Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 13, 2020 - The Dan Bongino Show

01:26:17

Post Election Day Special with Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis (Ep 1393)

In this episode, I interview team Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis about voting machines and election fraud. Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host, Dan Bongino.
	All right, welcome to the Dan Bongino Show post-election day special, not post-election special, because the election's not over, despite the fact that the media has decided they're going to try to coronate their king, Joe Biden.
	Yeah, we'll just go according to that thing called the Constitution.
	Thank you very much.
	You're going to love this interview.
	As you well know, because I've said it with every interview show, I always tape the intro after.
	Why?
	Because I want to tell you what's ahead and what's ahead here you're going to love.
	I have one of President Trump's attorneys, the great Jenna Ellis, and former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, both at the forefront of this fight for a free and fair election.
	Ladies and gentlemen, here's what's coming up in this interview.
	Brought to you, by the way, by ExpressVPN.
	Ladies and gentlemen, ExpressVPN.
	Protect your online activity from prying eyeballs today.
	Get a VPN.
	Don't wait.
	Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
	So what's ahead?
	We talk about Dominion.
	What's Dominion?
	Dominion, you mean like a movie or something like that?
	No, I mean the software system used to process votes.
	That had some really strange anomalous events happening.
	Mayor Giuliani and Jenna Ellis both have some really interesting information you may want to hear.
	I also go into some of these legal fights ahead, potential pass forward, and why the legitimacy of this election matters, and why at this point there's a whole lot of open questions that have to be answered here.
	It's the real deal.
	The future of the country's at stake.
	Please don't miss the interview, especially Mayor Giuliani at the end and Jenna Ellison, her comments on Dominion's voting system and this computer automation you should be very skeptical of.
	We have a lot of sponsors.
	We appreciate your patience today.
	They really want to be here and talk to you.
	Ladies and gentlemen, today's show brought to you by friends at Stamps.com.
	This holiday season, more people will be mailing stuff than ever before.
	It means the post office is going to be busy.
	You don't have time for that.
	Stamps.com brings the post office and now UPS shipping right to your computer.
	Mail and ship anything from the convenience of your home or office.
	Stamps.com saves you money with deep discounts you can't even get at the post office.
	Stamps.com is a must-have for any business.
	Whether you're a small office sending out invoices, an online seller fulfilling orders during this record-setting holiday season, or even a giant warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
	Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
	postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, I got ahead of myself, anywhere you want to send it!
	Once your mail's ready, just schedule a pickup or drop it off.
	It's really that simple.
	With Stamps.com, you get five cents off every first-class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail and up to 62% off UPS shipping rates.
	We'd be lost without it.
	Not to mention, it's a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.
	Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
	Why?
	Because it saves you both time and money.
	Who's better than you?
	Don't spend a minute of your holiday season at the post office this year.
	Sign up for stamps.com.
	Instead, there's no risk.
	With my promo code DAN.
	D-A-N.
	My first name.
	You get a special offer that includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale.
	No long-term commitments or contracts.
	Just go to stamps.com.
	Click on that microphone at the top of their homepage there and type in Dan.
	That's stamps.com.
	Enter Dan by clicking the microphone at the top of the homepage.
	Stamps.com.
	Never go to the post office again.
	All right, let's go to part one of this interview.
	A good friend of mine, Jenna Ellis.
	All right.
	Welcoming back to the show for the second time, our very popular guest, our good friend, Jenna Ellis, member of the Trump legal team here fighting a good fight for a free and fair election.
	Jenna, thanks for joining us.
	Really appreciate it.
	Thanks so much for having me on Dan.
	This is a really, really critical issue for our country and free and fair elections is part of our guarantee by the constitution of a Republic.
	Yeah, I mean, without it, we're a third world republic.
	I mean, what's the difference at that point?
	If we can't elect a president the right way, I mean, it's just disgraceful.
	So I have Mayor Rudy Giuliani coming up next, and I'm going to ask him a series of questions I'd like to ask you as well.
	So there are a bunch of controversies going on around the vote right now.
	One of them I keep hearing, I get this from my audience a lot, I get a lot of emails on it, is the presence of this company Dominion and this voting counting software.
	Some controversy surrounding Dominion.
	What can you tell us about it?
	What do you know?
	What's the controversy?
	Is it real?
	Yeah, well, it's definitely real and more will be coming out over the next few days.
	We are investigating and the information, Dan, is just shocking.
	And what you need to know about Dominion is that this is a foreign company, but it also has a U.S.
	office that's based out of Denver, Colorado, actually my home state.
	And they have been systematically embedding software being used by the US elections in various states, up to possibly 38 states, at least 28 that we're aware of.
	And they have as a feature, not just a bug, but as a feature, the ability to cancel votes, manipulate votes, Look at the vote tallies.
	This is where we're seeing, you know, there were reports of so-called glitches that had 6,000 votes that were for President Trump that miraculously disappeared and then 6,000 given to Joe Biden.
	And so this is where this kind of software that has been used for the election is really, really problematic.
	And this could impact the entire nation.
	Because even though, you know, of course, we're looking right now at six particular states that either have legal suits or recounts, this Dominion voting system, this is just incredibly problematic.
	And this isn't just about glitches.
	This is about intentional fraud.
	How prevalent was the use of this Dominion software throughout the country?
	Was it a couple of states?
	A lot of states?
	Was it separate jurisdictions within states?
	How prevalent was it?
	28 that we're aware of so far.
	So this is very widespread in the pushback.
	Did you say 28?
	Really?
	Yes.
	And I posted a link on my Twitter page that everyone should read to the Texas Secretary of State.
	It's a memo that was given by an assistant attorney general there in Texas that's talking about the reasons that he did not recommend that the state of Texas Certify the Dominion voting system back last year because of all of these problems with intentional fraud and how it could be abused.
	This is a four page memo that's incredibly important.
	And, you know, we've seen how Dominion voting system has been used in other countries to manipulate elections.
	And so this is an incredibly, incredibly important discovery.
	And as I'm sure Mayor Giuliani will tell you, This has something that I really believe is we are on the brink of the most important and prevalent scandal in the United States history.
	Yeah, I plan on asking him the same question.
	Having said that, is there evidence out there that this was used in other countries and that fraud was actually perpetrated using this Dominion software?
	Because that would be helpful.
	You're a lawyer.
	I was a former investigator.
	I'm thinking evidence, case, past history here.
	Do we have any of that?
	Yes, and that's what we're uncovering.
	And, you know, it's really important to distinguish between the court of public opinion and the court of law.
	And so this is why we're putting together all of the information, all of the sworn affidavits, all of the evidence that we are compiling.
	And Rudy Giuliani's team, Sidney Powell's team, you know, our Trump legal team, we're putting all of that together so that we can, you know, file suit as appropriate.
	and that we can get this evidence in front of the appropriate judge in the appropriate
	Yeah.
	jurisdictions and make sure that we get this to light.
	So for the mainstream media, Dan, just saying that there was no evidence of fraud, they
	are intentionally turning a blind eye because they want to coordinate Joe Biden and say,
	oh, just trust us.
	This is fine.
	Trust but don't verify.
	That's absolutely ridiculous.
	I'm not waving you off.
	That would be disrespectful.
	I'm just them.
	It's, it's directed at no one.
	No one takes him seriously anymore.
	You and I both know that, you know, we talk a lot.
	We've, you had the PP tape hoax, the spy gate thing.
	They say, Oh, it never happened.
	Despite, we have the actual spies name and the checks he cast, no one takes him seriously.
	Um, they do have a dangerous effect, uh, at times when they do this stuff on our Republic by promoting misinformation.
	I get that.
	But, um, You're a lawyer.
	I don't remember, what is it, Article 2?
	Was it Section 2, Clause 1?
	Or Section 1, Clause... I've never saw the role for the media.
	Section 1, Clause 2, correct?
	Yeah, yeah, it's not there, correct?
	I didn't miss that.
	The media... It's not... Okay, so there is no role for the media in declaring the president-elect.
	But having said that, the great Paula had a question because she wanted to get this from you, given your legal expertise and being close to the president on this.
	This is not a constitutional crisis here.
	We're taking advantage of the legal process that Al Gore took advantage of in a disputed vote count in 2000.
	The presidential electors don't meet till December 14th.
	The grace period is from December 8th to the 14th to figure it out within the states.
	And even if they can't figure it out, There is still a process within the states to get us to a president, correct?
	The media keeps making out like this is unprecedented chaos.
	Well, there is precedent, so unprecedented is a nonsense word here in this case.
	Well, yeah, it's just trying to pretend that, you know, this is just somehow some kind of mess that our founders couldn't have possibly contemplated.
	You know, it's not like they weren't familiar with corruption, right?
	So I would encourage everyone to read Federalist 68 by Alexander Hamilton, and it talks about the mode of appointment of the United States president.
	And he talks about why in promoting the ratification and the adoption of the U.S.
	Constitution, which included at the time, you know, we've had amendments,
	but including at the time article two, which includes the electoral college
	and gives to the states, the state legislatures importantly,
	not just any actor on behalf of the state, the state legislatures determine the manner
	by which the electors are appointed so that we have these safeguards in place
	in case of corruption or foreign influence.
