loader image

Hello, everybody. Welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler. I am a criminal defense attorney here in Scottsdale, Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing serious criminal charges. And over the course of our time in representation, we have, we’ve seen a lot of misconduct. We’ve seen a lot of problems with our justice system in particular, involving the police. We’re talking about issues involving prosecutors. We have judicial misconduct and even political malfeasance. A lot of the time it’s local, but sometimes this stuff is happening on the national scale, which we’ve been spending a lot of time. These last two weeks discussing in particular, the fallout from the 2020 election, Donald Trump versus Joe Biden. We had a big news day today. We’ve been really diving into all of the legal maneuvering that’s going on around the country.

And today was a big one. We had a team meeting from Trump’s legal team called the strike force. They called themselves the elite strike force and they were coming in to detail their opening statement and what their plan is in terms of litigation and also public persuasion in order to reverse the course of this election. So we’re going to get into that today, but before we dive into that, that’s going to be the meat and potatoes of this whole program. Want to give you a quick update on what is going on out of Michigan as well? Yesterday, we were in this weird sort of hiatus mode, where there was a, uh, two individuals from the Michigan board of canvassers who refuse to certify the election. Then they reverse course, and then they reverse course again. So they went from refusing to certify it, to certifying it, to now wanting to rescind the certification.

And there’s a lot of headlines going around about this, that these people are now sort of, you know, being commandeered by the Trump team and, uh, they’re racist and so on. And so I actually got the affidavit from one of the people on the board, and I want to run through that because I think they’re kind of missing the point. And then finally want to give you a little bit of an update on what the congressional Republicans are doing in the Congress and in the house of representatives for the United States. And so if you’re not a regular of the program, now’s a good time to hit that subscribe button. We go live at this time every day. And I would also encourage you to join the discord where there’s a link that you’ll see in the description where our chats take place both before and after the show.

And as a reminder, miss faith and ma are in the chat room, they’re moderating the chat. They want to keep things civil and pleasant and friendly and productive. And so we would ask you to follow some of those rules. In addition to that, if you do have any life, uh, I’m sorry, uh, super chats or any pertinent questions, please feel free to put those in. They’re going to be, uh, screen capping those. And they send them over to me. I saved them for the end of the show when we do our live chat, but for now let’s get into the presentation. So as we always like to do, we want to frame our discussion about this strike team and about all of this election, uh, tomfoolery that’s going on. We want to add some context and say, where are we at in this whole thing?

Because many people wake up and they think, you know, th every single day is just a day of pain watching the news, they get anxiety, they get a lot of fear and it’s just very stressful. And many people are thinking, this should be overall ready on one side of the aisle on the other side of the aisle, they’re saying, well, there’s, this is just simple due process. We have a plenty of time. We’ve got plenty of deadlines. So why can’t we just continue to investigate it? And I would put myself at this point in time in that latter camp, because this is really what it looks like. This is the election certification calendar we’ve been following the bouncing smiley face throughout the days. And you can see here, we’re on the 19th, which means we’ve got about three and a half weeks until electors day.

A lot of the States have certification deadlines that come before that. And on the eighth is when we’re going to have the nomination day, essentially, where they finalize the or appointments on the eighth. But really until the 14th, there’s plenty of time. There’s a lot of time for these legal arguments and for due process and for audits and all sorts of different lawsuits and claims to be made. That’s just how the process works. I know a lot of people are unhappy about that. A lot of people think that Donald Trump is ruining America by challenging this stuff. But the law is what it is. He’s got some ability to continue to fight this. You may say his claims are without merit and the courts may agree with you and the public may agree with you, but according to the rules, he still has some time and he can exercise that time.

So we’re going to give them that time, but that’s where we’re at. We’re sort of right. Kind of getting close to the middle of this window, where these claims can continue to be made. Now, we also talk about the vote challenges and the vote balance not much has changed from yesterday. We still see in a number of different States, we’ve got pending lawsuits. We’ve got a partial recount that has been started in Wisconsin. Donald Trump was down by 316,000 votes yesterday. Today he closed the gap just a little bit. So actually, yeah, so yesterday 316,400 votes today, 316,000. He basically jumped up in, in 400 votes. So that’s where he’s at currently a big gap, right? A big number of votes. And we’ve been talking about that, that the hurdle here, a lot about how much work needs to be done, essentially he’s got a win in multiple different States and find these big buckets of votes that need to be thrown out because they’re illegal, they’re unlawful, that’s one strategy.

The other strategy is just to kind of bypass the courts, short circuit, the courts go to the legislature. And I’m going to talk more about that because now we’re getting into some really, really sticky areas. And I want to spend a little bit of time on that when we get there before we do, let’s talk about what’s going on in Michigan. So yesterday we talked about the, the whole certification problem that was taking place there. And there was a lot of, a lot of fallout on the internet surrounding this whole thing. And I think it’s kind of the reason why I want to spend some time on this is because this might be the first of a pattern that we see the woman that we’re talking about here, Monica Palmer. She was the, the chief, the, uh, the chairperson on the board of canvassers for a particular County in Wayne County out in Michigan.

And she was part of the group that certifies, that County did a good with their ballots and with their election integrity and the, the election process, they certify it. Then it gets transferred over to the state. The state will then certify it and nominate their electors. And those electors will cast their votes on December 14th. Well, starting at the very bottom Monica Palmer, she didn’t want to certify these things. And now everybody is saying, well, she’s just a racist. You know, this is somebody who doesn’t want to certify a Wayne County, which is apparently where Detroit is. I don’t know much about Michigan in general, but saying, you know, this is a highly, highly, uh, African-American demographic. If you’re going to be disenfranchising these voters, there’s no other rationale for it. Other than you are a racist. And we saw that yesterday from some other members who were on the board of canvassers, we saw that they were basically, you know, borderline doxing, her, her kids mentioning where they go to school by name, you know, whatever the name of the school was.

And, you know, becoming very, very vitriolic and very, very aggressive. And again, as is everything, the country is very divided on that. There were people slam dunking. High-fiving both those guys on Twitter all day yesterday. Well, many of us, myself included thought that was a little bit uncomfortable. You know, here’s a woman who probably has a good reason for what she is doing. I can, I can’t imagine that she just got to be the chairperson and was elected and nominated, and then kind of, you know, put through this whole process to get where she’s at. And then

Only just become a racist, just become, you know, hate, hate black people for some reason.

And it just didn’t make much sense to me, but we’re going to go through it. So she actually filed an affidavit. So yesterday, while we were sort of broadcasting yesterday last night at 9:33 PM on November 18th, she put out this affidavit signed and notarized. So you can see this as the last page of the document, but I wanted to start here so that you can see, yeah, this, she signed it. Somebody notarized it. This is her. And she did this late last night. And so let’s run through this because the current allegation that she’s is a racist. And the only reason she refused to certify this stuff

Is because of that fact, because she has a problem with minorities

Or something to that effect. But is there another reason, is there any other reason why she would have potentially refuse to certify this? And let me frame this out just a little bit more. So one of the other main complaints was that the reason she’s not certifying Wayne

County is, is clearly racist because previously in

Previous election, specifically this year during the primaries, she certified it. So wait a minute. So what happened? So she certified this in August, and then now in November, there’s a second election and she doesn’t certify it. Well, the only reason that people are ascribing to her is that this is a bigger election. This is a political election. And now she’s got a candidate that she’s

Invested in that she wants to see when

It’s nothing but partisanship and racism. That’s what the allegation was that we heard that from Ned Stabler and some of these other guys yesterday. And that is what a lot of the people, even a lot of people that I read and respect, that’s what they’re saying. They’re saying there’s no basis for this. All she’s doing is just, you know, cowing up to Donald Trump. Apparently she got a phone call from him the night, uh, you know, immediately after she reversed her vote. And then now she’s flipping it again. So people are mad at him for influencing her and all this stuff. And my, my, my question is, what does she have to say about this? Right? Everybody’s ascribing all of these different thoughts and all of these different beliefs to this woman. What does she have to say? Well, we now know we have an affidavit, so let’s run through it and see what she has to talk about.

So, as I mentioned, she starts off here saying, I’m the chairperson of Wayne County board of canvassers, right? So she’s the chairperson. This isn’t just somebody who’s brand new. She’s been doing this for a while. You know, a lot of the ways that these boards work is if somebody starts off as a, as a newly elected member, they serve on the, on the board for a number of years. And then they move sort of move into the chairperson position. You have a vice chair, deputy chair for one year, sort of like a vice-president, then you move up to the presidency. But before that, you’re a secretary and so on. And so I don’t know if that’s how that works here, but you know, she’s the point is you don’t just become a chairperson out of the blue. They just didn’t pick somebody who has no experience.

This person has been doing this presumably for awhile. That’s why she’s the chairperson. She says, I’m the chairperson. And she talks about the board. It’s a four member board, two Republicans, two Democrats. And she starts talking about this Michigan primary. So I put the question Mark here. What is she talking about? Why are we talking about the primaries? This is all about the general election. And she goes on and she, and she explains that there was a primary election. She went to the meeting on October 18th, the board reviewed the primary election. And then at a later date, as reflected in the meeting minutes, the election director, a guy by the name of Gregory Maher, he gave the board a report and it included the following findings. So they have the primary election. Somebody writes a report about it. And in that report, you see these, these several bullet points, number one.

So let’s, let’s frame this out, okay? She’s not talking about the current election. She’s talking about the primaries during the primaries. They get this report after August, this report comes back and there’s all these different complaints, staff encounter difficulties while trying to canvas. He indicated in his report that aside from receiving poll books on the first Friday and Sunday, the list of voters received, made it difficult to determine how many voters actually return their ballot. So they don’t know how many voters are returning their ballot. He reported and so on. You know, the two lists combined put the precincts severely out of balance. So there’s a problem identified another problem. He also reported that the difficulties they encountered were trying to w that they had, when they were trying to re tabulate any of the absentee precincts that were also out of ballot talks about the election management system and said that when multiple precincts are scanned within a batch, it makes it nearly impossible to retaliate a precinct without potentially disrupting a perfectly balanced precinct.

So what they’re talking is, you know, they’re, they’re trying to sort of balance their books. Like you would balance a checking account there. They’re saying how many went out? How many came back in, they’re trying to get their numbers, right? And during the August primary, there were all sorts of problems there as director Maha is reporting back to her and, and, and Monica Palmer is putting this in her affidavit. She also says a different person director, a deputy director, Jennifer Redmond reported on irregularities that she encountered while also trying to re tabulate the out of balance precinct. She indicated that in some stat, in, in some cases, the staff couldn’t do it because the number of physical ballots counted in the container did not match the number of voters, according to the poll book. So mismatch numbers, staff requested the applications. Both containers had fewer ballots than the number of voters, according to the poll.

