Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
TRUMP VS DOJ: WHAT'S NEXT? #NewsDaily
Recorded: Aug. 29, 2023 Duration: 1:29:10Space Recording
Short Summary
The transcript primarily focuses on the legal challenges faced by former President Trump, particularly the Georgia election interference case. Discussions revolve around the implications of the charges, the political motivations behind them, and the potential impact on Trump's political future. Participants express concerns about the legal process, the role of federal and state jurisdictions, and the broader implications for American democracy.
Full Transcription
Good evening, Salaman.
Hello, Mario.
We're just getting people added.
Go ahead, Salaman.
Right, guys.
Thank you for joining.
We will be talking about
former President Trump
and the DOJ attack on him.
He now has been
indicted for four cases.
I've pinned them on the top
in the nest details about each of the cases.
We're going to break it down in this space.
We've got...
We've got Senator Colton Moore here.
We also have a number of legal experts.
We also have
political commentator. So we're going to discuss this. We're going to break it down. We're going to find out whether there are some merits or whether this is a DOJ attack on President Trump.
So as I said, the four cases are put on the nest above so you can check them out.
Now, before we start, let me go immediately to Senator Colton Moore. I know that you are a major...
are quite a vocal supporter of former President Trump.
What is your thoughts about what is happening to him
in terms of the DOJ cases that have been put against him?
Yeah, thanks for having me on.
You know, to me, it's all political persecution.
And the cases that you've mentioned, what I am most familiar with is what just most recently
happened here in the state of Georgia.
And I'm happy to elaborate on the points in the Georgia case and express, you know, my
sentiments towards this district attorney who is bringing the case before Trump and some
of her rogue actions.
So thanks for having me.
So actually, because you brought up, let's go straight to the case that you want to talk about.
So on the thread above, it's the second tweet, and it is the Georgia election interference case.
That's right.
And it's been, the date, that's the one of the only, out of the four, it's the only case where we haven't got a trial day lockdown.
Although Fannie Williams is wanting a tentative date for March the 4th.
which is right before,
Super Tuesday as is a couple of the other cases.
And the claim is that President Trump
forcefully attempted to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia,
including spreading false information,
pressuring officials and planning fake electors.
He's charged,
he's charged by Fulton County DA Fannie Williams,
and she's targeted as,
sorry,
Willis, sorry that is.
And thanks for that, question, Sarah.
And the charges are quite substantial.
I put in the tweet.
I don't want to read them out because I don't want to bore you.
But yeah, what's your thoughts on that?
Please go ahead.
Yeah, so that case in Georgia is very different than all of the other cases.
All of the other cases are, you know, Department of Justice, United States versus Donald Trump.
What we have in Georgia is the case is going to read the title...
the state of Georgia versus Donald Trump.
The other thing that's really different about it is that there's 19 total indictments.
So there's Donald Trump plus 18 other people, one of which is a fellow senator of mine, another of which was an employee of the...
I'm going to let you continue, so I'm not trying to be rude.
But isn't the New York one as well, the New York state against President Trump?
That's not a federal one either, is it?
Okay, yeah, I guess you're right about that. I guess the main difference being that in this case, we have so many more people indicted. And the fact that in the Georgia case, it is RICO, it is mafia charges. They're saying that these people coordinated with one another to provide election interference. So in some of the instances, the only...
evidence that's being held is literally a tweet, nothing more than questioning the integrity of the election. And in Georgia, it took 19 days to certify the election results, right? These individuals were doing nothing more than questioning the integrity of an election.
You know, no different than our former governor candidate, Stacey Abrams, no different than Hillary Clinton.
You know, in America, we have a First Amendment right to say and petition the government.
And these individuals were using that First Amendment right, and now they have been taken political prisoners, some of which are my fellow senators.
And that's why we have a constitutional crisis in our state right now.
And so, I mean, going on to the Georgia case...
What are the, so you've explained about some of the contentions you have.
I mean, why is this case, I mean, a lot of people who are Trump supporters are asking this question,
why is this case being basically taken forward when in reality this was just something that he really believed?
It's quite clear, it's quite obvious that President Trump, both in his actions and his statements,
genuinely believe that the elections are rigged and he still believes it.
So, I mean, what is the thing that he...
Think about this.
The first thing...
The first thing that people come to me with on the Georgia case is what about the phone call?
What about when Donald Trump said, I just need you to find 12,000 votes?
That's what they always point to.
But let's not forget there were 40,000 affidavits signed by citizens of Georgia across the state with the threat of perjury.
So had they been proved to be lying, they themselves would go to jail.
40,000 people signed and said, we saw election fraud.
Those affidavits were delivered to the Capitol, okay?
The governor right up to his desk, willed in there.
And so when President Trump gets on the phone and says,
I just need you to find 12,000,
what he's referring to is why don't you just open up the first two boxes
of the 40,000 affidavits of election fraud?
The scheme of the election fraud was so great,
and the margins were so thin.
that the president had every right to question the integrity of this election.
And that's what he did.
And now he's being taken political prisoner with the threat of going to jail for the rest of his life.
Bit Squire, I mean, just from a legal perspective, just to add to what the senator said,
what is it that the prosecutor is going to have to prove in order to essentially prove that
President Trump is guilty of the various charges that have been made against him.
You know, the,
sorry,
go ahead,
I'm sorry,
go ahead,
please.
I was just going to say,
you know,
these charges are novel charges.
you know,
I've,
Any attorney you talk to is going to tell you when the prosecutor in the United States makes an indictment, that indictment should be very clear.
It should be able to be read while running is a great test, right?
Clearly, this person has done something.
It's very evident, written down, and you can see it.
The charges that Trump is facing, along with these 19 others, they're novel, they're brand new, some of which are making false statements and coordinating with others.
So in Georgia law, with Rico, she has jurisdiction across the entire state.
I mean, she's got, you know, a former election superintendent down in Coffey County, way down in South Georgia.
You know, these people don't know each other.
Many have never met one another.
And somehow she's going to have to prove that they were all tied in.
And the charges against them are making false statements and the evidence in some cases as a tweet.
I mean, this is clearly an attack on the First Amendment, clearly an attack on the Constitution of the United States.
I would, oh, sorry, I was just going to echo what the, the senator said there.
And really, as far as the, you know, in Georgia in particular, with this RICO or a play on the federal RICO statute, you know,
and dealing with this criminal enterprises, as Senator Moore stated with things as simple, you know, as a text message.
Yeah.
proving the enterprise, number one,
but then number two, proving,
where I'm curious and Sarah Moore,
maybe you can expand on this a little bit.
Prosecutor Willis, I think a few years ago,
had some success with this RICO statutory scheme
regarding some school officials.
But the end game,
was that these school officials were were conspiring amongst one another to ultimately get
financial gain from that they were going to get bonus money what have you what is fanny
willis thinking by way of the the and not you know necessarily um donations to campaigns but
Where is she coming from under Georgia law in particular with the financial gain aspect, if I may?
Yeah, I don't think she's looking at anything as it relates to financial gain.
I mean, she is essentially alleging that these individuals...
uh, or treasonous that they've tried to overthrow an election. I mean, you know, there was an
alternate slate of electors, uh, many of which, you know, have been indicted in this. Well,
that was the constitutional process for what they were going through at that time. The election
results, right, they still hadn't been certified 19 days. People are running around trying to find
fraud and, and, uh,
You know, these individuals were taking the lawful steps.
And, you know, she's had a lot of time to bring all this public, but she puts it out with an election inference in mind herself.
Following, let me go to you before I go to Andrew.
Following.