	And Hamilton specifically talks about how it would be, it's so incredibly important to prevent against corruption
	in the mode of appointing our president.
	And that's why we have the electoral college to make sure that there isn't that kind of influence
	because he was saying, wouldn't it be the creature that the foreign actors
	want to appoint as our chief magistrate to get influence into our United States of America.
	So even back at the adoption of the U.S.
	Constitution, they contemplated this.
	We have processes.
	It's only been eight days since the election.
	We're uncovering a lot of stuff.
	Fraud, irregularities.
	Exactly.
	Why?
	Everybody needs to calm down.
	It's been eight days.
	The media, everybody needs to relax.
	And the media said, we're good over here in the Trump side.
	You know, I'm not worried about violence from conservatives ever.
	That's a leftist phenomenon.
	And what they're doing is it's one of these transference things where they're transferring their impulses onto us.
	Everything's okay.
	But this is, I love the constitutional process and I find it fascinating, but Let's ground it in real world right now.
	So let's say the Trump legal team, the campaign apparatus, uncovers massive fraud in Pennsylvania, potentially enough, and I'm going to ask again Mayor Giuliani about Pennsylvania as well, where there seems to be a lot of shenanigans, so to say, enough that could potentially change the vote in the election.
	We produce these affidavits, eyewitnesses.
	So what would happen in the state of Pennsylvania if by December 8th they legitimately can't figure out who won the state of Pennsylvania?
	What happens there?
	Yeah, so in that eventuality, which is entirely possible given all the all kinds of things going on in Pennsylvania, if the election results are irredeemably compromised, we can't determine who is the victor legitimately, then there are a couple of ways that this could go.
	The most likely outcome is if a judge looking at this cannot fashion a remedy, which means, I mean, the judicial branch wants to make sure that they're not just overturning election results When they don't have to.
	If they can fashion a remedy that would preserve the integrity of the election and get to a legitimate outcome, they'll do that.
	But if they can't, then the Constitution provides that the state legislature, because they are representatives of the people of Pennsylvania, that electorate, then the way to enfranchise them, not disenfranchise them, make sure that they are enfranchised, is to say that then the state legislature can get together and can appoint That's one possibility, and the court could direct the legislature to provide that legislative remedy.
	And if this becomes more widespread than Pennsylvania, and there isn't a determined winner by January 20th, then the Constitution also provides that the U.S.
	House of Representatives then can determine who the next president will be.
	And that's important because it isn't just it isn't every every legislator, every representative at that point that gets a vote.
	It's by it's by state.
	And so we have actually more Republicans in terms of the control of how that works constitutionally, in terms of how the House.
	Okay, so let's walk through this.
	I want to go step-by-step.
	So if we get to the point where nobody gets to 70 or we get the point of irredeemable compromise
	on a large variety of states, then the House of Representatives could intervene at that point.
	So, okay, so let's walk through this. So I don't want, I want to, I want to go step by step. So
	let's say for example, again, the evidence comes out that the Pennsylvania vote
	is, is compromised that there was, there was fraud. They can't account for,
	You know, I was asked before the show again by the legendary Paula, like how do you prove fraud?
	I mean, if you have a bunch of affidavits that say ballots were changed and there's no way to see and there's no way to see in fact the change in the ballot because it was already processed and it was destroyed.
	You have to go by these affidavits, these sworn affidavits.
	That's all you have.
	I mean, it happens all the time in crimes.
	There's an eyewitness.
	I saw him rob a bank.
	Did anyone else see it?
	No, it's just me.
	So if it's compromised, the Pennsylvania state legislature, by December 8th, if we don't, there's a safe harbor.
	I think it's December 8th to December 14th, where the state legislature has to make a decision about how to direct their 22 presidential electors.
	If that doesn't happen by then, you're saying then the house of representatives gets together and the Pennsylvania state delegation, which is I believe 20 members.
	And there are more Republicans, I believe in Pennsylvania than Democrats gets one vote, right?
	So Pennsylvania, their congressmen and women get one collective vote.
	You assume the Republicans vote Republican, the Democrats vote Democrat.
	Then that presidential vote for the state of Pennsylvania would go to Donald Trump.
	Is that, am I getting that right?
	Exactly, yes.
	And that would happen in that collective scenario where each state gets one vote.
	Then that would happen in the instance that there is no determined winner at all throughout the whole United States.
	So, for example, if at the end of the day, We're still only dealing with states that Joe Biden still is at 270.
	And those states are certified, but Pennsylvania, you know, they're irredeemably compromised.
	And at that point, it's not outcome determinative because he still has enough electoral votes.
	But this is where it matters because we're dealing with at least six states right now.
	And so I think that the map that shows that currently removing those six states from the count, neither President Trump or Joe Biden is at the 270 mark without those states being certified and actually knowing the legitimate results in those states.
	So that's where then it would go to the House of Representatives if neither candidate gets to 270.
	Yeah, I should have put that in there, that if Pennsylvania's having their issue and Biden's at 276 or 282, whatever it may be, then there's no vote.
	Or President Trump.
	Yeah, or President Trump.
	There's no, you know, there's no House of Representatives vote.
	And by the way, that is not unprecedented either.
	That has already happened, where the House of Representatives has had to do that.
	I think it was Rutherford B. Hayes, right?
	Well, this has already happened.
	Again, the media wants you to believe right now that chaotic elections, which we're going through now because of the coronavirus and this absurd, outrageous mail-in system, they want you to believe this is some unprecedented human event.
	It's not.
	It's not even unprecedented.
	It's nonsense.
	We just had it in 2000, where we had chaos.
	Yeah, I'm old enough even to remember that, actually.
	So I wasn't here in 2000, but I'm old enough to remember that.
	I'm old enough to remember Al Gore making that statement and saying every legal vote needs to be counted.
	We need to go through the process.
	And you know what?
	I give him props as the Democratic candidate for saying that.
	Why isn't Joe Biden Saying that and saying, you know, there are allegations here that are very significant.
	We want to make sure to protect the election integrity, and we will go through that process.
	But he actually has a verified Twitter account that's the president-elect transition team.
	I mean, this is so ridiculous that they're rushing to judgment, and they are.
	They're acting like this is so unprecedented, and it's absolutely not.
	I'm going to give you a little bit of context. I'm not going to give you any context. I'm going to give you a
	little bit of context. My mom sent me a text message a photo from
	of this t-shirt and a catalog that says I really miss when the
	media called these precedented times because we're actually in
	precedented times, it's not unprecedented. I know they want you to ever every time there's a reason let me tell you
	what I think is going on here though behind this. Coordinated
	media, social media, cultural effort to you know, crown a monarch
	in the United States. I'm not going to go into the details of
	the media. But I was an agent on with the Secret Service in
	2000.
	And I had some, you know, some friends who were on both sides of the aisle because, you know, we're not a partisan enterprise.
	And some of them told me later on that the biggest mistake they felt Gore made in that, because, by the way, they still think they won that election.
	They didn't.
	Can we just put that out?
	But they still believe they won.
	Gore still thinks he won that election, which is absurd.
	I mean, we could do a whole show on that.
	Yeah, he thinks he invented a good point.
	He thinks he invented excellent.
	We're very well done.
	Um, he also thinks he's environmental and environmentalist with his private jet, but that's another story.
	So, um, uh, they think they won the election.
	They said their biggest mistake there.
	And the reason they believe they lost in the courts is not a legal loss.
	They think the legal loss was due to the lack of political capital they had because it got out that Gore was going to concede.
	He of course stopped right short of a concession speech.
	And once that got out, they felt like it was inculcated in the American psyche that Bush was the president
	and Gore was trying to steal it from him.
	Again, this is their take.
	I know because I've heard it from them.
	And they felt like the biggest mistake was losing the political initiative,
	which led to the loss of the legal initiative.
	So my theory on this is these same Democrat operatives, Ron Klain, the announced chief of staff
	to a president-elect we don't have for Joe Biden, By the way, I've seen your social media posts on that.
	They're hysterical.
	But what they're trying to do now, and I think Klain is probably leading this, is saying we need to win the political initiative.
	You need to let the American people know, the media will be behind us, you're the president-elect even though you're not, and then it'll look like if President Trump wins, it'll look like he stole it.
	Your thoughts?
	Oh, absolutely.
	And they're going to push that narrative to make it seem like somehow President Trump just won't concede.
	And in fact, the mainstream media is also behind this, and they're pushing this narrative that Joe Biden is peddling and his handlers are peddling to say that somehow he is the president-elect.
	Not one state has certified their election results yet, and we have challenges in multiple states.
	from team trump for an injunction preventing uh certifying results until we have audits until we get to the bottom of this so of course they're doing this because they're hoping to litigate this in the court of public opinion like they did the impeachment hoax like they did russia collusion narrative like they've done everything else and i think you're right they look back at 2000 and they think you know what gore appeared too reasonable and so because of that and people actually knew that the judicial branch is not a political branch.
	It's an unbiased, impartial arbiter.
