Glenn Beck, Sen. Mike Lee, and David Steinberg dissect Donald Trump's tax returns, arguing moral culpability despite legal loopholes while contrasting them with Joe Biden's filings. They debate Amy Coney Barrett's nomination delay, fearing post-election procedural exploitation and religious attacks reminiscent of past Kavanaugh and Bork controversies. Finally, Steinberg presents Project Veritas evidence of Ilhan Omar's alleged ballot harvesting in Minnesota, highlighting illegal door-to-door collection that violates state law and triggers an FBI investigation into potential vote-buying. [Automatically generated summary]
Steve Dace and Stu kind of have a nerd fight about the polls.
Not as exciting as I wanted.
I really wanted the full-fledged kind of nerd out.
But they did.
They did a little bit.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Yeah.
But we talk about the polls.
What is it going to take for Trump to win?
We talk about the election fraud that Elon Omar appears to be a part of now that was released over the weekend.
We also have a lot of coverage on Amy Coney Barrett.
Why are we waiting until the middle of October?
Isn't that cutting it a little close?
Mike Lee chimed in on that.
All of this and so much more on today's podcast.
You're listening to The Best of the Glenn Beck Program.
I have to tell you.
I've got an announcement to make.
I was all for voting for Donald Trump.
I was on the bandwagon.
I was on the bandwagon.
Then the New York Times came out with this just absolutely can't believe it is true story about his taxes.
My advantage of tax code loopholes?
Not only that, but he hid it while he was admitting that during the last debate.
Well, no, he didn't.
He actually admitted that he took advantage of the tax.
Yeah, no, but not that he didn't go that far.
He just said, I'd be stupid if I didn't.
In 2016, when he said he paid almost no taxes, this confirms that.
Right.
It does.
It does.
This is not going to change anybody's mind.
You notice there's nothing illegal.
There's nothing illegal.
They're not charging him with anything illegal.
No, but he actually took advantage of tax loopholes.
The bastard.
Is there anybody within the sound of my voice that if it was legal, you're not going to jail?
And you had the attorney to do it and you were paying zero or $740 a year in taxes?
Anyone within the sound of my voice, brave, a big enough liar to call me and go, I wouldn't do that.
I would send a check to the government just to help.
And a little bit extra.
And a little extra.
You give it to somebody you need to.
You know, it would be your patriotic duty, honestly.
It's your patriotic duty to pay taxes when they're not pissing all of your tax money away.
But when they're pissing your money away, when they're a horrible, bad steward to your money, I can guarantee you that the money I give in tithing and charity, that money goes further than the, what, 50% that they take from me.
You know what I mean?
Yeah.
By far, by far.
And there's stuff in there that like he might have to pay fines for in theory or that he could get in quote unquote trouble for.
But this is all trouble as in fines.
Yeah, fines, right?
He's been in a long-term battle over about $70 million that he got in a return, which doesn't seem exactly like he followed the rules on it.
But the bottom line is exactly, exactly, zero minds are changed by it.
Exactly.
But can you count all of those minds?
Yes.
Zero.
No, not one person would change it.
In fact, I found myself, and I've never found myself in this position.
I found myself this morning listening to the news again, the way it was reported by the New York Times, and I was cheering.
I was cheering.
Good for him.
Damn right, zero.
How do I get those attorneys?
No, geez.
And I don't know what the point of this is.
I mean, the only thing about it is, of course, how did they get this?
How did they get 20 years of his tax returns?
Well, they don't want to say that.
They can't.
They have to show us the documents.
No, they have to preserve their one anonymous source.
And I'd like to show you the paperwork, but I can't.
You know what else is great?
Not a word about the fact that he accepts no income as president.
That he doesn't take a dime from the government.
He doesn't get any of the $400,000 in salary.
I mean, wouldn't that be a good place to mention?
Oh, and by the way, he doesn't take a salary for president of the United States.
Here's the thing that everybody should be talking about.
Here's a guy who has a global hotel chain.
Okay.
And it pretty much verifies what we all know.
It's successful at times and really not successful in times.
You know what I mean?
So we all know that.
So there's no surprise there.
Here's the thing that everybody should be asking about.
Joe Biden's $3 million tax returns.
Yeah, where's the money coming from?
He's a guy who is living on a government salary.
Now, I know when you were vice president, you wrote a book, et cetera, et cetera.
But how is everybody in his family?
He's himself so rich.
I mean, that's a middle-class Joe.
$3 million?