In terms of, a lot of people have discussed this in terms of if President Trump.
was to be elected president and win the election that he would be able to pardon himself for from my
from my understanding he won't and I've pinned the tweet on the in the nest he won't be able to
pardon himself for Georgia is that right because it's not a federal case yeah that's exactly right
and neither will the governor uh it will take a board of pardoning parols and i'm pretty sure under
this rico act he's going to have to serve five years minimum
before they consider it.
I mean, these are the most serious of charges,
and it's being done by a state district attorney.
It's absolutely assinine what's going on.
Well, first of all, thank you for calling on me.
He saw her there.
Presumably, if they're Georgian charges, he would not be able to pardon himself.
It becomes a little more interesting if he's successful in removing it to federal court as to what the status would be of his ability to pardon.
It doesn't.
a state charge in criminal that that gets convicted in federal court who's saying it you're saying it
doesn't Andrew are you know no because no because even if it's even if the case is removed to federal
court it's still uh the case caption is is the state of Georgia versus it's not it's not an offense
against the United States it's a state court charge being heard in a in a federal court
applying state applying state law for the most part
I haven't looked at it, but I would tend to agree with you on that, Andrew.
I think that because it's a state charge, even if it's, even if it would get removed to federal court, my, my, the removal has, the removal has nothing to do with pardons, nothing at all.
Yeah, I don't, I don't think it would elevate something that he could potentially pardon.
The reason, what I'm really frustrated about with respect to this RICO charge is when you think of what RICO is, when we all think about what RICO was traditionally about, obviously it was the legislature trying to find a way to.
to properly encapsulate the criminal activity that was being conducted by the mafia.
And obviously, for a healthy republic, you can understand why there's some sort of terms that are amorphous to it.
Now, predicate with respect to George, you need to have two or more crimes that are committed,
and it's supposed to be in furtherance of criminal activity.
If you break down the actions that he purportly committed as raised in this indictment,
There's a whole series of different activities across state lines, some in Michigan, some Pennsylvania, out west.
And then before it finally starts breaking down, some of the different activities that he purportedly committed in Georgia,
few of which standing alone seem to be criminal at all.
Like, I mean, like holding a rally here or there, which obviously no one thinks that's criminal,
but they're trying to say that's in furtherance of this conspiracy scheme.
And when I look at the charges, even though I'm strong supporter of Trump, the one charge in this Georgia indictment that to me has any real teeth to it is really standing alone, those charges that have proven correct.
would be something that most people would consider serious with respect to operating a healthy republic.
And that is his purportedly signing off on an affidavit knowing that what he was swearing to was false.
That's the one thing that's in all these charges.
Out of the 91 charges, that's the one thing which I think has legitimate...
legitimate basis for someone to say this is someone to cry foul on.
And I think that that could in theory serve as something that people can recognize that,
hey, you can't just have people lying on their oath and submitting these documents in court.
That's a pretty serious offense.
The problem I have is this, that when we look at the purpose of RICO, the agenda of RICO is to try and
and stop people who are doing illegal things in furtherance of criminal activity.
What he was doing with respect to these elections,
and the reason that I and so many of so many people on the right are so outraged by this
is because he's serving as president in the United States,
and part of that function anyone would readily admit is that he is responsible
to ensure that our elections are being run fairly and properly and with integrity
and that there's not rampant fraud throughout our elections.
and any steps he's going to take in that direction
to try and label that a criminal enterprise
purely on the basis that that objective
would similarly benefit him
is a ridiculous way to twist Rico.
It just doesn't make any sense.
And when you look at the fact that since it's not furthering
a criminal objective,
of like trying to steal and extort lots of money.
It's not further than a criminal objective
of trying to do something that's outside the ambit
of what he's supposed to be doing,
what he's obligated to be doing.
And the one thing that you can put any teeth to
is that affidavit,
how is that part of a RICO charge
when the whole agenda here is something
that he's not only legally permitted to do,
but arguably obligate,
obligate,
obligated to do. So that's why I think a lot of us on the right are so agitated that this is, you know,
that they're trying to take his legal acts and then after the fact trying to attach some sort
of criminal assessment to those acts, even though at the time that he was committing it,
no one who was actually looking at it independently would have considered it for even a moment
that there's anything remotely criminal about this. And that's, that's was very frustrating.
I'll lay my plan there.
Let me go to Andrew. Andrew, you've heard about the Georgia case. So what's your thoughts from a different perspective? Please go ahead.
You know, I only know what's in the court documents. There's a grand jury report that's going to be released early September, I believe. That's the special grand jury report that was used to obtain indictments from the regular grand jury.
And regarding what the last speaker just said, I think something that's getting missed in the defense of the former president saying, oh, he was just carrying out his function to ensure clean elections. Elections are a state function.
presidential elections, there are no, there's no central presidential election. We have, we have 50, 51, if you count, D.C., separate elections conducted on election day. Those elections determine the electoral college votes for each state.
but they are a state function.
And within the state, that's even broken down by counties.
So our elections are very decentralized,
and the president does not have a role.
And if you paying attention to what was argued,
the other, I think it was yesterday,
when Mark Meadows was trying to get his case removed to federal court,
the argument that he that's going to be the biggest hurdle for him to get over is what was
the the function that that he was performing in terms of federal elect in terms of the elections and
there is no function for the president or the executive office of the president when it comes to
state elections so i i think that's
That's, I think, where the case turns.
And that's why Willis was able to bring this a indictment, because if you look at it, it's specific to Georgia.
The intent was to overturn the election results in Georgia.
Andrew?
Can I answer the question, Andrew, on that?
Yes, go ahead.
So if you're saying that this is, and I agree with you that the states and the ones who were running these elections, obviously they're federal elections. And if your, if your assessment is correct, on what basis would Georgia be able to to ramp up their RICO charge?
for things that Trump did with respect to Pennsylvania or Michigan.
The indictment itself belies the claim that you just made.
Because they make so much about these activities and other states.
I'll finish my question and then I'll certainly let you respond.
But they make so much about the fact that on a national level,
he was looking to steal the federal election,
that to try and say that because states run their elections as independent bodies,
belies the entire point of the indictment, which is that this was some part of grand scheme to steal the federal election.
And that's why all these activities in Michigan, Pennsylvania are relevant to a RICO charge in the state of Georgia.
Right, right.
I'm not a lawyer.
I attended law school, but I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a member of any state bar or admitted to practice anywhere.
Right.
And so I just wanted to put that caveat up front.
What I understand from talking to people who are much smarter than me, which is basically my job,
is that the reason she can include things that happen outside of her jurisdiction,
outside of the state in the indictment, is because...
the Georgia Rico statute is written in such a way that it allows for it, that it's a, that it's very, that it's broadly written in a way that allows conduct outside of the prosecutor's jurisdiction to be, to be used as, uh,
I don't want to say evidence, to be alleged as furthering the conspiracy.
That's further acts.
That's how she does try to label it as further acts.
But what she's trying, I'm just to ask you, I know you're not an attorney, so I'm not trying to bully you with, you know, through knowledge of the law.
I'm just going to approach this with you.
I'm trying to approach this with you logically and rationally in ways that even a lay person could understand.
On the one hand, you're making a fair claim that the elections are handled on a state level.
But if that, and you can't, you cannot in the same breath say, well, because it's on a state level, federal employees have no role here.
The president himself has no role here because it's on a state level.
But then we're going to bring in charges based on what we're done on a federal level.
Can you understand how?
And I mean, a legal scholar would, you know, would raise the issues on what basis could Fannie Willis have jurisdiction to start, to start penalizing people for their activities outside the state of Georgia.
But I'm not going to go down that route with you because you said, you know, I'm a member of the bar.
And I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to win by having, you know,
I'm trying to win through logic that anyone can relate to rather than rooting it on law that you might be unfamiliar with.
