All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 6, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:20:24
Dr Corsi DEEP DIVE Interview 11-05-20: Defeating Voter Fraud to Maintain Voter Integrity
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
♪♪♪ So that's it.
Dr. Corsi, we've got a full house of guests again.
What should we talk about today?
How about voter fraud?
Oh, okay. It seems to be timely and really the subject as we're in the beginning phases now of the election occurring.
Today is November 5th, 2020.
It's two days after the election.
And of course, we've got the counts going on and on and on in these various states.
We've got states where the totals, where Trump won an election night.
People went to bed in the middle of the night.
The Democrats produced massive bunches of ballots, mail-in ballots.
And when everybody woke up in the morning, Trump was losing.
So now we've got investigations going on and we're at the very beginning of it.
And Dr. Graves has put together this discussion for us so we can really get into what voting fraud is all about, how it's done, what we're going to do to combat it.
I'm maintaining that Trump will win and that the team he's put together to handle the legal issue is quite competent.
And we've been doing a lot on our podcast about it, but Dr.
Graves, do you want to give us an introduction and start the discussion?
I certainly would.
Thank you so much for this opportunity.
I would like to introduce William Koenig.
He is a correspondent, a great writer, and one thing I like about Bill is this, that he actually prints the truth.
What a concept.
Oh my gosh, we hardly ever, ever get that from any press of any kind or media of any kind.
And that's what I like.
He doesn't play favorites.
And then we are honored to have Chris Kobach, who is the former Attorney General of Kansas, and he is a constitutional specialist.
And he is a warrior, a fighter.
He doesn't give up and he doesn't give in, no matter what.
And I love that about Chris.
And so with that, I turn it back to you.
Well, let's start out this way.
Bill, we are seeing this year the first massive use of this mail-in voting that the Democrats have concocted.
And it's turning out to be a nightmare, you know, the all kinds of issues of postmarks.
Whether the people really are registered.
What are your thoughts here as we're beginning to watch this bill in terms of seeing this unfold in the various states in the post-November 2020 election over the president and the other offices?
Well, Jerome, you and Carla Dean have done a great job of covering COVID-19, and that was once that became the issue it became.
It became a significant issue.
I was afraid that this would become the vehicle that the Democrats used to do what they could to win this election.
I shouldn't say win, steal this election.
And with the mail-in ballots, with all the other things that can be manipulated around mail-in ballots, postmarks, delivery, ballots showing up in tranches, After election, postmark differentiation, or whether it was postmarked at the correct time, then John Roberts at the Supreme Court didn't help us on the Pennsylvania situation when they were given three additional days to accumulate those ballots.
And, you know, it's just unfortunate.
It's just the perfect vehicle.
That will lead to election fraud.
It's so difficult to monitor because there's so many voting precincts all around the country.
Okay, and Chris, what are your thoughts on the mail-in voting?
You've had experience being an attorney general and having to deal with these issues.
What do you think? Well, actually, I've been given the wrong title.
I was actually Secretary of State of Kansas for eight years from 2000.
Elected in 2010 and 2014.
And I brought in authored what I would argue is the toughest set of laws prohibiting voter fraud in the country.
I brought in photo ID plus equivalent security for mail-in ballots.
And that is so critical. Many of the photo ID states, in fact, most of the photo ID states do not have equivalent protection for mail-in ballots.
And all it does is it drives the fraud to the mail-in ballots, which is part of the problem we're seeing today.
But in Kansas, we plug that gap.
And then the other Aspect of our Kansas law is we have proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration.
But as far as what's going on right now, I'd point out a few things.
One I discussed in a Breitbart column that I published today, and that has to do with why you have to have poll watchers watching the counting, especially in the Philadelphia jurisdiction.
You know, as Secretary of State, in eight years, I can only think of one report of election of Committing fraud in the entire state of Kansas, and that was just a report, not a conviction.
Take that, and most states are like that.
Contrast that to Philadelphia, where you have multiple convictions, not just reports, but convictions of insider fraud by election officials.
In 2015, prosecution was brought, charges were brought against Three individuals and they were found guilty for basically a cabal where they were conspiring to commit fraud in various elections.
And then in 2017, four individuals all operating at the same polling place or rather the same ballot counting location in Philadelphia.
Sorry, polling place.
They too had a conspiracy and they were convicted.
So that's seven election officials in a three-year period in Philadelphia.
Compared to other states where you rarely see an election official convicted, there's a real problem here.
And so when I heard reports a couple days ago that Republican poll watchers were being excluded from polling places in Philadelphia, that sounds alarm bells because Philadelphia has the probably worst history of insider fraud by election officials.
And when those election officials are telling only Republicans to stay away, That's a big problem.
So anyway, the Trump campaign and the Republican Party immediately brought suit and are getting the counting stopped so that the precautions of letting everybody come in and observe, because you have a legal right to do that, and observe the counting, making sure the rules are applied equally against Republican or for Republican ballots, against or for Democrat ballots, that's happening now.
Unfortunately, Many ballots were counted and tabulated before the Republican observers were able to get this judicial relief.
And by the way, when those mail-in ballots are tabulated, the first thing you do is you separate the envelope, which in many states has the voter signature on it, from the ballot in order to preserve voter anonymity.
Then those ballots are mixed together in a giant pile, again, to preserve voter anonymity.
You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.
Once you've tabulated those ballots, you can't go back and say, oh, wait a minute, you know, these 500 ballots were fraudulent, shouldn't have been counted.
They're already in the mix.
So it's absolutely critical that poll observers be there in Philadelphia, and frankly, everywhere at this stage.
The other thing I'm very concerned about is, I'm sure as many viewers have noted, Wisconsin is showing extraordinary voter turnout Generally, we think of high voter turnout as a good thing, but they're showing in the region of 90%.
That just doesn't happen at a statewide level.
In a rural county in Kansas, a small county where you have one town where everybody knows each other, you might get 80% in a presidential election.
You don't get 90% turnout statewide.
It just virtually never happens.
That's a potential red flag in Wisconsin, too, one of those states that overnight You know, switched and went heavily against the president.
So a lot of things going on.
And that's why those of us who follow the voter fraud issue are very concerned.
As you may know, I was the chairman of the president's or vice chairman of the president's commission on voter fraud.
And many of the forms of fraud we are potentially seeing here were looked at by that commission.
Bill, coming back to you, on election night, I think about 2.30 in the morning, President Trump made a statement from the East Room, and he said that He was ahead in many of these states and had won convincingly on the in-person voting.
And President Trump said, but by four o'clock today, I don't want them finding thousands of mail-in votes and flipping the election.
Well, that's exactly what happened during the night.
With many states. Now, Bill, I mean, first of all, it's got to be obvious when they come in and these ballots are thousands of ballots and they're all for Biden.
None of these mail-in ballots that are suddenly found are very few for Donald Trump.
And going back to the Al Franken election where he stole the election, Senate election from Coleman at that time.
That's right. You have the ability to know, well, at the end of the election, if you can keep counting ballots, keep producing ballots, if they can keep coming in, because the deadline's extended, maybe three days, maybe nine days, maybe more, where the ballots can be postmarked after the election, you know how many to create.
I mean, you can say, okay, we need 10,000 ballots, let's go make them up.
I mean, how do you...
Not only prevent this, but it's happened.
If we find this to have happened, and there's convincing evidence it was fraud, because, I mean, it's like Keystone Cops.
