All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:24:42
Dr Corsi NEWS 12-02-20: Trump Gains Ground Proving Fraud
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪♪ So Dr. Corsi, the Department of Justice spent almost four years persecuting an innocent man, a man that they knew was innocent, before finally dropping the charges.
But recently they opened and closed a supposed investigation into the greatest and most massive case of election fraud in American history and found nothing wrong.
How do you explain the unexplainable?
Well, Barr was really a mystery yesterday, but I'm going to get into that right away.
Today is Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020.
And I'm here, Dr. Jerome Corsi here with my producer, Craig.
And Barr yesterday came out and said that there was not enough evidence of fraud to overturn The results in any state.
Now, first of all, I've been skeptical, as those of you who have followed us know, for a long time.
He is a fixer back to the Mark Rich case when he investigated Clinton.
Even before that, he was a fixer in the Iran-Contra case.
He's establishment DOJ, Department of Justice, and he is basically not going to rattle anything up.
He's going to not rock the boat.
And there are some technical things that he was doing by announcing that Durham was special prosecutor.
And by the way, why has that been kept secret since October?
It's very fishy that this is now suddenly announced.
Well, it will block, as Mueller blocked the release of classified documents, this will prevent Trump, or is intended to prevent Trump, from releasing all these documents on the deep state that he's been threatening to release with the Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe.
And they don't want Trump dropping all those in the last days when they're expecting to get rid of him.
Now we've got a couple pieces of news for Barr.
One is Trump's going to win.
I'm completely confident of that.
And that's the whole point of my book, Trump wins the ebook, which thank you is doing quite well.
People are reading it and we'll cover some of it today again, because it is the key way we're going to, this is a legal battle.
We have to understand what's going on in the legal battle.
But secondly, Barr did not do an investigation and has no basis for concluding this.
That there's no one.
Look at the statement the president put out.
His team is Mueller and said, you know, like a Mueller.
It's like Baghdad Bob.
There's nothing to see here.
Move on.
Well, Giuliani and his team put out statement that said, basically, there's plenty here.
The Department of Justice has not talked to the people who gave us depositions.
They've not looked at all the evidence of fraud we've produced and these witnesses, these whistleblowers.
And so, Barr's conclusion...
Uh, is completely erroneous, but where Barr is coming from, and I think this was in large response to the, uh, to our, the ebook course, you know, that I've just written to the Corsi Nation website.
Craig, let's pull that up.
I want to get to a particular part of it and show you what I'm talking about, because what Barr is saying is what the, uh, Democrats are saying.
In other words, and the mainstream media that there is no evidence here of fraud.
Now, what they mean by that is that there's no trial court which has established fraud.
And that's because in the American legal system, it's a jury trial that's required to establish the facts of fraud.
Until then, you've just got indictments or allegations, but you don't have proof that fraud occurred.
Now, part of the scheme here of architecting this election theft is to not have time in order to get a trial.
And the Democrats know that.
The coup d'etat knows that.
And so they can all come out and say there's no evidence of fraud because only in a legal sense are they correct.
But again, that's not going to be determinative.
Now, Craig, if you'll go to the part here where we talk about Abbott v. Perez, It'll take a second to get to it.
We have to find... On the e-book with the Table of Contents, that's on page 25.
Yes, and you've got to send me the new version, so I can send it.
If I send it out to someone, I'm sending it out with the Table of Contents.
I have the first version.
I need the second version.
Got it, and I'll give it to you again.
Okay, well, there's so much going on, I'm sure I... Yeah, I know.
You know... What?
What's going on?
Oh, nothing's going on.
Not according to DOJ!
Okay, so let's go here to page 24.
This is a key precedent because this is a recent Supreme Court case.
It was decided in Texas where the Texas legislature did a racial gerrymandering scheme to break up Latino voters into districts where the Latino were then the minority.
Goal was to prevent Latino voters involved from being from electing Latinos the House of Representatives.
The Latinos argued that they were being denied equal voting rights under the 14th Amendment, the Constitution, which forbids any state action, which is clearly as a redistricting plan, the results of constitutional rights of one group of citizens being treated less equally than the constitutional rights of another group.
And on its face, this is the kind of a anti-minority redistricting measure that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional basically since the 14th Amendment was ratified 152 years ago in 1868.
But the point is that you have here Justice Roberts not holding it unconstitutional.
Now that surprised a lot of people, angered the left.
But what he's arguing is that, in fact, if you take a look at the data, and you'll see that Latinos were electing plenty of Congress people.
There were a lot of Latinos.
And in fact, this did not result in actual discrimination.
Okay, so also the other case, Shelby County Beholder, and Chief Justice Roberts actually wrote the majority decision there.
It was a very similar kind of case.
And Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined, and Gorsuch joined in the most recent case, the Abbott case.
And what's interesting about this case is that these cases show that you can take in probability and other types of social science and statistical data, because what Justice Roberts did is he went to that data And so let's look at the actual voting data.
Well, voting data in political science is done by correlation equations, regression analysis, statistical data analysis to prove whether or not a group was disadvantaged or discriminated against.
And that's again entering in probabilistic evidence because you're trying to say what's the probability that there's a relationship here between the scheme and resulting discrimination?
Or is there no correlation?
Are they in fact getting elected congressmen etc?
And here we would say in the current case on the voting what we can do is we've got excellent evidence That we have statistical evidence, we have voting data, got all kinds of mathematical proofs and statistical proofs, correlation analyses, we can show that the votes that came in, especially in the middle of the night in these big blocks, for mail-in votes with 98% or 95% for Biden, doesn't happen in normal voting.
It has to be fraud.
Now again, We don't need to prove fraud in the sense that Barr was talking about, or the sense that the Democrats are talking about, because here there was not a court case showing whether or not the Latinos have been discriminated against or not.
Barr was turning to evidence that is empirical evidence, mathematically analyzed, to say There's such massive fraud in this election.
That's what we're going to say here.
There's such massive fraud in this election, as demonstrated by the court cases that Sidney Powell is filing in Georgia, Michigan, and other places, and by the litigation that we're seeing filed by Trump's team And they are going into the courts very aggressively holding these hearings.
You see the evidence.
We're going to show you some.
What this proves is fraud occurred.
We know it occurred.
And that's a good enough basis to say, and we know it occurred in massive numbers.
I mean, I was listening today to Jenna Ellis, who is the, on the president's legal team and the one, especially responsible for bringing the court cases.
And I'm sure they're preparing a Supreme court case.
That's part of the strategy.
First, they want to get a bunch of federal cases filed.
One of the arguments of the Supreme Court will be, hey, we haven't finished litigating this yet.
We've just begun to litigate it.
So how can you at the Supreme Court not take seriously that we have all these cases filed?
It's going to take us time to get them filed.
Well, the Supreme Court is going to say that basically this election is so messed up, it can't be remedied.
World War II, they called that either snafu, which would be situation normal, all messed up, or fubar, which is messed up beyond all recovery, beyond all recognition, beyond all recovery.
In other words, you can't fix this.
And our founding fathers had this in mind when they, first of all, said in the Constitution, the vote might be just so messed up, We can't do anything about it, because they knew they were fraudulent elections.
Back to ancient times, they'd read Thucydides.
Peloponnesian War happened before Christ, and Thucydides wrote the war between Sparta and Athens, and he said sometimes the voting, it was democracy, but democracy went off like a mob, and they did the wrong thing.