So that's why I want to focus on this particular point as to the illogicality of claiming in one breath that this is not federal,
while at the same time using all these different cross-state line
election issues as further acts because the whole conspiracy as alleged by
those are all individual individual acts but she can she can use those to to lay out the
conspiracy and what was done in furtherance of of the conspiracy but the conspiracy itself
was to was to violate state law
is what's happening here.
At least that's my understanding based on the legal experts that I've talked to.
It sounds like it's worth noting that Jim Jordan in the Oversight Committee
have also given Fannie Willis until September 7th to produce all emails and documents to
from her communications with either Jack Smith and the federal government regarding these
prosecutions to see if, in fact, she's been doing it in lockstep with the federal government and the DOJ.
So that's just a little point of information that could potentially come up.
I don't understand there to be any, from what I understand from sources, there's no,
There's no there there. Mr. Jordan's making a lot of noise, but even if she were to produce something, there's not going to be much there.
This investigation predated anything that the Department of Justice was doing because the Department of Justice really resisted investigating anything related.
to the efforts to overturn the election for quite some time.
They were very content to go after people who were at the Capitol,
but nothing having to do with why they were at the Capitol.
So I don't think Mr. Jordan is really using his time very well in pursuing the
any alleged communications because there's probably not very it'll be a simple answer from fanny then
she just said no there's no communication one more little point of information here the other big
lawsuit that's actually coming up the end of october is the true the vote versus fair fight
lawsuit which which they're actually going to be
subpoenas for Brad Raffensberger, Ryan Germany, Stacey Abrams, and many others.
So that is certainly something to watch because a lot of information is going to be coming out in that lawsuit
that's going to be probably used for all of the 20 people who were indicted in Fulton County.
It's probably going to get used in their defense.
So mark your calendars for the end of October because that's going to be one of the biggest lawsuits coming out of Georgia.
Okay.
Sully, if I could.
Yeah, go ahead, Doc.
I was going to go to you next.
Yeah, so a couple of things that I have a problem with here,
foundationally, is one, the president is in charge to make sure that all laws
the United States are faithfully executed, not just federal laws, but also state laws.
And certainly, the state election was for federal officers.
It was for congressmen, senators, a vice president, and a president.
And of course, the vice president is a member of the executive staff and the administration.
So I don't agree with Andrew or whoever is advising him legally with the conclusions that he's making.
The other issue that I have here is to establish the RICO charge fundamentally what Fannie and the state of Georgia has to prove is that the election was fraud-free and that a candidate for the election
was not entitled to ask questions, demand evidence, assert that there was fraud, when there
was obvious fraud in the state of Georgia by at least the 40,000 signed affidavits by members
of the voting public in Georgia.
There was more than enough evidence to give anyone reasonable doubt that the election
had been fraud-free.
quite the contrary.
So it was absolutely incumbent upon the president,
both in defense of his own candidacy
and defense of the laws of the country
to ensure that the federal election,
this was a federal election.
Yes, the state administered it,
but it was for the election of federal officers.
So the feds have a place and a role
in questioning the election
and ensuring that it complies
not only with the state's laws,
but with federal laws.
And of course, the popular vote does not elect the president.
That's not the point in time when the president is chosen.
The president is chosen when the electors meet in Washington on January 6th.
So the notion that a RICO charge was established and complete
at the time that it's been asserted by the state of Georgia is simply not true.
At the time that phone call, there was more than enough reasonable doubt.
The election wasn't even final in Georgia when that phone call was made if I have my dates right to question the election.
And he wasn't the only candidate in Georgia who was questioning the election.
And he wasn't the only party who brought legal action and defense of it, as Heather's just mentioned.
There are two cases, companion cases.
They'll be heard together next month or the month after that in the state of Georgia relative to the election fraud in Georgia.
So to state that Trump committed a RICO violation by conspiring with people all over the country to question an election that Georgia is setting out has been finally determined to be fraud-free is ridiculous on its face.
Well, first off, the electors.
And that's, I'm almost finished.
And that's why this case is going nowhere, in my opinion.
The process is the punishment.
This is a ridiculous attempt to damage Trump's campaign through this lawfare and is backfired.
Yeah, and don't forget, like, the biggest conflict of interest of all is the very fact that Fannie Willis was on the ballot in the election in question, right? And Greg Phillips and Catherine Englebrock, who I'm working very closely with now,
They had meetings with Brad Raffensberger in his office with several other witnesses with Ryan Germany where they were going over information that later on they were pretending on calls to President Trump that they weren't in those meetings admitting existed.
And so all of this is going to be coming out too in that truth of vice.
through the vote versus fair fight case when they have a chance to subpoena them, right,
is the fact that they were sitting in a room with Greg and Catherine and other witnesses saying one thing
and then giving President Trump another side of the story saying none of that stuff that was perfect.
There were none of these issues.
So this is all going to come out.
And that's really what the basis of the Fulton County case.
stuff was on was this phone call, right?
But it's all a bunch of crap.
And Fannie Willis, ironically, all of the charges they're doling out, especially these RICO
charges, when you actually get into the mules that were going across state lines and trafficking
these ballots, those...
RICO laws could actually apply to the ballot traffickers, the people that were part of that organized operation that did in fact have the same mobile devices that were in multiple states. So the same mule that was in Georgia was actually in Arizona because it has a unique identifier
specific to their cell phone so you can actually figure out that people were going across state lines
that were a part of this massive organized ballot harvesting ballot trafficking operation.
So it's kind of funny that she's dishing out the charges that really apply to her and the rest of the criminals there in Fulton County.
I go to Lanka.
Lanka, what's your thoughts on what we've discussed?
Thank you. So I just wanted to say I was in front of the jail in Georgia last Thursday and I was
amazed how big support Trump had there and everyone I did an interview with. They actually said
their sympathy for Trump increased a lot just after this Georgia case just because it's so bizarre. But if I could
circle to Senator Colton Moore. I was just curious because he launched a process for an emergency
session to defund the Georgia DA. And I was curious how much support he has and whether there is
any pressure on him. Yeah, absolutely. That is my first and foremost priority right now is calling for a
special session.
Now, the Georgia legislature doesn't convene officially until January, but with signatures from other legislators, we have the ability to call for a special session.
Now, what does the legislature do when we have a special session?
Well, we can do anything that we can normally do.
We have constitutionally oversight power over judicial and executive officers in this state.
So first thing I would want to do is open up the budget and defund Fannie Willis, this district attorney of any Georgia taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, the citizens of Fulton County and the federal government would be left to fund her and her actions.
Additionally, the legislative branch has oversight.
It has the ability to subpoena the state.
So why not subpoena this district attorney?
You know, there's some questions that are very blatantly obvious that need answers.
And why did the indictment come out hours before the grand jury ever concluded?
You know, was there judge shopping in this?
why in the world was she trying to indict our lieutenant governor when she was hosting
fundraisers for our lieutenant governor's opponent, which he brought before the judge,
and the judge ruled that she wouldn't be allowed to indict our lieutenant governor.
She is an officer of the state, like it says on that court case, the state of Georgia versus Donald Trump.
She is an agent of the state.
And my constituents and people across the state of Georgia don't want their hard-earned tax dollars funding Fannie Willis.
Joe, I.
This is exactly why I have such a problem.
It's, it's, we don't know all the evidence.
There is evidence, for example, I don't think the phone calls to bake, a smoking gun.
I think it's testimony from people like Bill Barr that might come and be like he knowingly lied about the election, about the election fraud.
And instead of allowing the court.
to happen and for Georgia jurors to decide and to see all the evidence and even have a
televised so America can finally make a decision for itself.
You want to defund an investigation and go on the defense without knowing all the all the
information.
To me, it's like it's like looney land.
I don't have another word for it.
No, the way I look at it is it's like fascism.
You know, first they go after your enemies and you don't say anything because they're your enemies.
And that's kind of where our governor is right now.