	And because we actually conceded that and recognized the fact that the judicial branch is an unbiased arbiter, then when they actually handed down this opinion, everybody knew President Bush was the genuine legal victor.
	And they lost that election, and so now they're trying to push through this narrative so that if and when Donald Trump does get a second term, and if he gets to 270, or however this turns out, if he gets inaugurated for a second term, if they couldn't even concede that he was the legitimate president in 2016 when we didn't have all of these allegations and everything, the legal battles that are going on, They are certainly not going to concede 2020.
	And Dan, they are just ready.
	You just said a moment ago, Team Trump, conservatives, we're not about violence and burning down the country.
	We love our country.
	We're patriots.
	You better bet that they're going to come out stronger with the riots, the looting, everything else, and try to burn this country to the ground only because they can't stand our American system.
	And they cannot stand the fact that we have a rule of law.
	We are not a nation of rulers.
	We don't coronate monarchs.
	We elect presidents freely and fairly.
	Not the media does that.
	Yeah, the media does that all the time.
	But yeah, I live in a conservative area.
	There are no boards on any windows here.
	We're okay.
	I mean, they, you know, the media outlets have again coronated Joe Biden, the next president-elect, despite no constitutional role to do that in an election still in flux.
	And again, there's nobody out in my street burning the place down.
	I'm going to take a quick break here.
	We come back on the other side of this break.
	I want to go into specific states, what you think the issues are, where you think we may be able to get some free and fair vote counts, and where you think we could have significant problems.
	We'll be right back.
	We're talking to Jenna Ellis, member of President Trump's legal team and a good friend to the show.
	We'll be right back.
	All right, thanks for your patience.
	Hope you're enjoying this great interview with Jenna Ellis.
	We've got a couple sponsors here.
	We appreciate your time.
	Ladies and gentlemen, everyone wants to keep their home and family safe.
	Whether it's from a break-in, a fire, flooding, or a medical emergency, SimpliSafe Home Security delivers award-winning 24-7 protection.
	With SimpliSafe, you don't just get an arsenal of cameras and sensors, you get the best professional monitors in the business.
	They've got your back, day and night, ready to send police, fire, EMTs, when you need them most, straight to your door.
	SimpliSafe has an arsenal of sensors and cameras.
	They protect every inch of your home.
	We've got one right there.
	You can set it up yourself in about 30 minutes.
	It's super easy.
	SimpliSafe's professionals then take over, monitoring your home 24-7, ready to send help the moment, God forbid, there's an alarm.
	Plus, with SimpliSafe, there's no long-term contract, no hidden fees or installation costs.
	We use SimpliSafe here.
	We love it.
	Right now, my listeners get a free home security camera when you purchase a SimpliSafe system at simplisafe.com slash danbongino.
	You also get a 60-day risk-free trial, so there's nothing to lose.
	Visit simplisafe.com.
	By the way, that's simply with an I, S-I-M-P-L-I, simplisafe.com slash danbongino.
	For your free security camera today, that's simplisafe.com slash danbongino.
	We have another sponsor you know well.
	We're all getting tired of online censorship here, folks, right?
	I know I am.
	That's why we love ExpressVPN.
	Let's talk about online censorship.
	The left wants to silence and remove any voices they don't agree with.
	Twitter and Facebook were supposed to be open platforms.
	I don't need their content moderators acting like the op-ed section of the New York Times.
	So instead of letting social media sites revoke your right to free speech, how about revoking their right to your data?
	I don't know.
	I love that idea.
	I love it.
	I'm just throwing that in the read there because I do love it.
	Now you could just deactivate all your social media accounts, but you'd be giving the left what they want in the first place.
	Instead, use ExpressVPN.
	Well, why would you do that?
	Well, I'm going to tell you why.
	Ever wondered how free to access sites like Facebook make all their money?
	Well, by tracking your searches, video history, and everything you click on, and then selling your valuable data.
	That's how.
	When you use ExpressVPN, you anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your IP address.
	Nice!
	It makes your activity much more difficult to trace and sell to advertisers.
	And ExpressVPN couldn't be easier to set up.
	You just tap one button on your phone or computer and you're protected.
	ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your data to protect you from hackers and internet bad guys.
	It's finally time to say no to censorship and take back your online privacy today.
	Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
	By visiting my special link, you'll get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free.
	Again, that's expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
	Expressvpn.com slash Bongino.
	Protect your data today.
	Don't wait.
	Now back to my interview with Jenna Ellis.
	All right, we're back with Jenna Ellis, a real fighter and a member of President Trump's legal team.
	And I must add, because I don't have guests on my show that are squishes, a real patriot and someone who actually cares.
	You know, a lot of, sadly, a lot of grifters in D.C.
	We're in this for them.
	Jenna's in it for the fight.
	Don't forget that later on.
	So Jenna, if you don't mind, I'd like to go through some individual states.
	So Pennsylvania is just, as we've been talking about, a hotbed of problems.
	And I think we can both be candid with each other.
	That if we don't clean up what's going on in Pennsylvania without their, I believe, 22 electoral college votes, the chances of President Trump pulling this out are highly unlikely.
	So we have to clean up Pennsylvania and the mess that happened there.
	What do you think happened?
	I've seen various accounts of potential fraud there, from Lindsey Graham alleging nursing homes were coordinated, it appears coordinated efforts at the same time.
	To get upwards of 25,000 ballots.
	I've seen charges of, you know, 600 plus thousand votes being counted.
	Illegally counted in a method not prescribed by Pennsylvania law.
	What do you think the best avenues to getting a free and fair vote count in Pennsylvania are?
	Yeah, well, this is going to matter not just to the outcome of this election, but for every future election.
	And that's part of why, and that's actually a huge reason why President Trump is fighting, because this can't happen again in another election.
	I mean, we're going in two years for the midterms.
	It's going to be incredibly important for the next presidential election.
	And so what's happening in Pennsylvania, Unlike 2000, where you had, you know, one narrow issue.
	We all remember the hanging chads in Florida.
	You had the issue in Florida was one thing with ballots.
	And that got corrected, and Florida actually has a good system now.
	And in Pennsylvania, you have not only allegations of fraud within the vote counts, the ballot types, the late deadlines going against the state law, but we don't even have meaningful access that's required by law for our certified watchers to actually go and observe what's going on.
	So even with what we can prove, Which is multifold in the state of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia specifically.
	There is a lot that is happening that's in the shadows.
	And, you know, it's the mainstream media.
	It's Washington Post that, you know, their catchphrase and slogan is democracy dies in darkness.
	Well, what are they hiding or refusing to be transparent?
	That's a really big concern, not just in Pennsylvania, but also in Michigan.
	Can you clear that up for me for a minute?
	If you don't mind, forgive the interruption, but there's been conflicting stories about poll watcher access on the Republican side in Pennsylvania.
	I heard Pam Bondi and Corey Lewandowski suggest there were people not being allowed on the Republican side to watch.
	And you have election officials come out, oh, this is all a hoax.
	What's the real story there about the poll watchers?
	Yeah, well of course, you know, the election officials have every reason to say, oh sure, you know, we did everything fine, don't look at us, don't look here.
	And what the mainstream media is focusing on is that Team Trump, through our lawyers, did say it was a non-zero number that we're allowed in, meaning some were.
	But that doesn't mean that just because a couple of people were and they're, you know, across the room and are having to try to take videos of, you know, something that's happening a hundred feet away, That's why we're using this term meaningful access, because if you're, you know, being let in just a couple of people all the way across the room and you can't actually see what's going on, that doesn't count as actual poll watching.
	So there is a distinction there, and you have to read, and you know, Dan, you and I know this, and this is why, you know, the Bongino Report and this podcast is so huge in America right now, because you're willing to tell The truth and you're willing to parse those distinctions, not just say, oh, well, there was a non zero number that was granted access.
	Well, when you actually parse that, what does that mean in practical reality?
	That means we couldn't tell what was going on because not enough people were in there watching and actually able to observe.
	So they're playing kind of like a, almost a euphemism game like they did with Spygate.
	Well, the president wasn't spied on.
	It was a undocumented confidential informant who was paid by the government to visually And audio-wise, observant.
	Yeah, we call that a spy, you numbnuts.
	I mean, this is what they do.
	So what you're saying is, yeah, they're not lying when they say, oh, Republicans were let in.
	But what they're saying is, yeah, we had this big floor of vote counters and we just let in a couple of people here while we could have been doing anything we wanted over there because we didn't let anyone over there.
	Am I reading that right?
	Because there's always a scam with the left.
	It's always, I mean, you know, they don't want to call them looters.
	It's undocumented shoppers, right?
	You know, it's always, let's not call them criminals because that's so negative.
	I mean, they play word games all the time.
	And what matters to a court of law is what actually happened
	and whether or not the law and the intention of the law was followed.
	And so like what we also have in Pennsylvania, when we got the court order to say, yes,
	you have to allow the poll watchers meaningful access.
	So what they did is say, okay, well then we will then move the fence
	where the Republican poll watchers were, we'll move that six feet closer to the ballot counters.
	And then what they also did is moved the ballot counters six feet further away.
