Trump and his legal team is that, uh, these lawyers are flying off the rails. They come, they go, there’s a lot of people, a lot of people who are being hired, a lot of people who are being fired, they get on the case. Then they withdraw from the case. And I, and I get it. I get that, you know, it’s sort of like calling a sports game, you know, legal commentators across the internet. They’re going to comment on every single thing that happens. This type of stuff is not that big of a deal to me. I think that attorneys come and they go, they find claims that are good and valid. And they find claims that are terrible and they don’t have it any merit.
And so they, they, you know, lawsuits are filed and dismissed all the time. Not a big deal stuff that is sort of a big deal is when, uh, when, when lawyers from one firms start harassing another law firm, that is not okay. And so that was, that is what was happening to somebody in Trump’s team. Her name is Linda. Linda Curran, I believe is her name is I have that saved elsewhere, but she’s basically filed a motion in a Pennsylvania court saying she’s been harassed by the government’s attorneys to a, to a significant degree. Here’s what the, what the actual motion that she filed in court says, and this is not something that’s particularly common. All right, this doesn’t happen. Most of this stuff is squashed outside of the courtroom. Uh, but this is something that obviously prompted this attorney. And I don’t know much about her.
You know, maybe she does this a lot. I don’t know, but this is what she had to say. She said, since this case was filed undersigned counsel, which is this, which has her says she has been subjected to continuous in the form of abusive emails, phone calls, physical and economic threats, and even accusations of treason, all for just representing the president of the United States, his campaign in this litigation. And she goes on and she’s saying, it’s another thing for a lawyer in DC, uh, you know, to, to, to engage in this type of, of harassment and so on. And she goes on, she says on November 14th at eight 43, an attorney at Kirkland and Ellis left a one-minute voicemail for the undersigned counsel, the voicemail, which has been provided to counsel of record will be provided to the court as well, speaks for itself. And by any measure falls, a foul of standards of professional conduct.
It goes on, it talks about some of these rules rule in Pennsylvania, rules of professional conduct, got to treat each other with civility, treat each other with respect and so on. And she goes on and says, if there needs to be a rule saying that Kirkland and Ellis associates should not call opposing counsel and leave an abusive voicemail, then all hope is lost, right? You shouldn’t need a rule to behave professionally. Especially if you’re a lawyer. We, we do all sorts of, uh, tests and examinations and background checks and all that stuff in order to get your law degree. So you want to be cordial. You want to be courteous because it’s not personal, shouldn’t be personal. It should just be about the law. We both have obligations to our side of the law and that’s all there is to it. It’s not personal. We’re just passionate.
That’s all. So, uh, here she goes on. She says, uh, con contacted about this message, uh, secretary Boockvar his counsel, first upline that despite the caller identification on the voicemail, the call may not have been placed by Kirkland and Ellis. They finally admitted that it did, but then they excused the conduct by saying the lawyer who works in the same office does not work on this case or in litigation. She says, that’s not good enough. And she asked the court to issue some sanctions. Her name is Linda Kerns law office of Linda Kerns looks like she’s in Philadelphia. She was counseled for the, uh, for the Trump team. But then she later had asked to get off the case. Now I’m not sure that that has happened yet. She asked to also get off the case. Other lawyers who are also on the case have already been withdrawn, meaning they’ve already been removed from the case.
And the question is, well, why are they being harassed? Are they being threatened? Is there are their lives at stake? You know, are people making death threats or threatening their families? That’s concerning both sides, no matter how much people hate Donald Trump, no matter how much they think he’s a sore loser or whatever the claims they, they have. He’s entitled to due process. He’s entitled to have his day in court. He’s entitled to go hire counsel, pay him whatever he wants, have them file claims as long as there’s some legitimate basis to them. And that’s a lot of what the courts decide, right? Whether there’s a legitimate basis to them. So you can file a claim that even has a questionable basis. The court will settle it. They’ll tell you that’s an illegitimate get out of court. That’s the whole point of having the court. And so of course, they’re going to make attempts to file lawsuits, but you know, attorneys should not be threatened for doing their job and, and, and representing their clients to the best of their abilities.
And unfortunately, it seems like there is a little bit of that going on now, like I said, I don’t know Linda Kerns. I don’t know if she’s, you know, dramatic or, you know, it makes a big deal out of things that shouldn’t be made a big deal out of. I also know lawyers like that and it’s, it’s, you know, it’s not just one side of the political spectrum. It’s not just one gender. It’s not any of that. There’s, there’s a lot of attorneys that have different styles. Some of them take things personally and litigate, personally, others, they just, you know, stick to the law, stick to the facts and they, they argue persuasively. But regardless, I don’t think it’s appropriate for attorneys anywhere to be, uh, condescending rude or unprofessional. So that is what was happening prior to, uh, to today’s hearing in today’s hearing.
We w we spent a lot of time talking about this case Trump versus Boockvar Rudy Giuliani, who to the best of him, my understanding is not licensed in the state of Pennsylvania. He is now joining this case. I I’ve been saying this for weeks now that this Pennsylvania case, the one that’s in district court, the one that, uh, is in the federal system, not the state court system, this is the one that everybody has their eyeballs on. And I think for good reason, while Rudy Giuliani just filed an application for what’s called pro hoc VJ to get admission, to practice in Pennsylvania. So even though he’s not licensed there, he is now joining the team and actually submitted a request. And he was doing oral arguments today. So this is from the actual campaign filing petition of Rudy Giuliani. I, Rudy Giuliani will hereby ask the district court for the middle district of Pennsylvania to allow me to come into court and to practice.
He got a little bit of pushback. Some people were saying that, you know, he needs to go in and file. Uh, according to the court, electronic court filing system, he needs to do all of these things before he’s going to get admitted. And there were even lawyers on Twitter, snickering at him. He doesn’t even know how to use the court filing system. You know, let’s see how this goes. What does he know about Pennsylvania and all this stuff? So, you know, you’re going to get that. It’s just kind of high school gossip that goes on on both sides. We’re all guilty of it. I’m guilty of it. So, uh, just kind of expect that as you’re watching some of this analysis keeps some of that in mind as well. Uh, this is from the Pennsylvania lawsuit. We have some cases here from, uh, from, from people who are observing the case that was taking place in Pennsylvania court today, Alan Feuer says it’s official.
Rudy’s been approved to appear in the case. And as the proceeding was going on, Rudy says the best description of this situation is that it it’s a widespread nationwide voter fraud, which is interesting, right? Widespread voter fraud. It’s not an isolated case. He says, but it has been repeated in 10 other jurisdictions. He says using of mail in Dallas was a problem, a recording, a report by Jimmy Carter. So, uh, you know, there, we’re seeing a lot of this, we’re seeing a lot of this foundation that sort of being laid by the Trump team. They’re saying that a lot of this stuff has a lot of historical context. This came from Jimmy Carter. We have Sidney Powell, who’s talking about Venezuela and, you know, different, uh, different localities and in different areas where a lot of this stuff is sort of birthed from. And then it sounds like they’re, they’re sort of tying it into the modern day era as the lawsuit.
Uh, it goes on one of our lawyers out. We already covered that. So I wanted to you this. So this hearing was taking place in the district court. Uh, most of the day, I think it started at one o’clock this afternoon may have started earlier this morning, but they actually had a call in line that was limited to 4,000 participants. I did try to hop on the call at some point, it was totally full, right? I mean, unless you’re, I think a news person or somebody who’s, you know, got, got access to a certain line, it’s kind of difficult because everybody wants to hear what’s going on and for good reason, well, it didn’t really matter or all that much anyways, because the phone line cut out, apparently a middle midway through the actual hearing. Here’s Adam class field, who, who reports on a lot of this stuff for law and crime.com.
Uh, typically, you know, anti-Trump type of a, of a personality, which is fine. A lot of people in the legal space are, it’s actually hard to find any middle of the road commentary by my, my, my, my, my judgment. He says still. So we saw this still just white noise on the line of the day’s most high profile, hearing Donald Trump for president versus Boockvar in the middle district of Pennsylvania. And then when you navigate over to the court website, the court is aware of the telephone problem at, and T is a custodian of the call. We are working fever to restore access. So all day long, uh, this hearing was, was, you know, everybody was anticipating what’s going to happen at the hearing. Everybody’s trying to call in 4,000 people, fill up the conference line, nobody else’s allowed in. And, um, the phone call cuts out.
So we don’t have a whole lot of information on exactly what is, you know, exactly what happened other than some people who were there in the courtroom tweeting about it. So we’ll know more tomorrow, uh, after a lot of the dust has settled, but here’s what Josh Gerstein has to say about what was going on today. So here’s my report from inside the modest courthouse in central Pennsylvania of 28,000 were Rudy Giuliani, trying to rescue the campaign. Aaron chick says Giuliani’s called the void 600,000 or 1.2 millions, uh, which is disgraceful. And it just kind of goes on. He’s talking about, uh, you know, they, they take a 10 minute recess at some point. They’re not holding an evidentiary hearing on Thursday, or they’re urging the judge not to hold a hearing on Thursday because they don’t want it to be a circus. This was an interesting case.
Judges asking Rudy, why 6.8 million votes should be thrown out because of alleged irregularities. Can you tell me how this result can possibly be justified? The judge asks, Giuliani says, they’re not asking to throw out all the votes just around 680,000 from Pittsburgh and Philly. He acknowledges it’s draconian remedy, but as far as we’re concerned, your honor, those ballots could have been for Mickey mouse. Giuliani is defending himself saying he has read judge brand’s opinion from before the election. But I think the allegation was that he didn’t read an opinion from judge Ranjan in Pittsburgh. And so, uh, you know, you can go through a lot of the commentary from a lot of these different individuals on Twitter. You’re sort of getting, you know, bits and pieces. I would like to actually see what the final order is from the court, because it’s, it’s really difficult unless you’re watching the whole thing.