He looks at Donald Trump as an enemy.
I'm sure you want to hang Hunter and you making all these kids or Joe Biden because of the Hunter laptop.
And maybe there's something there and that should be investigated, right?
You probably want to hang them without knowing the evidence.
But because Trump's on your side, you're like, no, let's not hang.
Let's defund the complete trial.
It's ridiculous.
So that's where you're not seeing the whole picture.
There's a mountain of evidence that there was fraud in the election.
That's what, like, just because you haven't seen every last little bit of evidence doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.
And you can sit there and regurgitate talking points that try to say 2000 mules was
You're the one who's regurging talking points every time you're up here.
No, I'm saying like there's a mountain of evidence.
So you're sitting here like wanting people to admit Trump did something wrong when he didn't do something wrong.
If there is show it.
Why doesn't Donald Trump post the evidence?
Why does any post the evidence have been two and a half years?
Post it.
I have a mountain of evidence.
I have a mountain of evidence.
Like I have everything from checks of how people got paid.
I have everything from receipts, emails.
I have interviews with whistleblowers with law enforcement.
Like we have a mountain of evidence and it's being compiled.
Why? It's coming out in the courts, in the place where it's going to make the biggest difference. We're not trying to win over Jolla. We're trying to win over the court systems in a court of law. And I thought you wanted to defund the court. I thought you wanted to defund DAs in place.
Oh my God, Joe, do you not understand?
Like, you're shooting yourself in the foot when you allow election fraud to creep into the elections because it means you're both didn't tell either.
I don't believe it because I haven't seen it.
So I'm waiting to see your info that you've been talking about for the past year.
Show it and I'd love to see it.
And I might change my mind.
Do you actually read my tweets?
Do you read my tweets?
I've literally posted tons of stuff.
Does it just not appear in your timeline?
Because you talk about mules all the time.
And it's been, he had to redact the book
because it was false.
And he'd keep bringing it up.
Have you watched the movie?
Denech has nothing to do with the investigation.
The investigation was done by Greg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote.
Dinesh, all he did was partner with them and do the production on the movie.
The entire investigative work was done by Greg and Catherine of Through the Vote.
They're the ones that have this lawsuit where they're subpoenaing Brad Raffinsberg, Stacey Abrams, Ryan, Germany.
and a bunch of other people.
So I suggest, Joa, if you really want to be informed,
maybe you should follow through the votes work.
It's all posted, and you can actually visit a website called open.
Dot, Inc. right now.
You can go there, and all of the receipts are archived like WikiLeaks.
So you can go and look at their Georgia collection. We're actively dumping all of the data,
receipts and information to this website right now. I'm working with them on it as a project.
And we're backing it up. There's all of the receipts and information from their Connick lawsuit,
right? Connick being the election software company that was storing American election information
on Chinese servers. All the receipts for that are backed up there. So if you want to do a
little homework, go to open.
. Inc. and dig
your heart out.
Heather, I've also
seen evidence that
it was stolen.
So which evidence do I believe?
That's why I want a trial
so I can actually make a decision.
It's like a lot of...
The trial is not going to...
65% of Americans
want the trial.
Everyone wants the trial because people don't realize that it's unlikely that the legitimacy of the Georgian election is actually going to be at issue in this trial.
A lot of people like to think that it would be.
I wish it would be.
We all want to know.
I am very, very tired of the left constantly saying, this is not enough, that's not enough, this is not enough.
It's like because it wasn't one big bite, but it was death by 40,000 bytes as evidence, as Senator Coulton Moore pointed out, 40,000 affidavits were about there being election fraud.
and 12,000 vote difference.
So, I mean, you do the math there,
but everyone's like, well, this is only 200 votes here.
That's only two, that's another...
50 votes there.
And what people are trying to pretend on the left is that we can't figure out that,
hey,
you know what,
when you start adding these numbers up,
if he actually had spent 30 seconds with an interest of actually looking at this
with integrity,
it would have been evident to anyone that he did win this pretty handily.
But instead of actually looking at it,
they're like,
that's not enough.
Yeah,
that's not enough.
So they did that to 40,000 bytes.
So you could say,
that bite wasn't enough.
That bite wasn't enough.
That's not the issue.
The issue was the collection of bites.
Go ahead, Joe.
Yeah, follow me.
I know you keep saying I'm on the left.
It's not, I'm not on the left.
And, well, put it this way.
I'm not pro-Biden.
If it was between Biden and Trump, as I've said a thousand times,
CBDC is my number one issue.
There's a 50% shot that Trump would stop the CBDC,
so I vote Trump over Biden.
So I don't think he's stopping at all.
But I don't go on automatic defense of anyone I like.
I want to see the facts.
And I've seen facts to both side.
I've seen things be debunked over and over, and I want to see it.
And I think you will have some of the, you will, on the trial, you will be able to show
certain evidence whether this was actually a stolen election or not.
Let me go to Brian. Brian, what's your thoughts?
Oh, yes, certainly. So, you know, thanks for having me.
I think this question is for Senator Colton.
Trump does have a lot of legal cases.
And some legal experts argue that the charges against Trump are politically motivated,
while others believe they reflect legitimate legal concerns.
What's your perspective on the balance between legal considerations and political motivation in these cases?
Yeah, I mean, this is so much bigger than Donald Trump,
regardless of whether you believe there was election fraud or not,
regardless of whether you like Donald Trump or not,
in the United States of America, we have a sacred...
obligation to protect one another's First Amendment rights.
Okay, these individuals, these 19 individuals were simply expressing their First Amendment right
to question the integrity of an election.
Now, we could spend hours discussing was the election integral or not.
It doesn't matter.
These are Americans, and they were questioning that integrity, and now they've been taken political prisoner.
which what does that do that scares anybody else from voicing an opinion because oh my they may come after me too
and that's where we are right now in georgia where my fellow legislators are too reluctant to take any
type of action because they feel like they might be obstructionists of justice well what justice
these individuals were just expressing their first amendment rights
Justin, go ahead, John?
So I put the call, the entirety of like the one hour and four minute call between Trump and Raffinsberger down in the comments.
I would encourage everybody to listen to the entirety of the call.
I appreciate what Joe is saying.
However, the call is cited directly as cause for several of the charges inside the litany of indictments.
that came down. I've listened to the call. I also was on similar calls with Cleena Mitchell and several other people who were on that call. I've hired Cleod and Mitchell several times throughout my career. She is an extremely competent lawyer. Anyone knows me. I very rarely think any lawyers are competent. So it's high praise coming from me. The problem is that call
There is no criminal action anywhere to be found in it.
Even when Fiddle listened to it with us live in the space could not say that there was any criminal action there.
And it's also very clear that Trump believes firmly that the election was stolen from it.
from it that he was hearing from other people who were telling him huge numbers about the
different ways that votes had been taken right even if those weren't accurate at the time it
speaks to what his thought process is at the time even if they didn't all play out
The biggest question here is the timing of all four of these indictments to coincide with the elections,
which is this election happened in 2020.
We're now right in the middle of political season, and all of a sudden, now they find time to make all of these different indictments, right?
All and whether there was...
literal collusion
where Fannie Willis is calling
Fat Alvin Bragg
and being like,
hey,
bro,
what are we going to do here?
Right?
Right.
When you lay it out the perception should be that this is the lawfare targeting of the leader of a political party in this country, which is, by the way, the playbook that we've seen play out in other countries that we all speak out against, which is they seize power, they steal an election, they come to power, and the first thing they do is they criminalize the political opposition.
Right.
by taking out their leader with criminal charges.
So this is hugely problematic, and the call...
The other thing it boils down to when Trump is saying, and the media cut this like little clip where he's like, I need you to find me votes.
The entirety of the call is him laying out, well, we've got 50,000 votes here.
