All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 4, 2021 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:14:31
Dr Corsi DEEP DIVE INTERVIEW 01-04-21: Attorney Ivan Raiklin Explains Trump's Legal Path to Victory
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
of some good insight into a lot of the events happening in Washington, D.C.
this week.
I'm very pleased to have with us.
We've got Ivan Reiklin, who is an attorney.
He's also a former Green Beret commander.
And he's been publishing, I think, some of the best information and insight.
He's a constitutional specialist, and Ivan's gotten some of the best information as to how the Constitution and the various laws, the 12th Amendment, the 1887 law, Title III of the U.S.
Code.
All these are very complicated, and we're going to have to master what they involve, because on Wednesday, when we have the joint session of Congress to certify the electors, the Democrats are strategizing that Biden will be strategized as an elected president, with the electors going to Biden.
I don't think it's going to be over.
This Wednesday, I think we have strategies.
And if we get the various people in Congress, Senator Cruz, various Democrats will be blocked in their efforts to get president Trump out of office.
And we've been fighting hard all year.
Every one of these battles has been a big fight.
We had the fight in the.
Russian collusion.
Mueller wanted to put me in prison.
He didn't succeed.
Never indicted me.
I refused to take his plea deal.
If I had pled guilty to what the Mueller people wanted to, they would have proven Russian collusion.
It just wasn't true.
I never had any contact with Julian Assange.
That was the issue.
Same with the Ukraine collusion.
We were told that Black Lives Matter and Antifa were peaceful protesters.
The 25th Amendment was supposed to be used.
Well, Pence didn't go along with that.
And now Mike Pence is at the center of the drama as vice president to preside over this session of Congress, a joint session, on the 6th of January, which is two days from now on Wednesday.
And Ivan Reiklin, welcome here.
We're really happy to have you join us today.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm honored to be on your show.
Good to finally meet you.
Well, I'm pleased to meet you too.
Now, would you want to give us a little bit more on your constitutional law background and how you got to study constitutional law?
Yeah.
So, I mean, I went to law school back in 2000, early 2000s.
I've been an attorney for the last about 15 years now.
And I really only get involved in cases of kind of national significance.
And I've been behind the scenes helping out and advising Uh, some big names that most people know as it applies to the last two, three years.
Uh, one of the individuals that you've crossed paths with and some other ones that everybody knows about.
I'll leave it at that.
And as it applies to this election, I have, you know, I've served on as a national circuit surrogate for the 2020 Trump campaign as a, uh, on the veterans for Trump advisory board.
Um, a former Green Beret commander, as you mentioned, a veteran that supports our commander in chief.
And I've also immediately after the election on November 3rd, uh, I saw the shenanigans going on just like everybody else.
And I decided Philadelphia is fairly close.
I live in Northern Virginia.
So I deployed and volunteered to support, uh, lawyers for Trump, uh, and try to see where I could fit in to provide value with the Pennsylvania issue.
And I saw that things were going there with, you know, Giuliani, Pam Bondi and Corey Lewandowski.
And I thought, why not?
Why not step back?
Because I think there are plenty of attorneys out there to do the actual litigation, which is not my personal area of expertise.
Mine is more strategy and big picture.
So I step back.
Uh, applied my background as a, uh, you know, officer in the special forces where the main mission of in the Green Berets is to do what's known as unconventional warfare.
And really what that is, is counterinsurgency.
And that's essentially what we're, we're seeing here in the United States where we have potentially foreign actors.
That are funding training and equipping us personnel in the form of these terrorist groups that are anarchists throughout liberal cities that are trying to overthrow a duly elected government, which, as the Constitution states.
The president is still the president until, at the very least, noon on January 20th.
So I'm in a position to bring that expertise on the legal side, as well as on the counterinsurgency subject matter expertise side, fuse them together to come up with a political strategy within the framework of our laws to defend against a coup.
And with that, That's what motivated me.
I've sworn to take the oath to defend our Constitution numerous times.
In the military, I've served 23 years, and it's just transitioned now domestically.
Craig, if you'll put up on the screen this Epoch Times report, which we just got today, being Monday, January 4th, 2021.
And we have from Congress the passing in the House and Senate of these rules or how the joint session will go on Wednesday.