You can pull stuff out of context and it doesn’t make a lot of now Josh Gerstein, I think is pretty, uh, pretty good, pretty fair in his reporting, but a lot of the other, uh, commenters from the political fields, they’re, they’re very clearly anti-Trump. And so it’s of hard to read their tweets with an objective, uh, uh, lens on it because it’s not objective it’s, everything’s biased. And we want to see a little bit more about what the actual hearing had to say. What does the order say before we start dissecting it? So I wanted to dive more into that today, but, uh, there were technical difficulties with the court. So we’ll be back tomorrow. We do have a, another proceeding, another one ruling from the Supreme court. So you may see this headline as well. The Supreme court out of Pennsylvania said that Donald Trump loses on the observation issue. Remember we made this argument, we talked about this a long time ago, but the concern that I had was that Donald Trump’s team Giuliani and others were saying that if they didn’t observe the ballots being counted, that those ballots had to be thrown out. And I totally disagreed with that. I don’t think it’s enforceable. I don’t think it’s actually even necessary just because you didn’t see something happen. Doesn’t mean that it was done fraudulently, right? If you ha, if you applied that same rule to everything, then everything you look at could basically be invalid or every, every result of something. Even if you didn’t observe how they got the result, you could call into question because every process has problems.
Every process has issues. And, and I would imagine every election even has fraud, but was the fraud. Consequential was the fraud enough to throw out 600,000 votes that you didn’t get a chance to observe, even if you didn’t observe him, how do we know that all of those votes are bad? Why isn’t it 1000 of the 600,000? And so a lot of those arguments, it’s kind of that slippery slope. It’s a dangerous argument. If a judge were to let that stand, that would have pretty serious repercussions throughout all of society, and you could do it with, with anything. So there, they weren’t going to do that. And the Pennsylvania Supreme court overturned the lower court ruling, which was a victory for Trump. They came back out today and reversed it. This is the opinion, the Supreme court on Tuesday ruled to reverse a lower state court decision that guaranteed Republican observers, the right to watch the ballot counts from no more than six feet away. Five, two decision courts said the state’s election codes is not set a minimum distance for poll observers. The majority added that if the court imposes a distance requirement as a lower court did, it would be improperly rewriting the statute. Isn’t that hilarious? So these were the same people who actually rewrote the election statute. They actually rewrote it. They changed the date from the election night that the end of the election was supposed to be on November 3rd, the same Supreme court justices. They came out and changed it. They modified it from November 3rd to November six, they just by the stroke of a pen. And what do they rely on in order to justify their opinion, the emergency, the pandemic, the coronavirus, Iris, that was their excuse. So they just went through and they just modified the law. They just went through and did it on their own. And then when a lower court does it and says, yeah, you need to give them meaningful access. Even though they were in the room, they couldn’t observe anything. They couldn’t actually up and be within six feet. And so the appellate court, the lower court said, you have to give them meaningful access. The Supreme court, the same one that rewrote a different law said, no, you can’t rewrite the law. That’s what we’re talking about in the legal system. So I’m kind of hilarious. I mean, the irony there stings, but this was something to be expected. I wasn’t, I wasn’t surprised that the Supreme court was not going to find this way because they are of a certain political persuasion that does not favor Donald Trump.
Now there’s more allegations, more irregularities going on. So while the Supreme court is rewriting, the rules, the Pennsylvania Supreme court is rewriting things. Uh, Donald Trump came out and said that there’s a big issue that’s going on in Nevada. And when I first saw this, it caught my eye a little bit. So I did some digging. Don’t think there’s any real fire here. Even though there was a little bit of smoke, here’s what Donald Trump said. He said, uh, this was yesterday on, uh, yesterday at 4:40 PM, right? When we were doing our show here, big moments, big victory moments ago, and state in Nevada, the Democrat County commissioner on the same ballot as president was just thrown out because of a large-scale voter discrepancy. Clark County officials do not have confidence in their own election security, major impact. And the issue here that, that, that he retweeted, he quote retweeted is saying that there were so many discrepancies in a lower level ruling that they had to basically scrap the entirety of the election.
And if there’s a, if there’s a local candidate that has a problem, that’s going to be on the same ballot that the president is on, right? You get one ballot, uh, in Arizona, ours was front and back, and it has everything on there. And so if one of, if one of the candidates, if one of the races had some considerable problems there, surely you would imagine that those would also transfer over to the presidency. That kind of didn’t happen. It sounded almost too good to be true if you’re a Donald Trump fan, but that’s not really what ended up happening. Here’s a reporter from the Nevada independent. Her name is Megan Messerly. And she’s saying here that this really was a much smaller type of discrepancy. They’re saying, she’s saying there were 60,000 total provisional ballots. 57 of those were accepted. Only 2,200 were rejected of those that were rejected 1900, weren’t registered 53, didn’t have proof proof of residence eight were not eligible to vote and so on.
And what they’re talking about is really a discrepancy with one race, which is the star, Anthony Ross Miller race, that which is in Brown’s district. And so they were going to certify all of the different counties except the County commission district. See, so there’s one problem here. And the only problem was that there’s 139 discrepancies from those that they identified, uh, that actually could affect the outcome of that particular election. So apparently that election is the difference. The Delta, there is like 10 votes. So yes, 139 discrepancies could change that one election, but that’s not going to change the presidential election. Donald Trump is down by significantly bigger margins than that. So even though Donald Trump was retweeting that and saying, this is a big problem, it doesn’t look like it is that big of a problem. So if you’re holding hopes on Nevada still sounds like that is not something that’s going to be fruitful.
Now in Georgia, Georgia is a different story. So some good news for Trump, some not so good news for, uh, uh, for Donald Trump. But the good news is that in Georgia, they found a bunch of additional ballots. You may have seen this story yesterday more than 2,600 votes have been reportedly uncovered in Georgia amid it’s recount process that weren’t previously included. The Atlanta journal constitution said they were uncovered in Floyd County. And the mishap was a result of human error, not equipment error. According to president Trump, uh, accordingly president Trump could gain 800 votes, but those 800 votes are not going to be able to flip the election because Donald Trump is again, the Delta, there is a lot bigger he’s down by considerably more votes than 800 votes. And so, uh, the paper reports that the mishap has been the most significant issue to come up as the state continues, its closely watched recount and it is right 30 to 2,500 votes, 2,600 votes. That’s a big difference, a lot of votes. And you can see how this type of problem.
It’s both ways. If you are a Republican, you’re saying, Oh my goodness, 2,500 votes. They were voting basically two to one for Donald Trump, 800 votes in this one County. What happens if we check the other counties, maybe the bigger counties have even more votes that were not found for Donald Trump. And I agree with that argument.
Let’s go and check. Let’s go in on it. Let’s go and do a hand recount. We should audit all of the results in closely contested States. What’s the harm there. A lot of people have questions about it. A lot of those questions will be answered and we want to a legitimate, authentic hand recount. We want our elected people to do what they need to do. They need to go out there and certify these things and, and shine some sunlight and be more transparent.
Well, we all want, even if you’re in the camp, that believes there’s nothing here, this whole thing’s a waste of time. There, 70 million people who disagree with you, it might be smaller. Now it might be down to 65 million, maybe 5 million people are happy to just forget about it and move on. Maybe that number continues to diminish as time goes on. I don’t know, but there’s a huge portion of Donald Trump’s supporters out there who want some answers. Maybe it’s time to give him some, maybe it’s time to do a recount. Maybe it’s time to do an audit in other States other than Georgia. But is that the end of the problem out of Georgia? Or is there potentially more, I don’t know about this, but this was something that was just posted about an hour ago before we came on this program from Heather Mullins, real America’s voice, R a V T V. She says floored County, Georgia officials look for a box with 10 more batches after they thought they were done.
Re-scanning updates to come. So if you click that video, you’re just going to see that guy move a box. Uh, not particularly interesting. I don’t know if it’s a box of votes or if it’s a box of furniture, if it’s a box of whatever. Uh, but you know, somebody else saying, Hey, you know those 2,600 votes that you found yesterday, maybe some more boxes of those somewhere. So, uh, this is the type of stuff that I think is pertinent. This is important. We should be looking into this more, not less it serves everybody not talking about it, not analyzing it, just kind of wanting to shove this stuff back in the corner and move on is going to leave a big portion of the public dissatisfied. And that’s going to make it harder for the Democrats to govern. It’s going to make it way harder for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and all these other people.
So it’s probably a good idea to just double check things, make sure everything was done on the up and up. Somebody else who’s doing some pretty amazing work has put together this project in like amazingly record time. I always appreciate people who can sort of see a vision, articulate a plan, and then make it all come together quickly. And that’s what this guy has done. Matt brain art. I mean, this is impressive. It doesn’t matter what political spectrum side of the aisle you’re on. It’s impressive what he was able to do and pull together so quickly. Uh, this guy was actually contacting hundreds of thousands. If not, if not millions of voters. And he was doing a very deep dive here is an update from him. So he said an update, unreturned, absentee voter analysis for Pennsylvania of the 1,706 responses.
Since we reached the state said that the absentee ballot 556. So almost a third said they never requested it. So almost a third of the people that they called in Pennsylvania said they never requested a ballot. Even though Pennsylvania sent them one. Okay. That’s a big number of the 1137 who did request the ballot. Four 53 said they mailed back yet. The state did not receive or count them. Okay. That’s Half. So we have one bucket of people who got a ballot, but never asked for one. We have another bucket of people who asked for a ballot, but the state didn’t get them back. Then we go over to Georgia and it’s kind of the same numbers, right? They’re going to be all talking about all these questions. You’re going to have results on them all on Wednesday. It looks like they’re spending about half a million dollars on this. Two loans have been repaid 98,000 balance, $90,000 balance with some data companies. So what they were doing is they’re going, they were going through originally and they were getting all of the voter registration files. They were getting all of the national change of address forms. All of the death records from the social security administration. Cross-referencing everything identifying voters who may perspectively be problematic voters doing the outreach and then identifying them. And so they’ve actually done done a lot.
The last part of his slide here says, he’s on track to wrap the analysis and conclusions this week though, the declaration and affidavit chase may continue into next week. And he actually goes through and he, and he tells you those affidavits are going to be a struggle for them. He says, for this part of the project, we are chasing declarations sign under penalty of perjury instead of affidavits, which require a notary. When you were asking to someone to sign a legal document, unsurprisingly few are willing, but we have at least 30 so far for Pennsylvania on this. All right. 30 is not, not a big number. You’ve got 30 people who are going to be signing a declaration, which is signed under penalty of perjury, which is a significant document, which, you know, depending on what their claims are, may be indicative of something else.