But what was strange is there also appeared to be missing applications and so on. And so these are the bullet points that she’s mentioning that came from the primary, right? A lot of problems, they identified these different issues. They talked about them, they got a report and they had some things that they needed to solve. And so what happened next? She goes on, this is now her talking again. This is not from the findings, but she says here that it was reported that in the August, 2020 primary, that 72% of Detroit’s absentee voting precincts were out of balance. Right? Very, very big number there. After the discussion among the boards, I voted with all of the other canvassers in a unanimous vote in favor of certifying that election. Okay. So this is where people start to have a problem. So they’re saying, wait, wait a minute.

In August, 2020, we had a huge problem. We had 72% of our absentee voting precincts that were out of balance, but you voted to certify those. You did that now. You’re not, what’s the reason it must be because you’re just a racist and you love Donald Trump, but is there another, is there another reason let’s look back at the very next paragraph number, paragraph number nine, there’s a page, a gap here on, I didn’t cut anything out. This is just a page gap. Although certifying the primary election results, all board members expressed serious concerns about the irregularities and the inaccuracies. The board unanimously approved a proposed joint resolution titled requesting a state election monitor and investigation. And then this is what they actually settled on. So the point here is that they identified a problem. They put together a joint resolution because all of the board members had serious concerns about the irregularities.

Then they go in and they say, now this is all legal language. Now, therefore be it resolved that the board of canvassers and so on, they request the secretary of state appoint a monitor to supervise the training and the administration of the city of Detroit absentee voter, counting records. And so on the board of canvassers request, an investigation be conducted for the state of elections, into the training and processes used by the city of Detroit into the August, 2020 primary election. Right? So what they’re trying to do is solve the problem. They had the primaries in August, they said, all right, listen, we’re going to certify this thing, but there is a pretty big problem. 72% of our absentee voting precincts are out of balance. Why is that? Why can we not reconcile these different precincts? They said, all right, well, look, we’re going to certify it here, but we’re going to pass this joint resolution.

We wanted an investigation into this, and we want a solution, which is what everybody’s missing. That’s a pretty big paragraph there. Paragraph nine that says, we look, everybody here knew this was a problem. We said, we’re going to certify it as long as we fix it. But then there was no fix. That’s what, that’s what happened. That’s why she didn’t want to continue to move forward. She continued. She says here on November 3rd, the general election was held. I went to observe at the TCF center. Since November 5th, I went to Wayne County canvas almost every day and help the staff on November 17th. There was a board of canvassers there that was scheduled to start at three, but didn’t until four 46. And when they started the meeting at four 46, this was the one that we saw some of the clips from, from Ned Stabler and someone else.

He said, uh, she says, I was given a report on the final canvas. We were not given an executive summary, which was customary at most other certification meetings. During this meeting, I determined yet again, 70% of Detroit’s 134 apps in voter counting boards. The ABCB did not balance no explanation as to why. So the meeting runs way late. She’s not giving her executive summary. She’s given a report, that’s it? She runs the numbers again. Determines 70% is the same problem. As previously vice chair. Kinlock made a motion to certify the vote. I noted our prior reservations about unbalanced precincts in August, 2020. And I said, the record has discrepancies and irregularities. It’s not complete. I voted not to certify after my vote, the democratic colleagues chided me and mr. Hartman before for their vote. Remember this guy, net Stabler. He says, after the vote public comment began and they were making accusations of racism.

They threatened me and members of my family. I, I continued the public comment continued for over two hours and I felt pressure to continue the meeting without break. After several hours, somebody else proposed a resolution vice chair can lock. Then she’s approached by another attorney who is the Wayne County corporate counsel. Janet Anderson told me that I had to certify the vote that night tells her. I have, you have to certify it. She told members that their role was ministerial. They could not use their discretion on matters. Like the record being incomplete. We were told that discretion was outside the board’s authority. In other words, you have to vote to certify this thing. You don’t have any discretion. You don’t have any choice. After being told by that attorney, I could not use my discretion. I believed I had no choice, but to certify the results, despite my desire to oppose the certification based on the incomplete record.

Additionally, we were presented with a resolution that promised a full, independent audit that would present answers to the incomplete record. I voted to agree based on the promise, the independent audit would occur. I would not have agreed to vote on a certified, but for that promise of a full and independent audit, she goes on and says that the vice chairman. So the person who’s also on the board gave her a shirt that says that it would result in a full, independent audit of the unbalanced precincts relied on that insurance it’s called detrimental reliance in order to certify the election based on that assurance without the assurance, I would not have voted. Then she learned later that evening, after she finally voted that secretary of state Jocelyn Benson, who actually governs the elections, she made a statement saying that she did not view our audit resolution to be binding. And therefore I rescind my prior vote because they’ve entered into an agreement that was supposed to be binding, but it wasn’t. And so there’s a contract that was broken. She believes the Wayne County should not be certified. And so on. She’s still should not be certified signed it. And

That’s it right? That’s that’s the reason. And to me, that sounds pretty, pretty dang reasonable. She saw a problem. She was

A part of a resolution to say, look, this is a big problem. We have to fix this in August. They had August, September, October, November. Same problem comes back up in November. Okay.

This time. Yes. Presumably it’s a

Much bigger issue. It is a much bigger election, right? The first ones were primaries. This is the general. And so now she’s coming back and saying, look, none of the problems were fixed. It’s the same problem that we had. Last time we appointed the special resolution. We had all of this different, you know, this was supposed to be solved. In other words, it wasn’t, therefore I have some concerns. It’s not like she’s making this stuff up out of thin air. She already raised these issues previously during the primaries, as the chairperson of the board of canvassers, that’s her job. Her job is to go out there and make sure that these things are

Done properly with no impropriety. And she tried to solve that. It sounds like previously, now it’s the same issue.

Nothing got fixed. That’s why she doesn’t want to certify it, but that’s not what people are saying. Everybody’s saying that she’s a racist and this whole thing is all political sport. And I’m sure it is political, right? She’s a Republican, there’s no question in my mind, it’s political. If this were another primary, maybe she would say, yeah, you know, that’s another, we should probably, uh, you know, a point another investigation or something like that. But the primaries are less consequential than the general election. So of course, she’s going to, to really want to ensure that this election goes her way. And as a Republican, as somebody who is a partisan, you would expect her to call attention to the problems. So how can you fault somebody for doing their job?

Well, it’s because they, haven’t

Nothing else to say. They just call her a racist and call her a partisan hack. This is what she’s intending to do. This is her job. And I feel, I feel, you know, kind of a shame that a lot of the people who are in our governments who are doing what they’re supposed to be doing get so, so berated from everybody else in the world, it’s, it’s mind blowing to me. This is why people don’t want to go into government because you can’t get in there and do anything without impugning, your family, impugning, your reputation. This woman’s probably gonna forever be known as Monica Palmer, the racist from Michigan, you know, because of a certain contingent of this country that just can’t understand how this process works. They don’t even want to read her affidavit or listen to her explanation. It’s automatically, she’s a racist and she’s trying to undermine American democracy. And this it’s there, there, there was just no evidence for that. I haven’t seen any evidence that she’s a racist or that those were her intentions, but,

Or affidavit is, is

I think a very good explanation yet. A lot of the political commentators and the legal commentators, in fact around the internet are just glossing over that glossing over the fact that she had brought this up previously. Now she’s getting some support. It looks like in her, in her state. So, uh, you know, one of the important things that the reasons why I really wanted to spend a little time on this is, well, we’re going to get there in a minute. Let me show you some support from some other people who are in Michigan. This is from Senator Lana theist, and she filed this, this letter today. She said, I delivered a letter to the Michigan secretary of state signed by over 32,000 Michigan residents requesting an independent audit of the November 3rd election. And so you can see her down there. Um, you know, state, Senator, somebody who wrote a very long letter, I’ll, uh, I’ll give you the high level overview here.

Basically what she’s saying is that a lot of the issues warrant additional investigation. So she first starts by talking about antrum County. We saw that there was a glitch there County counties, one of 47 counties in Michigan. They use the software that was issued by dominion. So it’s a lot of the same claims that we’ve already heard about. She goes through and you can see in all these different bullet points, she’s talking about counting ineligible ballots, instructing poll workers to backdate ballots. Some ballots were counted multiple times, duplicated ballots, illegally accepted ballots deposited, and Dropbox is after the deadline coach voters to vote for a particular candidate and so on. And so we’ve talked about a lot of this on this channel. We made a list of all the different types of fraud that we’ve seen, or at least, you know, claims that we’ve worked through.

And this is one of those letters. Now, you know, this is something that I think once you start to see some people in local government stand up a little bit, there may be this domino effect. You know, one person will start it, but it’s going to trigger somebody else. And then you may just see the Domino’s continue to fall. And this is why I think this is so important. You know, this is somebody who is actually on a board of electoral of elections. She’s a canvasser, she’s somebody who’s making these decisions. She’s a decision maker. And so how she handled this, it may be a guideline or at least, you know, waving a flag to other people who are on these different boards around the country to do something like this. And I think that both sides, you know, both, both Donald Trump, which I think is part of their goal is ordered, is to get more people to do that stuff.

But the Democrats and, and, you know, a lot of people are going to be paying close attention to what these people that you would audit. You would ordinarily just sort of presume are in the process. They told her you’re a ministerial. You don’t get any choice in the matter. You don’t get any say, you have to certify this thing. Well, a lot of these people who’ve never been in the spotlight are now in the spotlight and they’re not used to this type of attention. So we’re going to see how more and more people like this handle it, and we’ll continue to follow along. So let’s change gears. And I spent a lot of time on that, but let’s talk about the big news of the day, which is the Strikeforce Donald Trump’s legal team. He posted earlier this morning at about 6:00 AM, that there was going to be an important news conference today by lawyers on a very clear and viable path to victory pieces are very nicely falling into place the RNC at 12:00 PM. So this was the big news. Now, a lot of people on both sides of the aisle have been really waiting for this day. They’ve been really wanting

To see what the legal team is going to do, how they’re going to flush out their claims and where it’s going to go from here. And I gotta, I gotta, I got to flush this out a little bit before we dive into this, because this is a sensitive topic. A lot of people today are very angry with what they saw. I’ve seen a lot of this all over the internet. People are, are, are basically outraged about what they heard in this press conference. And if you’re a Donald Trump fan, if you’re in the Donald Trump camp might be a good thing, right? That may, that may feel good because it means that a lot of people are scared or they’re concerned, or they’re nervous about what the, the, the press conference revealed. On the other side of the aisle. You have a lot of people who say this is very dangerous for democracy.