And so the ancients knew that mob, democracy voting did not mean That it was going to be fair.
That's why we don't have a democracy.
We've got a constitutional republic.
Got checks and balances on power.
And there's checks and balances on voting.
Because in the Constitution, Article 2 says that the state legislators pick the electors.
And they may pick them any way they want.
That's the first one.
In other words, they throw out the vote And state legislators who are Republican in Arizona, or maybe in Michigan, or maybe in Arizona, or Wisconsin, any of these states, say, we're not putting forward the Bush electors.
Biden.
Biden electors.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying to... I'm not putting forward the Biden electors.
We're putting forward the Trump electors.
Because we know the election was stolen from him.
Or we're going to put forward a slate of electors that doesn't certify anybody as one in this state.
Because it's so messed up, we don't really know.
Okay, now that's the first check.
And in fact, just because Biden claims to have won the popular vote doesn't mean he's going to win the electoral vote.
Now, at some point or other, the Supreme Court gets involved.
They say, this thing is so completely messed up.
We don't know whether to take, you know, 250,000 votes from Biden here and just drop them out or give them to Trump.
And which 250,000?
Because once the mail-in, the envelope is separated from the ballot, the ballot's thrown in the pot.
You can't get that particular vote back if we can show that particular envelope was fraudulent.
Well, that's also part of the scheme.
One of the arguments that should be made to the Supreme Court is that this was a scheme to get accepted without going through the state legislature's mail-in balloting to be done in such a way that it was inherently set up for fraud.
In other words, even when they went to get no-excuse absentee ballots, Rules for absentee ballots are very strict to come in.
You've got to apply and validate your signature according to your registration.
You've got to submit the ballot.
It has to be validated again and here the state courts or the state governors or boards said we're not going to worry about postmarks and we're not going to worry about signatures.
You have a million of these ballots and how are we going to look at a million signatures?
Okay, so it was set up for fraud and if If in fact it was implemented in a way that was not determined by the state legislature, that's an article two violation because the state legislature is the only one who gets to set the rules of an election for president in the states.
See, the founding fathers did not trust people voting.
I mean, I can go get you the Federalist Papers and start reading sections where the Federalist Papers talk about the state legislators are the more trustworthy of citizens, because they devote their time.
They want to be on the state legislature.
It's not a particularly well-paying or other rewarding job.
Well, today, as we've gotten corrupted, don't believe in Jesus Christ anymore, people don't go to church, they don't read the Bible.
They don't have a moral compass any longer.
Well, people say, well, I'm going to run for the state legislature because I'm in real estate business or I'm a lawyer and I want to get clients.
And if I'm in the state legislature, I'll have lots of ways to get clients.
These guys are not, these men and women are not necessarily the bravest in the world.
And so, therefore, there's a lot of pressure to ask them.
That's why we're doing the Jericho Marches.
JerichoMarch.org or .com.
It's .com, isn't it, Craig?
JerichoMarch.com.
Hang on a second.
Let me get it up now.
I'm kind of going fast here.
No, no.
I was in the middle of something.
It's .org.
.org.
JerichoMarch.org.
So, the point is that The final check is when the Supreme Court says it is so messed up, the Electoral College vote is all messed up.
Because we've got electors in here that were not the way people voted, put in by the state legislature, that's constitutional.
But this is just messed up.
So what the Founding Fathers said is when it gets messed up in the Electoral College, it goes to Congress.
And again, the principle of sovereignty is still maintained.
It's still we the people electing the president, because we elect the state legislators, and we elect the Congress.
And our founding fathers had the wisdom to know that even though the state legislature is not necessarily these noble citizens that the Federalist Papers imagined they would be, And maybe our Supreme Court justices have gotten a little bit jaded politically, a lot jaded politically.
So did my heir, Kagan, making decisions on their politics and then reading it into the law, into the constitution, which is what they do.
So at any rate, we now have a situation where the constitution is at play.
And that's why I wrote this ebook, because you've got to understand that in the, Legal game.
Donald Trump wins.
At the Supreme Court, he wins.
And you get a psychological operation.
You know, it's like when you capture a prisoner of war.
You say, you might as well give up.
You're captured.
You're not getting out of here.
Might as well tell us what we want to know.
By the way, your side's losing the war, and you don't want to try to help The Kaiser, the Emperor, the Fuhrer, because they're going to be gone.
So you better think of your own hide and you're going to lose.
That's psychological operations.
Get somebody demoralized.
And they're doing it in the, you know, there's, there's no case here.
Move on.
You're going to lose.
Why doesn't Trump just do the right thing and concede?
Well, the Trump fam, Trump's a fighter.
And I'm sure that he has had low moments in this saying, you know, here he won probably the biggest landslide election, reelection in history, and it's being stolen from him.
I'm here to tell you, it won't be stolen.
Because the hand of God is going to work here and the hand of God is on Donald Trump's shoulder.
And I'm confident now, the Trump's legal team, they separated Sidney Powell, so she can just go after evidence.
All kinds of evidence she's producing.
She can file her own cases.
Okay.
But they're on behalf of the president.
And then the legal team has got its own track.
They're going to do these state hearings.
There's more coming.
I think there may be even one today.
Is there one today, Craig?
I'm not sure.
I don't know.
I'm sorry.
We've been running so fast.
There was one yesterday in Michigan.
One yesterday.
Before that, it was Arizona.
Before that, it was Pennsylvania.
And I think there's going to be another one this week, maybe on Thursday.
And they're filing cases in federal district court.
They're filing trial cases.
And all these people you're seeing appearing as witnesses are going to produce cases of fraud that are going to go into the courts.
So when this gets to the Supreme Court, we've got all these cases going.
We're in the middle of trying to prove fraud.
Give us enough time.
We'll prove fraud.
And the Supreme Court on the basis of this Perez case is going to say, you know, this Abbott v. Perez in Shelby County, even Justice Roberts' own logic, And the Supreme Court has done this many times.
It's just people didn't see it as such.
I think the argument I'm making here is going to be considered never exactly to have been made at the Supreme Court.
But in 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, the case which said that separate schools Uh, segregated are not equal because the kids don't do as well.
And later in life, they don't do as well.
Well, Thurgood Marshall, who was representing the NAACP, argued that case.
He later became on the Supreme Court himself.
It was first black justice.
He was a brilliant man.
He argued sociological data and political science data about what happens to kids when they're in segregated schools.
He didn't actually have a case where he showed someone broke a law by discriminating against a kid by setting up a segregated school.
He just said these are wrong because it's messed up and it violates the equal rights to get an education.
14th amendment violation.
And he won an historic case.
Okay, so the court does argue evidence that is all correlation, regression, probabilities, relationships between data.
In other words, segregated school, what's its relationship to low test scores?
That's a statistical problem.
It's at statistics 101.
I taught statistics.
I did empirical research for the National Science Foundation under grants.
Randomized, I never took a course in statistics.
I didn't need to, I never took a course in research methodology.
I read the books.
I read the books when I was very young, actually.
It was not, it just was clear to me, as it is today, that 1929, okay, I've got a discussion here in Whitney v. California.
Let's find that, just search Whitney.
And I'll tell you what page that's on.