I mean, it's apparent to everybody that this just doesn't happen.
You know, they suddenly magically find all these ballots and produce them, and we have reports of ballots being thrown away.
We've got all kinds of discrepancies coming in.
If you know there's fraud, but you don't know how to recover the votes from the pile, Once the envelopes are separated from the vote, what do you do?
How do you correct the fraud?
Well, that's a huge problem. As you remember, Al Franken basically won that election in the morning.
You know, Norm Cohen went to bed ahead In the morning, he came out, I don't know, a few thousand votes ahead of Coleman, and they took it to court.
And at the court, I think the judge said, you know, we can't go back and unravel this.
It would be all but impossible.
It would be too disruptive. And that's kind of what Chris is, I believe, saying here, is once those ballots have been counted and tabulated, how do you reverse that?
So that's the challenge here, is to how do you recapture the integrity of the election when these kind of things happen?
I don't have an answer for that.
But also, the big concern from the people I've talked to that handle elections, Their main concern is keep away from the paper, keep away from the paper ballots, because that's where elections are lost.
Even electronically, there's question on the tabulation electronically, but if you have it in paper, your back's against a wall, and that's the situation there in Pennsylvania.
How could they not allow Republicans to monitor this outside of the fact that they're trying to do what they do and steal the election, especially in that area of the country, in Philadelphia?
Where a lot of the ballots that are coming in are from that region.
I have a question. Okay, yes, Dr.
Groves? Well, what was the recourse, Chris, for those people who were the electoral observers?
I mean, what was their recourse at that time?
What should they have done?
Well, what they did do is they immediately reported That they were being excluded and the Republican Party in Pennsylvania moved rather quickly to file suit to at least pause the counting until they can ensure the observers were there.
But again, even when they try to move quickly, the wheels of justice move slowly.
So many ballots were counted in that interim.
So yeah, it's a real problem.
And one thing I would add to what Bill just said is this problem of additional mail-in or advanced ballots appearing suddenly after Election Day is a problem that can be solved.
And most states don't have this issue.
That is, if you stop voting and say, or you have a termination point, At which, okay, we have to receive your advance ballots by this time on election day.
Then there's no chance for boxes of ballots to arrive that night or later on.
And so the vast majority of jurisdictions, like in Kansas, the advance ballots are counted.
In many cases, they're already being processed before the end of the election.
So say the polls close at seven.
Well, the poll workers are already processing the advance ballot.
So it's not like They come in at the end.
Usually they're the first batch to be counted.
And that's the way it should be.
But unfortunately, that's not the way it is in some of these states.
Well, Chris, I know you're gonna have to leave early.
I want to ask you a couple more questions before you do.
Sure. Given the nature of the constitutional process, so the electors, you're voting not for the candidate, you're voting for the electors in most states.
And the electoral college votes are distributed among the states so that no one state like New York or California with a great population can determine the entire election.
Even states with small populations get some electors.
Now, the electors are chosen by the state legislature.
And in the Bush v.
Gore Supreme Court decision, In 2000, one of the things that was made clear by the Supreme Court was while the state legislature determines the rules for choosing electors, and the states have over time deferred to the electors being chosen by the popular vote, That the Constitution gives the state electors the right, gives the state legislature the right to do it any way they want.
So the state legislatures can go back to the way they did it at the early part of the, you know, right after the Constitution was ratified.
And conceivably, if you know there's massive fraud, but you can't get the votes back, it could prove the fraud.
Interestingly, the state legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are all controlled by Republicans.
And the Republicans in the state legislatures could say, we're going to reverse this fraud by electing a slate of electors who are GOP in favor of Trump.
And there's nothing you can do about it, as I understand the Constitution.
Is that correct? Well, the Constitution says that the electors are to be assigned, determined in a manner...
Assigned in a manner determined by the state legislature.
So you're correct that the legislature has the authority to set the mechanism for choosing electors.
It would be a new constitutional question if the state legislature at this date, post-election, said, okay, now in light of what's just happened, we're going to change the mechanism.
So that would probably be challenged in court.
That's not to say it couldn't happen.
The other thing is that you'd also have, you know, in order for a state legislature to be convinced that fraud had tipped the election result, there'd have to be some pretty convincing proof of that.
And so it wouldn't be an easy hurdle to overcome, regardless of which party controlled the legislature, to get them to reverse the apparent vote of the people.
You would have to show fraud.
And part of the problem with, even if you can show that there were 5,000 fraudulent votes cast, because these votes are intermixed with all the other votes, you don't know how they voted.
And this is one of the problems that courts have grappled with, and that's why courts are so reluctant to overturn an election.
You don't know how those 5,000 people voted unless you put them on the stand and you ask each one of them under oath, how did you vote?
And so it is so difficult to reverse an election fraud incident once it's occurred, which is why you have to have these protections in place at the front end and why we have to have observation by poll watchers of both parties I agree with you.
These things can be constructed so that the fraud is more difficult to perpetuate.
But I'm asking you how we can handle this situation where, as it were, the horse is out of the barn already.
Many of these votes are in the mix.
Now, what the Supreme Court decision in Bush v.
Gore said was that the power of the state legislature is plenary.
In other words, they have full power.
And they can decide and change it any way they want at any time.
In other words, they are not restricted By the fact that they didn't change it to begin with or that they have had it traditionally being the electors for that state chosen by the popular vote for the president in that state.
So they could change it at the last minute and the Constitution gives them the full authority to do it because there's no restrictions on how the legislatures may set the rules for choosing the electors.
Now, I mean, I'm saying basically, is this a remedy for the fact that we could prove, let's say we can prove that there was voter fraud.
We find the plotters stupid enough to be on Zoom discussing how they're going to create the votes.
Or we get some people who, like in law enforcement, are willing to rat on the others.
Now, you know, etc.
There's lots of different ways to get to the truth of a criminal conspiracy.
Say we have that kind of evidence, and the state is presented with that kind of evidence, can't we make a case that the state would have a complete right, a state legislature controlled by the GOP, and say we're just not going to put in a slate of electors for Biden, and I don't think there'd be any recourse to that constitutionally.
What would probably happen first is in every state, there's a two-step process when you have potential fraud like this.
The first step is recount, right?
So there would be a recount first.
And then after the recount, the losing party has the right to bring a judicial contest, is what we call it.
And most states call it a judicial contest.
And at that point, you take the election to a court, and that's where that evidence would come in.
And so you would hope that at the judicial contest stage, that if fraud had occurred, as you described, and it was clear and convincing evidence, that the court would be able to correct the result then.
If the court failed to do so for some reason, then I suppose at that stage, then a potential third step would be what you're describing.
It looks like they're based on what's happening in so many states that there will be recounts in multiple states, there will be judicial contests in multiple states, and this is probably going to drag on for some time.
And, you know, you think about this and when we step back from history and the books are written about what happened in 2020, you know, I think potentially this could be a bigger deal than what happened in 1960 when the fraud in Illinois tipped the scales, pretty much historians agree, for Kennedy over Nixon.
This is happening in multiple states, and the dust hasn't settled yet, so we're still unsure exactly what's happening, but this could be a very big deal historically.
Bill, we'll come back to you in a minute.
I want to pursue this for a second because Chris has got to leave us.
Now, Chris, I remember 1960.
I was about 14 years old, but I remember it distinctly.
And when we woke up in the morning, of course, that vote counting went on all night.
Jack Kennedy went to bed.
When he woke up in the morning, they told him he was president.