This is something that, you know, could, could very lead to basically a reversal of the electoral process, an overthrow of the people’s will. And so, you know, very, very high tensions, very, very high volumes on both sides. People say that the election election is being stolen. People saying that Donald Trump is, is literally trying to steal it back. So everybody’s claiming that somebody stealing something and the, the, the pressure, the volume, the temperature is very high. So let’s explain a little bit about how I want to approach this analysis, because I’m probably going to get, uh, grief from, from all different angles. But let me explain how I’m sort of thinking about this. I want to talk about the concept of normative versus descriptive. So this is something that we talk about in law school. Typically your first year of law school, it’s a, it’s a different way to analyze things. So when you’re talking about a descriptive claim or a descriptive process, what we’re trying to do here is describe, we want to just talk about what we’re seeing, what we’re observing. That’s different than a normative type of an analysis where I’m saying this is good, or this is what I recommend, or that this is something that I believe in, or that is a good course of action. I’m not going to go there yet because it’s, it’s not time for that. The issue is not ripe to make that decision. And here’s

What I mean, if the

Trump team has the evidence that they claim they have, then I’m going to support further inquiry into the election, but we don’t know what they have yet.

And that’s okay. Okay. Because there is

Still time when we frame this out. When we talked about the process, there’s still a lot of time for them to come up with additional evidence. Um, I do believe in the process, they have time to go and investigate their claims. We would want everybody who’s going through this process to get a fair shake, because if they don’t get a fair shake, and if they claim that this election was stolen, and then the investigation into the election was also stolen, this is going to be a thorn in the side of America for a very long time. So my position here is let’s give them the opportunity to investigate these claims. If they do not have evidence, if we move forward on this thing and they ultimately do not come up with anything, they’re going to be a lot of angry people, myself included who don’t believe that what they were doing was

Justified. In other words, the lawsuits that have been filed, all of the different claims, the attempts to sort of weasel through the court system and get state legislatures to potentially overturn the election or to reverse the course or cast their electors in a different, in a different way. If there is no evidence, then all of that stuff is pretty Dan agregious, all of that would be truly reversing the will of the American people. But the distinction here is that they don’t think that that is the will of the American people. So you can’t operate from that premise. We’re starting with, from the premise that this election was legitimate. That’s where everybody wants to start from, but that’s not how they feel. They don’t think that it was legitimate. And so they’re not going to start from that same premise. And so we have to give them the opportunity to investigate their claims, just because we’re going to be analyzing it through that lens does not mean that I’m endorsing their claims.

We’re talking about it from a descriptive vantage point talking about what they’re actually doing. So when I comment on that, that’s what I’m saying. I truly do believe in the process and we want to break it down in a way that’s, that’s that’s most fair and puts them in the most favorable light possible. So when you’re dealing with somebody and they’re in, they’re being accused of something and they move, they make an action, or they file a motion, or they want to make an argument. We as neutral arbiters, we want to ask, we want to say, okay, cool. You’re making your claim. We’re going to analyze it. Let’s say everything you’re saying is true. Everything that you’re purporting to be accurate here, let’s just, let’s okay. We’re going to accept that for the time being now, let’s analyze your claim and see how it holds up.

Because if we give it the benefit of the doubt and it still falls over, then it’s it disproves itself. And we can all move forward on that, but we’re just, we’re not there quite yet. And so when we reached the end of the process, when we get to the point in time where the court systems have exhausted themselves, the state legislatures have exhausted themselves. And we have a final conclusion. We want it to be open. We want it to be transparent. We don’t want to give the other side a bunch of arguments to make in a bunch of claims to say that this was not done properly. So we’re going to analyze the claims and we’ll see where it, where it goes from there. So that’s my first point. Another point on this thing, before we dive into some clips I have about eight clips that we’re going to get to before we do, I want to explain what the purpose of this whole hearing was.

So I talked about descriptive versus normative, laid out a little bit of a framework here. Let’s talk about what they’re trying to accomplish with this press conference. This was the first time for many Americans where they’re seeing all of this evidence laid out. You and I we’ve been talking about this stuff for two weeks. We’ve been talking about it in depth. We’ve analyzed a lot of claims. Some turned out to be totally bogus. Some turned out to be, you know, kind of interesting and eyebrow raising. But for many people they’ve not heard of all this stuff, and they’ve not heard about it connected in a way that they saw today during the press conference. And there were a lot of people who watched this thing. I was, I was following around and poking around the different YouTube sites. And there’s a lot of people who are on live and who were very invested in this.

So a lot of attention, what are they trying to accomplish? Two things. Number one, Jenna Ellis said that this was going to be her opening statement. So they’re laying out a framework for how this entire legal operation is going to continue to unfold. And it’s really taken place in two spots. We’ve got two sort of simultaneous Wars going on. And so as we talk and walk through these clips, think about it from both of those lenses, one in the court system, okay. We have a whole potential for legal battles that are taking place in the court where the goal is through these various lawsuits in a number of different States to invalidate big buckets of votes. We talked about that a lot. I don’t need to beat it to death here, but they want to invalidate big buckets, close the Delta, close the gap in these various States, and then actually win the popular vote and win the electoral votes.

That way that’s looking less and less, you know, like it’s, it’s going to be feasible because Donald Trump and his team are losing around, uh, around the country. They’re filing new lawsuits in different parts of the country. And, you know, we just don’t know how those claims are going to hold up because of all of the pushback. That’s a separate conversation. We’re not going to get into that today. The other war that’s taking place is this legitimacy war that I’m talking about. It’s the, it’s the war in the court of public opinion. It’s the, the attempt to, to convince the majority of the population, one thing or another for the Trump team it’s that this election was totally illegitimate for the Biden people. It’s the Donald Trump is a sore loser and this whole thing was perfectly kosher. Everything was good. Everything was done by the book.

And those are where these two battles are taking place. So Donald Trump and his team, what are they doing? They’re giving this press conference and they’re playing in both fields. One half of this conversation is about what’s going on in the courts. But the other half of this conversation, sort of a layer, they’re using this as a guise, almost we’re going to come out and we’re going to talk about what’s going to happen in court. But I think a lot of these claims are never going to make it into court. And they’re never actually going to be settled in court. These claims are being brought in order to convince the American public of their position of their claim, that this election was fraudulent. So you’re going to hear some claims, but I’m not real sure how they’re going to actually integrate all of this into a case because you’re going to see the scope of this claim here.

This, the scope of all of the fraud that they’re alleging is massive. We’re talking about, uh, you know, people from Venezuela, we’ve got, you know, stuff. They mentioned Jimmy Carter in the press conference today, we’ve got this, this longstanding sort of conspiracy that’s been going on in this country for a long period of time, that all of our elections are essentially fraudulent. The backbone, the skeleton on which our entire democracy and Republic is built is rotten. That’s the claim. So how do you boil all of that down into a single core case that you’re going to, you’re going to go to court, you’re going to file your claims. You’re going to investigate everything. You’re going to actually have a trial in a district court. That’s going to go to the Supreme court. You’re going to do all of this stuff in three weeks, two and a half weeks before electors needed to come in and nominate the votes.

That’s not really what’s what’s happening here. I don’t think, I think they’re trying to throw out basically everything they can at the wall and see what sticks. And so when we go through the clips, you’re going to hear a lot of claims from a lot of people who are from these, from these different people who are, uh, uh, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell who are, or who are detailing things that I don’t think are going to be applicable in the court of law, but they’re very Epic applicable to the general public because they’re, they’re, they’re, they’re good imagery. They’re convincing in their attempts to paint this thing as illegitimate. And when we go through the clips, let’s, let’s sort of frame them that way. The other thing I want to point out when we go through the clips, think about timing. Okay. So I talked about the breadth of scope of this whole thing.

It’s a lot, think about timing as well, because they get asked this a couple of times, they’re talking about, are you going to release all of the information? Are you going to just give us everything? This is the big day. This is the press conference. What are you going to give us? And they say that they’re not going to give you everything. And their reason is because the news media is going to bury it and there’s not, you know, there’s not going to be any enough public interest. And so on. I am, you know, I’ve never represented a president in a, in a national election. I’m not so sure how good that strategy is because I think it sort of spites them on the legitimacy argument they actually are, or, you know, they may be saving those claims for the courts, but they’re, they’re losing the impact of those claims in the court of the public opinion, because we want to see that stuff.

Everybody here is looking for the crack in what is the cracking. And we don’t, we haven’t seen it quite yet. Now we have some additional claims that we’re going to get through that. I think, you know, sort of connect some dots for us, but we just haven’t seen it yet. And I’m not real sure that we are going to, I think that may have been a little bit of a mistake from the Trump legal team, by saying, I’m going to release the crack. And people are, are thinking that there’s going to be this smoking gun. There’s going to be this big revelation that they’re going to, you know, trot out this guy from dominion software, who was the computer software engineer who wrote the code that threw out the election, you know, for the last 30 years, is that going to happen? I’m doubting it at this point.

I don’t think that’s the case. And I really don’t think it is based on, on what we saw today. We’re going to get into that a little bit further, but what instead we’re going to be seeing are these little skirmishes that are taking place around the country. And we’re already seeing this in Michigan, which is why I started with that in Michigan. We see that the Trump tent camp campaign, the team is sort of zeroing in on these little localities, these board of canvassers, these individual state legislatures and these different representatives to actually, you know, have conversations with them and potentially make the fraud claims to a different audience. So rather than making the fraud claims to the courts, they’re talking to the local people who are in charge of appointing the electors. And that may be the more successful claim we’re going to see. So as we go through these clips, let’s ask ourselves, does this move the needle in the courts? Does this move the needle in the court of public opinion? Does this impact

The legitimacy of the election one way or the other? Because those are the two avenues that the Trump team has in order to move the needle on the election. All right. So let’s start with Rudy Giuliani and see what he had to say earlier today, but like a,

Did you all watch my cousin Vinny? Do you know the movie? Just one of my favorite movies, because he comes from Brooklyn and when the, the nice lady who said she saw, and then he, uh, he, he says to her, how many fingers do I? How many fingers will I got up? And she says, uh, three, well, she was too far away to see it. It was only two. These people were further away than my cousin Vinny was from the witness. They couldn’t see a thing. Now. I don’t know. You’re going to tell me that 60 people align. They didn’t just tell me this. They swore under penalty of perjury, which is something no Democrats ever done. You don’t even ask Biden about this. You don’t put, put them under penalty of perjury. He doesn’t even get asked questions about, he doesn’t get asked questions about all, all the evidence of the crimes that he committed.

These people are under penalty of perjury. The names that aren’t an affidavit, they swear that they weren’t allowed to carry out their function as inspectors. And it’s not just a technical thing. There’s a reason they did it. Why would you not allow people to carry out the function they’ve been allowed to do for 50 years, 60 years? Why wouldn’t you allow inspections of those boundaries? Because you knew you were going to use those ballots to catch Biden up, and you had a big road ahead of you. You had to catch him up for 700,000 to 800,000 votes that he was behind. And the only way you were going to do it, but with the mail and Belize.