If you want to understand what's going on here, you're going to understand the law, because this is now like a football game, you know, or we're down to the last two minutes, and the last two minutes may take an hour, or half an hour.
Commercials, they're going to try to get in as many play, and the game may be decided on the last play.
I mean, I can remember Super Bowls that were decided on the last play, okay?
And so, Just because we're at the endgame, this is where it gets most interesting.
Somebody like me, the legal part of this is going to be fascinating.
And Trump is going to win.
Okay, now Whitney v. California, that's on page 28.
That's on page 29 of the book with the table of contents, 28 in the book without.
Okay, I'll get the new one up today and get it going.
So, this was a 1927 case on free speech.
Because Justice Holmes had said, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
That was a very famous case, the Schenck case.
And it was about a 1917 Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed during World War I. We had had earlier Alien and Sedition Acts going back to the very beginning of the Republic.
But these were, you know, if you gave a seditious speech, you could be jailed.
We're causing insurrection.
Eugene Debs was a very famous railroad organizer, unions, for the Brotherhood Railroad Train, when my father was public relations for them, worked on their newspaper, Trainman News.
Debs was in prison for a speech he gave in Dayton, Ohio, during World War I. But this Whitney case, Justice Brandeis, who was, I think, brilliant, Try to say, well, Justice Holmes, what does it mean if the theater is on fire, can you say fire?
A crowded theater.
So he said, basically, Whitneyburg, California, he said that the prohibited free speech had to have a high probability of resulting in a criminal or seditious behavior.
In other words, I said a lunatic escaping a psychiatric hospital to break into a zoo To implore a group of caged monkeys to burn down City Hall.
You're not committing a crime.
You're nuts.
Probably ought to be put back in the psychiatric hospital.
But that same speech, word for word, delivered to an angry mob with torches in their hands, is certain to have criminal consequences.
Probabilistic argument.
And my dissertation was on prior restraint, prior punishment, and political dissent.
Namely, could you put someone in prison Or stop them from speaking because what they said or were gonna say, they hadn't said it yet, but what they're gonna say is too dangerous.
That was the Pentagon Papers case.
They had not stolen the Pentagon Papers.
They've been stolen by Daniel Ellsberg from the RAND Corporation.
The New York Times and Washington Post wanted to publish them.
Well, the Supreme Court said they could.
Because again, that was a First Amendment protection and there was no imminent harm.
They weren't revealing troop locations.
They were dealing with historical documents, the Pentagon Papers that showed that the war was fraudulent from the beginning.
We knew we couldn't win.
We were experimenting with our military and playing geopolitics in Southeast Asia.
And it was known by the President Lyndon Johnson, It was known by virtually all, McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense, and it was a fraudulent war, but that was not causing an imminent harm.
It wasn't the speech in front of the mob with torches about who were angry at the mayor.
Okay, so we also have probabilistic evidence here, which can be introduced under these standards.
The probability is that statistically, the probability of these ballots being legitimate the way they came in all for Biden and marked the way they were, is zero.
Or so close to zero as to be nearly zero.
That the computer was reporting votes in fractions, which is set up to be A weighted scheme where you could adjust the vote totals to come out the way you wanted them to by looking at the votes as they were occurring according to these fractions.
So a vote for Trump might be worth 0.75 and a vote for Biden might be worth 1.25 in a weighting scheme.
These are inherently fraudulent and were used fraudulently even though we don't yet have a court case that can prove In court, guilt of criminal nature.
Under Whitney v. California, we don't need to make that proof.
And that's a very, very strong argument.
I'm sorry, Mr. Barr, your point yesterday that you can't prove there was criminal fraud enough to change the elections doesn't matter because you don't have a criminal trial one way or the other either.
In fact, you don't even have investigations going.
Because you're a deep state and, you know, your Durham guy that you just said was a special prosecutor, secret squirrel, you hadn't told anybody for a year, ha ha, is really designed to prevent Trump from declassifying any documents.
Because you don't intend, Barr did not say that Durham has got another year to investigate, to do indictments.
He could, but he can't have another year to do a report in which he said nothing happened.
The Department of Justice acted correctly in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane, three years pursuing a Russian hoax on a document they knew to be Russian propaganda from the beginning, misinformation, the Steele dossier.
I read about that extensively in my book, coup d'etat.
So this book, this new book, Trump wins.
If you read it, you're going to understand the game.
It's kind of like watching a football game.
If you don't know the rules, You're not going to know which team is really ahead because we know football.
Okay.
So one team might be down, but the momentum has changed and we still got a third quarter and four.
It's halftime.
We'll come out of halftime third quarter.
The momentum stays on the losing team.
The one that's underneath way to bets.
They're going to win.
And so if you know the game, if you know the rules, if you know what's going to happen, the Trump team is setting the ground for the Supreme Court challenge they want.
And they've already got one case in that is, it looks like it's going to advance to be heard, which is this Pennsylvania case.
And Ted Cruz played a good role.
I think among the Senate, he probably is the best.
At Harvard, he was considered to be brilliant in constitutional law, even though he was conservative.
So Craig, what do you think of everything I've said here today?
Yeah, you've laid the case out, you've gone step by step, you've connected the dots, it all makes perfect sense, and it flies in the face of the media narrative right now, which is, like you said, give up and just throw up your hands, because we outsmarted you by cheating our Beijing candidate into the office.
Okay, now I want to play some of the testimony we saw yesterday, because I want you to see with your own eyes, again, we'll play segments of these, how damaging the testimony being given in these hearings is.
In other words, okay, but we don't have a court case yet where we can prove that, but I mean, they recorded the fraud.
They were so proud of what they were doing, switching votes, and they panicked.
Because they had miscalculated how many votes Trump was getting.
Trump is way up here and Biden's way down here.
We're not going to catch up.
We better stop the voting and go get a truckload of made up ballots that we can bring in here and say we're mailed in.
And by the way, either don't put a postmark on them or put a postmark on them before election, because we want to slip these in.
And if we don't have enough, we'll just keep running them through the machine.
Take that, run them again through the machine, take that run and we'll get rid of the Republican observers so we can get this done.
All inherently fraudulent.
And videotaped and people now with testimony that's going to be in affidavits say before the Supreme Court, you know, justices of the Supreme Court, you got to understand that this scheme is a systematic scheme on the Democrats has been planned for a long time to steal an election and they bragged about it.
And coordinated across multiple states.
And done in the different states with little variation, so you can't have one theme across them all.
But it's massive.
It involves millions of votes, and it was systematic.
They knew what they were doing, and they had a game plan.
They got it implemented, starting with the legislation the Democrats pressed in the states before the election to try to get mail-in balloting, using COVID as an excuse.
Now, I want to come back to a court case that was just decided last week.
But first, Craig, let's show the one where the Michigan poll worker says he witnessed shady 4 a.m.
ballot dump.
Okay, that's in the Gateway Pundit, and there's a video there.
And let's scroll down to the video.
Tell me when you're ready.
Oh, by the way, in this video, you also see the diagram I'm talking about with the red line, votes, and the blue line.
Well, when they stop the count, the blue line shoots up and then goes ahead of the red line.
That shooting up is statistically impossible.
And there's any number of ways to prove it.
A hockey stick.
Well, a hockey stick, in a sense, in reverse.
Okay, so let's go to the video.
Tell me when you're ready, and I'll mute mine.
And how long is this video?