Lunch bucket.
Wow.
That's a lunch bucket.
That's a low salary.
It is laughable.
And it's funny, too, to think back at all the things that we begged the media to dig into during the Obama era that they never did.
We never even, like, his college transcripts, like basic crap that wouldn't have made a big difference at all.
We never got over all those years.
They were able to get 20 years of Donald Trump's tax returns in something that is not illegal for the New York Times to do, but whoever gave it to them certainly committed a crime.
Right.
That's why, that's why, well, we can't reveal our source.
Right.
Because it's a criminal.
Right.
Because the person who gave it to you just committed a crime.
Don't they think it was Mary Trump?
Isn't that what they suspect?
Is that what they think, really?
I think so.
Yeah.
I think they're seriously.
Seriously?
I think seriously.
I don't know.
I can't remember.
I read an article, though, that they suspected strongly that it might have been Mary Trump.
Well, I have news for you.
I mean, you say, how would she do that?
She's a judge.
You don't think that there's people that she could call?
Because it came from the sister.
No, not the sister, the niece.
Yeah, the one that runs the boat.
That Trump makes sense.
Yeah, I mean, unless they might share the same account into me, but still, there'd have to be somebody who did something very wrong here.
Again, just because he's president of the United States does not mean he does not have the right to privacy.
So let me ask you, Amy Coney Barrett, you know who's going to be responsible for her becoming Supreme Court, I really think, in the end?
I've got a couple of names.
Barrett's Nomination and Constitutional Concerns00:14:36
Yeah.
One would be Harry Reid.
I was going to say Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer.
Chuck Schumer.
Nancy Pelosi.
I would say Dianne Feinstein.
I would say the number one Diane Feinstein.
They did everything.
They're the reason why you don't have a 60-person vote.
Yes, no.
Harry Reid.
That's great.
Brought that in.
Right.
Started that ball rolling.
I mean, they did everything.
Just the Kavanaugh turned enough people that they said, this is not right.
Kamala Harris was big on that one.
Big.
Big.
And the one specific question about the dogma lives loudly within you came from Diane Feinstein, which is like the kind of the big slogan of the Amy Coney Barrett nomination.
And I love this.
The dogma lives loudly.
So in other words, you have a problem that I believe in the things I profess to believe.
That's the dogma.
So Nancy is fine because she's not Catholic.
The Pope is coming out like every 10 minutes going, hey, stop with abortion.
But the dogma doesn't live loudly.
It doesn't even live in her neighborhood.
The dog catcher cocked the dog.
What's this about dogs?
By the way, I should point out we have the notorious ACB shirt up now on StuDoesMerch.com or really shop.blaze media.
StuDoesMerch.com will get you to the whole show store.
But the notorious ACB.
I feel like I got to have that.
I love that.
That's what you need.
Can you get those overnighted for all of us?
Probably.
I could at least.
Because we have the debate tomorrow.
We're going to do.
What is the promo code?
Glenn's debate.
Hold on.
Let me just guess at it.
Anyway, yeah.
So sign up for the Blaze because tomorrow we're doing our.
It's like a Mystery Theater 3000 thing, right?
Yeah.
Well, Stu's starting his show at like 8 o'clock, so he'll do his show.
Then we go in at 9 o'clock into just, we're really second screen.
We're going to be saying all the things that you want to say.
We're also going to be doing some live fact checking, but we're going to try not to interrupt, except when we cheer or have really something very sarcastic to say.
That's happening tomorrow.
And then at 10 o'clock, and this will be on YouTube and the Blaze and everything else, we're going to give you our rundown and our analysis of the debate.
Because quite honestly, I don't care what anybody says anymore.
Do you?
No.
I don't care what any of these people on TV say anymore.
Oh, in fact, I can't listen to it.
I can't either.
That's the fact.
I just can't listen to it.
So we're going to be the group that you can listen to.
So tomorrow after the debate, make sure you go to Blaze TV or the Blaze TV YouTube channel and listen to our recap of the debate.
And it's blazetv.com slash Glenn, the CODIS Glenn debates.
Did you actually see the Wolf Blister?
20%, by the way.
Interview Richard Blumenthal over the weekend.
Oh my gosh.
No, every once in a while.
Every once in a while, Wolf will do something, I don't know, journalistic.
And it blew me away.
Nah, I don't believe that.
That's a pretty strong word in today's.
It is.
It is.
But he called him out.
Because here it is, real quick.
What are the Republicans doing that is illegal or illegitimate?