This person says there's 50,000 votes there, 100,000 votes here, right?
He's making out the case.
What we were hearing from all of the attorneys at the time, I wish Trump had ceded the call to Cleita Mitchell.
several times she tried to jump in.
I wish he had allowed her to
because what we were hearing at the time
was that the legal threshold
necessary for a challenge of the election,
either a revote or an overturn,
was that you needed the ballots in question
to be one more
than the margin of victory.
And so when he says,
find me 11,000 whatever votes,
right,
I just need one more vote than the margin.
What he's saying is,
all we don't even need to show the court precedence on this.
Is it that we have to show that,
uh the ballots were switched from me to my opponent all i have to show is that there are enough
questionable ballots that is one more than the margin of victory and that's what we were hearing
from the lawyers at the time in the lead up to january 6th this is blatantly an attack on the first
amendment and senator more i hope you get uh that special session called and i hope you guys
defund this thing because this is an abominant abomination
Then we go to Jua and then we'll go to Bisquire.
Yeah, look, what Trump said on the call in and of itself is not illegal.
Where it comes into question is, I don't remember what the investigation was where Bill Barr was interviewed and even Ivanka Trump was interviewed.
And she even said, I believe Bill Barr when he was saying Donald Trump did not want to see any evidence contrary to the election was stolen.
Right. That to me shows intent.
Right.
And if that call happened after that without looking at the evidence before doing that, that shows that there was criminal intent behind that phone call.
It's not the words itself.
So I wouldn't look at the words and be like, oh, he didn't say anything wrong in the call.
No, it's the intent.
Joe, how is challenging in court, I believe?
How is challenging an election by a candidate a crime?
Also, intent to what?
Intent for what?
Criminal based on the intent as you judge it?
Right, like we're not going based on the words.
We're going what you judge is the intent of this criminal behavior?
Not what I judge.
The jurors will judge.
There's no criminal behavior here.
This is the point.
Arrest Aiscy Abrams.
Arrest her.
Arrest AisC. Abrams.
They know if it wasn't stolen, Doc.
No, they don't because at the time of the phone call, the time that the, and you may not consider the phone call important, but it has been the foundational rock upon which this claim was investigated and then indicted for.
That's what he was doing. All Trump was doing was questioning the election. He was a candidate for office.
Every right to do that. Yes, of course he does. There's no criminal act here.
But did he know when he made that call? No one knew.
The election was not over.
The president had not been selected.
The popular vote doesn't select the president.
He's required to enforce the laws, all laws.
Millions of people were calling for an investigation.
Millions of people asked him to use the Insurrection Act,
to go and seize the voting machines and have them honestly forensically examined.
There is no predicate crime here.
Yeah.
If I were you, too, Joa, or is she even still in here?
Yeah, he has.
You changed your profile picture.
If I were you, you can go online and probably still find them.
But right after the election, there were two Senate hearings.
I think one was like before the House.
One was before the Senate where they did testimony.
And I was in the room.
Rudy Giuliani was there.
Jenna Ellis is there.
Yeah.
several other people whose mugshots were put out were in that room.
And all day was testimony from election workers,
from voters that were going up saying,
like the craziest stuff that would just,
it would horrify you to think like this,
like this testimony was said, right?
Like that they voted on election day,
were told somebody already voted in their name,
filed a complaint with the Secretary of State's office.
Heather, where was that held?
And it was at the Georgia Capitol.
Was it at the Capitol or was it in off?
Yes, it was an official hearing.
It was one of the, it was, it was a Senate hearing before.
I thought it was off site at a specific, it was.
No, it was at the Capitol and it's a lot, you can, it's all, if you go to YouTube, do, it's, it was in, just, one was in December, one might have been at the end of November, but there were two of them.
But you can go and you can watch the entire hearing.
and grace lemon was a student at georgia tax she was the one that testified that when she went
into vote someone already voted in her name she filed a complaint with the secretary of state's
office they opened an investigation closed it never told her what happened or anything like that
right so all these people that are that that were in that room are not being arrested right imagine he
hearing horrifying testimony like that from seasoned election workers, from voters of all ages and walks of life.
And then all of a sudden now, they're being arrested for looking into those same, like, testimonies.
Those people testified under oath.
They gave sworn affidavits.
And it's like you had another election worker that her job was to calibrate the voting machines.
So she was at the warehouse, right, the Dominion warehouse with all the voting machines.
And they were printing...
test ballots on official voter roll paper. So it's basically the equivalent of an actual ballot.
And they run them through the machines in order to calibrate them. And so she's testifying
that stacks and stacks and stacks of these printed test ballots were going missing. And then
you had a completely separate testimony from a woman who was involved in one of the recounts
that were supposed to be hand-counting
absent email and ballots that said she came across stacks
of ballots that looked like they'd been printed.
Right?
So these two unique testimonies
almost like linked together, like maybe those were the ballots that went missing from the warehouse.
And so you have like testimony after testimony after testimony.
And now all of the people in that room that actually did the right thing and started looking
into this stuff are being charged in Fulton County for looking into it.
The woman from Coffee County, Georgia, I think her name is Misty Martin, and there might have been another one, they rescanned.
Like, they re-scanned ballots the same stack over and over multiple times and got different sets of numbers from the voting machines.
Right? That's the whole reason that those machines were ultimately looked into. And when they refused to certify those results, the Secretary of State's office tried intimidating the election board saying, no, you have to certify those results. They were refusing to certify because they couldn't get an exact number every time they ran them through the machines so they didn't feel like they could certify them. And, and,
That woman, those people are now being charged in Fulton County.
So every single person that did the right thing and looked into all of these different, you know, irregularities, fraud, whatever, they're all being charged now to try to set a precedent that if you see something and say something, you're next.
Right.
Like, this is crazy what's happening.
I don't think it's going to stick personally just because there's a mountain of evidence
that's there for their legal defense to tap into, which I've given them some of what I have,
Greg and Catherine have, David Cross, Kevin Monkla.
The list goes on.
Tons of us have poured hours and hours and hours into digging into what really happened in Georgia.
So I'm confident this is just political lawfare that they're trying to assassinate Trump.
They're trying to hurt him in the polls.
Like that.
So Heather, I think it is political.
And I think a lot of us on the right recognize that there's something deeply amiss with the way that this is going against Trump.
But when I go down the list, I mean, the list are felons.
The list are people that under 18 voted, the people that weren't registered at all, people that used a PO box, 10,000 that supposedly died before the election.
394 that voted in two different states, 15,000 that moved out of states, 40,000 that changed
county. The DO, I mean, the SOS, the Secretary of State actually issued, you know, a 10-plus
page document taking each one of those lined items. And most of those came from Matt DiBaud,
who was going through and basically taking L2 data and matching it against voter records, which is a, it's just
completely nonsense, which is basically like if it caught a Bill Smith who was voting and he
happens to be a felon, it would count that in there. So in the 256 felons that they alleged had actually
voted in the Georgia election, only 74 of them came back as possible matches. And I think when they
actually did the full investigation, it came back to fewer than 10. When they were
When they looked at the 66,248 people that supposedly had voted and were under the age of 18, they could find, I think, no one who had actually voted that way.
It was just an error in some of the matching rates there.
And again and again, you see these processes where you had huge accusations.
I mean, those were the, I think, the nine or ten different stats that were put out there again and again.
And I tell you, I mean, I've known that elections are funky, they're hinky. Back in 1998, I was running data against data polls and showed that on average about 10% of voter lists, what we call dead wood. That is, people that had either died or moved out of state, but we're still on the voter rolls. And so you're going to have.
these elements of either fraud mistakes or otherwise.
But I still don't think there is enough evidence in any of those.
None of those stats turned out to be true, the ones that I listed off there.
And so I don't know what you're left with.