	But all that was reported was, oh yeah, they moved the fence up by six feet.
	Well, that's completely meaningless.
	All you've done is just had the same scenario, just in a slightly different location.
	Well, is there a chance, and I'll ask Rudy this later as well, If Pennsylvania law dictates that, some meaningful access towards people of both parties, and I want to be clear, Democrats should have access too.
	I am all about free and fair elections, 100%.
	If we lost, we lost.
	If we won, we won.
	But it should be fair.
	I've heard a number thrown out there that something in the neighborhood of 600,000 Pennsylvania votes were counted this way.
	Are those votes then potentially invalidated later because Pennsylvania couldn't follow their own, not my rules, I live in Florida.
	It's their rules.
	They're under state law.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, well, and this is what will be a very tricky question for the court, is what to do with that then, because if you have, and if you can't prove, and they can't prove, then, you know, the burden then would be on the election officials if you say, okay, for this period of time, there was no meaningful access, we don't know what was going on, No one actually knows.
	Then what do you do with those votes?
	Do you cast them out completely and say they're totally invalid?
	Do you fashion some sort of remedy that the court will try to say, well, let's go back and get them recounted?
	But do we know exactly how many, which ones, Were any late ballots intermingled?
	Were any of them modified during that time?
	I mean all of these things have to come out in court and then a judge will have to listen to arguments from both sides as to what the judicially and constitutionally appropriate remedy is and it's very Likely, Dan, at this point, with everything that's going on in Pennsylvania, I keep using this term, irredeemably compromised.
	Our good friend Tom Fitton is using this term as well, to say that there's just, at some point, you just can't put it back together in a way that is actually appropriate for either candidate.
	Because you're right, this is not just about President Trump.
	This is also about Joe Biden.
	It's about every American who cares about election integrity, And no matter who they voted for, we have to make sure that the outcome's legitimate.
	So as the umpire in the baseball game, for example, the judicial branch cannot be team red or team blue.
	They have to be unbiased and completely fair and impartial.
	And the remedy is going to be the really big question here.
	What do you do?
	Yeah, I mean, I agree, you know, entropy disorder, you can't unring that bell.
	I mean, once you've got the fraud, again, I was talking to my wife before the show, she had this question here and she's right.
	If you force someone or pressure someone or coerce someone to switch a vote and they switched it, the only thing you have is a person's word if they're willing to admit that they did it.
	I mean, it's like seeing a bank being robbed.
	Again, if you have an eyewitness and he's the only eyewitness, you know, and it was done in the middle of the night, then if he recants, you don't have anything or doesn't say anything.
	So that's kind of the issue.
	But getting into...
	That's where circumstantial evidence can come into play, and you don't have to necessarily have direct evidence like a video of the bank being robbed.
	You can have the circumstantial evidence of the fingerprints, all of these other things.
	You can also have eyewitness testimony, have the credibility of the people, and say, Are we going to believe somebody who is an eyewitness who's willing to sign that under penalty of perjury versus an election official that may have, you know, a motive for lying?
	And so you have to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
	So all of this comes down to saying, you know, we have to do this through the court of law and the judicial process, not the court of public opinion.
	It doesn't matter what, you know, anyone on the mainstream media thinks of anybody's credibility.
	It matters what can be proven in court.
	And this is why at the end of the day, it's probable That the only appropriate remedy for Pennsylvania is going to have their state legislature act to appoint their electors, unless we get to that point we were discussing before about nobody reaching 270.
	This is only about Pennsylvania.
	Their state legislature really needs to look at this, and they may have to act on behalf of the people who elected them, which is completely part of enfranchisement of the voice of the people.
	Yeah, you know, I'm glad you brought that up because most criminal cases in my prior line of work are circumstantial evidence.
	I mean, everybody, you know, very few cases have a direct eyewitness or some video or audio tape of the crime that went down.
	You know, they were in the store at a certain time, counterfeit bill was passed, there's a fingerprint on the bill, someone saw him walking out later.
	I mean, that's how these cases are built.
	But having said that, another piece of circumstantial evidence are these just bizarre statistical anomalies We see that continue to pile up in this election.
	And one of them I addressed on my show, and I'd like to get your thoughts on, is having run for office myself on a down, down, down the ticket.
	I ran in Maryland when the governor was running, and the governor's race is at the top of the ticket.
	And in my congressional district where I ran, I was the second race down, I believe, because I don't think there was a Senate race on the ballot.
	So the governor at the top, me down.
	So you can predict, generally speaking, what they call roll-off.
	How many people are gonna go in, vote for governor or vote for president, whatever at the top, and then just say, I'm done, I don't know anything about the congressman or I just don't care, and they leave.
	There's no requirement to vote for everyone.
	You don't have to vote for president, you could vote for a ballot initiative and go home.
	So having said that, we can generally predict based on history, I'll just throw out and I'm
	making these numbers up, but just for the sake of these, say 100% of people show up, vote for
	president, 80% vote for the senator, then 70% vote for congresswoman. We've seen some real anomalies
	in this election in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, where a whole boatload of people seemingly voted
	at the top of the ticket.
	And then down ballot, a whole lot less of them voted down ballot.
	And one of the suggestions made to me, Jenna, was that it could, could be evidence of fraud because in an effort to speed up potentially spurious ballots, they didn't want to vote down the whole ballot.
	It takes a lot of time.
	They just checked the president at the top and said, here you go, take it.
	Any thoughts on that?
	Yeah, well, it's definitely suspicious at minimum, and it's something that has to be weighed again in court and the ballots themselves, you know, what point did they come in?
	And you also have the method of signature matching, matching against registered voters to see if these are duplicative ballots, to see if they're As someone who's actually a resident of the state and a current living resident of the state, that's why these safeguards and these ways of making sure that this is a valid ballot is so important.
	And then also one of the things that we're looking at in Pennsylvania with the recount, there's a security envelope, an outer envelope, Uh, for any of the ballots that were mailed in.
	And so if you have this huge stack of ballots that only has the top of the ticket that's marked or are otherwise suspicious or even just otherwise recounted, period, uh, when you have all of these, uh, you know, these ballots that we weren't granted meaningful access to observe, if you don't have a matching security envelope for that ballot, Then that's an indication that it's a fraudulent ballot because you're supposed to have both of those two things to legitimize it as this is somebody who actually turned in this ballot correctly and it should be invalidated by law if there isn't that outer security envelope to match.
	Yeah, I heard something about security envelopes that were thrown out.
	Is that information accurate that in some cases we have the ballot but not the envelope which is required to have both?
	Yeah, and that's what's so interesting as well.
	So if you have, if you don't have the matching security envelope for all of these just single ticket, you know, just top of the ticket ballots, then those should be invalidated.
	But it also works and cuts to the other side as well, that if you want to destroy and discount genuine ballots, then you destroy the security envelope to basically invalidate them after the fact.
	If they are legitimate ballots.
	So, you know, all of these things, and this is why it's so important to have poll watchers of both sides, full and fair transparency.
	And this is part of the reason that I think that Pennsylvania is irredeemably compromised because there are so many different ways and methods and means that these ballots can be manipulated.
	False and fraudulent illegal ballots can be added.
	I mean, just so many different ways that now that we've had such a long time That we haven't had meaningful access, then who knows what has happened.
	So it's going to be very difficult for either side or even the election officials to prove that there wasn't something that happened illegal either way.
	And this is important.
	This isn't just a legal argument.
	I'm going to take a quick break.
	I want to ask you on the other side of that.
	I want to get into a potential Supreme Court case and the political argument here, which the media is not helping with.
	This has to be considered legitimate by the only people that matter.
	That's the citizens of the country.
	If they don't consider an election legitimate, you know, this is for the people, by the people, last time I checked.
	So I want to get to that.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We're talking to Jenna Ellis, one of the attorneys, an excellent attorney.
	On President Trump's legal team, we'll be right back.
	What an interview, huh?
	Jenna Ellis, she's fantastic.
	Love having her on.
	We have another sponsor of today's show, brought to you by our friends at GenuCell.
	What's next year's technology for skincare?
	And what if you could try it free?
	Well, for a very limited time, you can get the GenuCell for bags and puffiness to try in the comfort of your own home for a full month, free.
	You only pay shipping.
	You'll also get the GenuCell Retinol Ultra, brand new for 2021, also free.
	Retinol Ultra is perfect for sensitive skin.
	This cutting-edge technology uses a natural retinol alternative with all the proven clinical effects of retinol without any irritation, also free.
	You be the judge.
	Wrinkle-free, clean, smooth, and vibrant skin.
	A face where you can't see under eye bags or even fine lines, wrinkles, and crow's feet, or you simply don't pay.
	Go to genucel.com, that's genucel.com.
	The combination of Genucel for bags and puffiness and Retinol Ultra will take care of bags under the eyes, fine lines, laugh lines, firmness, smoothness, and give you a younger texture guaranteed, or you simply don't pay.
	For your 30-day free trial, log on to genucel.com, genucel.com, that's G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com.
	Go today.
	Now back to my interview with Jenna Ellis.
	All right, welcoming back Jenna Ellis, terrific lawyer on the Trump legal team.