This is against splitting the same argument. If you’re, if you’re a Republican, you’re saying, look, these are 30 people. These 30 people are signing a statement under perjury. They’re using their name. They’re willing to get involved in this stuff because they know how important voting is. They know how important the stuff is in America, and they want to make sure the election is done with integrity. And this is just indicative of a much bigger problem. This can be, uh, just, just sort of, you know, related to different counties and different areas of the state in different population centers. And we can extrapolate this all across all of the results everywhere that would then lead to a claim that would potentially invalidate a certain number of voters or a certain number of precincts or whatever it is. Right? So this could open the door to more, more legal claims.
If it’s just going to be about disqualifying the votes. If the judge is just going to say, all right, 30 people saw this, all right, so we’re going to take 30 votes off Biden’s total. That doesn’t change anything. It’s kind of irrelevant, but that’s not what they’re going for. They’re going for something much more significant and they need to show a trend. They need to show a pattern. And in that pattern can be used to bring in additional claims or two to go after additional resources to do a further investigation. It’s the same thing we talked about in Arizona. They were arguing about voter precinct versus voters center. Very, very different, very, very, very minor, such a nuanced issue, but they’re using that as to get their foot in the door so they can make bigger investigations. Now they’re going to use that as the basis for a claim to do an entire recount.
And so something like that is I think, where they’re going with this type of, of effort in the state of Pennsylvania. Now, if you’re a Democrat again, you’re saying, look, this is showing there’s no fraud at all 30, 30 people are willing to sign an affidavit. How many people would you call a hundred thousand? All right, great. You found 30 people. Great. That’s not widespread fraud. That’s not even that that’s against the argument that your own lawyer was making in court. Rudy Giuliani’s in Pennsylvania, right down the street, making the argument that this is widespread fraud, it’s happening in 10 counties. You just found 30 people, big deal, right? They’re just going to flip that and they’re going to use the numbers to their own advantage. But a lot of this stuff is, is still in. It’s still in process, right? We don’t know exactly what happened in court today because the court line cutout.
And I think it’s still actually going on right now, but we’ll have some updates on that. And there are new claims being filed. We heard from Victoria Townson, one of Trump’s new lawyers that she’s expecting a lot of her claims to be filed early next week. So, you know, a lot of this stuff, a lot of legal commentators, they want to put the bow on this thing and wrap it up and say that they’re done with this, but I just don’t think we’re quite there yet. And I’m not sure that we’re going to be anytime soon either. So, uh, let’s change gears a little bit yesterday. Somebody who was watching the program sent a super chat in, and they actually mentioned something that I had not heard about, which has been fascinating. I’ve learned so much doing this program from you, from people sending messages from people over on the discord, which is our, our chat platform where you can talk before and after the show.
And we have slides that we put in there and have a good time in there. But somebody had mentioned this executive order that Donald Trump had passed in 2018 that directly related to foreign interference with the election. And I was thinking that sounds weird. And that’s kind of a coincidence, right? In 2018, we had the midterm elections. He’s, he’s sort of wrapping up his investigations, uh, or the, or, or a lot of the investigation with the Mueller team and all this election election election stuff. So Donald Trump passed on election executive order. Interesting. What does that have to say? So we pulled it up and I read through most of it today. Here is what I want to share with you. So this is the executive order that was actually, uh, it looks like it was officially entered on September 14th, 2018, September 12, 2018. The title here is imposing certain sanctions in the event of foreign interference in a United States election.
And so it says in this initial opening statement, it says, I, Donald Trump, the president of the U S find that the ability of persons located outside the United States can interfere with the election, including unauthorized access to the infrastructure. Okay. So there’s some key words here, campaign infrastructure. What does that mean? Unauthorized accessing of election and campaign infrastructure. Okay. The covert distribution of propaganda disinformation, he says it constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the nation. There’s been no evidence of a foreign power, uh, you know, manipulating any of these votes. In recent years, the proliferation has made this a bigger threat as illustrated in the 2017 intelligence community assessment. I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with this threat. Okay. It’s a big, big claim, a national emergency and executive order to address literally a national emergency. Uh, and wow, that’s a big, that’s a big statement.
And I told him, I, you know, I wasn’t doing the show in 2018, but, uh, kind of feels that might be on point right now, especially with all of the conversation about dominion and, uh, and all of the other ones that are floating around out there that they’ve got servers in Germany and Spain and Venezuela and all these different foreign actors are actually in control of the data that is being used to elect a president, right? This executive order sounds like it’s right on point, actually. And so we dive into it the very first paragraph details, what this order is asking to do. So let’s keep this in mind. Donald Trump is the president, which he is, which is the lead of the executive branch of our government. We’ve got three branches of government, the executive that judiciary, which is the Supreme court and the legislative branch, which is Congress.
Donald Trump is the executive. And so one of the purview is one of the powers of the executive branch is that they are the commander in chief. So they control a lot of the treaties and they control a lot of the international relations with all of our foreign adversaries. And, and so one of the first things that this, this act did is it required that all of the different agencies domestically here in the United States, like the FBI, the CIA, the department of Homeland security, all of our different intelligence agencies, they needed to go. As soon as Trump signed this and formulate a framework that they were going to use within their own agencies, that would help them identify election fraud, help them identify this foreign interference with our elections. They were ordered to go and do that. And then after an election takes place, they have to do something afterwards.
And here is what the order says. Section one, not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a U S election, the director of national intelligence, who I’m going to show you who that is, his name is John Ratcliffe. And we’re going to tell you a little bit about him. So after 45 days, so let’s say for example, that an election took place on November 3rd. All right, well, 45 days after that election, the director of national intelligence needs to consult with the other agencies. They shall conduct shall means you have to do it. You shall conduct an assessment of any information indicating that a foreign government or any person acting as an agent of that foreign government has acted with the intent or purpose of interfering in that election, the assessment shell, you have to do this identify to the maximum extent we can. We can, the nature of this interference, the persons involved, the foreign governments that authorized it.
And so on the DNI shall deliver this assessment and the appropriate supporting information to the president, to the secretary of state, the secretary of treasury, the secretary of defense, the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland security. Isn’t that interesting. So 45 days after a big election, the DNI, the director of national intelligence has to go out consult with all of these different agencies. They all have to draft their own reports that are based on a framework that they’ve created, which is required by another part of this executive order. So it’s about three or four pages long elsewhere. They say they are explaining what they want these agencies to go find how they want them to find it when they need to report it. So a lot of it’s sort of the nuts and bolts of how this stuff works, but the point is forty-five days after the election, that report needs to go back to the president, the secretary of state, secretary treasury, secretary defense, attorney general and Homeland security.
So presumably they’re in the process of collecting that information and drafting that report. Now we did see a report from the department of Homeland security that said this election was pretty dang good. One of the most secure elections in history that, that felt a little bit out of place felt like that was sort of a, a statement that, that maybe didn’t come, you know, through the formal Trump, uh, channels of communication. So you can judge that in that way. If it may seem more credible because it didn’t come through the Trump white house, it may seem less credible because it did not come through the Trump white house. I’ll leave you to be the judge of that, but who is the director of national intelligence? So if all of these different agencies have to report up to the main guy, the director of national intelligence, who is that guy that guy’s pretty important for Donald Trump and his team you’d imagine that that person should have a lot of credibility, a lot of experience, and a lot of wherewithal to, to cipher through all of these many, many issues that are flying every which way.
Well, that guy is John Ratcliffe, and this is a little bit about him. You can see here, he was sworn in as DNI on may 26, 20, 20, just this year. He hasn’t even been doing it long just this year. He was sworn in he’s the sixth Senate confirmed DNI in our nation’s history prior to leading the U S intelligence intelligence community three terms in the U S how us house of representatives representing the fourth district of Texas served on the house intelligence judiciary and ethics committee. He served on the committee on Homeland security as the chairman of the cybersecurity and the infrastructure protection subcommittee prior to his service. He was a federal prosecutor initially as the first assistant us attorney and the chief of anti-terrorism and national security for Eastern district of Texas. This guy just has a resume that’s built for this. He then served as the attorney for Eastern, a hundred employees manage the docket of 34 national security and terrorism related matters for the joint terrorism task force. He, uh, and so on, right earned his bachelor’s degree, went to the alert. A law degree from Southern Methodist university went to Notre Dame. They’ve got to.
It sounds like he’s fit for the job, right? That’s somebody who’s been in this line of work his entire career and been pretty, uh, pretty accomplished as he’s been going through it. So, uh, you know, this is what the Trump team needs. If they’re going to be persuasive with this, I’ve spoken a lot about these two Wars that are going on. One’s in the courts. One is in the public mind in the arena of ideas, this idea that the next president needs some level of legitimacy, Joe Biden needs it. He’s currently been sort of propped up by a lot of the people in the media and a lot of the commentators. And everybody’s saying, this is a foregone conclusion. There’s that wing of the country who thinks that it’s already a done deal. There’s also a huge part of the country, whether this side wants to acknowledge it or not, who disagrees with that? A large part of the other side of the country thinks this is not a done deal. There’s investigations going on, there’s recounts going on, there’s lawsuits being filed. And so we need some more answers on this and the Trump team in my mind. And in my opinion, on this channel, we’ve been talking about this. They don’t have a lot of legitimacy right now. They’re, they’re sort of missing that. They’re talking about a lot of abstract ideas, a lot of this Venezuelan stuff that happened, you know, three decades ago or two decades or whatever, it was in a foreign country that most Americans don’t even know where it is.
And what does that have to do with the 2020 election in Philadelphia? Nothing looks bad, sounds bad. Doesn’t, you know, it doesn’t bode well for the systems that we’re using. Not a good, not a good idea to have all of those different problems with our election system, but, but really what does it have to do with this election? And so in order Trump and his team, I think to start winning and pushing back on this legitimacy war, they need guys like John Ratcliffe, guys who have an entire lifetime handling these types of issues to come out and articulate this stuff. I’m not sure that Rudy Giuliani is the answer. You know, he’s almost a little too partisan in many ways. And he’s been sort of at the forefront of a lot of controversy, John Ratcliffe, to my understanding really, you know, really hasn’t nothing stands out in my mind about this guy’s ability to come out and lend some legitimacy, lends some credibility, and he’s getting the report.