Because the Constitution says the president has to nominate Supreme Court justices.
The Senate has to advise and consent and confirm.
So what is illegal about what the president and the Republicans are doing?
You say it's illegitimate.
It is illegitimate.
Where does it say, Senator, where does it say that's illegitimate in the U.S. Constitution or in the law?
Where does it say that what they're doing, the Republicans, is illegal?
Illegal, it may be not under the Constitution.
Illegal, it may be notions and unwritten rules of the Senate.
This is illegitimate.
Unwritten rules.
You agree that there's nothing illegal or totally illegitimate as to what they're doing.
Third time.
It may not violate the letter of the Constitution.
Right.
The letter.
The letter.
Or even the whole words or the spirit of the entire document.
You could take one of those needles that they're jamming into Joe Biden's chest tomorrow, right before he goes on stage, do that to all the founders, and they would also say, nope, nah, uh-uh, it has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Do you remember doing an interview with him?
Gosh, it was a long time ago.
Really, was it Fox or was it CNN?
I don't even remember.
Someone sent it to me this weekend because they were like, he's doing the same thing because you had him on about AIG bonuses or something.
It was some story.
And you were holding his feet to the card because he was trying to make this big deal about it.
And you're like, what is illegal about this?
And he did the same thing.
He said, well, it's not.
It's not illegal per se.
It's illegal.
It's ill-tempered.
Yeah, it's ill-tempered.
At the time, you're the attorney general.
You should really be only concerned with what's illegal, right?
You made that point pretty clearly, Jim, in that interview.
He was not happy you did.
By the way, so you know, all the social justice warriors, relax.
Wolf Blitzer had his beard removed with duct tape right after that interview.
So he's learned his lesson.
He's learned his lesson.
Really?
Oh, yeah.
Wow.
Wait till you see him today.
Well, nobody will see him.
He might even, by the time you see him, he'll probably have his beard grown back.
My guess is Wolf's beard would grow in every day.
If you removed it every day, it would grow right back.
His name is Wolf.
That's what I mean.
It's just there.
This is the best of the Glenbeck program.
From the state of Utah, Senator Mike Lee joins us today.
Senator, how are you, sir?
I'm doing great.
Just, you know, eating Bilt Bars.
Yeah.
One right after the other.
Yeah.
And playing car shields and all that fun.
Shut up.
Have you ever had a Bilt Bar?
Never.
You should.
I mean, look at your little pudgy.
In Utah, we're going to speak of or eat little else other than Bilt Bar.
It's going to be all Bilt Bar all the time.
Yeah, all the time.
Good.
I'm glad to hear that.
It's a Bilt Bar economy.
Really?
Glad to hear it.
What are you drunk today?
I mean, this is the Mike Lee I know, but the Mike Lee that is usually on the air is very buttoned up and very serious.
Yeah, hey, this is what happens when a Mormon has a Diet Coke before 10 a.m.
All right.
So, Mike, congratulations on the nomination.
I think this is the person that you really wanted.
Out of all of the lists, is this the person you would have picked?
She's fantastic.
And I think she's going to do an amazing job.
And I told the president this really was good work on his part.
We're going to get her confirmed.
So may I ask, why is it going to take until October 12th to start the process?
Yeah, that's a fair question.
I wish we could start it faster than that.
I was told by the chairman that that would be the day that we would start.
There were a couple of us who asked whether we could start it a week earlier or even sooner than that.
And he pointed out that there's a lot of paperwork that has to be filled up by the nominee, a lot of process that has to occur behind.
He's already filled that out.
Yeah, but the FBI's already done that.
We're told nonetheless.
That's what we were told needs to happen.
So look, and let me put it this way, Mike.
Yeah.
All right.
If he decides to start the hearing tomorrow, I'm here.
I'm ready to go.
There is nothing in the Constitution.
There's nothing in federal statute that requires us even to hold a hearing.
There's certainly nothing in the constitutional and federal statute requiring us to wait a certain period of time before starting said hearings, if we're going to have them at all, which we're going to do.
So I think we ought to do it sooner rather than later because the sooner we get that started, the sooner we can get her confirmed.
So we need to face down the uncertainty and we need to resolve the uncertainty so we can get this job done so they can't pole craft like what they pulled with Brett Kavanaugh.
The reason why I say October 12th is in the year 2020, that's a lifetime.
We could all be speaking some space language by that time.
And it pushes the vote to October, what, 29th, Stu?
October 29th.