And Cook County in Illinois came in at the very last moment and tipped the scale for Illinois to go for Kennedy.
That's why he won. Now, When they came to Richard Nixon at that time, Richard Nixon, who was the candidate, the GOP candidate opposing the Democrat Jack Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon said, well, I am not going to contest the election because I think it would set a very bad precedent.
I'll lose, even if there was fraud, because I'm not going to go through the protracted process of trying to prove the fraud.
Very different from what Al Gore said, is the Democratic Party has become more radicalized over the years and wanting to contest these things.
Now, especially The Democratic Party's gone socialist, and they want to do whatever lawfare or other trick they can get to gain power.
We've got another limitation here, and that is the Electoral College has to meet on December 12th, because according to statute, the vote has to be taken at Electoral College on December 14th.
So we can't prolong this.
In fact, in the Bush v.
Gore case, One of the points that was made was that the court said, we're going to end the recount because the Democrats want to just keep doing recount, recount, recount until they win.
And we have the limitation that the statute requires, the U.S. statute requires the Electoral College to meet by mid-December, specific date, calculated by so many days after the first Wednesday of the week or some formula like that.
At any rate, the So we can't do these contests if it takes time to do a trial.
We're going to run out of time.
But yet I think there's going to be convincing proof before we get to that level that, in fact, fraud has occurred.
And that's where I'm thinking that we may have to go to one of these extra-constitutional methods, which is in the Constitution fully provided for, And by the way, there was precedent for this kind of thing, because the Democrats in 2016 were doing what they called Hamilton electors, and they were saying to the electors, you can vote your conscience.
If you vote your conscience, you don't have to vote even though you were the elector for Hillary Clinton or the elector for Donald Trump.
Now, it didn't work. But again, what I'm proposing here is a last resort, if in fact there's no other alternative, rather than let a fraudulent result that you know is fraudulent determine the president, which would undermine the integrity of voting.
I mean, that's going to be the proposition here.
And how do you react to that?
Well, you're absolutely right.
There is a clock with a firm ending point here.
And that means that a lot of attorneys are going to have to be digging through a lot of evidence very quickly in multiple states simultaneously to see what exactly is happening.
Because remember, at this point, we just see a lot of smoke.
We aren't quite sure whether there's fire in each state, and if so, what kind of fire it is.
Because, again, it's this perfect storm.
You've got irregularities in Philadelphia based on the fact that the Republican poll watchers are being excluded.
You've got these strange things happening overnight in a few states, and you've got the, you know, bizarrely high participation rates in Wisconsin.
So there's a lot of smoke that fraud's occurring, potentially, but yet the investigation has to occur in a very short time frame.
So it's It's really hard to predict where we're going to be even a week from now.
Indeed, where we're going to be two days from now.
So this is uncharted territory, really.
I mean, you see similarities.
Again, the Supreme Court, it may come to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court argument before the Supreme Court may be that on the basis of what we're seeing, where we can prove fraud occurred, And not just by probabilistic statistics, these, you know, the turnout was exceptionally high, but there were more people who voted than were registered in the precincts.
There were more people who voted in the state than were registered in the state.
So, you know, there's going to be some absolute proofs that fraud occurred.
Now, if those are the cases, the Supreme Court may just say, we're not going to allow a fraudulent election to determine the president.
But there is one hurdle, though.
Even if you show that X number of fraudulent ballots were cast...
A court will not assume that all of those fraudulent votes went for Biden.
And so that's where the additional problem is.
Unless there's proof that that happened, most courts will say, okay, fine, you've proven that there are this many fraudulent votes, but we still need to know who those votes went for.
We can't assume that they went for one candidate or the other.
So it is so hard to prove.
The other one of my specialties is statistics.
I did a lot of methodological research in social science over the years when I was in universities.
And so here you've got the timestamp of these votes came in at X time.
And as I've looked at the numbers, when those votes were added into the totals, they're over 90% for Biden.
So you can say, okay, we got so many votes in here that we know to be fraudulent, and they went to Biden so we can subtract that number of votes from Biden's total.
Supreme Court may say that's a reasonable way to redress the fraud when we can see The timestamp of when these votes were delivered, the propensity of them to go almost universally for Biden, and the fact that we have evidence that these were created like photographs of people coming into the polling booths with boxes of ballots, With ballots that, you know, we can show that the ballots for Biden have got a large percentage of irregularities to them.
There's ways to make the argument that, in fact, we know there were 20,000 or 50,000 votes for Biden that are irregular here and were probably manufactured.
Yeah, potentially, in a situation you described where you can absolutely say that every Every ballot that was discovered or came in or tabulated at this time was part of a fraudulent collection, and we know that every ballot in that collection was not a legitimate ballot.
In that scenario, yeah, you could do that.
But it may not be as cut and dried as that, unfortunately, if there is fraud.
It's going to take a lot of work to get to that point.
Yeah, yeah, it really is.
It really is. And I appreciate you covering the topic on your podcast.
It's one that I think will be of interest for the coming days or weeks.
We'll see. One last thing before you go that I think I just want to get to mention, and that is methodologically, if you go about this and you start saying, okay, we're going to take a look at the mail-in votes for Biden, or we're going to take a look at the votes for Biden.
And we're going to begin to look at the ballots, and if the ballots end up, you know, having irregularities to them, which can be determined in a variety of different ways of how they're voted, how they're marked patterns into them, etc., that if there are irregularities disproportionately among the Biden ballots, That's another indication where you could go to say that the fraud was there because these were manufactured ballots.
I mean, I'm saying that there are ways in which you can both try to disqualify the ballots which are defective, but you can also use the number of defective ballots that are found to make an argument about fraud.
Yeah, potentially.
But again, it's I just know from having looked at past cases of fraud, there were a few cases in Kansas before we passed our law, and it's just so difficult to be able to say clearly, okay, these specific votes were fraudulent, here's why we know it, we can prove it, and here are Here's the way those votes went and we know it, we can prove it.
So it's going to be tough.
I just hope and pray that we can stop some of this fraud that's allegedly occurring before it fully is manifest and counted and before we lose the ability to prevent these These votes from being added to the total and then never to be taken out again.
I have a quick question.
One more question, if you don't mind, Dr.
Coursey, about the ballots, the ballots themselves.
You know, when we're in medicine, when we write for a controlled substance, we have a special type of paper.
It has a water color to it and you can hold it up to the light.
These ballots, are they so marked to know whether they are completely fraudulent or not?
Like if they were made by somebody else and then put in.
Is there any way to tell that, Chris?
There's no national standard and it varies from state to state and often it varies from county to county.
In Kansas, for example, the mailed-in ballots are assigned a number.
Now, the number's on the envelope, and you're not going to be able to tell how someone voted from that, but that's how fraud is prevented, or at least seriously deterred, because you wouldn't be able to just manufacture a whole bunch of new numbers and do it that way.
But I'm not familiar with how it's done in every state, but that's a great question.
I imagine that in some states there are The safeguards may not be as strong.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for joining us. You're welcome.
We've had you stayed a little bit of extra time, and thank you for doing so.
And we really appreciate all the work you've done, both in Kansas as Secretary of State and also working with the President on his commission to prevent fraud.
And I'm sure you're going to be very involved in this whole recount process, and we wish you Godspeed and good luck.
Thank you very much. Take care.
Thank you. Thank you very much for joining us.
Bill, let's shift over to you.
I mean, you've heard this discussion.