Presumably if Donald Trump’s exec executive order is underway, if they’re already investigating this stuff, then all of these different agencies should be sending him a report pretty quickly. Remember the executive order says 45 days. And so 45 days after the election would be December 18th, right? December 18th, which is just four days after the electors need to cast their votes. So presumably this report will be in the hands of the president will be in the hands of a lot of the major intelligence agencies, including John Ratcliffe. Well, before that time. So it’s kind of a coincidence that those dates just match up so closely. And it’s also a coincidence that they issued this executive order in 2018. And then if you remember, Trump has been making some changes. John Ratcliffe was sworn in on may 26 of 2020, the secretary of defense who was in office for some period of time was fired on November 9th.
So the same people that are sort of involved in this reporting, there’s been a changing of the guards. John Radcliffe was installed. Secretary of defense, Mark Esper was fired. He was fired on November 9th. The other people who need to be reported to are pretty much Trump loyalists. You’ve got bill BARR, you have Mike Pompeo, you’ve got the secretary of Homeland security, Chad Wolf, who became the acting director on November 13th, 2019, not too long ago. So a lot of the right people on the team, if you’re on team Trump, that’s sort of what he needs in the intelligence infrastructure in order to gather good data. And we’re going to see if that happens. Now, I’ve also been reading some articles that a lot of people in the intelligence community, or at least the generals are, is this headline trending that a lot of people were snickering about on Twitter, that they were lying to him in order to keep troops in Syria, because they were telling him that there was, you know, a much lower number than there actually were.
And people on Twitter were high-fiving about this stuff, thinking that this was all a slam dunk, like this is hilarious that our generals are lying to the commander in chief. Like, like that’s something to be proud of. Uh, and so, you know, who knows if the intelligence community is actually diving into this stuff with as much vigor as we would expect, but we’re going to know soon because that clock is ticking. Now, yesterday, we were talking about Sidney Powell releasing the crackin, and I skipped over the best part of the clip, which is the releasing the clock crack and part of the Crip clip. So here it is Jenny, at the outset of this broadcast, I said, this is the culmination of what has been, uh, over a four year effort to overthrow this president to first deny his candidacy, uh, uh, uh, the election, but then, uh, to overthrow his presidency. This looks like the effort to, uh, to carry out an end game in the, in the effort against him. Uh, do you concur?
Oh, absolutely. And it’s, uh, it’s been, uh, organized and conducted with the help of Silicon Valley people, the big tech companies, the social media companies, and even the media companies, and I’m going to release the crack and there it is, there it is.
We’re releasing the crack in. And so that’s what we’re talking about. Now. There’s been some, some new information that’s come out. Uh, I’ve got some clips, but I want to run through some of, uh, some of the highlights here because, you know, we wanna, we wanna, we wanna, we want to validate this stuff. If she’s calling it, releasing the crack and it better be pretty good crack, and let’s take a look. So, uh, we, we see here that Dr. Dave Janda, uh, last night was on Twitter explaining that, uh, the, the, uh, all this stuff was coming out. He said, boom, it’s released a crack. And Tuesday, Sidney Powell has outed the deep States, multilevel multifaceted, coordinated criminal vote fraud operation who hammered every American citizen citizen by altering the scorecard. So you see what he did there. Little hammer and scorecard action being littered into that masterfully crafted tweet.
Sidney Powell over here is saying, here’s the outline of the great fraud against this country. Every red candidate, anywhere who lost by less than 6% should now be filing suit or joining an existing suit. And she was back on Lou Dobbs. Again, she loves going on the Lou Dobbs show, and here she is going through. I’m not going to play this whole clip because she goes on for several minutes. What I want to do is actually read from the affidavit that she posted, but I want you to get an idea of what’s going on. This is the Trump’s PR team. This is, this is, this is public relations almost one-on-one right. She’s going out, she’s hitting the news stations that will have her. She is all over Lou Dobbs. I’m not sure why she’s not on any of the other channels. They just may be refusing to have her, uh, which is a whole separate issue. But here she is on Lou Dobbs talking about some of this stuff. Apparently he’s a high ranking military officer who saw a lot of the issues with the smart MADEC voting software. So smart, smart MADEC is this is this original software that was created apparently for Hugo Chavez. And she’s going to detail a little bit about it. I’m not going to let it play on too long, because I actually want to read through the document. So here she is again on Lou Dobbs.
Oh, definitely. Lou I’ve just gotten some stunning evidence from a firsthand witness, a high ranking military officer who was present when smarter MADEC was designed in a way that the system. And I’m going to just read you some of these statements if you don’t mind. So from, from the affidavit designed in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected, he wanted the software itself function in such a manner that if the voter were to place their thumbprint or fingerprint on a scanner, and the thumbprint would be tied to a record of the voter’s name and identity of as having voted, but that voter would not be tracked to the changed vote. He made it clear that the system would have to be set up, but not leave any evidence.
All right. So she’s just reading from an affidavit right now. Let’s go on and actually take a look at the affidavit itself because, uh, it’s, I think it’s easier to read and follow along. You can actually see the text as we go through it. So here she posted, uh, earlier this morning, she said, this is Sidney Powell says big tech, Facebook, Google, they’re all suppressing our freedom of speech to challenge these outrageous election fraud, wonder who are funding the communist efforts for Biden, read the sworn testimony for yourself, see below. So she posted this and actually thought this was hilarious down here. We have a cat turd, uh, who says I trust drinking out of a toilet in Tijuana, more than I trust the FBI and the DOJ. So that was somebody who just posted a tweet. So when she posted this, which she knew was going to be one of the biggest stories out today, she did it in a re an a quote retweet of somebody saying, I trust drinking out of a toilet and Tijuana more than I trust the FBI and the DOJ.
So this story has now been retweeted when I clipped it, uh, 20,000 times 40,000 likes 1,600 quote, tweets, or quotes on there. And so, uh, you know, she know she, she knew what she was doing. She wanted to really get this out there while taking a slam dunk against the, uh, the FBI and the DOJ. So here is actually the, the affidavit. Now you’ll notice a couple of things on this. So, number one, when she posted this, she posted four pictures, but two of them were the same. So I think she’s missing a page. I don’t know if that was an accident or intentional, but she’s missing a page. Cause we’re going to start at paragraph 14. So we don’t know who the author of this is. We don’t know who the individual is. There’s a lot of stuff that has been redacted. I’m not, I don’t, I don’t believe that she’s making this up or that this is not in a lawful legal document because she’s an attorney, right?
And your word is very sacrosanct. It’s very important. If you are in this space, if she was making this up or lying about this, her credibility for the rest of her career would be in the toilet. Many people may think that’s already happening. Other people think, you know, she’s the greatest lawyer in the world and she’s saving America. So, uh, you know, just take that with some caution. One of my concerns here is that we just don’t know who’s behind it. So a lot of the document, a lot of the credibility is going to come form from the person who’s sharing the message who saw this stuff, who is this person, is this some low-level tech individual who was just like in the room while this stuff was going on? Or is this somebody who still in the government, maybe they were a general or, or their, their, you know, their general.
Now they were somebody who at a lower rank when they were involved in the creation of this. But who is that person? Because they’re going to need to give this document some legitimacy, because right now sounds like a really bad story. Sounds like pretty awful stuff. Again, I’m not real sure how it relates to the American election. Other than that, this is setting a foundation at saying the backbone of the United States election was premised on this software, which was created to manipulate elections. So clearly it’s being manipulated, right? And this is a huge claim. If she’s got more evidence to support this, I mean, this could theoretically undermine the integrity of every election everywhere, right? If the software that’s being used to count, the votes has been compromised is that, you know, is, is a claim that big, legitimate, I don’t know, there’s still some evidence to be seen, but she seems to say that it is, and she’s the one who supposedly has the evidence.
So this is the affidavit. Let’s take a look at it. She says, I’m not gonna read the whole thing here, but she says, or this is, this is what the, the actual affidavit says. And again, we don’t know who this is from smart Maddix electoral technology technology was called Sistema day Guesty own electoral. And it was, it was a pioneer in this area of computing systems. Their system provided for transmission of voter data over the internet to a computerized central tabulating center. The voting machines themselves had a digital display. And so on smart had created, they operated the entire thing. Chavez wanted the design in a way that would allow the system to change the vote of each voter with that out being detected. He wanted the software to function in a way that, you know, use a fingerprint and so on. Yeah. After smart Maddock was put into place, I mostly observed several elections where the results were manipulated using this software.
One in 2006, when Chavez was running against rosellas Chavez, won with a landslide, a margin of nearly 6 million votes for Chavez versus, and this, the, the affidavit just goes on. He says, you know, he goes out and I went to, I want to point out that the fundamental design of the software was that it’s a descendant of smart Maddix. So in other words, what we’re using today, send it from something that was very tainted. One of the three major companies, the tabulate votes, all of the computer controlled voting tabulation is done in a closed environment. Uh, so that the voter and the observer cannot detect what is taking place. Unless there was a malfunction. I saw firsthand that the manipulation and changing votes can be done in real time at the secret counting center, which existed in Caracas, Venezuela. For me, it was something very surprising and disturbing.
I was an, I never been present to actually see it occur. And I saw what happened. Then we see some additional pages or information here that has been redacted. It goes on so-and-so so-and-so, so-and-so something. He was assuring that the voting system implemented or used was completely secure, that it could not be compromised, was not able to be altered. But later in 2017, when there were elections where a Maduro was running smart, MADEC broke their secrecy pack with the government of Venezuela. He made a public announcement through the medium in which he stated that all of the voting machines used during those elections were totally manipulated. And they were manipulated by the electoral council of Venezuela back then, I’m a lawyer because of what is occurring in plain sight, uh, circumstances are eerily reminiscent. Okay. They’re eerily reminiscent of what happened with smart MADEC software in 2013 presidential election in Venezuela, I have worked in gathering the information researching.
That’s what I know how to do. I contacted a number of reliable people. I’m asking them to give me information that was up to date and so on. And so that’s the affidavit, right? That’s the statement. It’s a pretty bad story. Doesn’t sound good. Sounds like dominion. And a lot of the electoral systems that we use today, or may have been based on this smart MADEC stuff. And there may be this back door that exists that allows them to literally manipulate the votes. I think it’s going to be, if you know, if that is true, uh, I’m not, I’m not holding my breath that they’re able to prove that. But if it’s true, that’s a, that’s a, that’s a big, big claim. And this is a legal document. This is a signed affidavit, according to miss Sidney Powell. And she’s saying that evidence is coming out like a firehose and Donald Trump just issued an executive order in 2018 saying that all of the federal intelligence agencies need to do their own analysis and then report back to him within 45 days.