	So before the break, I was talking about potentially some legal fights here ahead that could make it to the Supreme Court.
	When I get to that, I also want to get to how The political implications of this are really damning if the American people don't believe this to be a legitimate outcome.
	But first, Jenna, you being a lawyer, one of the things that concerns me, I was reading a piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day, is that there's been a unilateral rewriting of the law, especially in Pennsylvania, by people who have no authority to do it.
	And most notably, the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, the courts in Pennsylvania, I've said that the law, which is crystal clear in Pennsylvania, ballots must be received by election day at a specific time, which was November 3rd.
	That's what the law says.
	It doesn't say if the courts think otherwise.
	It doesn't say receive by November 3rd, unless there's a storm.
	It doesn't say unless there's an outbreak of a virus.
	However, it doesn't say any of that.
	The courts in Pennsylvania got involved and said, nah, we don't think that's cool, so we're gonna say that votes can be received three days after Election Day.
	That's, again, folks, that's nowhere in the Pennsylvania law.
	Now, as a result, Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito has said, Pennsylvania, you must then, if you're gonna do this, you must segregate post-Election Day ballots you received illegally after November 3rd, in case there's a mess here so we can count them later.
	Is John Roberts going to take this case?
	Is it going to go back to the Supreme Court?
	What's the status of that?
	And did Pennsylvania even segregate the ballots?
	Yeah, well that last question is the most important one.
	Did they follow the law?
	Because we know that election officials did not follow the court order to grant Team Trump and the poll watchers meaningful access.
	So where's the confidence that they actually followed that order to segregate the ballots?
	That would be the first question. And this whole election timeline appeal is pending
	before the U.S. Supreme Court. They declined to take it up before the election because they said
	there's a legal principle that's called ripeness, which basically means that I can't sue you, Dan,
	if I say, you know what, I think that Dan is probably going to come over and steal my chocolate
	out of my, you know, my freezer tomorrow. So court, you know, punish him right now. I'm going
	to sue him today. I have to wait until there's actual harm.
	I have to wait until I have evidence that you actually came and stole my chocolate and out of my
	fridge and then file. And so what the Supreme Court basically said is there's not a harm that's
	occurred yet. And, you know, that that was problematic. We thought we did think it was
	right because The Pennsylvania election officials and the governor who are not the legislature, remember Civics 101, only legislatures can make law and they can only make law that comports with their state and federal constitutions.
	If you're not the legislature, you can't make law.
	And so they allowed this.
	So we knew this was going to happen, and they should have been enjoined then, but the Supreme Court decided to wait on it.
	Alito, in that instance, and Thomas wrote great dissents saying, you're just kicking this can down the road.
	Well, now we're down the road.
	And so this is pending before the U.S.
	Supreme Court to see what they're going to do about it.
	but we did get a great victory today in Pennsylvania from a judge who said that the secretary of state
	gave the guidance on November 1st, so two days before the election,
	saying that ballots that were cured up to nine days with voter identification after the fact could be counted.
	And she said, no, that judge said, no, you have to go by state law.
	And this is incredibly important because the executive branch, which includes the governor,
	the secretary of state, all of these election officials, they cannot change or create law
	or manipulate the process unilaterally.
	They cannot do that.
	The court also cannot.
	I've seen so many people on Twitter saying, well, the court can't substitute its judgment for the will of the American people.
	That's not what we're asking them to do.
	When the courts rule like they do on every other legal issue, they are simply applying the law as written from the state legislatures and the U.S.
	constitution to the facts in the case and requiring that that all of everything
	that happened has to be according to the law. And if there was a breach of the
	law, what is the remedy? They're not substituting their judgment. You're
	simply requiring that the law, the rule of law prevails.
	Yeah, that's right.
	I'm going to ask Mayor Giuliani about that later as well, the cured ballots, because that's an important legal victory.
	But I just want to go back quickly, because this is super important that the Supreme Court take this case, because even if this election doesn't work out and the president loses, for the importance of the Republic, voter integrity and election integrity, it's important to know that election law matters.
	Just to be clear, Jenna, The Pennsylvania legislature could have rewritten the election law to say, no, no, we're going to give it a three-day grace period after election day to receive ballots.
	They chose not to.
	The law is crystal clear.
	Vote by November 3rd or your vote doesn't count.
	They didn't do that.
	So if the courts can just now jump in and scrap this and the Supreme Court doesn't intervene, is there some kind of a due process?
	You know, I mean, you know, a case to be made here?
	Equal protection.
	Yeah.
	Equal protection.
	I know.
	Forgive me.
	I was losing, you know, equal protection case to be made here.
	Where there's different voting rules across the country?
	That's exactly the case that we've made.
	That's exactly what we're arguing in front of the Supreme Court is to say, this matters not just to the integrity of this election, but to every future election, that it is a concrete principle of the separation of powers in our U.S.
	Constitution and the Pennsylvania state constitution That says that the governor, the Secretary of State, they're not the legislative branch.
	They cannot make the law and neither can the courts.
	Just refashion the law and rewrite the law according to what they think is the best preference.
	They can't do that.
	The Pennsylvania State Legislature has not acted.
	But if they did, so let's look at Nevada, for example, because Because their governor did the exact same thing that the Pennsylvania governor did ahead of the election and tried to use the pandemic as a pretext to shift the date and to allow late ballots for mail-in purposes because of the pandemic.
	In Nevada, their state legislature decided to rescue the Nevada governor and change their law.
	But even then, even in that instance, then you at least have the legislature that's intervening.
	But even then, there's an equal protection argument to be made.
	to say well deadlines matter and of course you can't treat um you can't treat voters who get their ballot in on time as some second tier by someone who is maybe voting provisionally and then they mail in their ballot so there's still arguments that just because the legislature has acted that doesn't mean they've acted constitutionally we've seen right so so a state legislature in other words can't come in and say down an unconstitutional law A state legislature in New York can't come in and say, would probably lose badly in court, say, no, no, no.
	Our election day goes until the new year, February of 2020.
	They probably, so, you know, cause liberals watch the show too, Jenna.
	So we have to talk in simple terms.
	Is that what you're suggesting that?
	Yes.
	Even though the legislature, according to the state legislature, according to the constitution can appoint the electors and determine their election law.
	That's only within reason because we need a uniform national election according to the constitution.
	And if a state were to say, no, no, we're going to vote for the president right into the new year, that they would probably get thrown out too.
	So you're saying there's still a chance even in Nevada, this stuff could happen.
	Yes, and so what's happening in Pennsylvania is unconstitutional just as a basic question because the legislature didn't act.
	In a state like Nevada, where the legislature did act, you still have to scrutinize that, staying within the margins of the Constitution, because Congress has set the first Tuesday of November as Election Day.
	That's not up to the states.
	It's simply the manner by which their electors are chosen.
	They don't get to set Election Day.
	You don't have Election Day in 50 different days.
	That's a constitutional question that's actually a federal question.
	So we have this separation even then.
	So even Nevada, what they did, even though it was by their state legislature, that is still unconstitutional.
	And so Pennsylvania is just in an even worse and crazy, unethical, illegal situation.
	Well, that was a great segue to my final question here for you, which is this, and you've been great.
	I think a lot of us have gotten a really terrific legal education that we can all use before the next election, because this just can't happen again.
	I mean, this is a national, an international disgrace, what happened here.
	The legitimacy question.
	You know, we have 71 million people voted for President Trump.
	71 million.
	A record for a Republican.
	It's not even a close second.
	It was an extraordinary turnout.
	The only person who ever got more, or says they got more right now, is Joe Biden.
	This is a big movement.
	It's not going anywhere.
	And the hard reality is persistent allegations of fraud, affidavits, Access denied.
	People putting up posters to block out people viewing and voting is not helping.
	And if tens of millions of those people simply don't accept the legitimacy of this, we have a real problem.
	We live in the Constitutional Republic, the world's greatest democracy in the history of sentient beings.
	We can't flush this down the toilet bowl here over one presidential election.
	We have to get to the bottom of what actually happened.
	I hate that term, get to the bottom, but in this case, it's actually true.
	And we have a political problem out there where we have people who feel like they've been disenfranchised.
	Can we use this moment going forward, do you think?
	Cause you know, we've got sadly a lot of Republicans to do the voter ID uniform national election day, clean up state laws on voter, clean up the voter rolls.
	We got dead people voting.
	Do you think we have a moment now to do something?
	Yes, and I'm so glad that you asked this question about legitimacy because we need to be doing all of those things and every state needs to have their Republicans, Conservatives petitioning the legislature to do things like implement voter ID, signature matching, some of these just very basic election safeguards.
	But in terms of legitimacy, that is actually a legal term.
	It's not just a court of public opinion term.
	It's not a feelings-based term.
	It is a factual question.
	When you talk about legitimacy, this is why it's so important that we have a judicial branch That is willing to be impartial and independent and fairly apply the law to the facts.
	Because if legitimacy is a political question, then it turns on which candidate you supported.
	And we will always be a broken and ununified nation.
	When Joe Biden is talking about, let's unify the country, this isn't about feelings.