What are your thoughts? Well, I tell you, you know, the big concern, Jerome, is trying to reverse something that's already been done.
And just like we mentioned, the Frank and Coleman situation in Minnesota, we're talking about a lot of balance.
And unfortunately, those have been tabulated.
And so obviously, Listen to Chris and his expertise in this, is how do you reverse that, Jerome?
Or how do you prove it? Or as he said, how do you prove that 90% of these were Biden and 10% were Trump?
It is so complicated.
And these guys know what they're doing.
I mean, every time I hear Biden speak right now or any of his handlers, it is every vote counts.
You know, John Roberts could have helped us dramatically.
If he could have been the vote when they said, when they allowed, basically because it was a 4-4 decision, when they allowed Pennsylvania to have three additional days.
You know, and the other thing is just to be able to have those ballots in hand at the time Or the day of the election would have been enormous.
Like I heard DeSantis last night talking about the job they did in Florida and it was fantastic.
They did a great job. They had all the ballots processed that evening.
We knew the outcome and it was so orderly.
But you know how they create chaos for their own benefit.
And once again, by Biden, every time the three or four times I've heard him speak, Is every vote counts.
So that's going to be the pitch here in Pennsylvania.
So if those ballots are stopped, you know what's going to happen.
But we have to. I mean, we have to do everything we can to reverse what's happened, Jerome.
Well, I mean, first of all, Bill, you know, the part of the whole democratic scheme is creating the narrative and The narrative here started with the false polls that gave an expectation that the voting turnout was going to be very high and that people were going to vote in person, especially Democrats who were more worried about COVID. In fact, the entire theme of the campaign of Biden was that Trump had mishandled COVID and that people should be social distancing, so it set up the predicate that Democrats are going to be more likely to vote by mail.
And then you get the mainstream media, which is constantly, even Fox, purporting that Biden is, who seems to have dementia.
And I mean, I can't see, he has a rally and he has 10 people show up.
But again, it's all structured.
So the narrative supports that there's big support out there for Biden.
You just don't see it. Okay, so it's all set up to do the fraud on the in-person voting versus the mail-in voting.
It's clearly thought out well in advance.
But my point is, okay, so let's, you know, a crime has occurred.
The bank robber's got away and the money's gone.
You say, well, how are we going to reverse this?
Well, you know, there's, now we have to get into techniques of really criminal investigation in order to crack the case.
And in fact, there are ways to do this.
Now, you've got some people who are whistleblowers coming forward.
And saying, wait a minute, you know, James O'Keefe has done a great job of this.
He's got a postal worker who says that they were instructed to post-date or pre-date the votes coming in so that they look like they came in on election night.
And you've got evidence of ballots being thrown away.
We can establish a pattern here.
Now, get down to who did it Well, again, the culprits are going to be identifiable.
You know, it's not going to be somebody who is sitting at home watching the election on TV. It's going to be somebody involved with the campaign.
It's going to be somebody paid to do it or someone who has a motivation politically to do it.
And there are criminal techniques where you can get in.
You can begin to find the people and identify it once you've identified that there was a criminal conspiracy.
And this is a crime. It's a crime to do this.
That's felony. So there's a federal criminal conspiracy here in order to steal an election.
And once that's determined, the fact that you can't recover the votes is not going to be an excuse for the Supreme Court, which has a responsibility constitutionally to protect the integrity of voting.
Now, this may be a unique constitutional question in saying, you know, I'm sorry, folks, we're gonna have to do it over again.
Or something of that nature.
But I can't see that because you can't recover the votes, if fraud is clearly established, the Supreme Court's not going to be able to ignore that fact, I don't think.
What do you think on this bill?
Well, I agree, Jerome.
I said if he could prove how those ballots were processed or printed, and then how the procedure, we do need a whistleblower in these situations or in these states.
If someone can come forward And say, yes, these ballots were printed.
This is how they were put into the system.
This is how they were counted.
This is the strategy in order to be able to pull this off.
That's a very important aspect of this.
The second thing is I've heard I hadn't been, you know, probably, Jerome, you know, people we know have been talking about electronic manipulation of elections for quite a while.
I've heard something just before I came on today that there is some investigation of that right now.
There's a couple of different software programs that can be used to manipulate the votes, like Wisconsin.
I understand it's 89% turnout.
Chris mentioned right at 90%.
I heard just a little while ago, 89% of Wisconsin turned out to vote.
So that's obviously electronic.
You would assume that that's electronic fraud.
Or possibly a combination of electronic or also ballot fraud.
So these are the kind of things that need to be done quickly because taking votes back, or taking votes out of the system, or going along with this narrative that every vote counts, you know, it's an uphill battle.
And then as you know, Jerome, 90% of the media is totally part of the Democratic agenda, the whole plan.
You know, every day, actually probably two, three weeks out, we kept hearing about how the Republicans might steal the election.
Using what we were concerned about them doing, they were blaming us, blaming the Conservatives as the possible problem.
And then for the last two and a half, three weeks out, Carla Dean could vouch for this.
We heard about the massive coronavirus cases, the 70,000 per day, Then the 80,000, then the 90,000, and it was scaring a lot of people from even going to the polls.
So again, 65 to 75% of the votes that were cast by mail were for Biden, which led to the opportunity for manipulation of what was being mailed in.
Well, and again, you know, I know all the reasons why the Democrats have architected this to win and have created the median there.
I'm looking for us not to feel defeated.
I'm confident there's ways to beat this.
I mean, what I've seen in this coup from the very beginning Is we had Russia collusion and we had the interagency intelligence community, Brennan and Clapper, come out and announce that they could prove that Russia stole the emails from the Democrats.
And it wasn't the Russians.
We now know that. I mean, in fact, what we know, the entire Steele dossier was Russian disinformation.
It was not any predicate here.
We know the same with Ukraine.
Now we've got the Hunter Biden laptop.
We know, in fact, that there were crimes committed by the Biden family there.
And in fact, we might have a vice president running for president who could be indicted over all that right after Inauguration Day.
Additionally, you know, as you go through This whole process of what's been done to the coup d'etat to remove Donald Trump from office, we have Black Lives Matter in the streets, and now they're supposed to be a racial justice.
Well, we find out soon this is not a peaceful protest.
They're Marxist groups, so it backfires.
Donald Trump's got COVID. He's going to die from COVID. No, three days later, he's better.
Donald Trump's had a remarkable history of always looking like he's going to lose until just before he wins.
And I'm saying here that I think what we need to focus on demonstrating and to do it convincingly, and there's methods for it, I also want to make one more point on this, and that is that let's say we find a pattern in all these states of how these ballots are Delivered in the middle of the night, how the ballots suddenly appear 90-some percent for Biden, how the irregularities are more on the Biden ballots, especially as they're gone back and the recounts are done and they're combed through.
And we find one of the states where we have a whistleblower.
We find one of the states where a pattern can be put together That not only were there more votes cast than were registered, where there were people who voted who were dead.
There were people who were voted who don't live in the state anymore.
We get so many irregularities that we can develop a pattern, and that pattern can be said to be a systematic pattern that was used consciously by this group of conspirators.
I mean, who thought, you know, Black Lives Matter come out initially?
You've got Secretary of Defense Esper saying we need to not use the Insurrection Act because this is peaceful protest.
Well, after they're trying to burn down St.
John's Church into destroying 10 major cities, I think people are saying, wait a minute, this is not peaceful protest.