And the way they're doing the rules is very much in accordance with the 1887 law or the Title III of the U.S.
Code, I believe it's Section 5, where there will be objections.
The vice president's going to open, call the states by alphabetically, starting with Alabama, and then present the electors.
And for seven states, There will be two sets of electors.
Now, what these rules are calling for is for the House and the Senate to go into separate sessions.
Senate will leave the joint chamber and the House chamber, go back to the Senate, wing of the Capitol, and each will debate for two hours which group of electors to accept.
Of course, Nancy Pelosi is very happy with this because if the two houses disagree, Let's say the Senate, which has majority Republican, at least for now, I guess it's 48-48, but Pence would... 50-48.
50-48.
So there's two advantage.
And that's right, 50-48.
And Pence would preside so that I guess the Senate would go for saying the Either no electors would be accepted or the Trump electors, and Nancy Pelosi was just elected yesterday again by one or two votes, the Speaker of the House, very close election.
Yeah, several votes, but yeah, she was re-elected.
Several votes, and the House will undoubtedly go and say, well, the Biden electors should, and if the two houses disagree, Then the electors that were certified by the state, which in every instance would be the Biden slate, would get to be the ones accepted under these rules.
And that would mean at the end of Wednesday, Biden would have the electoral votes he needs to be president.
I wish it was that simple, even though it may sound complicated, what you just explained, it's not even that simple.
And then hopefully I can help out in fleshing out The opportunities for discretion.
That's kind of what we're going to get into, right?
What I'd like to do is, I almost want you to do this as if you were giving instructions to Vice President Pence as to how he should conduct the day.
Now, the first question is, since these are the rules the House and Senate have just passed for the joint session on the 6th, are these the rules that the Vice President must conduct himself by in conducting and chairing over the session?
Okay.
So yeah, absolutely.
So let me just start off with just a point of clarification.
So the, the binding laws that you should look at and study and learn and memorize even over the next two days and continue to educate others on are the 12th amendment to the United States constitution, which is the paramount statute, if you will.
And then the second component is title three, us code section 15, very long section, and we can go into details on it.
But basically how that plays out is the 12th amendment is an amendment that discusses how the contingent election occurs.
And we can get into that.
And then title three really articulates how the process occurs in this joint session.
Now, the rules that were in that article that you mentioned, Dr. Corsi, that I looked at the actual Article, and then I link to the actual rules that were agreed to.
That's regurgitating what's already in Title III of the U.S.
Code.
Let me turn this off.
I thought I had this off.
One second.
So it's not changing anything whatsoever to the rules or my analysis to this point, but thank you for bringing that to my attention.
In other words, they pass these rules, but they don't necessarily apply.
They apply, they can apply.
So here's how, here's what I propose.
On January, before January 6th, the states still have an opportunity to correct themselves.
So all these six states that are an object, they can decertify their electoral slate, notify the president of the Senate and the archivist that they're decertifying Biden electors, and they can even take the next step of De-certifying and then having a vote without the governor calling a special session, just these state legislatures calling a special session.
Voting and then voting on a slate of electors that they deem necessary under their Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 powers, which is the Electors Clause.
Allowing and granting them full plenary power to determine who they're going to send to submit to vote for president and vice president.
So that's one component that still we have 48 hours to resolve, and that's up to the states.
And I think that's already in motion with Phil Klein and the Amistad project.
He had that call a couple of days ago with 300 legislatures, etc.
So that's one component.
I'm going to focus in on the U.S.
congressional component.
January 6th, Wednesday, 1 p.m., they meet.
They go state by state in alphabetical order.
Arizona comes up.
That's the first state that will be objected to.
How could this play out?
Before that even starts, on the high end, the more aggressive end, I would recommend to the Vice President that At that moment, when you start the joint session, you will take a look at Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, who's going to be right next to you, and you're going to look her in the eye and say, based on the precedent that you have already set in these chambers when you were here presiding over the President's State of the Union Address, when you shredded those official documents, I'm going to use that same precedence
To claim that the six states in question that violated the US Constitution's Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2...
And the 14th amendment, those aren't certificates or purported certificates of electors as per title three of the US code.
And for that reason, and that reason alone, they cannot be a part of the count.
So I'm going to go ahead and tear those up from Arizona.