Let me just get a sense here.
This video is a minute and 27 seconds, and it's ready to go when you are.
Okay, let me mute and go ahead and play it, okay?
Here we go.
What time of the morning was it when you saw this come in?
Or what time of the evening was it?
Like you said, three-ish, four in that window.
In the afternoon?
No, no, no.
I was there from... Three or four in the morning?
I was there at 10 p.m.
to 5 a.m.
They were in mail?
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Lucido.
Did anybody have any ear markings of who they were carrying these ballots?
Were they carrying them?
Were they on a dolly?
Yeah, they were on a dolly.
Yeah, they were on a dolly.
Do I know who they were?
Absolutely not.
But they were people that were doing that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Lucido.
Senator Santana.
Was there any particular reason you didn't ask for a supervisor to question, you know,
the ballots coming in on a dolly?
I didn't figure I needed to because the lead counsel that was supposed to be there was taking tally and I was there standing right next to him.
So I figured he was kind of the person that was overseeing the whole night.
That's what we were told.
We were talking directly about why are these coming in.
We all thought it was interesting that these ballots were coming in so late.
What was his response?
We were taking count and his exact response I couldn't recall but we were definitely perplexed that these were coming in so late as well as they were being put out to be counted.
So, Dr. Corsi, the Democrat attempting to blow holes in this witness's testimony, her only question is, why didn't you bring something up about it?
And he says, well, the counsel, the actual, you know, legal beagle person was standing next to him while they were doing the fraud.
And didn't care.
Didn't care.
OK, see, that's part of the fraud.
And where were the Republican observers watching these?
They were excluded from the room.
OK, now, This is, anybody who looks at this is saying, this ain't right.
Something wrong here.
Now, the Supreme Court level, they can't ignore that, because it's just too apparent.
There's too much testimony.
So what Giuliani is doing this week is extremely important, and it's setting the ground for the Supreme Court filing they're gonna do.
In other words, it's kind of like in military, before you fight a battle, you prepare the battleground.
You have artillery strikes on it for a while, so you try to soften it up.
And the Japanese do that in World War II.
So they dug underground and went underground in the island, had an underground city there, let you bomb anything you wanted, because they weren't affected.
Then when they were happy to get out, they fought fiercely.
And it took one casualty for one casualty to kill them and get rid of them.
That's how fierce the Japanese were in World War II.
But preparing the battleground is what this is all about.
Let's play the second one, Craig.
Let's play the... Oh, which one do you like in the second one?
You can take your pick.
Let me throw it up here.
So we've got the Pure Evil.
This is an interesting one, and I've got it queued up to the right point in order for the lady to make her point.
Which one is it?
This is especially important to me.
It's the one where it's Pure Evil, Democrat operatives in Michigan.
And Georgia, again, two states, tampered with the military ballots and filled out new ones 100% marked for Joe Biden.
OK, now, and again, you see that same chart in Michigan with the red line and blue line and how they intersect after they're boosted.
OK, now, how long is this one, Craig?
How long does this one play?
It's a longer one, but I've got it queued up to where she actually goes into the explanation.
Okay, I'll mute here and you go ahead and play that.
Not one of the military ballots was a registered voter, and the ballots look like they were all exactly the same Xerox copies of the ballot.
They were all for Biden across the board.
There wasn't a single Trump vote, and none of the voters are registered.
They had to manually enter the names and addresses and a birth date of 1-1-2020, which would override the system and allow them to enter non-registered voters, of which I saw Several that day throughout the day.
That's how they would override voters that were neither in the electronic poll book or the supplemental updated poll book.
Thank you So you've got this lady testifying very clearly and concisely and precisely that they had to do multiple things to void out these military votes and substitute Democrat Biden votes for them.
That wasn't just one thing they did, they had to do a series of things to accomplish that.
That's right, and systematic crime.
And her testimony is very strong.
Sworn testimony in a court will be taken very seriously by a jury.
And again, is the Supreme Court gonna say, well, I'm sorry, Mr. Barr, you said there was no evidence, but I mean, this is pretty impressive right here, what's going on.
We're just supposed to ignore this as the Supreme Court?
And the lawyers for the president are gonna be saying, chief justices and justices on the bench, with all due respect, I think we can prove to you the fraud occurred.
I think we can we are alleging that we can prove enough to swing these elections.
Just the fact that it occurred should be a problem because this is systematic fraud.
This is not just one or two instances.
This is across a lot of states.
It started getting planned when they went into the state legislatures to get changes in the law and then that didn't work.
They went to the state courts to force the legislature to change the law.
That didn't work.
They just changed the law that the governor did, or the Board of Elections did, okay?
And that's all unconstitutional under Article 2, because only the state legislature can make that kind of a change.
Now, Craig, let's pick another one.
Oh, it doesn't make any difference.
They're all good.
These are really good.
Let's do this Linda Lee Tarver.
I thought she was on fire.
She's kind of flaming this whole thing.
This woman, her testimony made a big impact on me.
I think she's very, very credible.
Just watch her demeanor when she's saying all this.
Look at how she's taking this very seriously.
Now, this goes on for a long time.
So, I think we should start it, Craig, maybe.
This one, I've got the one that's a minute and 55.
Oh, perfect.
Perfect, perfect.
Okay, do you know where it started?
You just go ahead and play it and I'll mute myself here.
Go ahead and play it.
Mixed with clerical errors but a lot of them are considered fraud.
I would have referred all of them to the Attorney General if it were me.
But Chris Thomas and others decided not to.
They tried to remedy those things as best they can.
But unless you put the full faith into the law and start prosecuting people, we will continue to see what we've been seeing.
71% of Detroit cannot be recounted.
All right, and so that one got about half the way through.
She just made her point when the replay blew up.
It was very low, the volume was very low, so I cranked up the volume as high as I could.
I apologize to the people listening to that.
Go ahead, Dr. Corsi.
You're muted.
If you want to go to the Gateway Pundit, it has the full 36 minutes.
There's some testimony at 9-0-8, where the Democrats try to counter her.
What she's saying is, you gotta look at the ballots.
Don't just, uh, do a recount.
Oh, I see.
I've got, I've got the longer one, Dr. Corsi.
Yeah, I said, well, I'm just gonna, they'll just recount the same old fraudulent ballots.
You gotta open the ballot box and look at these ballots.
So you want me to start at where with the second one?
908, 908.
This is a Democrat.
He's going to try to come in and disqualify her.
And listen to what this guy says.
Okay, this is how the Democrats are answering this.
I'll mute me here and then play a couple of minutes of that.
Here we go.
My first question is, you know, are you aware that there are audits done on past elections, and in any of your official or unofficial capacities, did you ever have the opportunity or cause to review those audits that looked into things like, you know, dead voters and all that kind of stuff that was done in the past?
Yes.
Okay, and did you find that the answers to those questions were that, in fact, these were clerical errors in previous audits that have been done by the Legislative Auditor General and been before this committee in the recent years?
So I've worked with Chris Thomas for years and I've submitted some illegal stuff that I felt was illegal to them to investigate and they were investigated.
How they remedied it was not according to what I felt was necessary.
There have been clerical errors, if you call it clerical, the law concerning your ability to be a precinct inspector, a poll worker.
is that you have to have a sufficient clerical acumen in order to perform the duties,
which means you should be able to read and write and add and subtract.