	It's not a political question.
	It's about fact and it's about law.
	Legitimacy comes in only when you know that things have been transparent.
	And they've been done according to the law, which is objective, and it is the highest rule in the nation.
	How you get to, for example, a legitimate result in a baseball game, any other sporting event, in an Olympic event, in anything else, when you know it's a legitimate result.
	People are bummed when their team loses, but they know that it was free and fair
	when there's been transparency and when the judges are fair.
	And when they know that there was no modification of flat footballs or any sort of manipulation
	of the clock and timings or anything like that, when they know that everyone played according to the rules.
	And that's why you have judges in every event where you have a winner and a loser.
	You have to make sure that legitimacy does not turn on feelings.
	It turns on fact, and it turns on law.
	And that's where you see these activist liberals.
	They want to turn legitimacy into a political question and into a feelings-based question.
	And that's why they're going to court, though, seeing for all of these social issue things, they know that it's not actually about feelings.
	They want a legitimate Uh, ruling from the court because they know that a court is actually the designated arbiter that provides legitimacy in our country.
	And so when we have these court rulings that the Supreme Court and our judicial branch branch has to intervene, otherwise there will be no legitimacy in fact.
	Yeah.
	No, you're absolutely right.
	And it, and it, and it deeply concerns me, uh, worries me a lot because this is, I love this place.
	I, you know, we, you and I are Patriots.
	Jenna, I really appreciate it.
	Your time has just been invaluable here to my audience.
	This was a real, um, legal, uh, legal one-on-one for elections.
	So we appreciate it.
	You know, we'll have you back again sometime.
	Thanks a lot for your time.
	We got mayor Giuliani coming up next.
	We'll ask him some of the same questions.
	So thanks a lot.
	We really appreciate it.
	Thanks so much, Dan.
	I really appreciate being able to explain the Constitution, and I'm in this for the fight to preserve our Republic, and I love that President Trump is as well.
	I know you enjoyed that interview with Chen Ellis.
	I know I did.
	That's how I know you enjoyed it.
	I hope you did.
	It was really terrific.
	Now coming up next, former mayor Rudy Giuliani, who always tears it up.
	He has never given a disappointing interview on this show ever.
	So you're not going to want to miss that.
	Got a couple of sponsors here.
	Thank you again for your patience.
	Really appreciate it.
	These are great companies.
	Want to talk to you.
	Magic Spoon, ladies and gentlemen, growing up cereal.
	It's one of the best parts of being a kid, wasn't it?
	But I had to give it up because I looked on the back of the box.
	It was full of sugar and junk that you really shouldn't be eating.
	Well, Magic Spoon.
	Magic Spoon is our new favorite in the Bongino household.
	We are all candidly addicted to it.
	It's really that good.
	Zero sugar, 11 grams of protein, and only three net grams of carbs in each serving of Magic Spoon.
	You can't beat that.
	And it tastes absolutely fantastic.
	I can't get enough of it.
	We go through boxes of it.
	A lot of you have asked how you can finally build your own custom variety box.
	Well, you can.
	Choose from their best-selling cocoa.
	Fruity.
	Hmm.
	Mouth is watering.
	Frosted and blueberry flavors, plus brand new flavors.
	Peanut butter and cinnamon.
	It tastes amazing.
	Honestly, too good to be true.
	The emails we get for this are spectacular.
	Got a few pictures and emails.
	People send me it eating that it's so good, Magic Spoon.
	It's keto-friendly, gluten-free, grain-free, soy-free, low-carb, and GMO-free.
	Go to magicspoon.com slash Bongino.
	to build your own custom variety box and try it today.
	Be sure to use our promo code Bongino at checkout to get free shipping.
	And Magic Spoon is so confident in their product, it's backed with a 100% happiness guarantee.
	So if you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund your money.
	No questions asked.
	You'll like it.
	A lot.
	A lot, a lot.
	That's magicspoon.com slash Bongino and use the code Bongino for free shipping.
	We thank Magic Spoon for sponsoring the podcast.
	Thanks.
	Our other sponsor today is our new favorite appliance in the kitchen there, because I like to eat healthy.
	The PowerXL Air Fryer.
	Appliances take up a bunch of space.
	My wife, you know, Paula, she can't stand that.
	We don't have that much room.
	We don't live in some palace, 62,000 square feet.
	That's why I'm so excited about our new partner, the PowerXL Air Fryer Grill.
	You can replace eight kitchen appliances with the PowerXL.
	It's an air fryer, a grill, rotisserie, convection oven, pizza oven, griddle, deep fryer, and toaster oven.
	And it makes the best chicken nuggets ever.
	All of that stuff in one.
	I still love nuggets.
	I'm a nuggets guy.
	Let me tell you.
	Power XL cooks with hot air, not oil.
	So you can cook healthier, you know I'm a health nut, with up to 70% fewer calories from fat.
	And you can cook for the whole family.
	It fits over four times more food than a traditional air fryer and cooks much faster to save you time.
	The secret's the heating elements from above, side, and below the grill plate, combined with turbo blades
	that are angled to distribute the heat evenly throughout the entire cooking surface.
	Comes with a ton of accessories, like a non-stick grill plate, super easy to clean up,
	crisper tray, baking pan, drip tray, and oven rack, and they're all dishwasher safe, so cleanup is really easy.
	I have the cleanup duties in the house, so I like that.
	It's like they sat down and thought about all the problems with cooking appliances and decided to start solving them.
	That's why it's the number one brand of air fryers in the U.S.
	The PowerXL air fryer comes with a 90-day money-back guarantee.
	Money-back guarantee.
	Paula's empanadas in that air fryer, by the way, are absolutely spectacular.
	I just want to throw that in there.
	Right now, they have an exclusive offer just for Dan Bongino Show listeners.
	If you go to trypowerxl.com and use promo code BONGINO, you'll receive 10% off, plus free shipping and a free cookbook.
	So head to trypowerxl.com and use our promo code BONGINO.
	One last time, for this incredibly affordable deal, try, T-R-Y, power, P-O-W-E-R, xl.com, and use promo code BONGINO.
	You're gonna love it.
	And throw some nuggets in there, too, and Paula's empanadas.
	We'll even slip you the recipe.
	Check them out.
	Trypowerxl.com.
	Use promo code Bungie.
	Now, on to the great former mayor of New York City, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani.
	All right, welcoming back to the show for, I don't know, the 10th time or whatever.
	The audience seems to love former mayor of New York City, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani.
	Thank you for coming back, sir.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you, Dan.
	Always a pleasure to be with you.
	Likewise, I feel the same.
	So let me get right into it.
	You are on the front lines of this fight, just like you've been on the front lines of seemingly every fight for the last two decades now.
	This fight for election integrity in a free and fair election, which the media is seemingly given up on.
	They've already coronated a new king.
	We're not doing that here.
	So I was going to ask you first about some problems during the election.
	I wanted to hit on this dominion.
	This problem with Dominion, this software system, I know you, can you give me a little bit of a background, our audience, what's going on here with the fight against this system?
	I can tell you, as usual, Dan, you're on target.
	Dominion is a Canadian company, which of course immediately raises the issue, why do we have a foreign company counting our ballots?
	And letting our vote get outside the United States, which is what happens.
	But Dominion really doesn't do it.
	Dominion has a software that it gets from a company called Smartmatic.
	Smartmatic is a company that, it's a Delaware company by name, but it's owned by Venezuelans.
	Venezuelans who are close to Chavez and Maduro.
	They actually count the vote.
	And they count the vote in Barcelona, Spain.
	So the vote goes from here to Barcelona, Spain.
	They count it and they kind of give it back to us.
	Can their software change the vote?
	Any way they want.
	Absolutely.
	Really?
	Make it flip it around, change it.
	In one case where they got caught in Antrim County, Michigan, it actually had it flipped.
	It had Biden winning two to one.
	This is a county where Trump carried it by 64% last time.
	So when the local people saw it, they said, what's going on?
	And it got flipped, they say, accidentally by Dominion, which really means by Smartmatic.
	Now, let me tell you the history of Smartmatic.
	Smartmatic is a company that actually was established by Chavez.
	And the whole purpose of it was to steal elections.
	That's their expertise, stealing elections.
	And as far as we can tell, Smartmatic owns Dominion.
	There's a company in between called Indra.
	So we're basically having our votes counted by Venezuelans who are close to our enemy, Maduro.
	Oh, just in case you want a little more interest in this, I believe it was Smartmatic up until a few days ago, their CEO was one of the closest people to, you guess who?
	How about the biggest donor to the Democratic Party, the Black Lives Matter?
	Not Soros.
	Don't even tell me Soros.
	Are you kidding me?
	I have a whole chapter in my book on that with Soros and Ukraine and all that.
	You've got to be kidding me.
	One of Soros' top guys was the CEO of Smartmatic.
	They took him off a couple of days ago.
	Oh my gosh.
	And one of the key people in Dominion, Is a big supporter of Antifa.
	So is someone, is someone on the team here looking into what's the audit trail?
	I mean, how do we know reliably that their vote counts are in fact genuine and authentic?