I'm going to tear those up from Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and then finally Nevada.
Not in that order, in the alphabetical order.
And then I'm going to put those shredded papers, and I might even decide to bring a shredder with me, And then kind of dump it on her table right there for theatrical effect and tell her, I am the presiding officer.
I have that discretion.
If you have an issue, by all means, after this is all said and done, you can go to the Supreme court and debate me on that analysis.
That would be my number one, uh, offer of advice.
That's how I personally would do it.
That is my style.
I understand that vice president, that's not really his style.
I think maybe the president would do something like that as well.
So that's on the far more aggressive way of doing this.
And what effect would that have?
If you, if you shredded, you said, okay, now you're saying basically article two says the state legislatures make the rules for how a presidential elections to be conducted in their state.
And because those states violated those rules, They violated those rules.
They violated the U.S.
Constitution, and me as the Vice President, the senior officer representing the entirety of the federal government, assess that I cannot accept those because I'm sworn to defend the U.S.
Constitution.
And the reason being that the rules, for instance, for the mail-in votes were set by governors or secretaries of states or boards of election that were not set- By the executive branch, or in the case of Pennsylvania, The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Anybody outside of the legislative branch, if it's a private citizen, the executive branch, secretary of state, the governor, the Supreme Court of that state, those entities do not have power or any sort of authority to dictate the rules.
The rules are already set forth and that's how that state's supposed to conduct their elections.
When that is violated, That also violates the Elector's Clause of the Constitution.
That is my argument, and that is essentially the arguments of most of these cases that have come before the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court has refused to rule on.
In the absence of a ruling from the Supreme Court, the Vice President has the discretion to determine what that entails.
See, that's an important point, because the media kind of made it seem as if the courts have rejected all of President Trump's arguments.
That's an argument.
They haven't ruled on it.
You can call it reject.
They just rejected the case.
They just didn't rule on it.
It was a standing issue.
It wasn't based on the merits.
So the vice president will make that decision based on the merits.
Right.
Standing means whether or not you have the authorization or the jurisdiction to bring a case before the court.
Correct.
If you have the right plaintiff, the right defendant, et cetera.
Yep.
And if there's really a case of dispute on law, applicable law that involves you, it's a very technical determination, but it doesn't, when they... It was a procedural ruling and not a substantive ruling.
Precisely.
Almost all these cases, they've been dismissed based on procedure.
Not ripe.
It was filed too early.
Filed too late.
Uh, wrong plaintiff, wrong defendant.
So, as far as the evidence set forth, and we're not even talking about the fraud issues, we're just talking about the constitutional violations.
Right.
So, how does that impact things?
So, let's make the assumption that the Vice President or the President of the Senate here, in that capacity, decides he's not accepting those slates of electors due to their violations of both Title III and the U.S.
Constitution.
Not only under Title II, Section 1, Excuse me, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2, but also because of the 14th Amendment issues.
And again, all this is articulated in the Texas v. Georgia et al.
case and several other cases that Sidney Powell, she's filed four lawsuits on the matter that are still waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Lin Wood has also filed One, two cases.
Well, the second one I think is more related to the U.S.
Senate race in Georgia.
But all these cases are still being waited to be heard.
So in the absence of a ruling, the vice president has full discretion until he's limited.
Now, what does that do?
That throws out these six states in question.
So then how many electoral votes remain?
Assuming no objections occur on the other ones, Trump has 232 electoral votes.
And Biden has 227.
That means nobody gets to 270, which is the majority, triggering the 12th Amendment contingent election, where the House votes one person or one state, one vote, and the Senate votes one person, one vote.
Under the current climate that I'm seeing, it's looking like there's a very strong chance that you're going to see a President Trump and a Vice President Harris.
Because your rhinos in the Senate don't want anything to do with this, whereas the Republicans in the House are much more in line and in tune and support the president.
So that is an option that's on the table if the vice president chooses that.
So he basically is voting himself out of office, but helping the president.
Now, I think that if the Senate starts to see an indication that that's what is going to happen, I think he might be able to pull off 51 in the Senate, he being the vice president for a re-election.
But if we do trigger this and the Senate votes to not object to these or to vote for the current status quo, which gives Biden and Harris the lead, then there's a potential that they vote her in as vice president, which would trigger another issue.