And again, you know, I think we can get the American people to say, this is voter fraud.
And once the American people come to that conclusion, I find it very difficult that the courts can't find a remedy to prevent a fraudulent election when the people have judged to be fraudulent, when there's abundant evidence of going through just because you can't recover the fraudulent votes.
Well, it's going to take a miracle, Jerome.
I mean, as you know, there's a lot of things that have to be done in a very short amount of time.
And, you know, the other thing is, as you know, we're in a battle with 90% of the media are totally in the tank of the Democratic Party.
They're totally in the tank.
They're totally with Biden.
They are not making the situation easy.
Even, you know, Arizona, Fox News proclamation, Arizona was in Biden, was a victory for Biden.
I mean, look at that uphill battle just with Arizona.
And then Pennsylvania. And then now look what they're trying to do in Georgia right now with some of the ballots.
Possibility, you know, hopefully Pardew will be able to pull that off.
I mean, there's a pretty good chance there's going to be a new election in Georgia for both senatorial positions based on these final ballots that are coming out from the Atlanta area.
I think it's Fulton County.
So, you know, that's the frustration, Jerome, is we don't have a lot of time.
The deck stacked against us because of the media, because of the Democratic Party, because one candidate is supposedly only six votes away or six delegate count away from having his 270.
So it's going to really require a miracle.
I know a lot of Christians are praying right now.
That this can be reversed in the short amount of time we have, because it will take some kind of divine miracle.
And this is unfortunate.
We're part of an avalanche that's happened.
Unfortunately, we don't control it as we'd like.
And unfortunately, the courts are not always a friend of us as well.
I want to remain optimistic naturally, divinely, through prayer, but we're going to need some breaks.
We're going to need some significant breaks with facts soon.
Well, we've had lots of breaks.
I mean, I basically told Mueller to take a hike.
I broke the back of Mueller because they couldn't get the last piece they needed for the Russian conspiracy.
So they didn't have it.
They had to drop that. They thought they could break me.
Okay, I just told them I wasn't going to do it.
I wasn't going to take, I wasn't going to swear before God to something I didn't commit, even if they put me in prison the rest of my life.
Go ahead and do it. That's what it takes, because I was not going to stand for the injustice.
Now, again, I think you're going to find that, how about on the...
Senate trial. You go into the Senate trial with all this evidence that was accumulated by, you know, these fraudulent Nadler and Schiff and all these other people who had all this evidence and they had all the documentation from the intelligence community, all the evidence was on their side.
They lost. They couldn't make their case.
And again, some pretty brilliant lawyering involved.
You have the riots in the streets.
Well, those riots in the streets in the first days were about to enough.
They'd worked, been architected in the color revolutions around the world.
So this toppled regimes and people reacted, said, we'll do anything, just stop the rioting, change the government.
We don't care. Well, in fact, the people saw that this rioting was fraudulent.
And I think today the people understand more clearly than ever That the media and the social media and the polls, all this is rigged.
And so the media is not going to have the same impact it has on people, you know, 1960, or even earlier this year, because it's been so fraudulent, people are turning it off.
And they're saying, wait a minute, I see something's wrong here.
You begin to show them what these irregularities are and get this into the mind of the American people.
The fundamental, it is we the people.
It isn't a set of rules that are going to allow someone to architect a major crime that the people know is a major crime and get away with it.
And even with the Supreme Court, you want to talk about miracles, Amy, I mean, Justice Ginsburg dying when she did, with just enough time for President Trump to put Amy Coney Barrett on the court, who may even put some resolve in John Roberts' spine, because he doesn't have Ginsburg whispering in his ear and cuddling up to him all the time and make him feel special.
You know, if he just goes along with her, here you've got somebody who's going to say, that's nonsense, John.
You know, for the Constitution, that's nonsense.
And the rules here in the Constitution are pretty well written and are being violated by lawfare, gaming.
And, you know, this is Lawrence Tribe and his whole group out there which want to use the Constitution to destroy the Constitution.
The American people see through this fraud.
And the American people are very upset about it.
You look at the turnout that occurred for Trump, those people aren't going to just go back and say, oh, well, shucks, there's nothing we can do about this.
No, they're not going to do that. Yeah, we need better positioning, Jerome.
I mean, fortunately, we got about seven or eight new faces in the House of Representatives, possibly more, maybe you might even hit 10.
That's conservatives.
That's wonderful. You know, our big challenge is, you know, where were the State Department emails of Hillary before the election?
I thought they were coming out. What about John Durham's report not being completed?
A lot of people are looking forward to that as being the October surprise.
What about, you know, the Hunter Biden emails?
What about that information?
What about all this incredible information from the gentleman that was his partner, former partner on TV? This is incredible.
But, you know, no network carried it.
No network covered it.
The FBI didn't say, you know, they had a lot of these emails.
They didn't do anything to be of help to the Republicans and the Trump administration.
You know, this is part of the problem, too, this deep state that you cover very well, Jerome.
I mean, what happened? I mean, these things could have been very beneficial, possibly got us enough votes that it wouldn't even have been a close race like this.
And like you said, it's not even a close race.
It's just the manipulation of it.
But those were all key things that we could have had before the election that we didn't receive that would have been very helpful.
Well, Bill, I mean, you know, so we got a drought here and we're now mad it didn't rain.
That's right. Okay, so I mean, it is what it is.
In fact, Donald Trump hasn't had a break in the entire four years.
That's right. And yet he's won every time.
And he's had the ability to come to the American people and say, this just isn't right.
And the American people are overwhelmingly, I think, from this election result, if you judge it fairly, except for the Crime that's being committed on the mail-in ballots, the American public knows the Democrats are a bunch of thieving socialist criminals who just want power.
Now that they're going to grab power in this manipulation is possible.
But it was also possible that any of these other previous attempts to get rid of Donald Trump would have succeeded too, and none of them did, despite the fact that Durham's been a flop, Barr's been a flop, all these things, you know, the media's been a flop.
It's all been contrived. We knew all that.
That's still the case.
And Donald Trump survived them all.
And now we've got a Supreme Court where we've got basically 5-4 even if Roberts again defects on it.
And I'm not sure he will this time around.
Some of these issues I think are going to be pretty clear.
And if I look at the Supreme Court decisions over the years, many things that they have decided
were problematic that they came to the decision, but they just weren't going to live with the wrong.
They weren't going to live with something being decided by a precedent that they knew was wrong.
They weren't going to let something be a technicality that decided the case that they
knew was wrong.
I mean, I think they're getting ready to take a look at these privacy creations that
was done by Justice Goldberg to create Roe v. Wade and all these other, Griswold and all these other cases
that invented this privacy right.
So I think basically, we're at a fundamentally different point
right now.
And I think if we continue to proceed here to make the case to the American people
that this is fraudulent and that this cannot be permitted to happen, we begin to develop the pressure where
the Supreme Court's going to have to win.
one way or another, say this is not being permitted to happen.
And I'm saying it's up to us now To start architecting the solutions, which are, let's prove that 50,000 votes that came in late were for Biden, and they were fraudulent.
We don't have to know which 50,000 it was.
We'll just take 50,000 out of the column.
That's going to be enough to reverse a lot of these states, and I think we can make arguments like that.
So I'm saying we've got to do the same kinds of things I did with Mueller and say, I'm sorry, Mueller.
I didn't get in touch with Julian Assange, and I didn't connect your...
I'm not going to... Go and say that I lied and that you had evidence I did.