So, you know, is there anything there, uh, we’re going to continue to see, but I think what we’re in the middle of, or in the beginning of is this slow drip of information. Remember what happened when Rudy Giuliani was detailing the Hunter Biden, exposé that hard drive from hell as he called it. It was a daily drip, and this may be the opening of that. And remember what they do. They, they sort of drip this stuff slowly. Now. I’m not real sure that that’s the best strategy. Like I told you yesterday, I think a large portion of the American public they’re getting comfortable with the idea of Joe Biden and the Biden team is winning the legitimacy war. Right? Every time Trump loses a lawsuit, every time a more votes are added to Biden’s tally, every time an attorney general, a state Senator, a governor, uh, somebody comes out and says they support moving on past this thing.
The Trump team loses a little bit more of their legitimacy. Now that can all come roaring back. If Sidney Powell comes out and says, yeah, I’ve got a signed documents and I’ve got names, addresses, phone numbers, emails, texts of the entire dominion people who are at the sitting at the table, literally rigging this election in real-time. We have all the documents. Okay. That’s enough to flip the legitimacy table right on its head. Every single American regardless. Yeah. This election was rigged. Joe Biden should not be the president and we need to solve this thing, but we’re not there yet. Are we going to get there? I don’t know. There’s still some time left on the clock. So we will see Lou Dobbs did indicate. Now we don’t know who his sources here, that the FBI is diving deeper into this as well. So they’re getting involved.
And that was a big question that I’ve had on this program. Many times, Rudy Giuliani said, who cares what the FBI is doing? Nobody can trust the FBI. Sidney Powell said the same thing. I’m not privy to that. I’m not on the inside so far. We don’t rely too much on the FBI or anybody in the intelligence community, which I think is a big mistake. I think that in order for the government to be seen as legitimate and talking about Trump’s government, the government that is trying to remain in power, they need some sort of third party, some sort of credibility booster here, whether that’s John Ratcliffe, whether that’s, you know, the FBI, whether that’s an outside third-party source. I don’t know who that is. But if the only people who are saying this thing is rigged are Donald Trump and Donald Trump’s attorneys. That’s not persuasive.
People are not going to buy into that. There needs to be some sort of external source that is going to validate and lend their credibility to this claim. And so far, we haven’t seen much of it. We’ve seen some from the federal election commissions. Uh, we’ve seen some from some, you know, Republicans, we’ve seen some from a local, uh, lower level sort of local representatives, but on a big scale, somebody that has a lot of national security, national intelligence credibility, where are they? They may be coming because a lot of this stuff is still pending. But Lou Dobbs is indicating now that the FBI may actually be involved in an investigation.
And I, I share your, your, your fury and frustration. Uh, but I do have some news to break here at this moment. I have, uh, now, uh, receive word from a highly reliable source that the FBI does have an investigative team that is now, uh, looking into this election now what that means beyond that. But at least it’s confirmation that they are investigating. Uh, and we’ll see what, uh, moves because there had been no indication that indeed publicly, that they were involved. They are now to that point, I just like to show if we could put up the full screen, uh, under what, uh, their authorities are when we talk about these state run elections, uh, even though they’re federal elections for at least the sizeable number of the candidates as you see there. Yeah.
All right. So, so not particularly relevant to what we’re talking about here, but yeah, no, that’s, that’s, that’s interesting news. That’s interesting development. As we know, the FBI generally doesn’t confirm their investigations. They don’t confirm what they’re doing or deny. Uh, but as we saw from the executive order, there’s a lot of that shall language. In other words, the government or the executive order is mandating that many of these government agencies in the intelligence sector that they start investigating this stuff. So they should be investigating him, Donald Trump executive order mandates that they do, whether they do or not, we will see. So I had some, uh, I had some, uh, some additional stuff I wanted to get into today, but we’re going to save it tomorrow. It’s not election related, it’s social media related. So let’s jump into the super chats and the chats itself because they were coming in heavy today.
So let’s take a look. We have, uh, Michelle and Bergy at the very start of the show said, just thank you. And thank you, Michelle. I appreciate that super chat you’re here very regularly. Always appreciate your support and your super chats. Goliath said any thoughts on the voter fraud found in Los Angeles, California, two men with 8,000 plus false voter registrations at cetera? I do not. Uh, I do not know about that story. I think it’s very interesting. Remember when we talk about these types of claims, so in California, there are really two criteria that bill BARR put in his memorandum. One that it, you know, it has to be sort of a legitimate claim, none of the superfluous stuff. So it’s got to be legitimate and then it has to change the course of the outcome. So if you find something that’s serious, but it doesn’t change the course of the outcome, the course of the election, it doesn’t change the final numbers.
Don’t investigate that, save that stuff for the end of the election. Okay. But the stuff that is big 8,000 votes in California, I wouldn’t call that big, right? Trump’s going to lose California by millions of votes. So eight thousands of drop in the bucket now, 8,000 votes in Nevada or 8,000 votes elsewhere. Or if that, if that bus where they found this, these, these guys, which I don’t know the story, but if they found 8,000 guys with false, false voter registrations, maybe that’s a bigger scheme. Maybe those guys will turn on the other individuals who are also part of this conspiracy to rig the election around the country. So I think that’s where those stories become valuable. But if you just want to say, yeah, we’re going to reverse 8,000 votes, or we’re going to disqualify one precinct in California. I don’t think that’s going to, that’s going to do it.
But in other areas, 8,000 votes is a big deal because the margin’s much closer. I think in Arizona, it’s down to like 10,000 votes, 8,000 might change it and trigger a mandatory recount good question. So we have one from Matt Jackson. He says, Hey, came in late. What’s the opinion on what happened in Wayne, Michigan tonight. So another one that I don’t know, I don’t have any updates on Wayne, Michigan. I haven’t seen that. Uh, like Sidney Powell, the news is coming in like a fire hose. I mean, we just, we, we, we cover what we can cover. And then I get questions from, from you, amazing people. And it’s just new information. And literally as we’re on the show doing the broadcast, there’s a hearing taking place in Pennsylvania and there’s, there’s apparently there’s new stories coming out of Wayne, Michigan. So we’re going to get up to speed.
I get off the program. I go right back into my office, check some of the news and start thinking about the show for the next day. So I will include that. Thank you, Matt Jackson, for that, a big super chat from Dr. E M B. Thank you doctor. She says, regardless of the vote counts, if Trump refuses to concede, well, the final decision be passed over to the house of representatives as per the 12th amendment. How many States have to not certify the votes in order for this amendment to occur? So Dr. EMB, so I, so I am going to do a deeper dive on the 12th amendment. I don’t think it’s going to come into play, but I want to, I want to break that down because it, it actually sort of differs some of the rules kind of outside of the 12th amendment.
And so the rules are a little bit unclear. My understanding on it is that if there is no decision by a certain deadline, then that’s when it goes to the house of representatives. So if, if, if, uh, I don’t know what the date is off the top of my head, but if we don’t get to two 70, if there aren’t enough votes that we have a definitive president, then the 12th amendment kicks in some additional triggers that that are required and it sets up some different contingency plans. So if, and it’s, and it’s complicated, it’s difficult to read. And I had to reread it again. I don’t think we’re going to get there, but if we do, we do. And I certainly want to, I do want to reread it again, but my understanding is if they don’t have a number of electors that make the decision on the presidency, certain then the 12th amendment kicks in.
It goes back to the house of representatives. Every state, then every state legislature gets a vote. Currently the Republicans have more legislatures than the Democrats do. And so the conversation of the topic in legal circles is that that could be actually how they win the election. If there is enough to legitimize the current election. So the current results, if they can throw those results out, then the only alternative at that point would be to go back through the state legislatures and then invoke the 12th amendment. So I’m going to do a deeper dive on that probably tomorrow, actually, because I think it’s a very interesting question, but thank you so much for the super chat. So I’m going to, I’m going to, I’ll answer that in more detail, but let me dive into that a little bit further. And another one, uh, also same, same, uh, same doctor Dr.
EMB also can a non disputed, strongly Republican state refuse to certify their own state. If they wish to take a stand against the national fraud that they see, would they be subject to prosecution? So again, my understanding is no, my understanding is that the legislatures can certify whomever they want whenever they want, right? So they don’t even have to, theoretically, you don’t even have to have a popular vote in your state. It’s sort of just something that we do because we as Americans want to participate in our governance, but we don’t live in a direct democracy. Our vote doesn’t actually get translated like a popular vote. Would one vote per person that goes to Joe Biden. It’s an indication it’s, it’s alerting our legislature. This is how we want our electors to vote. But then the legislature actually certifies them. Now it’s all legal. So if they chose to do that, then the only real repercussion for them, I think would be political.
And there are many people who might die on that sword in the legislatures. But I think there’s a lot more people who wouldn’t. And if their States was one in which the population felt like their version of the federal election was legitimate, then you’d have a hard time getting the legislature to overturn the will of the people. But the counter to that is, well, what if like in the state of Arizona, I think Arizona might be a good example. Everybody that I’ve spoken to after the election is kind of shocked that Joe Biden won this thing because I’m still seeing a lot of support around. I go to the gym, still people with Trump masks on mega hats, on signs, everywhere, flags, everywhere, nothing for Joe Biden. There’s still a lot of support out here for Donald Trump. And so if the general public feels that way, if they feel like, you know, the state went for Biden, but we feel like it really didn’t go for Biden.
And we’re the louder, more vocal, you know, Republican Trump supporting contingent. Then that group may be able to go and convince the legislature that if you don’t, if you don’t change course, then your career is over. And this is the persuasion game a little bit right now. Now it becomes political. It’s not so much judicial anymore. We’re not fighting in court over equal protection or due process or observation rules or ballot deadlines or any of that stuff. Precincts versus tabulation centers or voter centers. All of that becomes irrelevant. Now it’s about convincing more people that the election was either fraudulent or legitimate, and both sides are already engaged in that battle. Some sides are doing it better than the others, so we will see, but your question, would they be subject to prosecution? I mean, largely this is unprecedented, but I don’t think there’s any mechanism for that because the constitution does give them authority to nominate the legislature, the, the electors as part of their duties as legislatures.