I'm reading that she was born in the United States where both of her parents were not U.S.
citizens when she was born.
Which would raise a constitutional issue on whether or not she's qualified.
I have to look into this.
I can't, I'm just giving you an article that I read.
It wasn't a source document that I can say definitively.
I saw the birth certificates of these folks.
I'd have to take a look at that yet, but if it's true, she may have an issue qualifying herself to even become a vice president.
Because to be a vice president, you have to have the same qualifications as the president, which requires you to be a natural born citizen in the United States.
Well, what does that mean?
Does that mean you have to be born in the United States to two parents that are US citizens?
That's up for debate.
So that's one path.
Can I ask a question there?
Please.
One of the other paths here, it's been discussed, and certainly we have a free e-book on our website about Pence crossing the Delaware, which is his chance to be historically defending the Constitution, defending President Trump.
Now, if you threw out these seven states, Could you then say we are going to elect the president on the majority of the electors certified, as opposed to the majority of the electors who exist?
In other words.
Yep.
I understand the distinction.
Absolutely.
Could we do that?
So my argument is that the closer you're getting to January 6th, so the states have technically already submitted on December 14th, their electoral slates.
The argument on behalf of the states is that they were selected.
Those are electors that were selected and sent to the federal government for counting.
So then they would have to be counted as part of the majority.
You would need to hit that 270 threshold.
Is that what you're referring to?
Yeah, but if they were not properly certified, In other words, if the there was this Article 2 violation because the state legislatures didn't make up the rules for the mail-in ballots.
Right.
Could you just say we're going to exclude?
I would say absolutely.
Have the vice president on December 23rd submitted to the states that he has not received a constitutionally sufficient slate of electors.
Because that's the day, the fourth Wednesday of December, under Title III, that the Vice President, if he does not receive electors, is obligated to send a demand letter on the Secretaries of State of these states to send him an electoral slate that's sufficient with the Constitution.
Had he done it on that day, then 100% absolutely, I think that would have been a really strong argument for that.
As we get closer to the 6th, It's a weaker argument.
I'm not saying that it can't be done.
I'm just saying it's a weaker stance if it ends up coming before the Supreme Court.
However, he does have that discretion.
I agree that he does.
OK, so that's that's one path that we could go down now.
Senator Cruz has also said he's going to object and propose that we have this electoral commission, and that reminds me of what Congress did in the 1876 election with Hayes and Tilden, where again there was Now, before we go to that component, if I may, I talked about the more aggressive option that the vice president can take.
Now, I think this other option is more in line with his culture, his background, and his demeanor is as follows.
And I think it's more palatable, I think, for most people.
So the objections occur, the two houses separate, the Senate goes over to their chambers, there's a debate in the House, the two hours, and then they vote.
The Speaker of the House will vote one person, one individual, right?
One individual is one vote of the 432, I think, or 31 that are seated, okay?
If they vote by party line, Pelosi prevails, and on the objections, say for example, Arizona, They will accept the Biden electors, right?
Because it's Democrat majority.
However, concurrently to that, I recommend Mr. McCarthy The Republican majority leader not participate in that vote and have his own vote where he says that vote is not authoritative.
I'm going to use the language of the 12th amendment and apply it to the objection procedure and say that we will vote one state one vote.
And thus now I, Minority Leader McCarthy, in this construct, I'm actually the Chairman of the Majority States Delegations because I have 27 states that are Majority Delegation Republican.
And I outrank in this construct Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker.
He holds his vote, the Democrats don't participate in that vote, and then the Republicans don't participate in the Democrats' one-person, one-vote scheme.
So then that conflict, after the Senate comes back into the chambers, the Vice President Pence looks over at the House leadership and says, okay, what do you guys decide on the objection as it applies to Arizona?
Speaker Pelosi says, we decide that we are going to accept that slate of electors for Biden.
And then McCarthy says, point of order.
That's not how we voted.
We voted 27 to 21 to 2.
Uh, or it actually is going to be more because if the Democrats don't participate, but at a minimum.
And then the vice president is stuck with the decision of, okay, I'm the presiding officer.
The speaker of the house is telling me one thing based on her title three interpretation.