I'm not going to do that. I'm just not going to do it because it's wrong.
And I'm not going to stand before God and swear in a Bible, something that isn't true.
And I think we've got that courage.
This is what, you know, we weren't going to win the Revolutionary War.
George Washington running around with a bunch of misfits trying to establish, you know, the United States of America when most of the people were Tories and didn't want it done.
And George Washington said, we'll do it anyway.
And one, we've gone through many, many things in this country which have been long shots.
And we've yet come out of them with the grace of God and the resolve of people who, you know, landed on the beach in Normandy, who fought in the shores of Iwo Jima and went to great lengths.
And I think it'll be done again if we think about it this way and approach it.
So we're going to prove fraud.
We're going to prove the case.
And from there, we'll let the chips fall where they may take that case of the American people, and they will listen.
They will hear it.
We're to give them solutions, including this with the state legislatures choosing a legitimate state of electors and having us not be allowed to go through by fraud.
We've got that safeguard.
And I've been introducing it so people begin to think about it.
And we begin, you know, make enough of this so it goes to the House.
Well, the House votes by delegate.
Each state has one vote.
And right now there are 26 GOP delegations in the House.
The House will vote in the Republican.
It won't go with Nancy Pelosi.
I mean, all these things that are crafted in lawfare have failed so far.
And there were many of them crafted, going back to the Hamilton electors to try to reverse the 2016 election.
They all failed. Well, they failed because we exposed them.
We told the people what they were doing.
We headed off at the pass, and we established the basis where we offered solutions where the court is going to be proposed.
Your Honors, we propose as you do this.
And if you take 50,000 votes out of here, which we can prove are fraudulent, and they went for Biden...
Then it's back to square one and Trump wins.
We get rid of the fraud.
I think we're going to have to approach thinking it that way.
Dr. Graves, what do you think?
Well, I have a question for both of you.
Have either of you remembered a time when they stopped counting votes and took a break and they didn't count through the night?
And what was the likelihood of boxes of votes coming in that they found in somebody's trunk During the middle of the night, when they took a break, I've never heard of them taking a break.
Now, that's just me, but have either of you ever experienced that?
Bill? No, not that I'm aware of.
Not that I can think of, Carla Dean.
I think part of it's because the boxes had an enormous amount of balance.
An enormous amount.
And that was their thing is, you know, we needed a break.
We had so many ballots that we just needed to take a break.
And obviously that's also another reason to be suspect of the whole process.
And I'd say what we do is you correlate those breaks To the boxes showing up, and you correlate that the votes in those boxes were predominantly for Biden.
How many? And then you begin looking for irregularities.
You begin showing that the votes that came in in my mail have enormous irregularities to them, and you begin to correlate the number of those, you know, for one reason or another.
Postmark, signatures, ballots where they threw away the envelope and don't have the signature anymore.
A lot of these things can be argued and we look for people on the inside who are coming forward and saying this is what they were doing in there and I know it was wrong and I'm going to say it was wrong and I'll be willing to give testimony to that effect.
Name names. Well, I don't know if you both saw I sent you a picture today of some ballot there in Michigan and they were keeping track of them and They all had the same birthday on the ballot.
Each of them did.
And that was multiple ballots that had the very same birthday on them.
And so that is another issue.
And I have something that I would like to ask both of you also, and that is, and this is only speculation, I understand, but you know, John Roberts was placed In the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.
And as we know, the Bushes have come out against Trump.
Could that have any influence on John Roberts?
My answer to that is I'm tired of trying.
It's hard to figure out what another person's doing.
It's hard enough to figure out what you're doing and why you're doing it.
And for me to imagine I got a crystal ball and I can tell you why John Roberts is doing anything John Roberts is doing, I'm not going to do that.
I don't know why John Roberts does what he does.
And I'm not really concerned about trying to figure it out.
It's one of the reasons I didn't become a psychiatrist.
I thought there was going to be a boring life of trying to figure out what other people are thinking and doing.
What constitutional basis did he put his vote on or did he say to extend days of bringing in votes?
If you read that opinion, it was very limited and it was very iffy, okay?
And basically, there's a beginning basis of saying, and some of the courts are already deciding this, that you can't have these rules change without the legislature changing these rules.
And you can't have last minute alterations in these rules, so that the four to four decision may not be binding, and the court may say these last three days of counting, whatever, or letting votes come in, we're throwing out all of those.
Now again, Getting the balance out of the mix, once you can establish that there were so many that came in fraudulently like this in that period of time, and if they were predominantly going for Biden, you can try to get, well, we can at least remove so many of the Biden votes because we can prove that that many were fraudulent.
We also, if the envelopes are sold or saved, you can look at the signatures.
See, the signatures match.
If there's the same person writing 20 of them, if there's the same person filling out the ballot that they assisted people in a nursing home or whatever, filling out their ballots, and that these were all the ones they assisted for went to Biden.
There's various ways in which we can make these arguments, and some of them are going to be more convincing than others.
And what we've got to do with John Roberts, I think, is give him Give the court this evidence that fraud occurred, suggest remedies, and the fact is the final argument is you as court cannot allow this to go forward on the basis we know to be fraudulent, because if you do, you undermine the integrity of voting.
And the primary responsibility of this court, I would make the argument, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not qualified to talk to the Supreme Court, but I would say you, as judges, have the primary responsibility to preserve the integrity of voting, not to worry about this lawfare or that lawfare or this rule or that rule.
If you see something's wrong, you've got to correct it.
You can't let it go forward because you didn't intervene in time to stop the fraud, and the fraudsters were so clever they fooled you.
If you're going to say you can't remedy this program because you know there was fraud and you're going to concede to the frauders that they were so good that they beat you, then you destroy the Constitution and you're not doing your job.
I'd put them on the spot that hard.
I'd say to John Roberts, you're the Supreme Court Justice.
You're the one who's going to go down in history on this.
If you make this decision, The way you've been making it, it's going to be a day in infamy in the Supreme Court, because your job is also to preserve the Supreme Court, and you want to be, in 1954, upholding Plessy v.
Ferguson, a Civil War case that said schools could be segregated and equal.
Will you go ahead and do that, John Roberts, but you're going to destroy the court?
You can't do that. You've got to understand that wrongs have to be righted, and this court is here to do that before the American people in accordance with the Constitution, or you're going to allow this group over here to rip off the Constitution because they were clever enough to get away with it.
Bill, what do you think of that argument?
That's good. I mean, it's good.
He could have made it a lot easier on himself.
He didn't, Bill. Durham could have made it a lot easier.
No, no, no. I know that, Durham.
That's the irony. That's the irony.
Because it's going to come back to him much more difficult than he'd ever, ever imagined.
It's back on his door.
Yeah, absolutely. There's no other way around it.
Unfortunately, the court... It's positioned a little bit better now to handle that as well.
That's why I say it's providential.
If Ginsburg had been there, we wouldn't have the same chance.
Because Ginsburg and Sotomayor and Kagan don't care if they follow the Constitution.
They didn't. Ginsburg was reading foreign law in the Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with our Constitution.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
So he's got to do the right thing.
I mean, he's always been worried about the integrity of his court.
And he's got to do the right thing, Jerome.
And I just pray that everything will be positioned correctly, legally, and that they have no other case but to do the right thing.
Well, I don't know Justice Barrett.
I never met her. I had a conversation with her.
But having watched her, what I observed is, number one, she's highly intelligent.