All right. Thank you. Great questions from Dr. EMB. We’re going to dive into the 12th amendment a little bit further. I kind of want to diagram that out. We have, uh, Durago Sullivan who is very regularly here, always with super chants. Thank you. Derog appreciate that. He says, Rob, if you let vote pools, stand when observers are systematically blocked than any election goes to the biggest cheater, only big penalties will stop it. Yeah. And I think that’s exactly right. Derog and this is, this was one of Rudy Giuliani’s points. We talked about a little bit about this yesterday. When we talk about this idea of fruit of the poisonous tree, right? If the police illegally seize evidence from somebody in a criminal case, they got that evidence illegally. That evidence may be good evidence. It may totally implicate the person. It may prove that the person did something wrong.
And let’s think about this in a horrendous situation. Let’s say somebody was being investigated for raping somebody, right? And they found a smoking gun evidence that that person is a rapist, but that evidence was obtained illegally. Well, the remedy for that, how you solve that problem is that illegally obtained evidence gets thrown out. And so many people who are opposed to that, they say, well, wait a minute. You’re just going to let a rapist run around free. And the answer is yes, because the government couldn’t prove their case. They couldn’t get the evidence legally. They could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even though we all probably know that guy did it, they can’t prove it. And the penalty is so is so severe towards the government. It’s it’s you can’t put that guy in jail. He’s he’s going to go around free because you violated the rules.
You violated the credibility in the penalty has to be harsh. And that’s what Rudy Giuliani is saying. He’s saying, look, they really screwed up on those 600,000 votes. We couldn’t go monitor them. We couldn’t see them. They gave us no meaningful access. We couldn’t identify any potential fraud or errors. And we have all this other evidence saying that the numbers don’t match up and so on. And when he said specifically to the judge, it’s a draconian penalty. I get it. That’s what he was saying. He’s saying, yeah, I know. Yeah. I know it’s 600,000 votes. Yes. There are probably some good, legitimate American votes in there that are perfectly valid and perfectly, but they’re in a tainted bucket. And because the bucket is so tainted, we got to throw it all out, got to start fresh. It’s the same sort of concept as what the government does with, with illegally tainted evidence.
Yeah. Throw it out. You can’t use it because it’s been invalidated. It’s called fruit, the poisonous tree. And it’s a very similar argument that I think they’re making in federal court, but we don’t know how that’s going to end up yet. Thank you. Derog for that. He had another one coming in, says Georgia recount is not checking signatures need careful checking by both campaigns. I saw a lot of headlines about that. A lot of, a lot of fake news going around this Georgia recount it really hard to keep track. I saw the secretary of state, Brad raffinose burger, whatever his name is, uh, come out and say that Lindsey Graham and other Republicans were pressuring him to throw out legal ballots. But then I saw another headline of him today saying, well, that’s just how I interpreted the conversation. They didn’t actually say that. It’s just kind of how I, that’s kind of how I read it to be, you know, like, Oh, you know, everybody’s just jumping on these headlines and running with them, trying to spike the football every time that there’s a headline for their favor.
And so it’s really difficult to understand because I heard Brad rasper or the secretary of state in Georgia come out and say full audit, full re canvas, full recount. We played the clip on this channel, but apparently it’s like not so much of an actual audit. They’re not checking signatures. They’re kind of doing rapid fire, uh, you know, counting. And so on that it just doesn’t match the, the public statement doesn’t match what’s happening on the ground. And there’s been a lot of criticism about that. You know, the, the, the, the counterpoint here, the issue with this is I saw James O’Keefe O’Keefe post a Twitter, uh, post today saying that it was a rigged recount, right? So the many Americans are going to get real tired of rigged everything, right? Not only was the election rigged, but the recounts rig and a recount of a recount is rigged.
They’re just going to get tired of it. It’s going to become noise. So I think the Trump campaign needs to be careful with some of that Mary Willis with two super chats with no questions. Thank you very much, Mary Willis. And thank you, Mary Willis for the second super chat. Appreciate that. That’s two things. There’s three, we’ve got three super chats for Mary for, we got them. Well lot coming in Mary Willis is saying another 2,755 votes found in Fayette County, Georgia today, Wisconsin style, full audit of signatures and chain of custody needed Trump down 14,000 in Georgia. So yeah, if they found that he got, he, the, the Delta changed by 800 in his favor to 70, 20, 2,700 additional votes found Georgia sounds like it may be on the verge of some additional problems. Mary Willis, again, with the number four, I think it is come on. There is no election fraud, just like there is no crime in America.
Organized are otherwise Americans would never come crime, um, yeah. With, with a big, big, big smiley face. So I, you know, I think some sarcasm there, of course, of course, of course, there’s fraud in an election. You know, these people who come out and say, there’s no fraud, there’s no fraud. Come on. And there’s 300 million Americans out there. Nobody’s filling out two ballots anywhere in this country. Give me a break. Now isn’t enough to change the election. That’s a different story. We have Zulu who always says hi to faith, and then it just comes right at me with questions says, Rob, if the Trump team knows they have the silver bullet, what’s worth bothering with all the frivolous suits getting laughed out of court. Yeah, it’s a good question. And so my original take on that was a lot of these lawsuits. They don’t have the main claim in them because they needed to meet certain deadlines.
They needed to file lawsuits before the deadlines where some of them had 48 hour lawsuits in or 48 hour deadlines in order to request a lawsuit that would basically stay the coming certification process. So what they do is they count. Then they, they, you know, do a sort of a token audit like in Arizona, they do 2% of the precincts and then they go through the certification process. And so a lot of these lawsuits were just the initial suits to stop the certification process, stopped the counting so that they could install different observers. A lot of it was ground level lawsuit stuff. It wasn’t even about the main claims. It was just about getting in there and getting situated on the ground floor of, of that particular state and keep in mind the Trump team, you know, they’re in Washington, DC, they don’t have lawyers in Arizona.
They don’t know Arizona law. Presumably I’m imagining that they needed to hire counsel here. And they did. They hired Snell and Wilmer, and then they hired, uh, a different firm that escapes me right now. But you know, they hire local counsel, the local counsel files, a bunch of lawsuits that, that stay a bunch of the deadlines and then they can go and they can develop their claims, do their investigation, and then finally submit it. So I think that’s kind of where they’re at right now. And according to their legal team, many of those lawsuits are going to be initiated next week. So we’ll, we’ll see what happens if those lawsuits next week don’t have that silver bullet that you’re mentioning, then it’s pretty much game over for Donald Trump in my mind, right? The, the, the big claims it’s about time to come out because they’re losing the legitimacy war as it stands right now, doesn’t mean it’s going to continue that way.
And they’re also losing the legal war in a lot of these different States. So the pertinent time for them to bring out the team is right now, and they have done that, or that’s according to their, uh, according to their opinion, they’ve got some pretty, some pretty heavy hitters. A lot of them have a lot of legal experience, but the other side is sort of, sort of laughing at them at a certain to a certain degree, which is to be expected that they’re, they’re always going to be, there are always going to be people who are nipping at your heels. Doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on. So we’re going to see what happens with those lawsuits. But like I said, if next week, if these are, if these are the same claims, if next week they file a lawsuit that says dominion was based on smart MADEC and smart Maddock was founded in Venezuela in order to, to manipulate Venezuelan elections, not going to be a good claim. And I’ll be the first one on this channel to tell you not looking so good, but we’ll see what happens. We’re gonna give him a little bit more time. Aaron Sevi says tech caused problems in the Dem Iowa caucus early this year. They seem to have the same types of issues now shadow Inc. BlueLink was involved. Yeah. So it sounds like, you know, additional, additional software company is additional software problems also in the Iowa caucus earlier this year, which is interesting because Bernie Sanders was running away.
I wonder if that, that’s the other thing too, is, you know, why are, why are a lot of these Democrats not investigating this stuff? Cause I would, I would be of the mindset that there was some also, there was some pretty good malfeasance going on when Mr. Bernie was running in both elections.
Megan, Schutt also with the super chat. Thank you, Erin, for that super chat, by the way, Megan Schutz has all ballots going to one candidate is numerically impossible with the bell curve. Would that be considered evidence or Megan? I don’t think it would be. So it’s very, very interesting and it’s very topical and it will help you to narrow in, to focus in on better evidence. But if you went into court and you just said, Hey look, judge, the bell curve doesn’t match here. Or the Benford’s law doesn’t match or Dr. Shiva and his numerical analysis. You know, look there, there’s some discrepancies in this data. A judge is going to look at it and the, the government is going to bring in another expert to just explain those numbers and just give you some theories as to why those numbers could be what they are, or maybe, uh, maybe refute the entire premise.
Maybe say, no, that’s not the case. Uh, Joe Biden’s team was very, very heavy on the male end stuff. Remember they were talking about that most of the summer, Donald Trump wasn’t. So of course all the mail-in ballots are going to be from Biden supporters. And that’s what they’ll use to explain away your bell curve point. They’ll just say, no, they’re all one sided. They’re all in both votes. And they all came from Joe Biden and a two to one clip because they were promoting those more. They just explained it away. I don’t think it amounts to evidence. They need something that’s more concrete than just speculative numbers. And apparently they have it, but we will see David C says, so the Hispanic and black people have to be careful reading this one who went out of their way to vote out. Donald Trump is more important than your gym buddies with Magda mask.
So the Hispanic and black people who went out of their way to vote out Donald Trump is more important than your gym buddies with mega mass LOL. Well, no, that’s not what I, that’s not what I said at all. I’m just saying that it’s a totally different point. And what my position was that the public enthusiasm doesn’t seem to match the total numbers. There’s been no Biden support around Arizona at all. And I happen to have a lot of, uh, friends of different ethnicities and their sort of perspective is the same. A lot of people are really shocked in Arizona. I think you’d have to live in Arizona in order to understand what I’m talking about, but the numbers just don’t match the feeling and the sentiment that is on the ground. And my point with this is not even about the numbers. It’s about the legitimacy argument.