The house minority leader, who's saying that he's the chairman of the majority states delegations is saying he's doing it under his authority, under the 12th amendment contingent election framework.
I as the presiding officer have to choose.
Do I go with Nancy or do I go with Kevin?
And then I recommend to the vice president to go with the more binding language and the stronger language really comes from the 12th amendment because there it sets the precedent for a framework of a one state, one vote.
And it's silent to do one person, one vote.
While there is precedent that that's how it happened in the past, there's no statutory language that I was able to find that says you have to vote one person, one vote.
That doesn't exist.
So then the vice president as presiding officer says to the house, well, I'm going to go with Kevin's option.
And so now the objection to the Biden electors is sustained in the house.
Now assuming that the Republicans in the Senate agree to the same thing, there's no issue, and that slate of electors from Arizona is objected to.
And now multiply that by the other states, it brings Biden below 270, and then a contingent election overall, and then Trump wins.
Now, what about these rhinos?
Murkowski, Romney, right?
Brings it below the threshold.
Now we're in a position where the House votes to Discard the Biden electors.
The Senate says, we're going to keep those Biden electors.
What happens in that when there's a conflict between the two houses, the statute title three says it reverts back to the, the, uh, the governor certification.
I argue before it gets to that point is that you look at the language of the 12th amendment and you say, you know what?
Title three is kind of incongruent with the 12th amendment because in there, it says that the Senate is responsible for voting for the vice president and the house is responsible for voting for the president.
You follow me so far?
Yes, I do.
Under that framework.
When they break out in the session on debating the objections, I'm arguing that the Senate is debating on whether or not to accept the Harris or Pence electors, while the House is deciding on whether to accept or object to the Biden-Trump electors.
See that distinction?
Yes.
And when they come back into session, the presiding officer agrees to that assessment and says, what does the Senate decide?
So they may have that framework, or they may vote separately on the presidential electors in both houses and the vice presidential electors in both houses.
Because when it's submitted from the states, they're submitted, there's six copies that are submitted.
Each elector votes for a president and each elector votes for a vice president.
And then you have the issue of the dueling, technically the dueling electors that were submitted as well by the state's GOPs.
So that's the Pence card light, which also requires his involvement and McCarthy's involvement to make this come to fruition.
And it could be.
Okay.
So that, what would happen at that point?
What, what, what would the, so that brings.
Yeah.
So, uh, assuming this occurs six times over for each of these States, uh, I argue that, uh, Trump, excuse me, uh, no one gets to two 70 on the presidential component.
That's triggering an overall contingent election.
And on the Senate side, it would appear as though that Harris would be selected as the vice president.
Okay.
That's now, that's one, that's another scenario.
So it could go that way.
Now what's bothering me is how do you, so we've got a situation where You say that these elections were not just violated Article 2, but they were fraudulent.
Now, how could- On an institutional level, federal level, absolutely.
They violated Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2, the Elector's Clause, Article 1, Section 4, also Mo Brooks has been talking about, and the 14th Amendment.
When a dead person votes, Your live vote, where you actually cast it legally, legitimately registered, followed all the state legislature's rules is now diluted.
That is a 14th amendment violation.
So there are multiple constitutional violations, but then downstream from that, you have all these fraud issues.
You have the machines, the software being manipulated, ballot stuffing, you know, people filling in ballots just for the vice president to be the president Biden.
I mean, I think Peter Navarro does an amazing and immaculate job in his Immaculate Deception and his team, which I've been talking to as well.
And I think later today he's coming out with the sequel known as The Art of the Steel.
That in and of itself shows all the different types of fraud that occurs and occurred in these states.
Now that component Is more to address and be remedied at the state legislative level.
Because we're seeing that the courts are not wanting to get involved.
They're just cowards.
So then it's up to the state legislatures to correct that over the next 48 hours.
And that may also be used in this commission that you mentioned that Ted Cruz is proposing.
How does Ted Cruz's commission get voted in?
I mean, can Vice President Pence do that by fiat?
Can he do that by fiat?
Can he say, basically, we see this abundant evidence that these state elections were fraudulent and we're not going to let a state legislature certify a fraudulent election until we have a way of proving or not, objectively, whether it was fraudulent.