All right. So the first question that you have to ask, right? Let’s think about this in, in sort of a response. He said, why else would you do that? Right? And I’m going to explain how that argument works in his favor in a minute, but can we think of another reason why we would want to keep people away from overly observing ballots? Well, yeah, I mean, right now, the current excuses, COVID obviously everything’s, COVID, everybody’s gotta be a certain distance away from everybody. They also have certain deadlines to meet. So they may not want a bunch of interference with their counting process. They may say, well, that person’s good right there. And you know, we got to get through a certain number of ballots in a certain period of time, the Trump people are going to be interrupting and interfering with the process. And so we got to put some limitations on them, right? You don’t know, you don’t know what it’s like. You don’t know how aggressive these observers or these people scrutinizing, everything are going to be, there’s probably a number of other reasons why they may want to keep the observers out. But his point here from a persuasive perspective, I think is effective. This is the same thing that we run into in

Criminal law. A lot, a lot of people will say to us and to our clients, well, if you’re not guilty, why don’t you just let the police look in there? Huh? Why don’t you just answer all of their questions? Why don’t you just do those things? The, if you don’t let them in and look at things, then you must be guilty. Okay. We get that a lot. And the answer is, well, no. I mean, one of our foundational rights as Americans is to be free from government intrusion intrusion, right? We don’t have to let people in our homes. We don’t have to let people search our cars. We don’t have to answer questions. We have the bill of rights. We don’t have to agree to just start incriminating ourselves. None of that stuff is applicable. So it’s sort of a false premise when people ask our clients that kind of the same thing here from, from Rudy’s perspective, right?

It’s well, there’s a lot of other good reasons as to why they may not want those people overlooking their counting process, but it just doesn’t feel right. And so this is what I’m talking about. I can make those arguments to a jury and say, well, yeah, I mean, our client didn’t talk to the police because, uh, he doesn’t have to. And the jury says, yeah, I know he doesn’t have to, but why didn’t he write what he could’ve, you know, if he was so innocent here, why didn’t he just have a simple conversation, clear this thing up, say, no, I wasn’t in the building. When that guy got shot, I was, uh, at, you know, in my girlfriend’s a place on the other side of town. Why didn’t he just clarify that? And so what Rudy Giuliani here is doing is he’s making that same argument and he’s actually going through and he’s, and he’s sort of putting the burden on them rather than him having to prove anything he’s saying, well, wait a minute.

Why don’t they have to prove why they kept us out. So he’s flipping the script a little bit and sending it back over to them. And this is something that I can tell you from experience. A lot of Americans can, can understand they can, they can empathize with this. They can say that is weird. Why didn’t they let him in and come take a look at that stuff. And he was taught, you know, my cousin, Vinny, how many people have seen that this is not legal ease. He’s not coming out and going well. According to a Georgia statute, section 14, 72.1873, the law says that our observers must be within 2.7 meters away from the accounting tables. americans’ eyes would glaze over. This is where attorneys are good. And, and Rudy Giuliani, you know, a lot of people are calling him a crank and calling him a washed up, you know, kind of, uh, ex impressive guy.

But this is what he’s doing. He’s communicating to the everyday American voter. He’s saying, yeah, I remember my cousin Vinny. They, she couldn’t even tell between a two and a three. And so how are we going to tell what, what bubble was filled in from 20 feet away? People get it. And it, it feels off here. So it, I think, I think it’s effective. And I think, you know, from a persuasion perspective, this moves the needle in the court of public opinion. Does it, does it do anything in court? Probably not. Right. We’ve already seen that. A lot of the judges are saying, okay, well, they were in the room. They were close enough. That’s good enough for us. But the public is going to see that a little bit differently. Let’s see what else Rudy Giuliani has to say, here’s another one. I don’t know what you need to wake

You up to do your job and inform the American people, whether you liked it or not of the things they need to know. This is real. It is not made up. It is not. There’s nobody here that engages in fantasies. I’ve tried a hundred cases. I prosecuted some of the most dangerous criminals in the world. I know crimes. I can smell them. You don’t have to smell this one. I can prove it to you at 18 different ways. I can prove to you that he won Pennsylvania by 300,000 votes. I can prove to you that he won Michigan by probably 50,000 votes. When I went to bed on election night, he was ahead in all those States, every single one of those States, how has it, they all turned around every single one of them turned around or is it more consistent? There was a plan to turn them around. And since there are witnesses who say that it was a plan to turn them around and it’s kind of begs credulity to say that it all happened in every single state. My goodness, this is how you win cases in a courtroom.

Yeah, he’s right. He’s right on that. You know, I gotta tell ya. It’s, it’s pretty good. He’s he’s what he’s doing here is he’s creating a theme. So a lot of people don’t understand this hat and how this works in law. Okay. A lawyer is, is as good as his theme and as, uh, as the toolbox that he uses in order to go and be successful in court. So a lot of people may think that one lawyer kind of does everything. You know, one lawyer can go and testify about blood results and talk about the science that’s involved in gas chromatography, and go into forensic details and do all of the legal research and write all of the motions and go do all of the interviews and show up at the crime scene and measure things out and all that stuff. That’s not really where I think some of the best lawyers in the world, what they do instead.

They’re sort of like a, like a general contractor of a, of a home. I used to be in construction before I went to law school. So what the general contractor does is they sort of organize all of the different pieces, right? So they’ll organize the plumber, the electrician, the roofer, the, uh, the guy who frames the house, the guy who digs the pool and so on, and they’ll assemble it altogether. But the general contractor is the one who makes it all one. They, they, they, they, they are the artists that connects it all together and they do that with a theme. And that’s what Rudy is doing here. I mean, he’s going through, and he’s saying there was this massive collusion that can only be explained by fraud by this coordinated effort that took place across the country. And he’s doing a good job of connecting this to what a lot of us felt, what a lot of us were thinking about.

You know, a lot of us actually on this live stream, we were, we ended the live stream. We were broadcasting for five hours on this channel. We ended at about 10, 10, eight, 10:00 PM on election night. And we woke up the next day to an entirely different color map. And it was sort of like this moment that I think a lot of Americans experience, they went to bed thinking Trump was going to win. They saw a lot of different things happen at 4:00 AM. 3:00 AM woke up the next morning and saw, wait a minute. All those States flipped to blue. When they look at the graphs, the graphs show these spikes and it feels like, well, maybe there is something going on here. And that’s what Rudy is doing is he’s actually, I’m not, I’m not endorsing whether there is or, or, or not. I’m just saying, this is what he’s doing.

He’s trying to connect the dots and say that this was all a massive collusion. It’s easy to go into court and prove that he talks about it. He says, I can prove it 18 times canny, because it hasn’t been done yet. We haven’t seen any evidence to support it. Currently. It’s a lot of claims, but what he’s doing is he’s trying to establish legitimacy. He’s trying to create a theme that the rest of the litigation is going to follow because in everyday juror is not going to go in and they don’t want to listen to the legal ease. They don’t want to listen to a lawyer talking about statutes and different case law and all that stuff, even though a lot of it is pertinent, right? We went through a lot of the statutes on this channel. We talked about Michigan specifically, and how important they considered their Watchers to be as a part of their electoral integrity, because they were excluded.

I think there’s a lot of good legal arguments in that case as well. But my point here is that that’s not what we’re talking about. This is the theme of the case, and that’s what Rudy is establishing. Then he’s going to bring on Sidney Powell. Next, who’s going to talk about some of the more specifics and she’s going to fill this out. So think about this sort of like an umbrella. Rudy’s opening the umbrella and he’s bringing other people in under it who are going to flush out more of the claims. So let’s see what miss Sidney Powell has to say. She is neck covering

Or by the day is the massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China in the interference with our elections here in the United States, the dominion voting systems, the smart MADEC technology software and the software that goes in other computerized voting systems here as well, not just dominion. We’re created in villains, in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election. After one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out. We have one very strong witness who has explained how it all works. His affidavit is attached to the pleadings of Linwood and the lawsuit he filed in Georgia. It is a stunning detailed affidavit because he was with Hugo Chavez while the, he was being briefed on how it worked. He was with Hugo Chavez when he saw it operate to make sure the election came out his way. That was the express purpose for creating the software. He has seen it operate. And as soon as he saw the multiple States shut down the voting at the, on the night of the election, he knew the same thing was happening here. That that was what had gone on.

All right. So I have some issues with that clip, right? I’ve, I’ve made the same criticism about ms. Sidney Powell for a long time here. That a lot of that is interesting. It’s very curious. It sounds awful. I don’t want the fact that, you know, I don’t want our software that we’re using in our national elections to have been originally created in a different country to throw elections. That’s not a good foundation for software that is valid and has integrity and that we want to be using. Now, there is, there’s another clip. We may have it next, but she actually goes through and connects the dots there. So in this press conference, at some point, I’m not sure if we have the clip or not, but she does say that dominion interfered in this election. Okay. What we just heard from her was they interfered in the Venezuelan election and they must have done it a long time ago.

We got this affidavit from this guy who is still not been named yet. I read the affidavit on this channel. I think yesterday where we were talking about some of the specific claims and his thought process was, well, I saw this all happen in Venezuela and I saw something similar happen in the United States. Therefore, I have concerns about this election. That’s neat. That’s all good. I mean, that’s, that’s, that’s a nice addition. We thank you for bringing that to everybody’s attention, but do you have any direct evidence? Do you have any testimony that, that the same software or the same process or the same hack or whatever it is, is being used today or was used on November 3rd or surrounding the election at this point in time, we haven’t seen any of that. Now there was a clip that Cindy Powell said that she said specifically something to the effect of, uh, yeah, dominion did interfere in this election.

And they also go onto to explain that this is just the opening statement. There’s going to be more information coming, but that is one thing that I’ve been missing from ms. Powell from a long time. I don’t know what the connection is now, she’s doing the same thing that Rudy was doing, doing, she’s laying down a theme and she’s talking about this, this big conspiracy that was going on between a different country and them hosting the software that runs our elections. But that statement alone is not very persuasive to me. I don’t think it’s persuasive in the court of law. I don’t think it’s persuasive in the court of public opinion. I hear that. And I say, okay, that’s fine. Uh, you know, software software that could, that could all be very well true, but what does that have to do with this election right now? And we haven’t had that answered yet. Here’s another clip from ms. Cindy pal

Being an office we’re allowed to rig their elections. This is stunning, heartbreaking, infuriating, and the most unpatriotic acts. I can even imagine for people in this country to have participated in, in any way, shape or form. And I want the American public to know right now that we will not be intimidated. American Patriots are fed up with the corruption from the local level to the highest level of our government.

And we are going to take this country back. We are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to back down. We are going to clean this mess up. Now, president Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it. And we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom.

All right. So, uh, again, you know, another, another raw red meat statement, we’re going to prove this. We’re going to prove that the Donald Trump won by a landslide, but we haven’t seen any of that evidence yet. And, uh, we didn’t get much of that today. Honestly, there was a lot of talk about a lot of, uh, sort of abstract concepts. As I said, if you’ve been following this channel previously, we’ve covered this stuff in a lot more detail than they did today. We spent hours on it. So I would encourage you to go back and watch through some of the other episodes. But today it was a lot of this sort of red meat stuff we transition over here. I think there’s another clip from Rudy. Uh, let’s take a look at this one,

Crack. It is the country ready for this? I mean, Americans should be astonished. What you’re saying here today is the country on the verge of an electoral breakdown and we’ve already had it. We’ve already had that electoral breakdown, but the constitution is Jenna explains has provisions in it for how you fix this. And there should never be another election conducted in this country. I don’t care if it’s for a local dog catcher using a dominion machine and smart MADEC software. We have got to have an American company that uses paper ballots that we can all verify. So every one of us can see that our vote is our vote not requesting.