And you should be able to perform the duties without any inhibitions.
We know that there are over 500 precincts in Detroit and many of the people who will come and get trained,
some of them will not show up.
But the ones that do show up, they are not given sufficient training
on how to legally perform the duties that they have.
However, if they're told that the challenger is the enemy, this person standing behind you is the enemy,
and they have not been told that the person behind you must be protected,
you will not be able to address some of the oversight, laziness, ignorance of the law,
ignorance of the process and lack of training.
And so one of the ways that ballots are, the election fraud occurs is when you have...
workers who are not properly trained and that's where we are finding is lack of training.
They're in a hurry.
They're not sure what to do but those clerical errors are mixed with clerical errors but a lot of them are considered fraud.
I would have referred all of them to the attorney general if it were me but Chris Thomas and others decided not to.
They tried to remedy those things as best they can, but unless you put the full faith into the law
and start prosecuting people, we will continue to see what we've been seeing.
71% of Detroit cannot be recounted.
And I would not want to run on a Detroit city nothing at all.
I would not want to run in the city of Detroit knowing that there have been quote,
clerical errors that some of them are illegal.
There are ballot carrying problems.
We have seen people walk into the clerk's office in Detroit with a stack of 75 ballots.
Janice Winfrey standing next to me.
And this guy is not related to all of these people.
He's not a postal worker, nor does he work for the clerk's office.
These are ballot harvesting has been going on.
Inez Brown in Flint has been, the clerk of city of Flint has been complaining about it.
These are not clerical errors.
These are what's been allowed.
And when you have drop boxes for these, all of these urban areas to make it convenient, you do not have the ability to check the drop box that I'm putting in 50 ballots.
Wow, Dr. Corsi, talk about somebody who pulled all the stops when it comes to explaining it clearly, exactly how this was done.
It was fraudulent the whole time, and this guy trying to blow it off as clerical errors.
She just absolutely nails him to the wall.
See, this is why it's so effective.
This woman knows what she's talking about, and she's articulate, and she's tough.
She can nail this down because she saw it go on.
She thought it was wrong.
She knew it was wrong.
She knew it was fraudulent.
She wanted to refer to the Attorney General, but systematic fraud because it had been rigged so that people weren't trained.
They were made to think that they were made to think that.
Oh, in fact over here.
We've got a situation we can deal with Craig muted for a minute.
I do have to take this for just a second.
Yeah, and Dodger Corsi, what she was also saying was that they were told, these poll watchers, these people that are actually doing the counting, are told that the Republicans that are supposed to be there actually preserving the integrity of the process by having a Democrat and a Republican overseeing what's going on, that they're considered the enemy.
And so those people, it's justified then if they're the enemy.
If the Republican people on site trying to make sure the process is done the right way are considered the enemy, then it's in their view, it's right to push them aside, to even force them physically to leave the area because they're the enemy.
Dr. Corsi.
I always take phone calls from your wife.
Rule number one.
Rule number one.
No matter what you're doing.
So that's very, that's pretty clear, which she presented.
This woman, this kind of testimony, I don't care what Barr says.
Look at this woman.
Who do you believe?
Barr or this woman?
You know, you know, basically you'd have to say, you know, don't believe, your eyes don't lie.
You know, there's Western, there's country Western songs about it.
Who do you believe?
Your lying eyes?
Well, your lying eyes saw the affair, saw the woman in the bed with your husband.
And now they've got it on tape.
Yeah, I've got it.
And this woman is not going to give up.
I mean, look at the resolve in this woman.
She's seen it wrong and she didn't like it.
And she's going to get it.
It's going to let everybody know it was wrong and she can explain it.
And she's tough and smart.
There's a perfect witness, perfect witness, and going to be impossible to refute in a trial.
Okay.
Now they start prosecuting some of these election officials for what they did.
This witness will nail them.
And she had specific, specific people.
Specific.
Their names, their responsibilities.
She just laid it out perfectly.
Yeah, okay.
Now, one more we're going to do.
This one, which is the one about I was driving the ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.
Okay, this is a guy who's actually involved in driving these ballots around.
And he's testifying about, again, very, very convincing testimony.
Because see, you've now got people talking about firsthand what they did.
This is a guy named Jesse Morgan.
He was a truck driver.
With a U.S.
Postal Service subcontractor, he was jealous of his cargo load of 288 completed ballots.
This is not a clerical error.
This is not a small number of ballots.
Justice Barr, well, we've not seen enough ballots to swing an election.
Well, that's because you haven't got off your fat behind to take a look, because you didn't want to.
Maybe if you'd listened to some of the testimony that was being produced earlier in the day, or maybe you're out here making that statement because you're Baghdad Bob.
Not doing your job, but covering up.
A bar, I think, could be guilty of obstruction of justice himself.
Donald Trump wins.
I'm going to press those.
I want to press those charges.
I'm tired of a Department of Justice that is this corrupt.
And that's one of the points that she made in her testimony was that we got to take action against these people and put someone behind bars.
Precisely.
And she's right.
OK, let's play this gentleman here, because I think it's another very, very good one.
I'll mute myself here.
How long does this one go on?
Let me see.
It goes on nine.
Oh, this is the one I think I've got.
No, it's the nine minutes and twenty five.
But I can play the first two.
Play the first two and then we'll come back and talk about it, okay?
Okay, here he is.
This is Jess Morgan, truck driver with UPS as a subcontractor.
Here he goes.
So, in total I saw 24 Gaylords, or large cardboard containers of ballots loaded into my trailer.
These Gaylords contained plastic trays, I call them totes, but trays will work, of ballots stacked on top of each other.
All the envelopes were the same size.
I could see the envelopes had handwritten return addresses, and I could even tell that one was marked registered mail.
That one was off to the side.
They were complete ballots.
I didn't think much of it at the time.
At Bethpage, I was first loaded with two tall gay lords.
So, picture that thing there, or this little representation here, but this tall, alright?
So, I was loaded with two tall gay lords, okay?
And that were, I don't know, where was I at?
that had mixed mill pieces.
And that one again, it played to a certain point and then it blew up, but the bottom line was he was explaining
how, and this is cross state, so this is from one state to another.
This isn't just happening right in that same place.
That's right, and play a couple more minutes.
I want to get the feel that this guy is very methodical, very detailed, and you can tell he drove them.
You can tell he was figuring out that this was wrong.
Where did these ballots all come from?
Okay, so play a couple more minutes, and I think then we'll come back and comment, okay?
So again, this is very important.
These are the kinds of things, these hearings are taking time and I know the clock is running and everybody's urgent to get into the Supreme Court, but you've got to get in with the right case and they are preparing the right case.
And this case also has the secondary advantage.
It may convince some of these Republican legislators when they meet on the 12th of December, not to pick the Biden slate of electors because there's abundant evidence that the fraud was there.
They're not going to validate a fraudulent election by sending the fraudulent electors for Biden and do the right thing.
The constitution lets them send the electors for Trump.
That's what the Jericho marches are all about.
And there's nothing, in my ebook, Trump wins.
I cite Bush v. Gore that says the electors can take back.
They don't have to make it for the public vote to determine the electors.
They can say, I'm sorry, it was all messed up voting.
We're going to pick the other guy's slate of electors.
They can do that.
Nothing you can do about it when they make that choice.
Craig, you ready?