Number two, she knows the law, knows the Constitution.
And even though she's a junior justice, and you're supposed to act like a junior justice
and not assert yourself, she's going to say, I'm here.
I'm watching Amy Coney Barrett, and she's going to say, John Roberts, look,
I don't agree with what you're saying.
And you don't have a basis in the Constitution to say that, even though she's a junior justice.
You'll say, okay, John Roberts, justify that point according to the Constitution.
I know the precedent as well as you do.
She's going to sit there and tell him, and I'll sit here all day for a week, and if it takes it to argue this out with you, John Roberts, But I am not going to sit down and say, you know, you can write your opinion any way you want to.
But I'm going to tell you what I'm going to say in mine.
I'm going to say you're a damn fool.
And that you're responsible for ruining the Constitution.
That's what I'm going to say, John Roberts.
And if you send me out of here and say I don't have a right to talk to you like this because you're Chief Justice and I just got here, so be it.
I'll write that opinion. Now, do you want that opinion?
That's going to be what I'm going to sell.
Even if I'm with the majority, I'll write a separate opinion criticizing you.
Now, if she says that to John Roberts, he's got to think twice.
And I think we've got to give her the basis.
We've got to give the others on the court the basis to say that this is just, it's not only wrong, it's damn wrong.
And they're not going to allow it to happen.
Bill? I agree.
I think Clarence Thomas will be right there with her and hopefully a couple of the new Alito And as well as the others.
But I think that's great. I think that's the approach.
There's so much riding on this drone.
And there's such a passionate audience that wants this done correctly and legally.
And what a great opportunity for her.
And I hope she does do something like that with the back end Clarence Thomas.
You said a little while ago it was going to take an act of God.
Well, Ginsburg dying so that Trump had just enough time to get her on the court.
Had she died another week or two later, he wouldn't have been able to do it.
Had she hung on, she'd still be there.
And I can guarantee you she'd be arguing, we don't need to follow this Constitution.
We can make it anything we want it to be.
Now, she might not say that directly.
She'd find some precedent.
She'd find some legal reasoning in which justify her position.
She was a very intelligent woman herself.
She just had no...
She didn't mind killing babies and she didn't mind ripping up the Constitution.
Now, Amy Coney Barrett is not that way.
She's going to do the right thing morally because our Constitution was written by moral...
Founders who believed in God and they didn't violate God's laws the way they wrote those rules.
And you basically are going to be able to beat them by saying, these demons over here with their lawfare and their tricks think they're real clever.
But you know, they're like a bunch of gang that couldn't shoot straight.
They left so many trails on how they committed the crime.
These guys couldn't rob a convenience store and get away with it.
They talked about their crime on Zoom.
They let other people know about their crime.
And then they thought they were clever they were going to get all away with it because they could separate the ballots and put it in there, and they designed those ballots to do that.
Well, we're not letting them get away with that.
We're going to show you, Justice, that there were 50,000 that came in at this moment.
They all went for Biden, and they had this defect to them in common, and the mail-in ballots, and we're going to make the argument, take out 50,000 votes to rectify this, and you will reverse the fraud and make it so that Biden doesn't win because these criminals thought they were so smart.
That's one reason I was really happy to hear that they would stop the counting.
And they could look at some of those ballots that just came in at the very last minute.
And let's just see how fraudulent they might be.
And recounts. Let's look at all these ballots again.
Let's see what the systematic pattern is here.
Let's start challenging all these ballots.
I mean, down in Florida, the recount, we got down to chads and hanging chads and semi-hanging chads and every other thing.
But again, it got argued.
And finally, the court came in and said, we're going to stop this right now.
Because we've had enough of it.
And we're not going to let you keep going until you keep new recounts and get all the votes counted.
They're making the same argument in those days, Bill, count all the votes.
And we're just not going to let you do that because we got a deadline here.
And I think basically some of these things are going to come down to having a justice like Barrett there with the others who I think can be Thomas in particular.
Who are just going to say no.
You know, Biden was the one who came after Thomas with all his sexual issues.
She knows who Biden is.
Absolutely. He's not going to sit there and say, you know, you SOB, you tried to ruin my life and I'm on the court.
Now it's my day.
I'm not letting you be president with what you guys just pulled.
I mean, there's some very strong resolve right here in the Supreme Court that the right buttons are pushed, the right people do the crafting of the arguments.
Now, I'm not going to be there.
I'm not a lawyer. But I'm going to do everything I can to help set the narrative and get the thinking on this going, just as I did when I blocked Mueller from concluding his case of Russian collusion.
I knew that if I gave in right then, he had his case made.
And I said, I didn't say it quite this politely, he can take a hike.
But I let them all know that's what I thought.
I went immediately on the media and told everybody what they did.
Well, we're doing the same right here.
We're telling everybody what they did.
And once people see it, they're going to sit in Kansas and Missouri and all the other states,
they're going to say, this just ain't right.
Dr. Gray's ending concluding.
We're over an hour. Do you have any concluding thoughts, Dr.
Graves? I just want everyone to remember that this has been well planned out when you really go back and you look at some of this evidence that you have pointed out, Dr.
Corsi. Dr. Corsi, do you remember, and I know you do, months ago you wrote about a coup that would come against President Trump, and you were right on.
This is a coup, and it has been planned.
The American people, we have seen the plan of this for four years in its making, and we have seen it coming, and so here it is.
But just weeks before the election, They put a seed of doubt into the American people's minds by saying, hey, you know, what if Trump doesn't leave peaceably?
And so that was a seed that was planted that they are now hoping grows and that they can actually count on.
And people need to not be fooled by this.
Stop Look at what you see, but then step back a ways and take it all in, not just what they are feeding you right that minute in front of you.
That's my advice.
Well, they also, in 2016, hadn't counted on being Donald Trump.
And in 2020, they also didn't count on it being Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, he beat them already.
He said, okay, I'm going to show you.
I'm going to do four or five rallies a day.
20,000 people come out here.
I'm going to say that I'm going to cut your taxes.
Biden's going to raise them. He's going to pack the court.
He's going to do all these things.
And just because we've got the Senate, we can block them.
Doesn't mean they aren't going to set the credit.
Well, I'm not going to let them do that.
Okay, and he has a resounding support of the American people who know he won this election, except for it being stolen.
People know that. And so Donald Trump has already won.
Now it's a matter of us defeating the demons.
We beat them with Mueller.
We beat them with Ukraine.
In fact, we've got the evidence now to say Biden and his son and the whole family are criminals.
If you have to put Grinnell to be head of the Department of Justice, I believe Donald Trump will get a Justice Department that will have justice.
And if Durham can't bring an indictment, Grinnell will find some people who can bring indictments.
Because that also has to be righted.
And if we're going to preserve the Constitution, if we're going to preserve the United States of America, the bastion of freedom, we're going to do these things.
And we're not going to worry about the fact that somebody didn't do something or the press is architecting.
We're going to say the entire press is going to be reconstructed.
Social media is going to be broken up.
Dorsey is going to spend the rest of his time in litigation and spending all of his money giving it to people who he suppressed and censored.
That his company is going to be broken up and he's going to be charged with a crime.
We'll figure the crime out as we get into it.
But the point is we're not going to put up with this stuff.
And the point is it's going to have to be stopped and the American people are ready to stop it if we start thinking of the alternatives we've got.
And some ways we have to think like they think in lawfare, some ways we have to think aggressively, because to beat these people you got to be able to think like they think.