All right. So yeah, I mean, you know, saying that they can prove it. Let’s let’s listen, let’s listen to what Jenna has to say.

Blur facts. One thing happened in a matter of minutes and it still takes days. And we go through a jury process. This is the court of public opinion right now we are not trying your case in the court of public opinion, because if we were, we would get unbiased jurors, I would strike 99% of you from the jury. And I would be allowed to, because of the fake news coverage you provide, you’re not unbiased jurors. And until you step out of your role as a journalist and actually go into a courtroom and you are a judge on a bench that has sworn an oath to be unbiased in our separation of powers, then your opinion does not matter the facts matter, the truth matters. And if you are fair reporters, you will cover that fairly and appropriately. And you will allow coverage of our media team here and our legal team that is absolutely shocking, that all you cover are around the margins. And I’ve seen all of you taking pictures right now, and I can anticipate what your headlines are going to be. If you are not

Lines are all about Rudy and his, uh, it, Rudy had a little bit of sweat thing going on with, with some hair coloring. I think it was, you know, and a lot of people are having some fun with that. And I think that’s maybe what she was talking about there, but again, not much substantive there from Jenna and Jenna didn’t really have much to say in terms of substantive material, but she was doing the scoldings. She was doing the public scolding for the media and explaining to them, Hey guys, you know, you’re not giving us any due process. And I agree with them, you know, I’ve been, I’ve been talking about the headlines for a long time and they, they are sort of very, very one-sided and there’s a lot of good argument for that. There’s a lot of good argument that all of these claims may eventually turn out to be fruitless.

They have may have no merit whatsoever. We can fast forward to December 14th and all of the New York times, Washington post people, everybody on MSNBC, you can, you can come out and say, see, I told you so and okay, that’s fine. I’ve never disagreed with that. The whole point here is that we’re talking about it. We’re talking about these claims and we’re experimenting with them and we’re, we’re, we’re, we’re pulling them out of the drawer. We’re looking at them, we’re opening them up, looking inside, playing around, put them together. This one’s kind of garbage. Throw that one away and we’ll take, take a look at the next one. It’s a dialogue. It’s something that we’ve been doing in this country, since our founding, the Federalist papers, the anti-federalists and the Federalists. We’ve been talking about how to govern ourselves. And what we want to do on this channel is contribute to that conversation.

And it’s difficult to do that when the media is so one-sided on this thing. There’s not very, very, very few people, not nobody, but a lot of people who are just saying that this has done, we can’t even talk about it. They’re talking about lists and prosecuting people for just having a conversation about this stuff. And after this press conference today, I’ve seen a doubling down on it across the board. More and more people are saying, this is a theft of democracy and anybody who is having a conversation about it is contributing to the downfall of America, which is insane because we’ve been talking about this and we’ve had a lot more serious issues than some election litigation in this country. And we’ve survived. It just fine. We have some additional content from miss Jenna Ellis. Let’s see what else she has to say

Are not willing to talk about the evidence that has been presented then that is absolutely unacceptable for journalistic standards. All right, trials, take time. Putting on evidence takes time. This is basically an opening statement. So the American people can understand what the networks have been hiding.

Uh, you know, I think, I think they kind of had a mission accomplished on that today. Now, again, not a lot of new material, not a lot of new information, but I think there’s a couple things that we can glean from this number one. I think that a lot of their court claims are they’re going to, they’re going to continue. But I think that they’re, some of these resources are being shifted a little bit. I’m sort of sensing that they’re there. They might even be okay with losing some, these additional court claims because they know that they’re, they’re kind of wanting, you know, there’s, there’s some clear evidence that they were not allowed to observe stuff that maybe some of the ballot signatures were not being verified through the formal mechanisms through the formal process. But what I, what I think that they’re experiencing is they’re getting all of these roadblocks in the legal system and all of these judges and, uh, you know, attorneys are getting threatened.

There’s another attorney who is, I think, placed under a protection today or hired some security company because of the threats that they got as a result of, of representing Donald Trump and so on. And so they’re, they’re sort of marshaling some resources, you know, maybe away from some of these Michigan types of claims or these lawsuits and more into the court of public opinion. And we saw that today because Rudy Giuliani apparently filed some motion in Michigan saying that they’re going to withdraw their lawsuit. And a lot of the legal commentators are out there going, Oh my gosh, this is crazy, right? That’s the only way he can win. The only thing he can do is win in Michigan and win in the court of law in order to invalidate those votes. But you’ll notice what ended up happening was the reason why that lawsuit was dismissed that Rudy gave today at the press conference was about the idea that the Wayne County board of canvassers did not certify the County. Well, that’s not accurate. Rudy is wrong about that. They did certify it, even though she rescinded her vote. I’m not real sure that there’s anything she can do about that. But what it does do is it gives the bigger entity, the state, a fake, because it gives them an excuse, a rationalization to not certify the state. So even though Wayne County sounds like it’s going to be certified. The board of electors are the canvassers in Michigan. They can say, listen, we know what happened in Wayne

County. And even

Though those are technically certified, the chairperson on the board of canvassers says she was bullied into it. Her family was threatened. She was promised something that she didn’t get, and she wants to rescind her vote. Therefore, we’re going to honor that vote. And we’re going to refuse to certify the entire

State. What if that is

Their strategy, rather than taking this forward through the courts that might be what’s happening because that lawsuit looks like it was actually dismissed or a request for a dismissal from the Trump team. And they’re moving their resources over into this legislative approach. We’ll see what happens with that. But I think today was, was largely effective because a lot of people have not heard of any of this stuff and they tied it all in together. And Rudy did a pretty good job. Despite the, the, the, the sweat down his face. He, he did a, he did a good job. I thought. And there was this one scene when he was actually showing the American people how the, the envelopes work, he was actually taking the envelope and saying, look, you take a ballot, you fold it, you put it in the secret envelope. You put it in the main envelope. You only sign the outside envelope. And every Americans know how to do this. And he was doing this visually with a, with an actual envelope, showing people what it is. Everybody could, when I was watching it. I go, yeah, I remember doing that exactly right. You sign it, you put it in there. There’s no marking identifications on the actual ballot. When he made the point, what they do is they

Open the ballot. They open the envelope, they pull out the ballot, they throw the signature away

And you can’t verify that again.

And that was a claim whether that’s true or not. I don’t know. He was talking in generals. He was talking in generalities and not being specific, but this is what American people, I think, had trouble connecting. They had, they had an issue thinking about how can there be fraud because I pressed the machine. I signed the ballot and I don’t know. I don’t understand. Well, he did a good job of sort of explaining that whether it’s legitimate, whether there’s any actual claims there, whether this holds up in a court of law or whether they’re able to produce more evidence of any of this stuff is yet to be seen, but there’s still time. And if we fast forward to next week and the following week, and they haven’t produced anything more than everybody can rest easy because their claims are gonna fail on the merits.

They’re, they’re gonna get laughed out of court. The American public is not going to buy it more and more people are going to start finding that the Biden administration is the actual legitimate administration, but we’re not there yet. And despite all the calls for us to stop talking about it, I think it’s the best course of action. I think it’s really the only way that we’re going to calm. The nerves of many people in America is ordered is just by talking about it and making sure that both sides get a fair shake. And that’s exactly what we’re trying to do here on this program. All right, last topic I wanted to cover very briefly, the congressional Republicans are now lending their support, lending their legitimacy to the entire cause. And we’ve talked about this a lot here, this idea that the Trump team is going to need to bring in other people into the fold.

If they’re going to want to win in the court of public opinion so far, they haven’t done that. In fact, they’ve actually, poo-pooed the idea of doing that whenever they’ve been asked about bringing in the FBI or the department of justice, both Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell have just been like, well, what do you mean the FBI, the same FBI that’s been sitting on the Hunter Biden hard drive for nine months. What are they going to do about it? They knew about all this stuff and they’ve just ignored it. And so they have little faith in that. Now my understanding is that they’re actually calling at this point for an investigation by the DOJ, which, uh, apparently the CRA, uh, that, that issue

Has been extinguished, I guess.

But my point is they need to bring in some other third-party entities to help lend them some credibility. Because right now, if it’s just Rudy Giuliani, Jenny L Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, well, they’re just going to be considered to be Trump’s, you know, hired guns. His is a, what do they call it? The, uh, the, the, the elite shock force or whatever they call it. You know, the, and they’re, they’re dropping in to just do Donald Trump’s bidding. But if you can bring in the congressional Republicans, the attorneys generals, if you can bring in the DOJ or the FBI, that’s going to add credibility and legitimacy to their claim. And that may make it more successful with whatever Avenue they end up going on. And so the congressional Republicans came out and joined the cause this was a letter from two, uh, Congress congressmen. I’m going to get to them in a minute over to these two individuals, Jerrold, Nadler, and Carolyn Maloney. And they fired off this letter yesterday. Let’s run through it quickly. It says, we urge you mr. Chairman Nadler and chair, woman Maloney. We urge you to immediately convene hearings to examine the integrity of the 2020 election. I made the troubling reports of irregularities and improprieties, and then they kind of take a, you know, a shot at them, given your role

As leaders of a political party

That spent four years base base. Leslie calling into question the legitimacy of the 2016 election and so on. They say that on September 23rd, they issued a, a memorandum saying that they were concerned about the Democrats making last minute changes to state election laws. They talked about in September the Pennsylvania Supreme court, actually by their own, on their own accord, modified the Pennsylvania deadline, which we talked about here in, in the Boockvar case, they just changed the deadline from November 3rd, to November six on their own in violation of what my opinion is, the, is the, the mandate from the legislature. And they said that, you know, they’re the ones moving this stuff around. We also warned that a last-minute move to widespread mail in voting would have unintended consequences as it has that go through. And they have this whole paragraph about California. For some reason, they talk about Los Angeles about 2100 faulty ballots.