	We don't, we don't know that.
	We don't know that.
	And, and, and, and what, what is, uh, how was there no due diligence?
	In picking this company.
	I mean, the state of Georgia picked this company.
	It's a Republican state.
	However, the governor's former, I think it was chief of staff, is now one of the chief lobbyists for Dominion and Smartmatic.
	You know what's astounding, Mr. Mayor?
	Why am I always hearing this stuff from you?
	Hunter Biden, the whole Ukraine thing.
	I mean, the mainstream media should be looking at this.
	Because we have a country that is now afflicted by censorship.
	There's an iron curtain.
	There's an absolute iron curtain.
	I mean, today we submitted evidence in court.
	They keep saying there's no evidence of fraud claims.
	I mean, we've submitted 200 affidavits.
	Affidavits are evidence.
	And they go so far as to point out that it's 4.30 in the morning in Detroit, All of a sudden, out of nowhere, 100,000 ballots appeared.
	They look like something that was like prohibition when Al Capone was delivering his stuff, meaning crates and carts and shopping bags.
	They poured them on a big table.
	And the observers we have, two of whom, there are public affidavits from them, said that every vote was for Biden.
	So every single vote for Biden, the chances of that being statistically zero?
	After they finished the vote at 2 or 2.30, and they thought in Detroit they had finished all of the mail-order ballots, they got a communication that there were about 130,000 votes still behind.
	Remember, he was ahead by 300,000.
	They didn't want to wake up the next morning with him ahead.
	So all of a sudden, after about 45 minutes, there's a big commotion and these ballots start coming in the back door.
	And our two witnesses say that all these ballots were thrown on tables and they started counting them furiously.
	And they were both there throughout most of the count.
	And they never heard any other name but Biden.
	And one of them got a chance to see a lot of the ballots.
	And the ballots had Biden's name and not even any other Democrat, not even a down ticket.
	And they were counting them furiously because they were on this kind of timeline to get this vote down, get the vote down, get the vote down, get the vote down.
	Now, we can prove that in court.
	Mr. Mayor, on that topic, because it's important, I addressed this with my audience earlier in the week, we've seen some statistical anomalies here showing a high percentage of people who only voted for the presidency on Biden's side and didn't vote down ticket.
	Now, you and I having run for office, you know it's There's a pretty consistent amount of people that what they call roll off.
	They vote for the top of the, whether the mayor of New York at the top or the president and don't vote down ballot.
	But that number seems to be very different this time.
	And the suggestion by some out there is that in an effort to stuff it full of Biden ballots, they didn't even bother voting down ballot.
	They just crossed the Biden's name and sent them in.
	Do you have any evidence of that?
	I can't explain all of it, but as to these 100,000, these are obviously a balance they had to have produced that night, or many of them, so they had to do it real quick.
	What happened is, I think in both Pennsylvania and in Michigan, they were shocked by the lead that he had.
	They were ready for 100, maybe 150,000 lead based on last time.
	Remember, he only won those states by a percent.
	Yeah.
	All of a sudden he's in Pennsylvania.
	He's ahead by 800,000 votes.
	They were completely knocked out.
	And they had to do a lot of vote creating in order to catch up.
	They had prepared mail order ballots.
	They had gone through this whole mail order thing to wipe him out.
	But it did matter because he overperformed anything they could imagine.
	He was ahead by 700,000 in Pennsylvania.
	He was ahead by 300,000 in Michigan.
	He was ahead by equal amount in Wisconsin, actually by a larger percentage.
	I mean, how could it be in all these states where he was ahead?
	All of a sudden, by the next morning, he's either behind or falling way behind.
	Yeah, it's strange.
	It's just not statistically... Pennsylvania is statistically impossible.
	I have a few questions on Pennsylvania, Mr. Mayor, on Pennsylvania.
	So Lindsey Graham, Senator Graham, was on Fox News a few days ago and had mentioned that there was another, there's a lot of anomalies here, sir, as you can well imagine.
	Very strange.
	And one of them was roughly 25,000 requests for ballots, mail ballots, came in from nursing homes around Pennsylvania.
	And those requests all conveniently came in at the same time.
	Which is really odd, considering the fact that that doesn't typically happen.
	The suggestion being Pennsylvania, where ballot harvesting is illegal, that there's a possibility that those ballots were requested by people other than the actual voter.
	Have you seen anything like that?
	Yes, we have seen.
	We have.
	I can't say right now we have comprehensive proof of that, but we have isolated cases where that happened.
	We have comprehensive proof of the 100,000 ballots.
	We have comprehensive proof in Pittsburgh that we weren't allowed to inspect 330,000 ballots.
	Altogether, our count that we can prove that we weren't allowed to inspect is 630,000.
	And our argument is those ballots are unlawful under the law of the state of Pennsylvania.
	The Constitution, many people wouldn't remember this, but the Constitution says that the state legislature runs federal elections.
	The Constitution says that the state legislature sets the rules.
	So when they created this crazy mail ballot thing, which many people objected to because of fraud, They added a very strict observation requirement.
	They said, it's absolutely necessary that the ballots be examined by both sides.
	In Michigan, they actually attached a misdemeanor penalty for failure to do it.
	Because they were so afraid that, you know, once you take a mail-order ballot or a mail-in ballot, and you remove the outside envelope, you can no longer check it.
	So that observation becomes very, very important.
	We're going to take a quick break.
	We're here with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, heading this fight right now.
	We'll be right back in a second.
	Today's show also brought to you by our friends at Relief Band.
	Folks, we've all been there.
	We've all been nauseous.
	Rough night out, get sick.
	A lot of that, sadly, coming my way.
	You know the feeling.
	It's terrible.
	It ruins a good day, a good night.
	It is one of the worst feelings to be nauseous.
	We've all been there.
	Well, our new partner, Reliefband, is the number one FDA-cleared anti-nausea wristband that has been clinically proven to relieve nausea and vomiting associated with motion sickness, morning sickness, chemotherapy, anxiety, hangovers, migraines, and so much more.
	The product is 100% drug-free, non-drowsy, fast-acting, and provides all natural relief, With zero side effects.
	The technology was originally developed over 20 years ago in hospitals to relieve nausea from patients.
	But now, through Reliefband, it's available to the masses.
	You obviously know, folks, now why I took them on as a sponsor.
	I can't wait to have to use this.
	I cannot wait.
	How it works is Reliefband stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of the brain that controls nausea.
	Amazing, right?
	Then it blocks the signal your brain is sending to your stomach, telling you that you're sick.
	Relief band is the only, the only over-the-counter wearable device, the only over-the-counter wearable device that's been used in hospitals and oncology clinics to treat nausea and vomiting.
	If you know someone who deals with nausea, Relief Band makes a great gift.
	This holiday season, help someone.
	Help someone reclaim their life from the fear of nausea.
	Right now, Relief Band has an exclusive offer just for Dan Bongino listeners.
	If you go to reliefband.com and use code promo code BONGINO, B-O-N-G-I-N-O, you'll receive 20% off.
	So head to reliefband.com and use our promo code BONGINO for 20% off.
	That's R-E-L-I-E-F-B-A-N-D, reliefband.com.
	Use promo code Bongino for 20% off.
	Thanks for being part of the show.
	I think you all understand that.
	Reliefband.com, promo code Bongino.
	Now back, the former mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani.
	All right, we're back with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading this legal fight right here for a free and fair election.
	So we were talking about Pennsylvania.
	You noted that there are potentially 600,000 ballots that, according to Pennsylvania's own law, may in fact be illegal ballots.
	This could change everything in Pennsylvania.
	Sure.
	So what we're asking the court to do is to declare those ballots, as the law says, unlawful.
	They shouldn't be counted.
	You can't certify the vote with these unlawful ballots mixed in.
	And to deduct that number from the number in Philadelphia and the number in Pittsburgh.
	So roughly it would be 330,000 in Pittsburgh and about equal number in Philadelphia.
	And since Biden won both of those by 8 out of 10 and 7 out of 10, Trump would get back to a margin of about 300,000.
	Which given the fact he was ahead by 700,000 on election night, is probably the right number that the real mail-in ballots reduced him.
	And mathematical experts have looked at it and said ahead between seven and 800,000 votes, with 65% of the vote counted, the statistical probability that Biden could overcome him was close to zero.
	Wow, that's interesting.
	Can I ask you another question on Pennsylvania?
	Because Pennsylvania, without Pennsylvania, we have nothing.
	I think we have to win Pennsylvania.
	You're right, you're right.
	But we just had a recent court victory in Pennsylvania, so all is not lost.
	A judge ruled in our favor about cured ballots.
	It seems in Pennsylvania, both the Secretary of State and the courts in Pennsylvania have shockingly taken on the role of the legislature.
	I don't know if they rewrote the constitution while we weren't looking or what, the state constitution.
	Cured ballots where they can reach out and say, hey, listen, you got to come back with ID, your ballot isn't valid.
	The Pennsylvania law was very clear.
	It had to be done by November 9th.
	Well, the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania said, no, no, no, we'll give you a few more days to fix it.