With all this evidence, it certainly appears to be fraudulent.
So without doing a deep dive, I was going to get to it, actually, but then we contacted each other.
And so we're doing this interview.
That was going to be something that I was going to do today, right now, essentially, to go into and do a deep dive into the 1876 precedent to see how they actually formulated that.
But my cursory research shows that there's not much documentation on How that transpired and how they voted on it.
I'm going to dig deeper, but depending on how that was voted on, that'll probably be the precedent that the majority of the Republicans, I guess, in the Senate would lean towards.
But based on the indications that I'm hearing from, you know, you've heard the same thing.
Romney, Toon, Murkowski, Collins.
I mean, that already puts things underneath the majority threshold.
Majority leader McConnell.
I don't see a mechanism that will allow that under the current political environment in the Senate to vote for that, as well as under the one-person, one-vote rule in the House.
Unless, like you said, it's done by the Vice President at the joint session, mandating it before proceeding with the actual joint session.
Again, it would rest on the shoulders of the Vice President.
I think it's going to rest on the shoulders of the Vice President.
I mean, look, the way I look at this, and you tell me, you're the lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm a political scientist.
And by my training, you can't have a body like a state legislature certify a fraud.
It's still a fraud.
If a group of, let's say the state legislature was composed of- But the issue is that they weren't the ones that certified it.
They abstained when the executive branch through its governor and the secretaries of state certified it.
So they have an opportunity to correct it.
It would have been nice had they corrected it before December 14th when that was transmitted, but they did not do that for multiple reasons.
One is they didn't have the courage and two, most of them probably did not see all the evidence to that point to get them to the level of what we're at.
And I think we're at, we're at that point.
And I think in Georgia, If there was a vote held today in the state legislature, I think they would at least decertify.
Now, it's up to the Speaker of the House and the Senate President in Georgia to call the legislative session.
That's debatable.
Or, I argue, I mean this is doable, but it's less, it has holes in it that could be argued, that anybody in the state legislature from these respective states can call a session.
It's a stretch, but just say some person that is for election integrity that's not the House Speaker and not the Senate President can call for a legislative session because they are a member of the legislature thereof as per Article 2, Section 1.
Call it.
See how many they can gather.
And then do a roll call vote on decertification and or certifying Trump electors that were already submitted.
Submit that document into the record to the president of the Senate as well as the archivist to factor in in determining whether or not to accept that.
I think that would be that would weigh heavily into the voting process.
I think on some of these congressmen and senators.
I want to pursue a little further this issue that the power of the vice president in conducting this session is plenary.
In other words, whatever he decides to do is not, I don't see a mechanism where you can contest it.
I say that I agree with you almost a hundred percent.
Now, the part that I don't is it is plenary, but there are two things that limit it.
One is It will have precedent.
So you want to kind of you want to constrain yourself a little bit and factoring future precedent so that it doesn't start to kind of unravel or weaken or diminish the constitutional framework.
That's one.
Two is that he has that because the Supreme Court hasn't made any decisions about it.
He can be limited after the joint hearing, and there's a decision made, and there's a result.
One of these candidates ends up winning, then the loser will take it to the Supreme Court.
Litigation.
You think there's a lot of litigation now?
After the joint session, I would argue that it's going to quadruple.
I mean, it's just going to exponentially increase immediately after this session is complete, because the loser is going to go after every single component.
Whether it's the Trump campaign or the Biden campaign.
As good as a political scientist in 1872 with the Congress did when they hit this kind of an impasse.
We had a divided country then too.
It was reconstructed in the Civil War.
Yep.
Troops were still down in the South, federal troops.
And the compromise that was made was a political compromise.
It was.
The governor who of Rutherford Hayes of Ohio was a Republican would be president.
The South, which had a strong argument that Tilden, their candidate that they favored, had more electoral votes or had enough electoral votes to be elected president, were contested.
But at the same time, they agreed to let Rutherford B. Hayes be president because the GOP and Hayes agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, which ended Reconstruction.
That was a political deal.
Yes.
It was not settled by these constitutional niceties about who had the certification of the electors or which way the people voted.
And that's where I think, well, I don't think, that's where we see Ted Cruz and his proposal.
Right.