So the problem, just with that, why is Chris Kobach not being charged into this?
So, like, he's the one who designed the flawed system, right?
He was put in charge.
I think it was the elections are after 2016.
And then again, right, he put together the same janky system that every Juan Hernandez, right, got matched up and then was purged from the rolls.
There's a bunch of, like, good reporting about that.
But there's no question like that, right, the ineffective...
advice from counsel with Chris Kobach and several others, right?
Chris is now the Attorney General of Kansas again.
But unfortunately, it just do deny or do you think that Trump wasn't receiving this information from people that were officially a part of his team or within his orbit, right?
Every account that I've read received that he received all this information, okay?
And in fact, at one point, he was warned by his lawyers.
This is according to Bill Barr's ticket as you will.
But he was there as a witness.
He said, his lawyer said, you will be wrangling, if you continue on with this past the December 14th date when everything had certified and everything had gone through the court cases.
If you continue doing this, you will be wrangling with the court system for the rest of your life.
And we...
And he had other lawyers telling him the exact opposite.
Which turned out to be true, Doc.
You're talking about Bill Barr.
You're talking about Bill Barr, regardless of the source.
Who hid the Hunter Biden laptop.
Who hid the...
I don't care what he did.
Is he right, Doc?
Look at this and tell me.
Put a bet down right now.
Doc, put a bet down...
I'll say put a bet down right now and just say...
do you think Trump will be dealing
with these legal issues for the rest of his life?
I think any genuine
person will say, yeah, he's probably going to be dealing
with the rest of his life. Well, that's what you think, but you're
at the Santa supporter, and how does that work out
for you? It's working great.
But his own daughter, his own daughter
agreed with Bill Barr and not her father.
His own daughter.
Again, though, right?
Like, the point is that there were
a ton of attorneys in his orbit,
and they're picking out
The attorneys that agreed with them, right, or that back up the case completely ignores, right, the entirety of the council he was receiving and having to like...
Can you give us some of the examples of that council?
Who? Who? Give me a name.
Chris Cobach, Cleeta Mitchell.
To talk Malibu, Johnny Eastman.
Cleena Mitchell, one of the most respected names in election.
I've worked with her myself.
Love it to death.
She's now gone.
She can no longer practice what she did best, okay?
And I think because she gave terrible counsel, you look at the Cracken.
I mean, just terrible, terrible counsel.
I mean, if she has the evidence, put it forth.
I just read you what the, this is the evidence she's going to support again.
This is the same stuff, and it's been debunked.
Justin, I also have hired Clea Mitchell, right?
I think she's the premier FEC, right?
Attorney.
Absolutely.
Right?
We both have...
What?
She can't do it anymore.
I almost never say anything nice about attorneys.
I find her to be extremely competent.
And if I was weighing different things I was getting from different lawyers...
Odds are I would listen to Clita before I would listen to just about any other.
On FEC issues, not on these issues.
Around election issues?
No, on FEC financial disclosure issues.
You would not listen to her on election advice.
I would absolutely, again, she's been incredibly competent for me over a long period of time on a variety of issues.
I've worked her before. I would trust her with my life on FEC reports.
I don't think her expertise is in whether or not he should continue with legal ramifications against the certification of votes that came in after December 14th.
Well, again, I think the point, though, is made that he was surrounded by competent attorneys, not just Sidney Powell, which everybody likes to dunk on, right? And right, you tried to steer back to the cricket. But also attorneys like Cleed to Mitchell and Ken Kuklauski, another great attorney I've worked with, like on the right for a long time, that.
Didn't jump to my mind right away.
So there's no doubt he was getting a variety of differing opinions in the immediate aftermath of the election.
And when I listened to call, there's just nothing there.
The Georgia one in particular.
Right.
right?
Only New York is worse,
but like the Georgia case,
this is such blatant political ambition
tied with political lawfare.
I agree,
but it's,
they own the court system
and they're going to,
they're going to make him pay for it.
It's just,
why would you poke this terrible bear?
Right.
when you know that they have everything stacked in their favor.
It's going to be awful for him.
He could have said, I'm going to take the loss.
I'm going to come back and do it again.
So could have Kerry Lake.
But instead, they chose to fight this today, and we're still fighting it,
and it's never going to go anywhere.
They have a right to appeal.
They appeal, they appeal, they appeal.
Yeah, they did that.
They lost a right to appeal, and it's not over for Carrie Lake.
Doc, you said yourself she gave up.
Has Carrie Lake gave up?
I'm not happy with Carol A,
that she hasn't kept her comments
and take the original claim to Supreme Court.
That's a political decision.
But you cannot come out here and condense someone
for their desire to appeal a decision
that they object to.
Again, I...
This is Justin.
Justin, I think that you're taking
what we now know
in 2023 and saying that that justifies convictions based on decisions and actions that were taken
in 2020, which means, this is why I said, I said an hour ago, I think, I don't, this has nothing
to do with, with whether or not he actually won the state of Georgia. And you came in here,
you know, railing against how you're convinced that he didn't, that he lost the state of Georgia.
Okay, maybe you're right. I don't.
no, but he's being convicted based on the choices and decisions he made in December when
those facts were certainly in doubt. So to start saying that, well, he should have just thrown
in the towel. I'm sorry, that's a loser mentality. I never want my, I want everyone to hear my president
counsel that he should be throwing in the towel. He's going to be throwing the towel into a jail
bin laundry basket. And that's the thing. It's like, look, everyone knows.
There are certain...
That definitely will not have.
I'm being hyperbolic, but you're right.
The candidate that you support.
No, no.
Come on, Doc, that's just...
That's just...
That's deflecting against real issues that I'm bringing up.
It's not deflecting.
It's who you are.
Doc, I never...
How is it?
You are not an independent arbiter of this, Justin.
What do I care?
Justin...
You're paying to advocate for dissenters, his opponent.
Doc, how are he...
When did I make my move against...
When did I make my first move against Trump
to say he was going to lose the election?
March 29th, 2020.
Go look it up on Twitter.
I said he was going to lose.
He lost the election because of the decisions he made on COVID.
Okay?
He didn't lose the election and was thrown in from him.
Well, look, here's the deal.
When you are in, like, a particular state that you know,
You know the counties, you know the stretches of highway, you know the freeways that you're supposed to like keep yourself buttoned up because the cops there will take you down and give you a ticket for whatever reason they can find.
Right.
Trump knew he was warned again and again in all these different institutes that if you do this, you cannot prove what Trump is.
knew them. It's fine. I'm just saying
you are not a mind here.
There's no horoscope person that can
tell you what he knew. You will not find
an argument. You will not find an argument.
I don't think that's an element of
proof for this case.
They will not be able to prove. I don't think they will.
I agree with you there. I agree
with you there. They won't be able to prove, but they might
because it's George. Not proven by the state.
Cannot be proven by the state.
Are you willing to bet on that?
Trump had thousands of communications between the election day and January 6th where he contested the election to come forward now and assume the state of Georgia can convince a jury or a judge or anybody that Trump, even in the face of all of those comments, all of those statements, all of those videos, that he knew that the election was fair, that even before the election was concluded,
And knowing that it was fair, he tried to steal it.
It's a fucking joke.
And that mentality, Justin, is why we elected Trump as the wrecking ball in the first place, right?
Which is, oh, the courts are going to make it hard on you.
So, right, do just concede when you think the election's taken from you.
Just concede when they tell you you have to go to war.
Just concede because like all these powerful interests are going to stack against you.
Like no, that's why we elected Trump.
Go be the wrecking bomb.
Break this broken system.
That's why we wanted him in the first place.
I've said again again.
That's what I was going to.
I was going to say, I was going to add,
we haven't even started to see the arsenal that Trump's attorneys are going to unleash.
by a way of specific exculpatory evidence motions,
by way of Meadows, they've already appealed,
or not Meadows, I apologize to Trump's.