	And we just won that fight, correct, where the judge said, no, no, that's not what the law says.
	You can cut that crap out right now.
	Those ballots are out.
	So that's a big victory, correct?
	Yeah, that's a big victory and it's a victory that'll knock out some votes.
	Remember, we're only 50,000 votes behind in Pennsylvania.
	And when you consider the numbers where we were excluded from being able to observe, when you consider those, and then there's another area where they cheated.
	Justice Alito made it clear That you could not submit a ballot for counting after November 3rd at eight o'clock.
	And if you, what you had to do with those is segregate them and put them in a separate pile and we can argue over them later.
	Well, we have many witnesses in both Pennsylvania and in Michigan that ballots that were marked four, five, and six were backdated to three.
	Direct witnesses who saw it happen and we have a witness who was told to do it.
	Now that's important.
	Those votes are also invalid, and I think they're going to get the Justice Con angry.
	Well, this is what I'm concerned about.
	The Supreme Court ruling on that was clear, but they didn't make a clear ruling on the validity of the ballot, so we're in a conundrum here.
	Pennsylvania law, again, is clear.
	It says, submit the ballot by Election Day, which was November 3rd this year.
	It's no good, which isn't a controversial law.
	Vote on Election Day, or it's not a vote.
	Right?
	Well, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, just like the Secretary of State, usurped the legislative role and said, no, no, that's okay.
	We're going to accept ballots three days after Election Day, which is the law is crystal clear.
	It doesn't say that.
	So Justice Alito said, keep those votes aside.
	But here's what I'm worried about, Mr. Mayor.
	I'm hearing rumblings that if the votes set aside and segregated, are not enough to change the outcome that justice robertson may not take the case which is ridiculous because even if we lose this this is a clear violation of election law yeah also we're never going to know how many really came in later because many were backdated so those votes those votes where they have to decide whether they should count or not have already been merged into the overall vote
	Because they backdated.
	I'm pretty sure we can do an estimate of the number, but we can never give you an exact number.
	We have a group of witnesses that say that they were instructed and that others were instructed to backdate it, and they did that.
	They backdated it from the fourth to the third, from the fifth to the third.
	Maybe by looking at them, you can reconstruct them, but maybe not.
	So that violation of the order should in fact lead, first of all, to contempt for the people who did it.
	And secondly, it should help to cast such a shadow of systemic fraud when you consider all the other things that were done, that they should clearly award those votes to Trump.
	I mean, I don't know how to describe it.
	Philadelphia was Yeah, it sounds like a train wreck, and what bothers me, Mr. Mayor, is you having been, you know, running Southern District, and no one knows the justice system in the courts better than you, it's been your entire life.
	You had a Supreme Court justice, was unequivocal, segregate the ballots that come in after Election Day, so that if we rule they are invalid, pursuant to the law, we have a number.
	And it appears to me, call me crazy, that Pennsylvania said, screw you, we'll do what we want.
	Is there no penalty for this?
	They didn't segregate the ballots.
	I mean, what happened?
	Instead, they forged the ballots.
	They made it appear as if they came in on the third.
	They did the same thing in Michigan.
	And there we have the testimony, not of a political partisan, but of a 37-year city worker in Detroit who was forced to do it.
	Oh my gosh.
	I want to get to a few.
	I know we're short on time, so I want to get to just a few more states before we got to run.
	Mr. Berry, just quickly on Arizona.
	Listen, I spoke out openly about the ridiculous early call for Arizona, which was absolutely unwarranted.
	It's been called again now by outlets repeatedly, and we're getting close there in Arizona.
	Is there any chance the result in Arizona could eventually go our way?
	Are those numbers just- Yeah, well, I mean, both Arizona and Nevada.
	have very similar claims of Republicans being excluded from the mail vote counting.
	I think you're going to have those claims in at least 10 states, which leads to a different argument, which is how did this all happen coincidentally?
	Did all these Corrupt city bosses, because that's where it happened.
	It only happened in cities they control like that.
	How did it happen that the boss in Pittsburgh and the boss in Philadelphia and the one in Phoenix and the one in Milwaukee all decided to keep Republicans out that day?
	You don't keep the other side out of absentee ballot counts.
	It's almost a tradition.
	I've never heard of that before.
	We have absentee counting all the time.
	You have a Republican on one side, you have a Democrat on the other side.
	They look at the envelope.
	They say yes or no.
	If they say no, you put it in a pile for a judge to take a look at.
	All of a sudden, this new law, where special emphasis has been put on the right to observe, in 10 jurisdictions, Democrats throw the Republicans out.
	Somebody had to call that shot.
	It just didn't occur to all these... I mean, the angel Gabriel didn't come to all these guys and tell them, keep out the Republicans, keep out the Republicans, keep out the Republicans.
	Some genius in the Biden camp is the one who did it, or DNC.
	And I think we should get discovery of their emails, their correspondence, and we should be able to question them as to whether there was any communication about this as a strategy.
	Because everything that I can see says to me, it has to be a strategy.
	I just don't believe in, you know, ten coincidences.
	Well, the strategy to me, and something I discussed the day after election day, it seemed pretty clear.
	If there's a coordinated effort here to stop what appeared to be a landslide again, electoral college-wise, what I would do, if I were going to do it, is stop the count, stop the hemorrhaging if you're losing, Stop the count, wake up in the middle of the night while no one's paying attention because what you don't want to do is you don't want races called because then political momentum builds and you don't want the media to turn.
	So you stop the count, therefore the race can't be called, have everyone wake up in the morning, Dump a bunch of ballots show up, you know, whether legal or not restart the count look our guys ahead Stop the hemorrhaging all of a sudden you don't call, Florida Don't call Texas despite the fact that they were one in absolute routes and then let the media Political capital build up call him president-elect and next thing you know, you've anointed your king when you don't even have a free and fair election Certified yet.
	That's how I would do it There's your next book, Dan.
	Yeah, right.
	Go ahead.
	You're pretty much on target.
	That's exactly what happened.
	And the only thing that threw them off here, and hopefully let them make enough mistakes so we can prove it, they never expected they were going to have to make up as many votes as they had to make up.
	At least in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, they were in a panic.
	They let it go too long.
	In Philadelphia, there's no doubt they waited too long to pull the string.
	They should have done it when he was ahead by $300,000 or $400,000, but they let it run up to $700,000, which gives you an idea of how bold they are in trying to steal.
	I mean, you just can't legitimately make your way back from $700,000 or $800,000 with 65% of the vote cast.
	Mr. Mayor, thank you for joining us.
	I really appreciate it.
	That was a really informative interview.
	Thank you very much, Dan.
	I really enjoyed the interview.
	What do you say?
	What do you say after that interview?
	That stuff about Dominion, the material he presented there about Dominion software, you know, the left will say, oh, it's a conspiracy.
	You know what they do?
	That's what they always do.
	I'm not really interested.
	We need to know our elections are free and fair.
	If it turns out the software was fine and there were no malfunctions, terrific!
	I mean that.
	That's great.
	But we should be looking.
	We've got one last sponsor.
	I want to get to an announcement on the other side that you're not going to want to miss.
	Folks, today's show was also brought to you by our friends at iTarget.
	This year has reminded us of many things, including how important it is to look after our families, the ones we love.
	We need to be prepared.
	This holiday season, give the gift of safety and practice.
	Give them iTarget Pro.
	I get a ton, a ton of emails about the system.
	You have the right to self-defense, but also a moral obligation to be safe.
	Most of us don't have the time to train consistently, and ammo can get really expensive.
	That's why iTarget was invented.
	What is it?
	It is a laser round that goes in the firearm you have now.
	No manipulations necessary.
	Safely unload it, you insert the laser round, it comes with a target and an app, and you can practice in the safety and security of your own home.
	You don't need any live ammo, you can practice your grip, sight alignment, your sight picture, your breathing, your muscle memory, your stance, your aim, all of that.
	EyeTarget Pro.
	People can't put this down.
	EyeTarget Pro comes in all the major calibers, even .223 and .556.
	Today you can save 10% plus get free shipping with the offer code DAN.
	I gave this to my dad, by the way, last year for Christmas.
	He loved it.
	Go to EyeTarget Pro.
	That's the letter EyeTarget Pro.
	You get 10% free shipping with the offer code DAN at checkout.
	This is the smartest way for you to practice.
	It pays for itself in just a few days.
	That's the letter ITARGETPRO.COM.
	ITARGETPRO.COM.
	Use offer code Dan again.
	ITARGETPRO.COM.
	Offer code Dan.
	This makes a great gift.
	Train.
	You're going to need it, right?
	You got to be proficient.
	ITARGETPRO.COM.
	Use offer code Dan.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we have another special coming up next month.
	We'll announce the date soon.
	We're going to do a wrap up for the year, a deep state special.
	We're going to have a few surprise guests on the show, and we're going to talk about a whole bunch of things here.
	Hopefully we'll have some resolution on this election by then.
	We should.
	The electors meet December 14, but you're not going to want to miss it.
	Thanks for your patience today with the show and your time.
	I hope you enjoyed it.
	I certainly did.
	We will see you again on Monday.

▲