It’s about how people are feeling. So even though the numbers might be right, David C maybe all of the Hispanic and black people who went out of their way to vote out Donald Trump, maybe they all did go and vote. Joe Biden in that’s not what I’m about. Biden may have legitimately won every single state that we’re talking about on this channel that may have been the case, but there are big portions of people in Arizona and elsewhere who think that that is not reality, that that is not legitimate. And that’s what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about one way or the other one of these sides is going to have to be brought back into the fold. We’re going to have to bring people back in and explain to them, this is why these claims don’t make much sense. This is why some of this stuff is not what it seems and both sides are going to have to have that conversation.
That’s all we’re trying to do here. And so I think my point was really more about the public perception. And currently in Arizona, it doesn’t feel to me like most of the people out and about are of the mindset that this was a legitimate election. That’s just one man’s opinion though. All right. When can at Ja has another Superchat says HR six, four, three, five election security section three Oh four B one. Would this in itself make dominion voting systems unlawful if it’s not fully owned and operated within the USC, I’m sorry, USA. So it looks like there is a house resolution bill that I have not read yet. Uh, we can add Joe, so I don’t have that right away. But if it, excuse me, if it says that all of our election software, it needs to be housed and contained in the state of Arizona or the state of the United States, then yeah, that sounds like continued use of dominion or any of this other electoral software would then at that point, be illegal.
Megan, Schutt says all ballots going to one candidate and all will be countable filled out properly is literally numerically impossible because of the bell curve. Would that be evidence? I think I read that one already, but she sent it again. Um, yeah. So Michelle, I answered that. I answered that previously. I, uh, I apologize if you miss that. So Gino’s grid job says, does anyone know how many of these recounts result in gains for Bidens, if all errors favor, one side that would hit at systemic fraud? Yeah. I’m not sure that I’m not sure that I’ve seen any that have, have resulted in gains for Biden. Right? We had antrum Michigan. We had Fulton County over in Georgia. We’ve had some other ones, but I think they’ve all gone in favor of Donald Trump. So your point is well taken, right? Just, and just because there’s a pattern, you know, keep this in mind as well.
Right? When you go to the, the, the, uh, what’s the table called and a roulette when you go to the roulette table, just because it came up black three times doesn’t mean it’s going to come up black on the next one, right? That’s how they get you. You roll your dice or roll your, uh, place, your bets. They throw the ball comes up. Red gets people all the time. So just because we see this trend, this pattern, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump doesn’t mean that the next one is going to be Trump, but it certainly certainly does look that way. Right? All of these are trending in one direction that raises your eyebrow. All right. Wayne County refused to certify. So that came in from James, Ms. Clark said, what a, what? A big opinion.
Uh, I’m going to have to look into that. Cause somebody else also mentioned Wayne County out in Michigan, but I just have not seen it yet. It probably, it was literally happening as we were hopping on to do this broadcast. So gaming parasite asks a big question. Can Trump win this election? I think he can. Yeah. I think it’s still possible. It’s going to require a lot. Right? He’s got to do very well. Something dramatically has to happen in order to change the course because the lawsuits, you know, they’re looking like they’ve got some merit, Rudy Giuliani sort of flew in into Pennsylvania today, filed his appearance yesterday. He actually wanted a continuance. They wanted to see bump out today’s court hearing a few more days. So they had more time to prepare. And the judge said, no, we’re going to have the hearing anyway.
So they’re scrambling. They’re really trying to cobble together a claim to keep that Pennsylvania case alive. And I don’t even know what the outcome of it is yet. We may not know until tomorrow. So, you know, he’s got to see some victories in the legal world, or he’s got to have some pretty damning new evidence that is yet to come out and at, you know, at this moment in time, I would say it’s certainly a long shot, but that doesn’t mean that, uh, that it’s over right. Donald Trump is somebody who is, remember what this guy has accomplished. Remember when he was running for president, he wiped out like 19 different Republicans during the primary. Everybody was calling him a clown and a joke and a loser. And he’s no, no chance, no chance, no chance. W 19 Republicans come and go made fools of everybody. Uh, you know, Rand, Paul and Jeb Bush guacamole, Jeb Bush, you know, Jeb exclamation point Bush.
All of these different people were here, Heavy hitters in the Republican party. He just tore right through him then goes on tears, right through Hillary Clinton in the same way everybody thought he was going to lose this thing.
It was game over 8%.
It was 92 to eight. And we all sat there in 2016 and watched one of the most incredible things I’ve ever seen in my life happen right before our eyes, you know, somebody against all odds wins. And, um, he is that type of personality. And he’s been in the, in the, in control of a lot of the levers of power for quite some time. And so it may sound a little bit kind of conspiratorial. And what, what does that 2018 executive order what’s coming? You know, what’s left out there and I’m open to seeing I’m open to waiting and seeing, and at least having a conversation about it because it’s a lot more exciting that way. It’s a lot more entertaining. I think it’s a lot more useful. It’s a lot more productive way to talk about this stuff rather than just pigeonholing yourself into one side of the aisle or the other, you know, I don’t know.
I don’t know whether he’s going to win the election or not. I do think something dramatically needs to change because based on the evidence that we have in front of us, I do not think he has any successful claims. I mean, there’s a lot of smoke there. There’s a lot of problems. I myself have a lot of concerns with the elections and support full audits. Not because I think it’s going to change the outcome, but just because I think that there’s enough in the world that have some questions about this election, myself included that an audit does more harm than good. It gives us more answers. Not less, it satiates people. It doesn’t agitate people. It gives people what they want. We get more clarity. The country can come together and move past this thing. Because remember if there’s 70 million people who think that this was all a fraud, that’s not good for anybody, but if we can come back and say, look, all right, guys, we did an audit.
We can’t, we recounted in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. We did Arizona. Even we did Nevada. We did them all and they all came back and they’re all clear. I think a second set of eyes would do a lot to satiate those individuals who are feeling uneasy about how this all went down and there’s, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m okay with that. I think it’s, I think it’s pertinent. It’s good for America. I think it’s something that we probably should have done a long time ago. Now’s a really good time to have a serious conversation about how we run our elections because it’s probably going to get worse. There’s probably going to be more opportunities for malfeasance and cheating and more, uh, you know, backroom deals and more, more hands in the pot of who controls the levers of power in Washington. And we want to make sure that it’s done legitimately.
It’s done by the book. And if, if we’re already doing it by the book, great. Let’s just confirm it and move on. We’ll see how that goes. Good question. Giving parasite. I think Trump’s still can win. I think it’s a little bit of a long shot, but there’s still a lot of ball game left to play. All right. So that’s it for the super chats. Thank you so much, everybody. Just a ton of support there. I appreciate it. All right. Let’s jump into some of the other chats. We have one from dad five to seven, Trump use watermarks and blockchain on the balance, and that will come out in the evidence and show all of the people that were involved in this scam. I’ve heard that I haven’t seen any evidence of that, but I would like to, uh, I’d like to dive into that when it comes out, Jeff Green says, what about Zuckerberg and Dorsey answering to every question from the senators?
Oh, senators. I’m not aware of that. Why doesn’t someone ask them? Well, what do you know then? Yeah. You know, I had some clips, that’s kind of what I skipped over here. I had some clips from Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, but I was watching them. And they’re not even interesting. I mean, it’s just these two guys just saying, I don’t know anything about anything. Uh, we’ll look into it. I can’t answer that question for you. Uh, everything we’re doing is fine. We’re just, you know, it’s, it’s useless, which is why people are asking. Uh, do you think that there’s anything that can be done about big tech? And I just don’t think so. Uh, they’re just, they’re just going to continue doing what they do until the American people decide to move on and migrate over to different technology. Jorgen Johnson says, did you did U S army forces raid a server in Frankfurt, Germany.
I looked all over the internet and left-wing media says it never happened in a right wing. Media says it absolutely did. Yeah. Jordan, I don’t know the answer to that. I’m in the same boat as you. I poked around. I saw some people in on Twitter posting it. I saw some post elsewhere indicating that this was all taking place, that there was a big server farm seizure from one of these foreign countries. And that’s part of the reason why I wanted to lay the framework on the executive order today, because part of that 2018 executive order that Donald Trump passed was specifically authorizing the U S government U S assets to go in and do certain things in order to secure our elections. Many of them were sort of on the export control side of the conversation. In other words, you can’t, uh, you know, they, they, they can seize your funds, seize assets, make financial difficulties for these foreign actors and, you know, impose sanctions and all that other stuff.
But one of them was, you know, they can go and investigate it and they can, they can use some of the Armed, uh, uh, resources that the United States has to go in and conduct some of that business. So I am also curious about that, but I haven’t seen it. I haven’t seen it confirmed anywhere. So we haven’t spoken about it.
David M says, Robert, will this end up at the Supreme court? I think there’s a good likelihood of that. Yeah, I have. I think there’s a good likelihood of that. A wasp venom lemonade says Biden, Harris rallies were mostly empty all year yet. We’ve been stuck in our houses, unable to vet opinions with other Americans, or we’d have realized upfront nobody was going to vote for Biden. Yeah. Interesting point on that in equals blockchain security on voting, we have, it all says Kevin Sanders.
He said the Angelo says Zuckerberg. And the homeless guy learned from our politics, politicians deny and deflect. Yeah. Some of the most useless hearings, no answers. Nothing’s going to change. They know that they have a tremendous amount of power. They know that they don’t even have to answer questions in front of the senators. What are they going to do? What are the senators going to do? Nothing. Aaron CV says great job, Robin Fe. Thanks Erin. Thanks for being here. Thanks for your super chats. Thanks for your chats in general. Thanks for your participation. We have William Reynolds who says the cages were full when Trump took over another twisted story to turn everyone against him. And guess who came out with the story of the ones who created it? We have vests. I have an OB who says Trump has set up the perfect trap and the Dems walked in. Yeah, I’ll be curious to see if that happens. If that comes to fruition, McCain’s revenge has the civil war happening in the USA is the one taking place in the rep party. So it must be the Republican party between the psychobabble conspiracy theorist and the conservative fam family value oriented, God fearing, Republican fist bump. All right, we have, let’s see, Lucinda Roaz says if evidence existed, we would see it by now. So I, I sort of was of that mindset, but remember, you know, this we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re just getting close to probably about a third of the way in this thing. And a lot of the stuff was triggered as a result of the election. So a lot of stuff went into effect on November 3rd. Uh, every, everybody sprung an action on that time. And today is two weeks from that date. That’s not that much time. I’ve, I’ve provided context several times on this channel about how long cases take, okay, a personal injury case. If you get hit in a car accident, it may take two years to get your case resolved. It might DUI cases. They can last six months, anything with a serious, serious allegation, like, you know, murder, rape, or sexual assault or any of those crimes years, one year, 18 months normal. To what we’re asking the Trump team to do is to generate one of the biggest claims.