That's right away, just a few days from the election.
If it's stalled, delayed, anything changes, you could see a vote that doesn't happen until after the election.
And then you know, well, I won't put words in your mouth, put words in my mouth.
Then the Romney weasels will all scatter and go, well, I don't know.
Trump didn't win the election.
Should he not win?
Yeah, let's just say that we'll stipulate for the record that that would be bad if we were to push until after the election.
Because it's sort of like crossing the streams on ghostbusters.
Once you do that, all sorts of bad stuff starts to happen.
If you wait until after the election, then if we lose the election, either the Senate majority or the White House, or heaven forbid both, then you've got some people doubting whether we should be doing this or not.
And so, yeah, this needs to happen sooner rather than later.
It needs to get started, ASAP.
So did you read the op-ed from Bloomberg written by somebody who I think clerked with her for a different judge, for a different judge in the Supreme Court?
And he said, I disagree with Trump's judicial nominee on almost everything, but I think she's brilliant.
And he's a lefty who doesn't agree with the way she does things or what she's going to pass his verdict.
He said, but she is so smart that you want someone like her on the court to analyze.
He said, even though I disagreed with her, he said, I would go to her for the understanding of what these tangled words meant sometimes because she could just so clearly cut through it and explain it.
Yes, yes, I read that, and I thought it was fantastic.
And I think it's one of the many reasons why she needs to be confirmed and why she will be confirmed.
I mean, look, this is somebody who has dedicated her life to law and also dedicated her life to raising her seven children.
She's fantastic.
And Professor Noah Feldman was exactly right.
She needs to be confirmed.
So we've got to get the show on the road.
So do you have any inkling on what the Democrats are going to try to use against?
Because if they use religion or they try another Kavanaugh, it's going to kill them.
It's going to kill them during the election.
Yes, it is.
And so one would ordinarily think that that means that they won't try that because it would be extraordinarily harmful to them.
But it's sort of like those nature videos you watch on the Discovery Channel.
When you see the wildebeest approaching the water that they know is going to be infected.
Don't do it.
They're really thirsty.
They've got to get to that water and they can't help themselves.
That might be what we see here.
The last time in Judiciary Committee, when I brought up with some of my colleagues, maybe we shouldn't start questioning a judicial nominee's religious beliefs because there are at least two, arguably three provisions of the Constitution that prohibit us from doing that and because it's evil.
And because it's evil.
And they honestly said, oh, no, no.
We really think that if a nominee has crazy religious beliefs, we're going to attack him for that.
And we should.
This was on the record.
This was in the light of day.
So you don't think that they're going to stop because of the conversation?
They did something I think just as bad.
It's not unconstitutional to do this, but they attacked her adoption of her non-white kids.
And somehow or another, that's racist.
Yeah, apparently so.
I didn't know that.
I didn't either.
And neither did she.
But apparently they are the deciders of such things, and they have made that decision.
They've also made the decision, as came out in her last confirmation hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that she was apparently too Catholic, that the dogma lives loudly within her, and that that's somehow bad.
So, yeah, I suspect those things will come out, not because it will do them any good, not because it will enable them to defeat her, not because it will help them in this election, but because they can't help it.
Do you think things would have been the same?
Do you think she would have been nominated and you could be as assured Assured as anyone could be that it will go through if Kavanaugh wouldn't have happened?
I think they really pushed their luck on Kavanaugh.
I think they threw the Hail Mary pass in the very final seconds of the game and they lost.
I do think it's going to be a little bit harder for them to pull this trick this time, especially because as I pointed out in our Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, I went through the list of people they personally attacked and just getting started, just rattling off a few names.
You know, there's Brett Kavanaugh, and of course there's Robert Bork, and of course there's my former boss, Sam Alito, and then there's Clarence Thomas, all of whom had their character personally attacked to the core on things that turned out to be really untrue and really uncorroborated.
And I said, no, I challenge you guys to name me one, name me one Democratic nominee who's ever been treated that way by Republicans.
Crickets.
This is from a group of people who can't shut up.
This is from a group of people who spoke for a really, really long time that day about everything else.
Uncovering Ballot Harvesting Fraud00:03:20
They had no response to that because that's not how we roll.
And so I think deep in their mind, they realize that what they're doing is wrong, that what they're doing beclowns them and demeans the process.
And so I hope they will find some conscience in there.
Talking to Senator Mike Lee, speaking of Democrats be clowning themselves, great word, by the way.