And so on, which it’s a problem California should fix that. But it’s in consequential to this election. Donald Trump lost by like 3 million votes over there. So what does that matter? They talk about Georgia. They unearthed 5,000 previously, uncounted ballots, November 16th. They found another 2,600. They found another 284 in Walton and 27 55 in Fayette County, big problems. So what they’re asking for here is that you work with us to schedule and plan these oversight hearings. As soon as possible, this letter was drafted over by Jim Jordan and James Comber, who are from Kentucky and Ohio. And so the Republicans are jumping in, you know, they’re getting into the frame, which, which they should. I mean, let’s bring everybody in, come on down, everybody, come on in, make your claims. Let’s sort this stuff out now let’s get to it because if we don’t, we’re going to run into this problem. Again, everybody for the foreseeable future is going to claim that they were fraudulent elections. And we as Americans, we don’t want that. We don’t actually want fraudulent elections, and we don’t want to give the losers of elections,

The ability to doubt the integrity,

The election itself, because everybody’s just going to continue to claim that everything was done fraudulently. All right. So that’s it for the content portion of the program. Let’s jump into some of these super chats because I’ve seen a lot of them coming in. So let’s turn on that chat box and let’s jump into them. So at the very start of the show, we had some very generous, super chats from our very lovely doctor E M B, who is here on a regular basis. And she says here, if every intervention up to the Supreme court fails, what do you see happening in the SCOTUS to overturn this election? I feel a lot of

Stress and worry. When I hear about all the ups and downs, it would be reassuring to know that in the end, there would be big time vindication occurring. Thanks for all you do. I’m, I’m enjoying your input and education. So doctor, this is a great question. And it’s one that I think is difficult to answer. If stuff doesn’t get to the Supreme court, if the cases don’t mature through the district court, through the appeals circuits courts, through to the Supreme court, or if they don’t file a writ directly to the Supreme court, or if one of these States doesn’t ask for the Supreme court to intervene, then the Supreme court has no obligation to, you know, they can, they can take a look at, at certain issues like we saw with Alito, judge Alito, just sort of on his own, went down into the Pennsylvania case and said, Hey, you guys better be segregating these things.

I got word that you’re not doing it the way they ordered ordered you to do it. And so took it on his own accord to go and actually impose some additional obligations in that particular case. But it’s kind of anybody’s guess at this point, there are a lot of new lawsuits that are being filed. And in fact, Trump’s team has indicated that they’re not even filing suits until next week. Victoria Townsend said that they’re all going to be coming early next week is, is, is the latest that I’ve heard from her. And today was just the opening brief. It was the opening salvo of what is yet to come. So depending on, on the, on those other claims and some of this additional evidence that they’re going to be releasing, they talked about it today. Rudy Giuliani said, we have more information that we just can’t release right now.

Jenna Ellis confirmed that said that there’s, there’s more stuff, but we’re not going to give it to you because we don’t trust the media. So we’ll see what that evidence looks like and where it comes. I will tell you this though. I know how much this stuff is, is really amplifying people’s stress and anxiety. And I would encourage you to just, you know, w when I, when I go through it, one of the things that I constantly remind myself of is the serenity prayer, and it doesn’t matter what, you know, political or, or, uh, religious philosophy. You’re a part of, I happen to believe in God. So I say the serenity prayer to myself, I say, God, grant me the serenity to accept the things. I cannot change the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference. And that kind of brings me some peace during these times, because it just like you, I get a little bit flustered about these issues.

I try to be unbiased and as apolitical as I can and give a fair shake to both sides and just read from the primary documents here, and just kind of detail how I’m processing and analyzing things. But I also get plugged into it. You know, I get fired up about these issues, but a lot of the time I realized there’s only so much I can do. I’m going to try to wake up and do my best every day, but I’m not going to let this stuff really wobble me or help me spin me out of control in my life. So I say the serenity prayer, I just say, uh, there’s some things I can’t control, and I’m going to make peace with that. So maybe that might help maybe not, but we’ll just see how this all unfolds and do our best to make our way through it. We have another one from a [inaudible] something cue that says thanks for your broadcast. Very interesting. Thank you, Sharon Sharon,

Sharon quid. Thank you so much for that, Sharon. Appreciate it. Uh, we have, uh, T Ferguson who says, thanks for providing balanced objective analysis and owning your own priors at the same time, I’ve done my own deep dive on dominion voting system and would be happy to share info with your team if interested, we’re always interested. So we actually get a lot of information from you directly. We have a discord chat where I’m sort of, sort of lurking in there all day. Just kind of checking in from time to time to see what people are talking about. People share news articles and sources, and people actually send some amazing information. That stuff that I just missed. Somebody sent yesterday, the email that was leaked in Maricopa County about the Sharpie stuff that was going on. Somebody sent that to me. I would have totally missed that.

Had one of you not sent that. So, uh, I’m always interested in it. And I actually think that it’s, it’s more reliable information because it’s, it’s more from the primary source. It’s typically from somebody who is finding the information. It’s not filtered through all of these different organizations that do this copy paste, journalism stuff, you see it all over the place. One person writes something, somebody else takes that idea. Donald Trump’s a racist, Oh, I know how to spin that. Donald Trump’s a racist for this reason and a racist for that reason and a racist for this reason. It’s just copy and paste all over the place. And you really can’t get to the nuts and bolts of what’s going on. So T Ferguson would love to send that stuff over. All right, good mother is on says, uh, what w what all the madness we are dealing with come from, um, w women in the workplace oppressing and abusing men, human rights violations, sexual harassment, um, uh, okay, so good mother.

Uh, I don’t have any comments on that. I’m not, I’m not sure if that’s in the news or if that’s something that’s going on, maybe in the polling places having to read that one again, I’m not sure what you’re getting at there, but thank you so much for the super chat. If you, if there’s a followup question, I know these super chats are really tight. There’s only so much information you can fit in there. So if you want to ask a follow-up question in the discord later, or send me a direct message, I’ll be happy to flesh out the followup to your question. We have Wolfgang who says Biden will never be legitimate to me, him and many Dems violated us constitution, amendment 14, section three, by supporting and refusing to disavow, BLM, and Antifa. And I think a lot of them Americans, I’m not endorsing that position, but I think a lot of Americans are going to feel that way, especially if they are, if they feel like they’re not given a fair shake to make their claims.

We have another super chat with no question from heart donor that says, cool, thank you, heart donor. Appreciate that. Good mothers back says we should be looking at the systemic oppression of men over 100 years. The racist names are part of it. The emotionally unstable people need to be looked at. Um, all right. And another one from good mother, we have Rachel asks, who says, the question we have in Michigan is why they voted to certify Levonia accounting with, with more errors than Wayne, possibly because Wayne is 18% of the Michigan vote. Yeah. I mean, I think that’s because from my understanding, that’s where Detroit is, right? There’s a huge bubble of votes, and that’s what Donald Trump and his team would, if they could invalidate that precinct, that County, that would be a big, big bucket of abide in votes. And so you just want to go after sort of the lowest hanging fruit you want to.

Okay. That’s an easy pick. That’s an easy pick. And so I think that’s why they’re focused on it in Lavonia though. I mean, if you, if you could find a smaller County that also has problems, you might be able to extrapolate from that County to the bigger County and replicate the same issues in a bigger County. Uh, but I, but you know, it, it makes sense. It’s I think this is the same reason why Donald Trump and his team in Wisconsin are not asking for a recount of the entire state. They’re just focused on two counties, because those are the ones that they need in order to get the pickups that would flip the state. We have another, another Superchat from world war wit. He says, it’s not really flipping the script because they had both the right to inspect and they had a duty to allow the inspection.

So I think he’s referencing the Rudy Giuliani piece, where I was saying that Rudy was sort of, uh, sort of flipping the script by saying, uh, clearly there’s fraud. They didn’t, they didn’t let us in. So they need to explain it away. And I, and I would agree with you, right, from in a lot of these different States, what we see is there’s, there’s very clear guidelines on how this stuff works. And in many instances, they were not directly conforming with those rules. I think in many situations, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, you could say, I think without any doubt, really that there was that they probably were not allowing the observers to come in and watch exactly by the book. I think you can probably find technical violations all over the place, probably all over the country, because many of these people who are going and counting and doing this stuff are volunteers.

They’re, they’re senior citizens. There are people who don’t have jobs. They’re retired, you know, there’s, they’re stay at home parents with some free time, whatever that is. Some are lawyers, some just, you know, run their own businesses. They want to go volunteer. And so they’re going to make mistakes. You can’t expect them to be election experts. I was helping a friend of mine in Arizona, uh, who, who is in one of those categories, get the manual to go be a poll worker. The manual was like 180 pages. It was insane. They had all these videos. I was like, my friend that is bigger than some books I had in law school. Like that’s, that’s, that’s insane. Of course, people are going to have problems with that. The question becomes, what are the judges going to do about that? So even though Trump and Rudy and his team, they had the right to go and inspect this stuff.

And that the allegation, the response to their claims that they didn’t have that proper access is that, that, that they should’ve had that access. But they’re saying that they, they, they gave them enough access. In other words, there was enough provisions that they could have done what they needed to get done, even though they weren’t. What is the judge going to do? Are they going to throw out all of the votes, even though maybe 98% of them were done correctly? I don’t think you’re going to find a judge in America is going to be willing to do that. We have Joel Lowery with a $10 Superchat with a big thumbs up. Thanks, Joel, appreciate that. My friend, we have T Ferguson who says, it says Rudy’s mean hand was strong citing my cousin Vinny, and then questions. The Democrats using the Chewbacca defense. We have dr.

EMB who says, are affidavits considered evidence, strong evidence, weak evidence, not evidence. Yeah. An affidavit is just basically sort of a, a memorialization of a person’s opinions, a person’s statement, a person’s facts. It’s just memorialized in time. And you, you would submit that affidavit in order to trigger further inquiry by the court. So you can’t just go into court and say, listen, I want to have a hearing. And I’ve got these 35 witnesses schedule a trial for four weeks. I’m going to call them all in a, I need you to bring in all these different people. The court is going to go, wait a minute, wait a minute, four 40 people for what, what are you going to do with all those people? Why do we need a hearing? Why are you filing a lawsuit? They’re just not going to allow it to just turn into this big thing.

You got to support your, the basis for the additional claims. And that’s what they’re doing with these affidavits. Now, these many of these people presumably, would be called into court at some point to come and actually testify, or at least be made available for a cross-examination to be interviewed by the opposing parties. So let’s say for example, Donald Trump and his team, Rudy Giuliani, they file a lawsuit against the secretary of state in Pennsylvania. While the secretary of state is going to go hire a different law firm to represent them and Donald Trump and his people are going to come up and say, look, we’ve got these 35 people who signed this affidavit. Well, the other side is going to say, okay, cool. Well, we want to talk to them too. I know what they wrote on that piece of paper, but I’ve got some questions for them.

You better believe if I was representing the government, I’d have a lot of questions for all of those people. You want to cross examine them. And that’s what our system allows. It allows us to, to, to challenge the validity of, of evidence by questioning it, which is exactly what we’re doing on this show. We’re questioning things, both it’s called the confrontation clause. You have a right to confront your accuser. You have a right to challenge and cross examine the evidence in a court of law, a right to present your own witnesses and so on. And that’s, what’s taking place here. So these affidavits are in my mind, good evidence. It’s legitimate. It’s a person who’s making a statement under oath. They’re testifying. They’re willing to testify that they saw these problems and they’re making a claim on pen and paper. They’re going to come into court and, and, and support it.