The current day to March 4th in D.C., that's been appealed.
That could go to the Supreme Court.
I think the left has significantly underestimated,
significantly underestimated the power of exculpatory evidence,
the power that the defense has to elicit,
and be provided that in a criminal trial.
This is not a civil case, right?
This is criminal.
There's liberty at stake here.
And when that happens, constitutional rights attach.
And because of all these communications,
because that intent and Trump's intent is at the very core
of what they are trying to prove,
which they won't be able to prove,
that is going to open up
essentially everything by way of sculptor evidence,
which is any evidence that would tend to show
that you're generally innocent of an element
or of the overall crime or, and this is key,
or would tend to mitigate...
sentence, mitigate sentence. So I think what we have so far, we have trial dates and by way of
the optics of this timeline, I mean, come on, his DC election interference trial being set one day,
one day before Super Tuesday. I don't know from an optic standpoint how it can get any worse.
We have, or they rather have...
filled the entirety at present of Trump's
2020 calendar year with hopping from one trial to another trial,
consulting with one legal team, the other legal team,
coordinating the same.
The optics are ridiculous.
But more than that,
Again, I'm going back to exculpatory evidence because, again, I think we haven't even seen yet what the Trump team in all those jurisdictions.
But in particular, the Jan 6 case in D.C. and in this Georgia case, whether it's in Georgia, whether it's removed, or it's going to be in Georgia, whether it's removed to the federal court in Georgia, whether it's there in Fulton County, the exculpatory evidence across all these.
I think is going to turn the tide here, and I think Trump's attorneys are chomping at the bit to file those
subs and emotions.
Which attorney is that?
The new set or the old set?
I mean, I think this old set is gone, right?
See, I think both sides here are really misunderstanding this.
And look, I'm going to push back on what you just said, that's whyer as
as follows.
Because at the end of the day,
the reason I keep saying
the election results don't matter
is because they don't matter
whether he won
and he can get this in sculptory evidence
or whether he lost.
All that matters,
and this is certainly what we can anticipate
the judge is going to say.
And all that matters is what he knew
at the time that he took these steps in 2020.
And that's why I wish I was wrong on this.
I trust me, I want to see the hardcore evidence
that he was robbed of Georgia
and every one of these six states.
I'm just saying the reality is,
and looking at this as an attorney,
and how I would foresee a judge looking at this is...
You're trying to figure out, did he commit a crime?
Did he not commit a crime?
It's really that simple.
In order to assess that, you need to assess
what did he know, what information did he possess
at the time that he was acting.
So now-
That's the true following.
It's what he intended in his mind to do.
Right, right.
Intended, that's not the same thing as what he knew.
Because what he knew was, was,
that testimony from both sides,
in favor of a fair election and against a fair election.
I agree that.
I agree that.
Yes.
There's been disputed by, in many other courts,
for them to prove this case against Trump and the copenverters,
they would prove that Trump in his mind had concluded and knew for a fact that the election was fair.
I 100% agree with what you just said, and I fully expect that if we actually spent 10 seconds looking into his brain, that in his heart of hearts, and I'll tell you something, that Georgia phone call, any of you who have listened to in the last month, because I did, I listened to her for three hours on a live stream within the past month.
If you go through it, it is crystal clear that that is a man who is completely convinced that he won that state and it's being robbed and that people who are responsible to look it over are not doing a damn to try and investigate it.
obvious that his intent is to try and write an election that he feel was unjustly stolen from him.
And anyone who listens to it differently is so filled with TDS rage that they can't see straight
because you listen to his voice, you listen to how he's jumping from one thing to another.
And that is the relevant factor.
And that is why I feel that he certainly, if he's judged by a fair jury, if this actually goes through a trial,
if he's judged by a fair jury, that there's no way that you'll find 12 people who are going to convict him of this because it seems absurd.
That being said, yeah, because he doesn't know how to act.
Yeah, this is not going to get to the program.
I think Meadows is going to get out.
I think Robert Barnes is right in his assessment.
The way Battles attorneys wrote that motion and the way it's being argued it means that all 19 are going to be removed in the federal court.
So that's my prediction. Justin, if you want to bet on that, I'm happy to take one offline.
No, I actually don't think they're going to get a lot of convictions.
I'm just saying it's imprudent for him not to see the writing of the wall that this was going to haunt him for a very long time.
Haunt him. This has done nothing but put millions in his pocket to bring in new supporters.
63% of the public will never vote for Donald Trump right now.
That's what those two are you sure.
You need to stop citing Ron Ford.
Doc, why are your bulls are very very bad?
Look, you can see in the streets. You can die all you want.
Everyone here can see what's happening.
But Doc, why aren't you happy then if this is good for Trump?
because it's an injustice it's not a matter of it you see this is so many people on the left make
this mistake that it's all about like oh it's occultism and a love of donald trump no this is an
attack not just on don't trump this is a way of a of the authority showing their clout that if
you try brushing up against them or exposing their corruption that they are going to put
your head on a chopping block and it's a way to chill
Anyone actually looking twice at them.
This is a way of trying to chill people like me who have a podcast who call out government corruption.
This is designed to chill anybody on the right like Doc from coming out and saying things like this.
Otherwise, you'll be on a watch list.
And who knows, they'll find something that two years from now, they're going to try to figure out how they can label that a criminal action.
That's what this is about.
This is about going after Dustin,
and this is going after every one of us.
And by the way,
it's not just the right.
This is about every damn American,
ultimately,
because one day the power shift is going to change.
And once this Pandora's box is open,
we are no longer living in our public.
We're living in this,
in this,
banana democracy, which is not any situation that anyone should want to be living in.
It's so gross.
Donald Trump and his lawyers asserted that there were 160,000 votes that should have swung his way in Georgia.
They put out the list of specifically where those votes came from.
Each one of those turned out to be false.
What was the result of the Georgia investigation?
What was the result of the Georgia investigation?
January 6th, the letter that was produced to Congress by the Secretary of State, 10 plus pages long, along with other certifications on top of that.
They went through line by line.
They refused to provide the records to true the vote.
For coffee, for coffee county?
They can to hide the ball.
in Georgia.
I think they've actually been very clear on those things.
But, you know, we'll see where the evidence, but here's the thing.
Fulton County, right, is that where it's filed, right?
That's where it's going to happen?
No, not unless it's removed, which I believe it will see my previous offer of that to you.
I agree.
You think she's going to be removed?
I think it's going to be removed to federal court, yeah.
I have concerns about the Hatch Act standing in the way of that.
I'm not going to kid you.
Now, the Hatch Act would not apply to Trump, because the Hatch Act doesn't apply the president,
the vice president.
But I have concerns about Mark Meadows' ability to overcome issues with the Hatch Act that were raised by the government.
It's one of the few legal issues that they raised in all their artful issues, which I think could stand in the way.
Because under the Hatch Act, he's not allowed to act in politically...
to affect an election. Now, you can say, you can say that that's before the vote and that that's all,
we've only ever seen the Hatch Act apply before votes are cast. And they'll be here, his involvement,
his actions in the steps that he took that are purportedly in official capacity, because the way
you get removal is this to explain to the audience who don't understand what I'm talking about,
what, or this, about this removal. So Mark Meadows brought...
brought an application saying,
I don't want to be tried in state court.
I want to be tried in federal courts.
And I have a justification for that
because as a federal official
who is carrying out, who is acting under color
of my role as a federal official,
I cannot be tried in state court.
And that's actually true.
The problem is that under this,
there's an act that was passed in 1939
called the Hatch Act,
which is designed to take policy
politics out of federal functions and basically say that while you're wearing that hat
of serving as a federal official,
that you cannot step in and engage in partisan politics,
in blatantly partisan politics.