I did a lot of work on anti-terrorism, and I spent a lot of time explaining to the government, the terrorists don't think like you guys think.
And you better start waking up to it and dealing with it, you know, and dealing with them the way they are if you want to change things around.
And I basically had, so I was wearing a group of psychiatrists.
They wanted me to become a psychiatrist.
I said, no, like I said earlier, I'm not going to do that.
But I'll tell you how to deal with these guys because I know where they live and how they think.
And the dark places in their mind, you don't want to go.
So let me just show you the techniques.
We're going to show them techniques to get these dark places gone from our landscape once and for all.
We're going to beat this voting fraud.
We're going to beat it right here. That's what I believe we can do.
With the help of God, we'll succeed.
Bill, your final thoughts?
I agree. We definitely have to pray.
We really have to, Jerome.
I think we really have to just turn it to prayer.
We know what's going on.
You and Carla D know that that's the answer at this point.
We're at a point right now where our chances look so slim in this environment, but we just pray for a divine hand in correcting this and putting things in order.
Well, Bill, I prayed a lot when I was dealing with the terrorists, too, and I said to the government, you know, it's going to be, prayer is not going to be enough here.
We're going to have to do our part, too.
Sure, without a doubt.
I said, what you go in is, you go in that room and you tell the terrorists that you're going to put out, if he doesn't start leveling with you, you're going to put out a word that he flipped, and then you're going to release him.
And they'll kill him. You let them know how they're going to kill them.
Show them some videos, what they do to people who turn on them.
Say, I'm going to release you here.
Unless you start working with me, you're going to be released.
Here's what's going to be said.
And you deal with what your future is going to be.
So you've got to scare these people more than they are planning and scaring you.
And it's the same way these Democrats are terrorists.
And we're going to have to say to them, okay, guys, you want to play this game?
Not only are you going to lose, not only are we going to make these arguments to the court, but you're all going to federal prison for a long time.
Because we, you know, you guys committed these crimes in the open.
You talked on Zoom.
You talked in different ways.
You let people know you were doing it.
Well, we're going to get those people and have them come testify.
We're going to say basically here that it's just like the Antifa on Black Lives Matter.
They don't think they're being videotaped.
They don't think they have face recognition technology?
It takes five years once we get a Justice Department that will function.
I'll explain to them how you go find those guys and those men and women and you put them in prison for 10 years.
You know, we're not going to have street fights with them with the military, but we're going to say there's consequences for what you did.
And I don't care how much money it takes, we're coming after you.
Okay, and you break their back.
And the universities, I don't care how much money it takes.
As you teach this communist stuff, we're going to take away your student loans.
We'll take away your endowment.
We'll start taxing you as a political organization.
We're going to do all kinds of things to you, and your university is going to go broke here pretty soon.
And it's okay with us if they do.
We're going to have to understand that until they feel feared, quit making us feel afraid.
I don't feel afraid of these guys at all.
These guys don't even impress me.
I think they're a bunch of petty criminals.
They get cocked in such a harebrained scheme.
Let's wait and see how many votes we need.
Then we'll bring them in the middle of the night with a big box.
It'll all be for Biden.
And then we'll separate them. And we'll get away with it.
Okay, we're going to come into the bank and we're going to hold guns.
And we're going to say, give us all the money.
Okay, fine. We'll do that.
Here's all the money. Now what are you going to do?
Well, you know, you saw a movie called Dog Day Afternoon.
They did it partly the way I was telling them to do it back then.
You surround the bank with SWAT teams and you say, you get them on the phone, you say, I'm the chief negotiator and I'm trying to get you out of here alive.
Now you guys want some sandwiches and some coffee because we're going to be here a while.
You are not going to leave here with the money.
And if you did, by the way, half the money you got is exploding money and it'll turn your suits all orange and we'll find you in 20 minutes anyway.
Besides, how much did you get?
Oh yeah, you got $20,000.
Wasn't that a lot? You guys just put yourself in federal prison for decades for $20,000.
You guys are real bright. And then you thought you were going to get away with it.
Well, what's your escape plan?
Oh, you didn't think about that too hard?
Okay, robbing a bank is only something a low-life thief does.
It's only something a stupid thief does.
Mail-in voting is only something a stupid political operative does, and these guys are stupid.
They're clever, but they didn't think it all the way through.
Now, our job is to think it all the way through and dish it back to them, and I'm intended to do that.
Craig, you've been listening to this very patiently.
Do you have any thoughts? Right, and you said the magic word, the duck came down just a few minutes ago, and that was, you said the fear word, and that's it.
And what we've got to do is use the Bible in this case and apply it, and that is fear not.
And so God's plan supersedes our plans and supersedes their plans, and they're godless thugs, and they don't care what they do to destroy this country, and they haven't done, as Thomas Sowell always says, you do your thing, and then what? And they haven't done the and then what?
Once they burn this down, then what are they going to do?
And they haven't thought that out.
So I agree with you, Dr.
Corsi. We've got to stand strong, stay the course.
It's light against darkness.
We're fighting against these criminals, this power base that they think they've created that's impervious, and it's time for them to realize it is not.
Dr. Corsi? Yeah, I felt no fear in dealing with Mueller at all, even though they were threatening to put me in prison for 25 years.
I died there. I said, well, I guess I'll make some good use of the time.
Maybe I'll evangelize the prison.
I don't know. I'll do something. I'm not going to just sit there and feel sorry for myself.
And I went out and said, they're the criminals.
I made them feel the fear.
I said to, I'm still saying it, Jeannie Rhee.
I'm saying it to Aaron Zielinski.
I'm coming after you, and you are going to be in prison for Zaborning perjury.
Or what you did to me and General Flynn.
I'm coming after you. Jeannie Rhee, I wrote a book called Silent No More.
I said the last day when I'm going to the grand jury, Jeannie Rhee shows up in a see-through blouse.
So where does this come from?
I'm looking at her and saying, you know, you got to be kidding me.
You know, I'm saying, I'm going to write about this.
She didn't think I'd write about it until the whole world.
Go on NBC television.
Maybe she just came straight from work.
Yeah, well, I don't know where she came from.
And I don't care where she came from.
It came from the pit of hell, I don't care.
She's going back to it.
And I don't feel any fear.
They're the ones who closed down.
They're the ones who put Mueller in front of the Congress and he looked like an old man who was drinking all day long, which is what I was told he was doing.
So, you know, this is the point.
I'm not about to feel any fear from these people at all.
I'm about to turn it back on to them and figure out the techniques where we can jam it to them and say, you guys want to try this?
You're all going to prison for a very long time because we're going to prove what you did.
Okay, Bill, any last comments?
No, that's got a coverage room.
Excellent. Love what you had to say.
And Dr. Graves?
No, sir. I think that you've got it.
Well, in the end, God always wins.
I always say that, and God will win here, too.
He will. And so, therefore, it's just up to us to be smart enough to figure out what God wants done, and we do a little bit of it.
God will do all the rest.
That's right. That's right.
Thank you so much.
Let's end this tonight.
We've gone a little bit over time.
We'll put it up in the social media and get it to all of you so you can put it up.
And Craig, thank you very much.
God bless all for joining us.
Dr. Jerome Corsi, and we're here with Bill Koning and Dr.
Carla Dean Graves. Today is the 5th of November 2020, two days after the election, and we've just begun to fight.
God bless you all. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you. Thank you.
▲
Export Selection