So a lot of these news articles are saying that this is just anecdotal evidence. These are just people that they’re drumming up. Of course, these people are, uh, you know, Republican lunatics who will say anything and do anything to re-elect Donald Trump. That’s one way to observe it. I don’t like to do that. I like to let’s, let’s look at it like that. Person’s being honest. Let’s look at it. Like that person is being truthful and accurate and they were actually there and let’s look at it in a light, most favorable to them. And then we can challenge it. Then we can say, okay, let’s say all this is true. Is there another explanation for your claim or how about that claim or that claim? And that’s how you really challenge evidence. It’s not by just ignoring it and saying, you’re not allowed to talk about it.

Another good question. Thank you so much, dr. Brian King with a super chat says cool as well. Good to have you, Brian. Thanks for being here. We have Colorado Sarge in the house. Another super chat on there again. No question. Thank you, Colorado SARS. Another one from Joel Lowery. Thanks, Joel. I think that’s two from you today. We have one from Marcel Martinez who says your channel has a lot of potential. If anything, I bet you could be featured on other shows. Wow. Keeping honest and unbiased. Thank you, Marcel. I appreciate that. Uh, you know, uh, I’m not sure. I’m not sure what that looks like for us here. I’ll tell you this. I’m having a lot of fun. Just spending time here with you guys, going through analyzing these issues. I’m learning a lot. I will tell you that. And it’s, it’s helping me challenge a lot of, even my own beliefs and ask questions that I wouldn’t have asked.

Otherwise, if I didn’t have to have these conversations or have the opportunity, I would say to have these conversations, because it’s a lot of fun. I’m learning a lot. And a lot of that is literally thanks to you from, from asking good questions and from sending us material and for just being here and being part of the conversation. I think it’s very critical now, more than ever. Honestly, I think we should be talking more, not less talking less and demanding that people shut up and stand aside is not a good solution. Thank you, Marcel for that. We have Jamal who says, Jamal B says here’s two big ones. Keep up the good work, buddy. Thanks, Jamal. I appreciate that. That was a fun one. A student does. Calculus is in the house. Uh, you know, I never actually finished calculus. I think I took pre-calculus and then as soon as calculus was offered, I, uh, I jumped into a different category.

Math is not my thing, Seth G but thank you for that student does calculus. Hopefully you’re doing well there. I’m sure you are. Seth G says, do you think Trump is just trying to run out the clock? So it goes to a house delegate vote? Uh, I think, yeah, I think that’s, that is one operational strategy that is going on right now for sure. The, the idea that the only reason that they’re not wanting to leak information or to give the public more information, I’m talking about Trump’s team specifically, the idea that it’s only because the media is going to bury it, I don’t think is right. I think what Donald Trump and this is the cynic in me, somebody, you know, I’m, I’m quite cynical about a lot of this stuff, but a big part of me is saying they want to hold onto some of that stuff, because if they go into court and the judges, which they’re going to do, and they’re going to really compress any of their claims.

So a judge is not going to let this thing go on for two months. There’s not enough time because we have the electors day on December 14th, we have the nomination day on the eighth. We have certification deadlines coming up right around the corner in many States. And they’re just not going to let that, they’re not going to let it go on for months and months. Now, even though a case like this, let’s say this was about a civil claim about somebody breaching a contract or something. These cases can take years and years and years, even DUI cases, which many people might think are quite simple, can take six months, not even kidding you on that. And so they’re not going to allow that to happen. They’re going to really, really ask them to compress all of this stuff into a short period of time. Now, Donald Trump and his team, their response to that is going to be, this was illegitimate.

We didn’t get enough time to present our evidence. We didn’t have enough time to call all of our, uh, finance, all of our affidavits, all of our people who made declarations, we are being oppressed. So they’re setting themselves up to be able to make that claim. And at some point I think that they will. I think that these lawsuits will probably end up, uh, you know, not going the way that they want to in every case. And as we have seen, I think they’re going to come back and the probably going to impugn the judges, impugn the, you know, the Obama elected judge or whomever is going to be at that time. And they’re going to say one of their key claims is that we didn’t get to present every, you know, everything. We didn’t get enough time to get all of this stuff out into the open.

And they’re going to use that as a, as a defense. I just think that that is, is that not going to happen? Do you think that there ever, do you think that the Trump team is actually going to go into court and unless they’re 100% successful, do you think that they’re going to turn around and come out of that litigation and say, wow, that was a, that was a hard, hard fought battle. Unfortunately we lost, but we got a fair shake in there. Does anybody think that that is possible at all? I don’t good question, Seth. I think they are intentionally trying to run out the clock and trying to delay in order to open up that different strategy, Colorado Sarge again says based on how, based on what you know about these lawyers, how likely do you think it is that people like Sidney Powell will jeopardize their reputation to make these claims without supporting evidence?

You know, that’s a good question, Sarge. Um, I would hope I would, I would hope as one attorney to another attorney that they wouldn’t be willing to do that, but keep this, keep this in mind, right? Both, both, both Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani are, you know, they’re not young attorneys anymore, right? Th th their careers in law are probably in this space, regardless of whether they’ve got the evidence or not. So, in other words, if they do not have the evidence, are they going to be looked as outcasts from the legal world? From, from, yeah. For a big part of it? Yeah. A lot, a lot of people, myself included would be like, wow, that, that was, that was not okay. You can’t come and make a bunch of claims where there’s no merit behind it. Okay. It’s called frivolous lawsuits. And, and you’re, you’re really wasting time and it’s not proper.

It’s not good decorum. It’s not good etiquette. And so you would expect that people like them would know that and that they would bring claims that have merit, right. They both been doing it for a long time. They both have a lot of background in it. Rudy Giuliani has a resume, you know, that goes for 20 miles. Same with Sidney Powell. We talked a lot about what her background is. Same with Jenna Ellis, even though she’s younger and has, I would say less of a fill full resume, but they’ve been doing it for a while. You would expect proper decorum. But if they’re ostracized from the legal community, if they lose their bar license, is, is there life over? No, I mean, they’re gonna get paid tens of thousands of dollars. They’re going to be heroes to one segment of the country, regardless of what, what the evidence shows.

There’s a contingency of this country that doesn’t even care about the evidence they don’t even want. They don’t, they don’t care if there’s any crack and they don’t care how this thing turns out, no matter what happens. They’re going to think that the election was stolen and that Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, our modern day American heroes who are doing their very best to, uh, to save the Republic. And they’re going to think that regardless of what happens. So, you know, the, the idea that we’re going to be basing this stuff on their reputation, that I’m gonna, I’m gonna lean on their reputation and, and use that as determinative as to whether or not there’s anything here. I’m not, I’m not willing to make that jump. We will see, I would hope that that would be the case that their reputation would be very important, but they could always get a book, deal, get a TV show, go on Trump media.

You know, there’s a lot of alternatives for them that we just haven’t seen, uh, that, that, that I think would be okay with them. And they’d be okay with that. A student does calculus with another $1. Thank you for that. We have Whoa, a big one from detest user 25, really big one. Wow. He says, appreciate your work. America really needs this conversation right now. God bless brother. So that’s from detest user 25. Thank you, detest. That’s very generous of you. Uh, humbling. I appreciate it. And I appreciate you being here. I appreciate your message and I appreciate your support. So thank you very much. We have, uh, avid, we have avid DOR M says, can South Carolina canceled the election in order to make a new one? So my understanding is actually no. Can the Supreme court canceled the election, I think is what they’re asking.

Uh, uh, no, I mean, there’s, that’s never happened before, so it would be unprecedented. Okay. If the Supreme court did something like that, I don’t think there’s any basis in the constitution for that. I don’t think there’s any legal mechanism that, that they could use in order to do that. If the Supreme court tried to do something like that, it would be unconstitutional as far as I can tell. Uh, and there may be some other constitutional scholars who disagree with me, but I, I think that’s the case because there’s a whole, there’s a whole mechanism. There’s a whole set of rules under the 12th amendment. And then Congress passed some additional rules on how this all works. If you don’t get a president in office by a certain period of time, there’s different things that happen. The Supreme court invalidating the election in ordering a new one is not in the rule book.

So I don’t think that they can do that. And I don’t expect it. I think that this will get sorted out, following the existing rules. We’re not going to have, in my opinion, we’re not going to have any major catastrophic new revelations, like a new, you know, something, Whoa, that just happened. If it goes through the, the, the route where Donald Trump convinces the legislatures to go and actually, you know, make some changes to how they nominate their electors, that’s a different thing, but that’s also a part of the rules they can do that. I’m not saying they should do that. I think there’s an issue with that. So I’m talking about a descriptive possibility for them, not a normative one. I’m not saying they should do it, but they could do that. And I think that that would still follow within the confines of the rule.

All right. Thought of engaging or collab with Ray ricotta law on YouTube. So I’m not, I’m not familiar with them at all actually, but I will go ahead and write, write that one down and take a look at their channel. All right. So I just wrote that down. Okay, cool. Thank you for that ex fi I’ll appreciate it. We’ll take a look and we’ll see, you know, I’m not sure, I’m not sure what the collab thing looks like. I kind of like this format where I get to present the thoughts and the, and the primary literature, and then, you know, potentially maybe I’d be open to, to go having conversations with other people on their channels, but I’m just not sure. I think we found a format here that works. So I’m not real sure that I want to start, you know, bringing in other people onto this type of a program, but we’ll see, we have SSW lamb who says, are there any whistleblowers from dominion that witnessed or can confirm fraud in the election?

If so, can the whole election result be Nolde so SSW lamb. So I think, I think actually that Sidney Powell indicated that they have people from dominion who are reaching out to her. She said that during the press conference today, and she actually put out a call to action. She said, Hey, if there’s any other dominion employees out there that have information, they want to share with us, get it over to us. We’ll, we’re happy to, to, to look at it. So she made a call to action on that, told them to send them out. Uh, and, and I’m going to presume that there’s probably something there because she said that she had had something from him. We’ll see what, what that turns out to be. It’s a good question though. Now can’t sort of the same question that I just answered for another super chat.

It was this idea that I don’t think there’s any real mechanism for canceling the election. I just haven’t seen that anywhere. In other words, to just say that election is over, we’re going to do it again. I don’t know that there is a mechanism for that don’t know that it’s ever happened, which is why a lot of this stuff is so, so interesting. So heated is because people don’t really know kind of what to do here. We’re going to see where it goes. We have G Irish who says curing of ballots was done differently for urban and rural areas. Does that cause a problem? Yeah, it’s a, it’s a great question. And this is what the, this is a sub, this is a, an issue that is really a substantive claim that they’re making under the equal protection clause. Okay. So the equal protection clause says that both, both people have to be treated equally.

I mean, it is kind of what it sounds like you can’t discriminate based on, you know, race, color, creed, any of those things. And it’s the equal protection. When we talk about that in a voting context, it’s the same thing. Every vote needs to be treated equally. We saw this a lot in the Bush versus Gore case where they were, where they had those issues with the hanging Chad. So they would, people would, would punch the cards on their ballots. And there’d be these, these holes that were not completely punched out that, you know, they couldn’t really decide is that a, is that a vote or not? Because the poll wasn’t punched out. And then they had these flashlights that they would shine through the ballot and they’d look. And if they could see sunlight around it, then they’d say, okay, that counts, we’re going to count that one.