So on the one hand,
the tightrope that Mark Meadows is trying to walk here
is say that, well, I have to go to federal court
because I'm a federal official engaging federal duties.
On the other hand, according to some interpretations of the Hatch Act,
and certainly you can find case law to support this,
that he could not possibly talk as a federal official
while advocating for political campaign.
Now, the reason I think that he could possibly overcome
the Hatch Act problem, because it's basically saying
you can't be taking this role in a federal official.
Now you're saying you're acting as a federal official.
So how are you able to dance at both of these weddings
at the same time?
The answer he could say to that in theory
is that the application of the Hatch Act in the past.
has basically been to say that while you're wearing a uniform,
you can't stand and promote the Republican National Committee or the DNC or any of these parties.
You can't speak and campaign and say vote for Biden or vote for Trump while you're wearing that official hat.
But...
That has always been with respect to motivating people to go out and vote.
And over here, his actions, Mark Meadows' actions,
relates to his working on behalf of Trump...
in his official capacity, not trying to motivate how people will vote,
but to actually have integrity and how people already had voted.
That is somewhat different.
It's a bit of a dance that we have to get through there, which you can categorize,
and this has been done by the state of Georgia, you can categorize any act of a politician in office as being political.
But Meadows and his opposition addressed this, the Hatch Act question, and said the conduct that he was participating in was not overtly political, was not even political in the least.
He scheduled phone calls. He made phone calls. He processed memos for the president while the president was in office.
Right. When these allegations were made is one thing. When the conduct alleged occurred, it's more important. All of this conduct occurred while the president was in office responsible for ensuring that the laws of not just the state of Georgia, but the laws of the country were followed appropriately.
The steps that Trump took to investigate were prudent and did not go to the length and extent that he could have under law and as he was urged to do by seizing the records and voting machines on the Insurrection Act.
With his duty under the Insurrection Act, it can be argued.
to make sure that this wasn't, in fact, an insurrection, that the theft of the vote in Georgia was not a precipitating event to a larger attempt to steal the election.
And we know that's true.
We see that six or seven states, I forget the number, all of a sudden at the same time, stop counting in the middle of the night.
And then when they resumed, Biden had achieved a lead in all of those states.
That's collective action that can only fall under the duty and the authority of the president to solve.
And he's being...
Doc, is your assertion that that was coordinated?
Is it your assertion that the...
It all happened at the same time.
It all happened at the same time.
So, yes, a reason...
So that is your assertion.
A reason why I can allege, it was coordinated.
Do you have any evidence to that?
One event in seven different states across the country at the same time can have the same circumstance that causes the election to stop,
to send employees home that were there for the duration of the count, to lie about the circumstances.
In the seven states that decided the election, too, by the way, right?
It's the seven questionable states, right, that were in contest.
Dustin, is Trump a fortune teller?
This is going to be embarrassing for people to listen to a year from now
and see that they defend the state of Georgia.
That's my prediction.
What's up, Joe?
Trump apparently is a fortune teller
because on August 17th, he said the only way I'm going to lose this election
is if it's, he already projected what he was going to do
and going to say when he lost.
That's exactly what happened.
And Shapiro from Pennsylvania said there's absolutely on in October, in late October 2020,
there's zero chance that Trump will win Pennsylvania at a time when it was, it was polling at like 51.49.
So you can if you, when people say things like that, that I don't know, are you saying that that's necessarily indication of, of a nefarious intent?
Because that's how we would, that's how I heard it when I heard she was also to answer that, Joe, right?
Trump.
I'm sure was like the quote you're talking about there was when Trump was comparing his crowd size to Biden's crowd size, right? That was part of his regular like stump speech, right? The context of it.
was comparing the sizes of the crowds and using that like as political hyperbole.
But Dustin, you know that's campaign strategy.
All you got to look at is the funding.
He had, like, Biden at that time had more funding than Trump did, and it was increasing.
Again, unlike Trump.
Yeah.
Again, I'm just providing the context, Joe, right?
That when he said the only way I'm losing the election, right, is if it's stolen from me, it came right end the part of his speech where he's pointing out, he's telling the media to look at the size of his crowd, right?
And he's pointing out Biden's little circles.
right so what what i'm saying is right it's a lot of stretching is being made to try to tie that
to his intent like after the election especially because right a whole throng 40 000 affidavit a bunch of
Even Justin agrees Cleedon Mitchell is a legitimate attorney that you would, at a minimum,
listen to on anything, election, right?
Like, FEC, I don't know that we would all make the same level of distinction.
But right, like, tying that to the comments he was making ways on the stump, I just don't think it applies.
But, Dustin, one thing is to say, look at this crowd size, we're not losing this election.
Another thing is to say, if I lose, it's because it's rigged.
Right?
They're very different from each other.
Why even put that in there?
Well, because there were already questions about mail and ballots, right?
The changes to the processes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Arizona, Georgia,
Nevada.
Yeah, approved by who, Dustin?
Again, I'm not arguing like the case.
I'm not the person who's best to go back and argue whether they were constitutional or not.
I'd kick that to several other people who are better experts than I am on the issue.
But what I can say, right, is that you looking forward, there were...
definitely questions about why all of a sudden we're going to have the first real mail-in-ballot
election where mail-in ballots dominated. And Trump, on the advice of several people, right,
knew that mail-in ballots are more susceptible to fraud than in-person voting. It's much harder,
right? It's much easier to cheat when you just drop something in the mail than it is when
people actually have to physically show up and cast a ballot. It's just, right, right?
To me, that's common sense.
It explains why we have to be.
And that's the irony of this whole thing.
I mean, almost all the significant voting irregularities
that we saw across in the 2020 election
were because of new state-level COVID policies
put in place to the recommendation of Dr. Fauci
and Trump's CDC
and initiated through the election committee there,
giving $400 million to the states to do whatever they wanted
very specifically towards the election in 2020,
which caused a lot of the chaos.
And that's the truth about it.
That's the irony of this whole thing.
It was Trump's COVID policies,
extended and initiated on March 29th,
that then cascaded down to the 17 different states
that still, by 2022,
had not rolled back those issues.
And that's why what you saw in Pennsylvania
with Federman versus what's his name on the GOP side, right?
They had, I think,
1.7, 1.2 million people voted for the Republican candidate in the Senate race there against
Ferderman in Pennsylvania. See, I can't remember his name now. He's gone. And on that same day,
only 700,000 Democrats voted for Feterman. But that was because 1.7 million had already cast
their ballots in the new laws, mail-in ballots, and otherwise. And so, yeah, there's going to be
some problems with mail-in ballots.
You cannot assert that it's millions and millions of mail-in ballots,
but at the same time, the irony is it all started with COVID.
Well, and just to be honest, man, I don't really disagree.
There was an ineffectiveness of the campaign to properly protect the election beforehand.
I'll 100% see that.
It's part of the reason I was so upset with Trump in the media.
It's challenging. Yeah, I know.
Even now it's challenging.
Right, guys. I appreciate you tuning in today. We are going to be wrapping up. We will be back same time tomorrow, 6 p.m. Eastern. So join us tomorrow for whatever is the breaking news. Much appreciate for everybody joining. And we shall see you same time tomorrow. But just before we wrap up, Sarah, any last thoughts?
She's all choked up.
She's all, Dustin, we, our last words just choked her up.
She's got a lot taken from this space.
She's learned a lot.
She's learned a lot. She's progressed so much.
So I appreciate all of you giving her guidance on this space.
Thank you.
Enlighten her about the knowledge about Trump,
and this will make her as a host in forthcoming space.
You always do that to me, Salaman, as you know when I'm not paying attention.
So thank you for that.
I'm now a conservative, thanks to this space.
And progression has been made.
Much appreciate.
Meeting the calm.