They are threatening all sorts of procedural delays, including and up to throwing random impeachments in the process to try to delay this thing so they can get it past the election.
Is it possible that any of that can work?
It's possible they can delay it.
So I was on the ABC Sunday News show yesterday, and one of my Democratic colleagues, Dick Durbin from Illinois, was opposite me and being questioned by George Stephanopoulos.
And Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Senator Durbin whether they would be doing that.
Senator Durbin, as I recall, basically said, look, we can delay this by maybe a couple days, but I really don't think we have the procedural wherewithal to just stop it.
I hope that that remains the case.
I hope that that's not bluffing and that that is his true, sincere, and correct assessment.
But we're going to have to plan for that because there are procedural tools that they can pull, including those that involve impeachment, that can at least make it more difficult for us.
So off of the nomination of the Supreme Court here, and one last question, because you will know what this means.
You know, when we declare an emergency, people don't understand that that gives all kinds of new power and spending and everything else.
There's a story that came out over the weekend.
President Donald Trump slated to announce a measure that designates far-left movement Antifa and the KKK as terrorist organizations.
What does that designation mean?
Anything?
Okay, so it's been a while since I looked at that designation, but it allows the president to utilize certain assets, certain levers of authority within the government, including a Treasury Department, to block, among other things, financial transactions carried out by the organization in question so that we can stop them from engaging in acts of terror.
And so this could be a significant move.
I certainly think that in both cases, in the case of the KKK and Antifa, you've seen a whole lot of evidence that terror is their game.
And I know of no reason why the law, as written, wouldn't extend to those categories.
So it makes sense to me.
Mike Lee, thank you very much.
God bless.
Hey, thank you very much.
You're back.
Bye-bye.
Back to your diet code.
You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.
Ballot Harvesting and Intimidation Campaigns00:11:42
David Steinberg is here.
He has had information on Ilana Mar, as I understand it, hasn't been able to share it because he didn't have the smoking gun.
He had bullets.
And now may be willing to uncover some of those things that he had found on ballot harvesting fraud.
It's legal to ballot harvest.
I don't know why in Minnesota, but the fraud that goes along with it was exposed by Project Veritas this weekend.
Welcome, David.
Glenn, thanks for having me again.
Absolutely.
So let me play the audio here from Project Veritas so people know what the new information is.
Listen.
Who is the one filling out the absentee ballots?
Yeah, yeah, we didn't put in a...
People will work with, like, Ilhan Omar and other candidates who work for them.
I don't want to do that.
Ilhan has a handful of people I work for.
They came to us to our apartments.
They tell us that this year you're going to vote for your life.
You don't go nowhere.
You stay for the absentee ballot.
When it comes to come and get it, we just go nowhere.
They then fill out the ballot.
They will sign the ballot for us.
Where do they pay the money?
The minute we sign the thing, the election, that's what you get paid.
That's pretty stunning, David.
Yeah, it's pretty stunning.
This has also been circulating, well, locally, it's been known since 2016, her first election.
It was simply an open secret.
Now, this reached me and Scott Johnson at Powerline.
I believe we've been hearing this since late 2018 regarding her having arranged a massive, massive vote buying campaign in her primary win in 2016, the general in 2016, which is when she was elected as a state representative.
And then again in 2018, it was the primary and the general when she was voted to Congress.
So this program is not new.
It was massive.
I have hinted at it.
I did discuss it with you briefly on the air back in May.
Right.
And I said, look, this is everywhere.
And the way I put it was, look, we are already talking about potentially the worst string of felonies committed by a congressperson in U.S. history.
And that's before we get to the bad stuff.
And the bad stuff, which we were referencing, is this.
Perhaps a historically large vote buying campaign for several elections.
So because voting is controlled by the state, do we need to have the Attorney General who is watching her back?
It's Keith Ellison.
Or can the federal government get involved in this?
Good question.
The answer is Keith Ellison can be bypassed here.
Federal, okay.
And of course, this is not something that this isn't a situation like Portland where you get arrested and released and not charged and no bail.
If a candidate is caught bribing a voter for as little as a candy bar, you could be facing five years in prison.
And now we are talking about hundreds, perhaps thousands of votes over at least four elections.
But you have to believe that those in the Somali community are going to be very apprehensive to talk to investigators.
I mean, it's a scary.
If this is truly going on, then it means that everything else that is linked to it, the threat of violence, etc., etc., if you blow the whistle here, that that's also true.
Well, sure.
We've published plenty of evidence that her campaign, I mean, we have video evidence.