But different jurisdictions had different counting procedures. So they would have a mechanism. And so what the Supreme court said is, look, this is, this is a violation of equal protection. Every vote is not being counted the same. Some people have more discretion to throw out some votes and others are being counted. And so that’s unequal balance. If, if, if the votes are not equivalent across the board, that’s a problem. So in your question, if some votes are being counted because a curing process is being administered one way, but it’s being administered differently in a different jurisdiction. A person who’s caught up in that is, is not equally protected. Their, their ballot is not being treated the same. And so that’s a violation of equal protection. And that’s what a lot of them are. That’s what a lot of these cases are claiming that different votes are being treated differently.

And that is not what we stand for when we want, you know, one person, one vote equal weighted votes across the board. Good question though. Lava, Java lava says you being an attorney. Have you noticed a difference in the way law is being handled during the last four years? Honestly, you know, lava, Java, lava, I would say, um, I would say no. And then yes. So things have been changing pretty dramatically as a result of the coronavirus. So I don’t, th I’m not sure sort of where you’re going or what kind of difference you’re looking for a response on, but things have changed pretty dramatically as a result of coronavirus. A lot of the proceedings are now taking place in person. Uh, judges now are kind of getting slapped on the wrist, I think for allowing a number of continuances. So a lot of attorneys around Arizona and around the country are asking for continuances and kind of extending dates.

And some judges are saying no more extensions, come in and have a jury trial, come on in, wear your mask and have the jury wear a mask and have the officers wear a mask. And there’s a lot of issues with that. There’s a lot of personal problems I have with that, right? If an officer is wearing a mask and you want to cross examine that officer, you can’t see their micro-expressions, you can’t see their smirks. It’s difficult to judge a juror juror. You know, when you’re actually giving your opening argument, you want to look at the jurors in the eyes. You want to look around the room and watch who’s fidgeting and watch who’s paying attention and go over to that juror and give them a little bit more attention and look them in the eye and get them engaged in this process, because this is important.

You can’t have jurors falling asleep on you. And if, and if people are covered and segregated and you know, they’re, they’re in different parts of the courtroom. They’re not even in the jury box anymore because they’re putting them back where the public sits so they can have social distance. And so, and now everybody has face masks on and the jurors can’t see your face, and it’s just, it’s a mess. And so we’re going to see where this goes. You know, criminal law, the stakes are very, very high people go to prison for a long time, unfortunately. And if they’re not getting a fair shake because the juror can’t see their face, or they can’t see their attorney’s face, or the, the, the judge or the jury can’t really hear what you’re saying, because you’re muffled because you got a mask on that’s, uh, that’s a problem.

And so, you know, a lot of those challenges are sort of coming up and it is, uh, it is interesting to see, to see, to see where this is, how this is developing. And I’m curious as to where it goes, but it’s a very good question. All right. So such says, would you be able to do this YouTube channel if you were a prosecutor, could it be used to get cases thrown out due to perceived biases is a very good question. Um, probably not. If I was a prosecutor, prosecutors have some pretty strict rules, uh, even their social media, a lot of them are very sort of clamped down, you know, they’re, they’re really, um, sort of not on social media. I’ll be honest. I’ve, I’ve had a lot of questions from people saying, well, why are you even doing this, this show now? You know, they have concerns that, um, you know, people might be turned off by this.

People might not like my presentation or my, you know, sort of political observations or how I’m leaning one way or the other, and therefore that’s jeopardizing things. And I don’t, I don’t really think that I, I kind of don’t buy that. I think that that’s a lot of people who are willing to kind of stand up and say something and fight for something they believe in we’re a law firm of, of fighters. We like to go out there and, and do good for our clients and, and help people, not just numbers, you know, not just case numbers and, and, and Manila file folders. We want to help people get things back together. And so, you know, I’ve kind of made a little bit of a, of a decision here that we’re going to talk about these issues, because I think that this is important. I think that America needs more conversations about these difficult issues.

And a lot of this channel is really about criminal justice and about criminal law, but because everything is kind of on hold right now and criminal justice starts with the people at the top who who’s going to be our next attorney general, what is the next department of justice look like? What’s the next crime bill look like from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. And then, you know, another first step back, what does that look like? We want to be plugged in and we want to be engaged in that, which is why we’re talking so much about it. So, you know, there are, there are some people who have critiques about it. If you look back through some of the history on this YouTube channel, I made videos about a number of different judges, local judges in Arizona, really old videos. I made them I’m gonna make some new ones, but you know, it kind of ruffled some feathers, a little bit people don’t like to be the subject of some scrutiny, but that’s just too bad.

That’s what watching the Watchers is all about. If there’s misconduct or there’s stuff that we need to talk about and root out, if there’s ideas that are worth discussing, we’re going to do that here. And I, you know, it’s working out for us. I think people are hungry for some, you know, some, some fresh perspective on things and we’re having a lot of fun and we’re doing a lot of good work as well. So it’s a good question. Thanks for that. Such appreciate, appreciate that dr. Sami D and I think this will be one of the last ones he says, if a law says another section of a law shall be construed as mandatory, does that turn, does that turn change each may in that section to shell? So I’d really, I’d really want to take a look at the statute. There are, there are sort of two different ways you can analyze statutes, statutory construction is something you spend a lot of time on in law school. How do you, how do you take a statute and deconstruct it? And alternatively, conversely, how do you create a statute? So if you’re a lawyer and you want to write a contract, that’s kind of like a series of different rules that the parties going to be following.

So how do you kind of piece that all together and finagle it into a good contract? And so what you may want to look at, whether whether the different sections you’re talking about, whether they’re disjunctive, whether they’re conjunctive, whether, uh, one follows necessarily from the other. So, you know, you may have a situation where it says may do something, shall do something, and they’re two separate entities or two separate thoughts, two separate paragraphs, two separate rules. There’s really a lot that goes into it. But the general rule is shall, is mandatory. Anything that says in it, the court has no discretion. It’s mandated by the legislature. It’s mandated by whatever is offering the shell and the may is discretionary. So, you know, shell might be for one thought. And then the next sentence may say may, because it’s a separate thought and a separate requirement, but it’s another good, good

Question. All right.

And we have one more from miss faith that says from Kenneth Slayer, he says, okay, but when do we get the

R and R cookbook? Well, I don’t have a

Cookbook Kenneth, but I do have

My book right here. It’s called beginning to winning. And you can see this

And it’s called how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. There’s me look at that yours truly right there. Nine main parts of a criminal case, three most important characteristics you must use to build your defense. 10 examples of mitigation, checklists, tips, all that stuff. I wrote this puppy this year and it’s published on Amazon. And, um, I’m pretty excited about it. You know, it’s nine steps that we use in order to help people navigate through their system. And I’ll give you a little, little brief sort of preview here. You can see that’s kind of

What it looks like, the nine

Steps there. So you can go on Amazon, check that out. If you want to buy it at 1699, if you’re over in on the discord, maybe we’ll throw in the PDF. If you’d like a copy of that, go on into the discord, which the link is right down there in the description. Go check it out. Maybe we’ll throw the PDF in there so you can grab a copy and save yourself 1699. What a deal. Come on, check us out on the discord channel. All right. So listen, everybody it’s about that time. I got to get running. I got a dinner here in the next 20 minutes. I’m going to be late for it, but that’s all right. They’ll understand that I was having a very, very meaningful, very productive, very, just, you know, standard American discussion with each and every one of you. And they’ll give me some leeway on that.

So as a quick reminder, if you’re not already a subscriber on this channel, go ahead and subscribe to the channel, hit that button. We would love it. If you would share it with somebody else, if you would say, Hey, you know, this guy has a, a good channel. They have a reasonable conversations here. They look at primary sources. They like to exercise the mind a little bit, come check it out. If you don’t like the channel, that’s fine to send it to your friend and say, Hey, this guy’s a moron. He has no idea what he’s talking about, but you should go check them out anyways. I’d be okay with that. Send them on over our way. We go live. Every at

This time, it’s 4:00 PM. Pacific 5:00 PM Arizona time, which is mountain. We got 6:00 PM, central 7:00 PM Eastern time, two additional super chats. Before we bounce out of here. Another one from lava, Java lava says, as you’re an attorney, what are your thoughts on defunding law enforcement? Honestly, I think defund the police is a bad idea. I think that the Republicans are wrong on criminal justice reform because traditionally the Republicans are really, you know, against big government, but unless it is the police they’re anti-big government, except the police, the police can come in and do whatever they want. Qualified immunity, no accountability, unlimited budgets and so on. So the Republicans I think are dead wrong on that. The liberals, the defund, the police people are even more wrong. Defunding. The police is not a good idea. I don’t think anybody in America who has their head on straight really wants to do that, but I do support meaningful reform.

I would like to see more Brady transparency rules. I would like to see more officers who have been charged with misconduct, that information more publicly available. And I would say more archived. A lot of this stuff gets wiped off their records immediately or not immediately after, after several years, five years, which to me feels almost immediate. If somebody has a big problem in law enforcement, we want a record of that. We want ourselves as defense attorneys to be able to get it. I have a big problem with police unions as well. I think they protect a lot of the bad officers. They need to be reformed. I’d be okay with some civil oversight, civilian oversight stuff as well. Uh, I’ve done a lot of, of, of topics on that conversation, but thank you, lava Java lava. I appreciate that. One more SSW. Lamb says president Trump needs to reform the election process.

Can he issue an executive order for all the States to use a safe standard election software? Uh, no. I don’t think that he can remember that the States have the power to run the elections. It’s invested in them. It’s vested in them through our constitution and Donald Trump can’t circumvent that he can’t just go in and make a mandate. Now, what he could do is issue an order to the department of justice, to go investigate something and then, uh, you know, write a report and then transmit that report to the States and then make the States, or can’t make the States do anything. But he could say, look, the, you know, we we’ve done an analysis and audit of your election system. It’s pretty bad. The department of justice issued this report. They can make that report public and they could encourage the state to go and implement some modest reforms or the house of the house of representatives.

Congress, you know, they could pass something or they could even apply, uh, create some additional funding mechanisms for the States to implement the policies. But it’s very difficult for the federal government to go in and mandate States do anything. It’s our system of federalism. We have a federal government and a system of state governments for good reason. And remember under the 10th amendment, anything that the constitution does not give directly to the federal government is reserved to the States. And elections is one of those that is, uh, detailed in the constitution that goes back down to the state. So that’s it for the questions

Folks I got to get going. I want to thank you all once again for being here. One more reminder to hit the subscribe button. We’ll be back here. Same time tomorrow, 4:00 PM, East Western 5:00 PM. Mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM. Eastern time. Everybody have a very wonderful night,

Have a nice restful sleep. I’ll see you back here tomorrow and on the discord. Have a good one. Bye bye.