Yep.
Here we go.
In one of the seven docks every day.
But not on October 21st.
I wasn't allowed to offload.
That's different.
Whenever I pull into Harrisburg, I go around, and I get my dock, and I get unloaded, and then I roll out.
Not that day, alright?
Not that day.
Instead, I was made to wait For roughly 6 hours in the yard.
From 9.15am to 3pm.
This really ticked me off, alright?
Because my brother was in town, he just moved back up.
And I wanted to spend some time with him.
I tried to get the attention of postal workers, but no one would tell me what's going on.
All of this was weird.
I arrived at about the same time every day.
The expediter scans all my seals and barcodes and they unload me.
But from the time I first arrived in Harrisburg from Bethpage, everything got weird.
None of that happened.
After waiting six hours, I went inside to figure out what's going on.
I was told to wait For the Transportation Supervisor.
This was also weird.
16 months I've been doing this, I haven't ever talked to the Transportation Supervisor for United States Postal Service.
I talk to an expediter.
I come in, I see an expediter, that's who I deal with.
If I have an issue, it's the expediter.
I don't deal with anyone else but the expediter.
I never, never talk to the United States Postal Service's Transportation Supervisor.
Let's make that clear.
I have my own transportation supervisor for the company that I work for.
So, Dr. Corsi, he's going on into great detail about how their process works a certain way, and he's been doing it for 16 months.
And that 16-month period, it never took place the way that it took place on that one particular day, as he's moving these totes of suspicious materials.
Well, that's the point.
And he's being talked to by a supervisor who's not his supervisor.
All the rules are changing.
And again, when the rules are changing, it's systematic because you've got a organized plan.
Law, they distinguish between types of crimes.
Crime of passions, crime of accident, homicide, as opposed to manslaughter.
Manslaughter is kind of, well, yes, somebody got killed, but I didn't intend to.
Now, maybe I was negligent.
And then I should have been more attentive.
And then there's criminal responsibility for manslaughter, but it's not the same as if I planned it.
Now it's homicide.
That's a, that's a more serious crime.
And if I planned it with a group of people, now you've got a conspiracy to commit murder.
And it's even more serious.
Okay.
Because it deepens the level of criminality.
Now, all this evidence that we've shown you, and I think that's enough of the evidence we've shown to make the point that Abar is wrong.
There is evidence here, and the evidence is of magnitude that it, I think, proves millions of ballots were falsified in a nationwide scheme to make sure that Biden won.
And it was implemented by stopping the counting and producing the ballots needed to put Biden in the head permanently.
This is so apparent and can be demonstrated so clearly that the Supreme court, I think has no choice, but to take the case and bar trying to say, there's nothing here.
Don't worry about it.
There's nothing to see.
We don't have any evidence.
Bar is just setting himself up for being a co-conspirator and it's not escaping my attention, Greg.
Yeah, absolutely.
What's interesting about that truck driver, his explanation was this was taking place before the election.
These were the votes coming in, the mail-in votes that were allowed to be pushed in, and he was talking about October 21st.
So that was before the actual cutoff, the pause in the middle of the night.
The plan was being executed the entire time, not just election night.
Right.
And this, I think, is critical.
Now, I want to pull up next the Supreme Court decision that was made last week.
And, okay, this is all about, this is all what I've been explaining in my e-book.
It's all you've got.
If you read this, you'll understand how it fits together.
Trump wins.
That's why he's going to win.
It's why I'm 100% positive Trump wins.
Because you've got to understand the law.
Okay, now we're getting to the question about, okay, will the Supreme Court hear it?
You know, Justice Roberts, he doesn't really like Trump, and so therefore, we don't have a chance in this case.
I'm saying to you, nonsense.
I'm saying to you, we're gonna win, and I'm gonna show you what recently the Supreme Court just did.
Okay, now this is a case that was involving a set of churches.
And the churches were shut down, essentially, by Governor Cuomo because of COVID.
And remember, a lot of these fraudulent schemes of the mail-in ballots were put into place because of COVID.
So we can't have people go out and vote in person, they're going to get COVID.
So the governors had these emergency measures and they screwed up the mail-in ballots so you could do it any way you wanted to.
Forget about postmarks, don't have signatures.
Send them all out, a bunch of them out, millions out.
Make them up, doesn't make any difference.
Write in names, say people were born in 1900, some of them were filed that way.
A stack of them all, Xerox one after the other, run through the machine repeatedly.
We've got testimony saying that happened.
Throw the Republicans.
All of these are massive violations of election law.
They're criminal.
Okay, now this case involved, there were two cases actually.
It was Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn in New York.
And there was also a case of a synagogue which were looked at together Because the court said these cases are so similar, we'll look at them together.
And it was a petition for injunctive relief, in other words, to block Governor Cuomo's executive order, which limited 10 and 15 people occupancy on going to this Catholic church.
And there was also a Synagogue, which was Agedath Israel of America v. Cuomo, a separate suit.
They put them two together.
And the per curiam decision of the court, which really means it's kind of per curiam is usually unanimous.
In this case, Justice Roberts had a dissent.
And I want to show you why he dissented.
And I'm going to make an argument about how Justice Roberts functions.
What basically the Supreme Court decided, and Breyer wrote the per curiam decision, the majority decision of the court, saying that what Cuomo did was unconstitutional and they granted the injunctive relief, was essentially that an emergency, a health emergency or any emergency, does not allow the suspension of constitutional rights.
And the idea that you could be not going to church or kept from going to church.
You know, there's critical points and I guess this is on page four of the decision where Breyer is writing that stemming the spread of COVID-19 is unquestionably a compelling interest.
It's a state interest.
But it's hard to see how the challenge regulations can be regarded as narrowly tailored.
They are far more restrictive than any COVID-related regulations that have previously come before the court, much tighter than those adopted by other jurisdictions hard hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicant's religious services.
And the district court noted there had not been any COVID outbreaks in any of the diocese churches since they reopened.
And appraise the diocese record in combating the spread.
This is the trial court.
Remember the district trial court where the facts are established.
The fact here that they're looking at it, the Supreme court is that the diocese had acted responsibly.
It has found the diocese.
That's why trial courts are important to proceed appeals courts and why it's going to be important.
At least these cases on voter fraud are being filed by attorney Sidney Powell.
Acting on her own behalf, but still representing the president, but not officially.
And Giuliani and his team, Jenna Ellis, who are pursuing the court cases officially.
Okay, now, what he said, you know, basically, you read this opinion, there's no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID-19.
And so he's going on, they're restricting a religious service, just because they want to restrict a religious service.
But he said, there can be no question, this is on page five of the decision, of the per curiam majority decision, the loss of First Amendment freedoms, this is quoting a previous Supreme Court case from 1976, L. Rod V. Burns, which said, the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable damage.
Well, so does election fraud.
Constitutes irreparable damage, To the 14th Amendment right of Trump voters to have equal voting rights under law, not compromised by fraudulent schemes enacted by the Democrats to cheat and steal an election.
This is about as serious a question as you can get, and the Supreme Court's not going to ignore it.
Now, Chief Justice Roberts did do a dissent in this case, but I want you to see how he reasons.
This is very characteristic of Roberts.
I don't want people jumping to the conclusion that Roberts is necessarily anti-Trump.
He may be.
Other people say he may be.
He's blackmailed.