One of the most earth shattering revelations, one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public. We’re saying, we need you to cram all this stuff together, get it done in two weeks. And then let us all know that this earth shattering material, uh, it is what it is like. They deserve a little bit of Slack. It’s going to be a little bit of a slow rollout. Again, I’m, I’m the same mindset. I’m impatient as anybody. I want to see it. I’m tired of, uh, of this tick tock stuff. This slow drip. Well, we’re going to release it tomorrow. We’re going to release it tomorrow. We’re going to release, uh, you know, Sidney Powell released three screenshots with very little confirming information. We have no idea who wrote that statement, right? It’s a pretty damning statement. If it comes from somebody credible, if it doesn’t, then it’s just another affidavit from somebody who saw something somewhere, sometime it’s not going to be consequential, but it’s a good, good question.
All right. Zoom blue says way too much fake news thus far to expect to be taken seriously based on further alternative facts when in court, which is a good point. Yeah. The courts I think, are going to be, are going to be arbiters on a lot of this stuff. We have Ty Savage who says, why does YouTube use an Illuminati pyramid icon on your video as an option to subscribe? So that’s actually, I think one of our eyeballs. So in our logo, I think w Ms. Ms. Faith would know where that is located. I don’t remember where that’s at, but, uh, it’s, it’s, it’s the all seeing eyes. It’s part of the watching the Watchers logo. You know, that that logo is something that we put in our main brand. And so I think it’s just an icon on our, but I’m not part of the Illuminati.
All right. I’m not part of the Illuminati. All right. Um, breaking Jenna Ellis. This comes from only observing, breaking. Jenna Ellis says, uh, posted at the board of canvassers in Wayne County, Michigan refused to certify the election results. Very interesting. We have omniscient who says at RNR law group, just a lurker, but appreciate the content. Thanks, omniscient. Appreciate you. Lurking here. I’m a lurker myself. I love to look. I was looking in our discord last night and then, uh, who wasn’t mob. The Fox called me out ma are very loyal moderator here, uh, called me out. Cause I put a little eyeball icon. He called me and said, Rob’s a Lorcan in there. I do the same thing. All right, James, Crosier said you support more audits because they do more harm than good. And earlier you mixed up saying all the mistakes are going in the favor of Trump and against Biden, which is wrong.
Again, you got dyslexia. So that comes from James Crosier. Um, I don’t have dyslexia. I usually am speaking extemporaneously here. This show is live. I don’t have any notes when I do these live streams. So I’m just kind of riffing off the cuff here. And if I make mistakes, I am sure you’re going to grant me some leeway on that because you’re a very nice kind and reasonable person. And I will double check on my dyslexia, but I think I’m okay there. We have Rick Zachary who says Trump’s been exposing truth. His whole term. It would be fine with me if he has all the corruption jailed from the Clintons to China, to Russia and so on. Uh, we have ginger Connor who said there’s ma MAs in the house as hahaha, period, ginger conure, uh, wrong voted for Biden. God told me to Laurie.
Newman says, if you know anything about investigations, they have to get all their ducks in a row before they let it all out. That is is true. We have spin Beck, Becker who says Instagram is still hiding recent hashtags, big tech, Facebook and Twitter are suppressing info. Why sensor, if the election was fair and technically over this censoring shows, there was collusion in my opinion. And yeah, I think that’s a great point, actually. And it’s a big reason that we talk so much about this stuff here. I get nothing irritates me more than censorship. Nothing irritates me more than squashing conversation. The slapping down ideas. I think conversation, the Socratic method, having a dialogue, asking questions is so fundamental to everything that we do as Americans. That’s why it’s in the first amendment because it’s that important. It is so critical. You cannot have a functioning system that provides for self-governance.
If you don’t have conversations about it. So all of these people who are telling me to shut up and stop talking about this and calling me a conspiracy theorist, I have colleagues who are other defense attorneys around Arizona, who, you know, who said things to me, that’s like, all right, going to keep on going, because it’s that important. We’re going to keep talking about this stuff. It does more good than harm. It’s harmful to squash ideas and to shut people up and to say, you’re not allowed to talk about that, or you’re going on a list that is not what we want in America. That is not what we want anywhere in the world. We want people to be able to express themselves, to be able to have conversations about the idea about these ideas. Because if we don’t, people are going to isolate, they’re going to be talking about it.
And they’re going to feel very shut in. They’re going to feel very, very cornered and that’s not good for anybody. It’s not good for Joe Biden. It’s not good for Donald Trump. It’s not good for anybody on this live stream. It’s not good for America. In general, we want to talk about these things. We will keep doing it. We have a lava Java lava, which is a fantastic name with a super Chet, says what was dominion software used in the 2016 elections? I don’t know. I’m presuming that it was, I’m going to guess that most States didn’t swap software in the last four years. And my understanding is that dominion is used in 26 different States around the country. So I’m going to guess that some of them were used in 2016, which is a great point, right? I’ve said several times on this program, why are the Democrats not investigating this stuff?
In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin and Michigan. And I think Pennsylvania just by a handful of votes, smaller margins are or margins equal to, to Donald Trump’s margins right now he’s contesting it. Hillary Clinton could have contested it. She could have said, uh, the Republicans were engaged in fraud. The Democrats could still make the claim. Republicans were engaged in fraud, but they don’t really want to talk about it too much for some reason. It’s weird. Very, very interesting. Isn’t it. All right, James Clark dropped down another super chat. James Clark is just such an awesome supporter. Thank you, James. No question on that. Um, let’s see. A couple other questions. Ginger. Conyers has sitting here with COVID-19. My husband is fighting for his life from COVID-19. Please pray for us. Please understand that COVID-19 is real and not fun. So that’s from ginger conure, ginger. My thoughts, my heart, my prayers with you and your family.
My family went through through COVID this summer. My mom and my brother were in the hospital for 48 days. My brother has down syndrome and it really hits people with down syndrome. Very, very hard. It was a long ordeal, but they made it. They pulled through, uh, they told us several times that Joey wasn’t gonna make it. He was on a bypass machine because they couldn’t intubate him with a ventilator because his nostrils are too small because of the down syndrome. It was a long ordeal. It was a long, long couple months, but he made it a lot of prayers. I was dropping off food and a cherry Coke at the hospital very regularly. And so just keep your head, keep your head down, you know, keep your head focused, stay where you need to, to, to stay support your, your husband, your family. Say your prayers.
You’ll get through it. Your thoughts are in, uh, my thoughts are with you and I’m sure many people on this channel as well. So thanks for sharing that with us. Best of luck to you. Alright. Um, Kyle Julie says, Hey, my daughter has down syndrome. Yeah, that was, you know, there’s, they’re, they’re amazing people. They’re the best people on the planet. Anybody with down syndrome, if you don’t know anybody with down syndrome, go make a down syndrome friend. Kay. They’re the best people on the planet. Easily. Not even close. They’ll do anything for you. All right, let’s take a couple others. And then we’re going to get out of here. We have Teresa to Angelo says I’m from Tucson, Arizona. A lot of railroad union workers are still voting Dem, but there are some of us that see through their BS. Thousands of Trump, 2020 supporters.
Here, we have Frank McKay who says, if you were doing the cheating instill lost you don’t challenge because you’re cheating will show. That’s a good point. All right, we have Zorro who says good thing. They didn’t ventilate him. That turned out to kill 95% in New York. Yeah, we, we were, we were very grateful for the care that he received and he did pull through. And so it is, uh, it’s about that time folks. We got one more Superchat that came in from David C says, Michigan secretary of state makes clear the Wayne County canvasing deadlock will not stop. The eventual certification of the votes. SOS will make the decision. So that’s from David C. I’m going to hop off right now and actually take a look at some of this Michigan stuff. Wayne County seems like it is making the news. And, uh, that will be curious now on that point.
Yeah. I mean the deadlock, of course, of course the votes will eventually be certified, but the question is, why are they not being certified now? What is the problem? And that’s going to leave a lot of, a lot of people with some questions and hopefully they dig into it and they get some good answers. So I want to thank everybody for being here, being part of the program. Uh, love doing this, this, this program. I learned a lot and I really enjoy speaking with all of you. I’m gonna thank you so much. If you’re not a regular of the show, hit the subscribe button. We do the show every day at this time. Uh, so it’s 4:00 PM Western time, 5:00 PM here in Arizona, we don’t do daylight savings. Then you’ve got 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM Eastern. We go for about an hour, an hour and a half, sometimes a little bit longer than that, depending on what’s going on.
And we want you to be a part of the conversation as a reminder, if you’re not a part of our discord, that’s our chat. We, so we could have people talking before the show, after the show. And after I get off speaking with you, I go and I actually upload my slides into the chat so that you can get access to them. See some of our sources flip through the slides, click the links and do whatever you would like to do with them. Even share them with a family member or a friend and invite them to come and join this channel. Sharing the show is really the best way that you can help the channel grow. We want to have this conversation with more people so that there’s more good, helpful conversations about really what’s going on in our country. Not so much about, you know, this really, really angry news on either side of the aisle.
I want people to be able to talk and discourse and have good discourse where we can think and use logic and use reason and navigate through these issues together. So I want to thank you once again for being here, hit the subscribe button. And one last reminder, if you are, if you know somebody in the state of Arizona, so somebody within Arizona, who’s been charged with a crime. That’s our day job. That’s what my team and I do. We’ve got an amazing team, several different lawyers here who are very good at what they do. And we love to help good people. We want to just help them get back on track. And we want to make sure that the justice system doesn’t wreck them so that they don’t come out on the other end with their life ruined and everything, a loss. We want to help put them back on a good straight and narrow path. And so we would be honored if you had anybody who you think we could help. We’d love it. If you’d send them our way. Once again, the last once again, thank you so much, everybody have a great evening. I will see you back here tomorrow. Same time, same place. We’ll get into it again. I look forward to seeing you then have a wonderful evening. Bye-bye.