Once again, what we have here, this person actually posted online the video that O'Keefe has posted, he was bragging about what he was doing, just posted it online.
It was out there.
That's the same thing we had back in 2016 when Alpha News Minnesota first posted a video taken at an Ilhan campaign event where they were talking about whoever it was in the community who had leaked the news of her fraudulent marriage.
They had to hunt that person down and get him out of the community.
And this was at her campaign, posted on their Facebook.
The person who actually recorded that video, his name was Guhad Haji, was at the time out on bail for a triple stabbing in Ohio.
And he was out of state.
He had lived in Ohio.
He was now in Minnesota running or co-running her intimidation campaign.
That's right.
I remember that.
The same guy, he's running this co-intimidation campaign.
He's going door to door, knocking on doors, allegedly saying, we want to know that you're going to keep your mouth quiet.
If I mark down here that you gave us 25 bucks, we'll know we can trust you.
So he's running a protection racket.
We also have talk of them simply running a vote buying campaign where they have bags of money going out organized by Ali Isi.
He was the campaign manager, spread among 11 different building managers for these 11 towers that mostly housed the Somali refugees in Cedar Riverside.
The money was getting spread around to each of them.
It was simply, if you show up or get in this van and we drive you down and vote, we'll give you a set amount.
I've heard the amount of 50 for the primary and 125 for the general.
So, David, is anyone going to look into this?
Well, this was given to the FBI, I can confirm, earlier this year.
People, and again, remember, giving false information to the FBI is a felony in itself.
We had locals who were willing to give this information face-to-face to the FBI early this year regarding these four prior elections.
Now, we did not have any concrete evidence.
All we had was several people confirming this.
Now, again, early this year, after speaking with the FBI, someone said, you know, let's call James O'Keefe.
Get him down here, see if he can catch them in the act this year.
And as we can see, he was successful.
So, we now have our foot in the door with proof of her doing it this year.
We can go back and look at 2016 and 2018.
I feel very confident now about this.
Also, just last night, O'Keefe spoke with the Hennepin County Attorney's Office.
So, he said, what you have on that tape is illegal, and we are looking into it.
It's a great start.
Let me play a little bit more of the tape.
This is the ballot harvester, what is it, Lyban Mohammed, where he is on social media making a video here about the stack of absentee ballots in his car that he collected for the campaign of a Democrat.
He says all these absentee ballots can't you see They're all here.
My car is full of them.
Today has 300 ballots for Jamal.
Is that enough?
Because really, he could have 300 ballots for Jamal just because he was knocking on doors, which is called ballot harvesting, which is fine, at least in Minnesota.
I don't think it's fine, but he could just go and get the ballots from people that were signing them of their own volition.
Well, that's not exactly correct.
It is fine to collect three ballots, not 300, according to Minnesota law.
So it is not fine.
It is already illegal.
Of course, we've got folks like Mark Elias, that Perkins-Cooee election law attorney.
He has led the vote-by-mail suits.
There have been, I believe, three dozen lawsuits to get vote-by-mail, ballot harvesting, the signature law to get that relaxed, to get everything relaxed, to have votes be able to count one, two weeks after election day.
That's Mark Elias.
He's the one who's been suing every state to make what you're seeing in that video legal.
Not the fact that he's purchasing votes, but to make harvesting 300 ballots just going door to door like that legal.
So it's an uphill fight across the country in every state.
It is an absolute crisis at this point.
And it all should have been avoided.
They've been doing this since March of early this year.
You'll remember the moment the coronavirus lockdown started to begin, guys like Mark Elias and the Democratic Party immediately, millions and millions of dollars came out of nowhere and they started these suits all over the country to implement vote by mail and to change, to relax all these other laws.
Now, vote by mail has never, ever been implemented in eight months, March until November.
The states that do have it and do a fairly decent job of it, it took them several years of refinement and lawsuits and refinement and process refinement.
He was trying to do it in eight months.
They knew from the start this was going to be a disaster.
We now have on camera just how big of a disaster we're going to face in November.
David, thank you very much.
David Steinberg, Investigative Reporter, covering the news that came out from Project Veritas this weekend about ballot harvesting fraud in Minnesota.
The November Voting Disaster00:00:25
People are risking, literally risking their life to bring information out.
You're not going to see this information in the mainstream media.
It's important for you to share these things with your friends who are still undecided or just normal people that maybe aren't hearing things.
People are not hearing the truth because they're only watching one side or the other.