That's why he did the decision he did in the Obamacare.
He may be.
But I also have read his decisions, and Justice Roberts is a stickler for this kind of thing.
He says, Justice Roberts dissents, and he says, I would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances.
There is simply no need to do so.
After the Roman Catholic Diocese and the Agedoth Israel filed their applications, the governor revised the designations of the affected areas.
None of the houses of worship identified in the applications is now subject to any fixed numerical restrictions.
At these locations, the applicants can hold services with up to 50% of capacity.
Which is at least as favorable as the relief they currently seek.
Natural capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do not seem unduly restrictive, and it may well be that such restrictions violate the free exercise of religion clause.
But it's not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult an issue at this time.
The governor might reinstate the restrictions, but he also might not.
As a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
The governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions.
The applicants can return to this court and we could quickly rule, act on their renewed applications.
Now, Justice Roberts has a legitimate point here, which is he's saying that the issue in this case is a serious issue.
In other words, First Amendment freedom and whether there is a sufficient government interest to restrict religious freedom.
I said there might be.
The health authorities are health authorities.
We're not qualified as justices to know whether their medical science determinations are right or not.
But we can, as justices, determine that if they've got a medical justification, they say if everybody doesn't lock down for a while, you're all going to die.
And that's reasonable in medical science.
We better listen to it.
But in fact, if the governor imposed these restrictions on Catholic Church and the synagogue, that, you know, we probably would say we're unduly restrictive of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, restricting religion, freedom of religion.
But the governor gave up.
And we don't know if he's going to put him back or not.
So we don't have a case.
Now, this is a very accepted practice of law issue.
The court is not gonna make hypothetical rulings.
The Supreme Court's gotta have a issue at law.
There has to be a dispute going on that involves a constitutional issue.
And when the governor had these restrictions, if they were in effect, Roberts is saying, I'm gonna hear the case then.
And it sure looks to me like What the governor was saying was restrictive of the free exercise clause of this Roman Catholic diocese and the synagogue but I don't have to decide that today because there's no issue at dispute any longer.
The governor gave up and he rescinded the order and I'm not going to make a hypothetical ruling on a case that is not currently before us.
Then he goes through a long explanation of this and I quite frankly think that he has a point.
Now the Briar and the others who voted to go along with the they wanted to make the constitutional point they they were so angry to see the churches closed down they did they said okay Roberts you know we understand you're right we're making the ruling anyway okay so they actually were kind of violating they were violating established principle of supreme court justice they were actually I would think
Not hearing this case correctly.
They should have found a case that they wanted to come to this decision, where the restrictions were still in place.
Now, what I'm saying is, Justice Roberts is the one who led the reasoning in these voting right cases.
And I don't think he's going to rule out, now that you can produce statistical evidence of voter fraud, supported by all this testimony, and he can just ignore it.
Because you don't have a case proven of fraud at a criminal trial at law.
And this case was decided last week.
I think the Supreme Court is begging to hear this case, and I believe that it's going to be served up.
Now, there is a timeline, and I am concerned about the timeline, but I'm not so concerned about the timeline.
I'm also seeing evidence with the Trump legal team that they're doing a very effective methodical job.
They've got a game plan.
And I pretty much quit giving them any advice or texting them or emailing them, do this, do this.
I don't need to pester them at this point.
I know Sidney Powell.
I know Giuliani.
I've met both of them.
They know all about me.
I think they would respect what I have to say.
I certainly respect what they're doing, but I see no reason to intervene because I think they're going to get the case filed to the Supreme Court on time.
And this first case, Which is now before the court that Ted Cruz is urging the court to take.
If I have anything I want to do, I want to prep Ted Cruz a little bit on Abbott v. Perez.
And we may try to do that through his staff.
Get them to read my ebook and understand how this logic goes together.
Most of what's in my ebook about the Constitution, given the superb quality of Ted Cruz as himself, a top qualified lawyer with excellent background in the Constitution, most of how the Constitution works, he's going to have down.
A lot of people reading this book, it's going to be eye-opening to see how The Constitution gives so much authority to the state legislatures to set the rules of election and also to decide which slate of electors go forward.
The state legislatures are the first defense on a fraudulent election.
The Supreme Court is the second or the Electoral College failing.
I think in the next few days, we're going to see how these state legislatures react.
And there's also many other good issues about the voters.
I wanted to cover the issue today on General Flynn and we'll probably have to cover that tomorrow because they've got a very very good issue there too on the fact that these computers General Flynn's military intelligence unit has evidence about the Dominion voters and General Flynn is now out.
This is very important.
So Craig, any comments you have on today?
I want to get people to be encouraged.
I want people to understand that we're going to win the endgame.
Last two minutes, we're going to win.
Trump is going to be re-elected.
Justice is going to be done.
I want to conclude on the prayer aspect.
I know Arthur couldn't join us this morning.
He's at ThePrayerfulPatriot.com.
The prayers he's constructed where we're asking the throne of God, that God's will be done here.
And that we're trying to do our part that that will be done and justice be done.
So, Craig, any concluding comments on your part?
Well, I've got the PrayerfulPatriot.com website up right now, and on the homepage right now, there is this article, this actual petition to the Lord that's been crafted by Arthur, our Prayer Warrior, and it's specific to saving the election and our rights.
And the way that this is crafted, if you go through it, go to the PrayerfulPatriot.com.
Go to the homepage, click on that one about Save the Election and Our Rights, and you can read through exactly how Arthur has crafted this prayer, and we would ask you to throw this prayer out yourselves to the Lord, because it's going to take more than just wishful thinking for a lot of this to take place, even though, as Dr. Corsi says, when this gets to the Supreme Court, it ought to be a slam dunk.
Dr. Corsi?
Craig, I'd like to sometime today for you to give me a JPEG of the book cover.
The book cover shows Donald Trump holding up the newspaper that's got a big smile on his face.
Chicago Tribune saying Biden beats Trump.
Well, that was Harry Truman in 1948 who ran his whistle-stop campaign.
I'm going to show the cover of the book, Craig, and I want to Do the prayers and show people the prayers at the beginning of the book, the two verses of the Bible.
I was Donald Trump holding up the newspaper and said, Biden defeats Trump.
Well, he didn't.
But of course, 1948 newspapers came out and they said, Dewey defeats Truman.
Well, the constitution trumps politics.
That's my summary of this whole deal.
Constitution trumps politics.
And I think we can see in that, that we are going to win.
Okay, now, when we get that JPEG of a picture of this, I'm gonna post it all over the internet.
And I'm gonna let everybody see that in fact, it's out there and everybody's got a chance to understand the significance because Harry Truman moved Decided that the 1947, that the United Nations could vote to create the state of Israel after World War II, got his hand on Harry Truman's shoulder, whistle-stop campaign, got huge votes for Harry Truman, he beat Truman despite the polls.
The replay of that is today, 2020, Donald, he beat Dewey.
2020, you beat Dewey.
And today in 2020, Trump moved our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a biblically important
event.
And I believe God has his hand on Donald Trump's shoulder and it looks like Biden beat, defeats Trump, but that's not the way it's going to end folks.
It's going to end Trump defeats Biden.
The two prayers at the beginning.
Jeremiah 2011 was given to me, someone came to me, I was doing a book signing in 2004 of Unfit for Command, which I co-authored with John O'Neill, which was on the Swift Boats.
And it says, I said, Dr. Corsey, God wants you to read this verse.
And told me this was essentially what I was doing and I would be called upon to do other things.
That has happened.
Okay, so this says, but the Lord is with me, as a mighty terrible one.
That's when God comes on you.
I wrote this e-book.
I started at Thanksgiving.
It was done on Sunday night.
Published on Sunday night.
I saw the whole thing at one time.
The entire book before I put down a word.
Therefore, my persecutors shall stumble.
Not us.
The Biden supporters are going to stumble.
They shall not prevail.
They're not going to win.
In fact, they're going to be greatly ashamed, especially when we prosecute them for crimes and break up their criminal organizations.
Antifa, Marxists, anarchists, Black Lives Matter funded Marxists, insurrection.
Their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten.
Everlasting.
Well, God's not gonna let this pass either.
And these guys are gonna face the final throne, which is the throne of God.
They think they've stolen election.
Why don't they go talk to God about that?
When they die, they will.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to face a lot of babies she aborted and all the children from those aborted fetuses that never got a chance to live as well.
Sure, they got to weigh testimony.
And when she stood before the Lord and God and said, you know, have you been a faithful servant?
And these babies said, no, she killed us.
You gave us birth, God.
She killed us.
Isaiah, just a few weeks ago, a few days ago, actually, it came back to me and said, you got to read Isaiah 22, 22, which is, and the key of the house of David is talking about The leader of Israel.
Well, I lay upon his shoulder.
So he shall open and none shall shut.
And he shall shut and none shall open.
Well, we're doing that.
We're showing, we're opening the fraud.
And nobody's going to shut that fraud down.
Not after we've exposed it.
And we're shutting down these criminals.
And by the way, nobody's letting them out after we shut them down.
Now, That's just what the verses say, and that's what I feel in my heart.
I showed these to Dr. Zelenko, hydroxychloroquine.
He's become a good friend.
We spent a day together last week, and he said, you know, in the highest form of Kabbalah, which is the esoteric form of the Jewish faith and religion, which takes a great deal of study, Each one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet has a number to it.
That has significance in terms of these are the words of God, and they have a meaning in terms of the understanding God through our speech.
And 11 adds to 2, and 20 plus 2 is 22.
and 20 plus 2 is 22. And the Isaiah is verse 22. 22 seems to be important here. And Dr. Zelenko
said, you happen to have a Hebrew Bible.
Well, I do.
I said, yes, I do have one here.
He said, take the first sentence in the Bible, and you read that first sentence, you take the first letter of each word in Hebrew, and each of those letters has a numerical significance, Guess what number they add up to, Craig?
Twenty-two.
Twenty-two.
Okay, the first sentence is, In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.
God created all this.
He can plug it and unplug it.
God is the judge here.
God rules.
And in the end, God wins.
That's why I say it all the time.
God created it.
God wins.
He rules.
Lord's Prayer.
Jesus Christ said, Let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
That's the Son of God saying to Yahweh, to God the Father, saying to God Almighty, it's your will that is done in heaven and may it also be done on earth.
It can't be counted on earth because these people are fallen human beings after the fall of the Garden from Eden.
Original sin, they come into the world flawed.
But may your will, God, be done here too.
Now, the whole idea of 22, and I got a very interesting email today from someone who understands this, and understands how the highest level of the Jewish faith, it must be read.
He was pointing out to me—I'll try to find it here so I can pull it up and get it exactly—he's pointing out to me that 22 in the whole Gematria is, in a sense, the number of the will of God.
It's the number of God's laws, God's rules, I'll try to get exactly what he said because it was very profound and it deeply affected me when he understood why I was talking about these verses and how it all fits together and fits together in what we're talking about exactly.
Okay, here it is.
Let me see if I can find it again where he's talking about the number 22.
He says, interestingly, he said, as you stated, You don't think God is in control here?
That's what I said yesterday.
I mean, you read these verses, you don't think God is in control here?
Okay, so he said, God certainly is in control here, and this is to show his overwhelming authority.
He has hidden within the gematria, the numbers, the first sentence of Genesis, the gematria 22, how the Lord has led you, Isaiah 22, 22.
Yes, God gave us this verse.
Interestingly, with the understanding and all this, he's also given 22 letters in this Hebrew alphabet.
Now, this is extremely important for this whole alphabet, which is the Hebrew alphabet, is the totality of all truth.
It forms the letters of His Word, which is the very expression of the Father Himself.
Now, in addition, as we come to understand, not only does each letter have a gematria number, as well as a physical numerical value, but each letter has an underlying meaning that has deep spiritual undertone.
That gives itself confirmation upon presence.
It reveals the deepest spiritual meanings of truth and the precision of the meaning at the deepest level.
All these considerations are brought together in the singleness of heart and mind understanding, and we have the presence of God in our minds.
With the understanding that God is saying that He is in charge.
We bring our part.
The Lord is with me as a terrible mighty one.
Just get this book down.
Here's the book God gives me in my mind on Thanksgiving, celebrating with the family.
I get up and I started actually before the Thanksgiving dinner.
I got off the tables, I got to go back to work.
And I had to write it down.
Well, then I did my part, which is insignificant.
Now God will take over, do the real heavy lifting.
God's a terrible, mighty one.
You don't get to say no to God.
As the persecutors who are going to stumble, it's going to be the people who thought they could pull off the fraud to get Biden elected.
It's going to be these Marxist criminals.
They're the ones who are going to be greatly ashamed.
They're not going to prosper.
And their everlasting confusion is not going to be forgotten by God when they get to the throne of heaven.
At the same time, if we have the key of the house of David in our hands, which we do, what we open is not going to be shut by anybody.
Because God's opening it.
What we shut, so we're going to open the fraud, you can all see it, and Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell are doing a beautiful job of that, as we demonstrated today.
And what we shut, none's going to open.
Well, we're going to shut down this conspiracy.
We're going to get our election laws done right.
We're not going to let these criminals ruin the United States of America.
Not while I'm alive.
Not while you're alive.
Not while we're working in this.
Craig, not while Craig's alive.
Craig, wait, are you going to fight this?
Oh, yeah.
And so, bottom line is, again, one of the other preeminent verses in the Bible throughout is, fear not.
And bottom line is, this is a time to stay strong and to fear not.
This is in God's hands.
His plan supersedes our plans.
But we all then have to hang together and look up and look to the sky and not let these armies of darkness that have come together drag us down.
Dr. Corsi?
Uh, let's wrap it up.
We've gone long.
I think it's an important one and people will stay with us and listen to the end.
In the end, God always wins and God will win here too.
Fear not.
Donald Trump will be reelected.
I'm a hundred percent confident of it.
And we're just now getting into the interesting part of the election.
This is, this is the whole election has played for this last couple of weeks and our founding fathers knew it.
And they gave us the tools because they anticipated over 200 years ago, this was probably going to happen someday.
And we might need these tools in order to right the wrong.
Jerome Corsi, today is Wednesday, December 2nd.
I'm here with my producer, Craig.
We'll be back tomorrow.
In the end, God always wins.
God will win here, too.
Have faith that that's going to happen.
Watch what God does.
There will be miracles happening from here on.
And I trust that and know that to be the case.
God bless you all.
Thank you for joining us.
▲
Export Selection