And again, so Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, when I put this plan together and it was forecasting what would happen on January 6th, 7, 8 weeks ago, When I was looking at the numbers, my number one draft pick to object and present the case to America was Josh Hawley, number one, and Ted Cruz, number two.
Hawley, because he had been an attorney general for a state, could articulate the interests of the state to convince folks like a Rand Paul, a Representative Massey on that component, and then switch over having, you know, as a U.S.
Senator now, And having sitting on the judiciary and the Homeland Security Committee, he has insight on the potential fraud components as it applies to the US Postal Service
In its capacity of providing oversight over the U.S.
Postal Service on the Homeland Security Committee and then on the judiciary component to be able to see potential investigations into public corruption as well as election fraud through his oversight of the Department of Justice, who is responsible for the election district officers in seven or eight of these contested cities, as well as the U.S.
attorneys underneath the DOJ that are potentially investigating fraud and public corruption as it applies to the election from November 3rd, as well as your FBI special
agents in charge at these respective cities that, again, when I say the cities, the Detroit, the
Atlanta, the Milwaukee, Madison, Philly, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, Phoenix, I think I hit them
all. So he has that context that can be injected into the conversation, both from a
constitutional infrastructural violation standpoint that we discussed initially, and then in addition to that,
provide flavor on the actual fraud component of it through his oversight responsibilities to
federal entities.
And then Ted Cruz being the former Solicitor General, attorney, understanding and being able to really look into the historical context and get educated quickly To then present and make the case to his colleagues because he has that background.
And I'm glad both of them stepped forward to do that.
And it's just a matter, I think, I honestly think that some of these folks that publicly came out against objecting, I think one or two of them will actually pull back as they start to learn more and open their eyes to the evidence and understand the constitutional framework.
I get it.
Romney's not an attorney.
He's a businessman, right?
And I get it.
People claiming that he has loyalties elsewhere, but to give folks the benefit of the doubt, which I normally, like I wouldn't to Romney, but I'm using him as an example.
There are a lot of folks that aren't spun up.
to such substantive degree that Ted Cruz and Holly are.
And as they start to hear the evidence, especially on January 6th, I think they're going to change their minds.
And that's really where we have to learn ourselves to apply that necessary pressure for them to use their discretionary authority and compel them through evidence that for them to not object would be violating the constitution.
Also, Ted Cruz is a, I think probably one of the better constitutional scholars in the Uh, in Congress.
I agree.
I agree.
Absolutely.
I've often thought he could even be a candidate for the Supreme court.
He's so qualified in constitutional law, but these two together, I think are going to be a powerful force.
I think you're right now.
I want to come back to the, one of the issues that keeps bothering me.
Okay.
Is that, uh, for instance, okay.
Now president Trump had this conversation yesterday on the telephone with secretary state.
Raffensperger in Georgia.
And it was absolutely clear from that conversation that Raffensperger was, in a sense, obstructing the ability to look at the evidence.
I mean, we've had all the testimony in that Georgia State Senate hearing before the Judiciary Committee last week, where Jovan Pulitzer made the point that ballots that were Mail-in ballots printed in Republican precincts had an instruction in barcode, and he invented barcodes to the Dominion computers.
It was very compelling.
I saw that.
Very compelling.
And then we had a video taken, I guess, Patrick Byrne got involved.
We had video of these trucks coming to the Fulton County warehouse and carting off ballots to be shredded.
Even today there's a report from Patrick Byrne that found in one of the shredded documents that they went through was a mailing order from China where these ballots were evidently printed in China and delivered.
Fulton County.
That's new.
I saw that tweet, yep.
It was a tweet thread, yes.
A tweet thread that he did today, and then additionally, you know, the fact is people got in there and photographed those ballots before they were shredded, and pallets of them, and they were clearly not folded.
They were pre-printed, and not folded means not mailed in.
So, I mean, there's abundant evidence here that not only Was there fraud in the mail-in voting?
And the physical evidence, we've got the videotapes of the counting of the ballots, the running the same ballots through the machines multiple times, all on visual evidence.
And- Yeah, so I actually listened on it.
Did you have an opportunity to listen to the entire call?
I read the call today when it was printed.
One of the, I guess the national file printed a transcript of it and I read it.
Okay, great.
And it seemed to me what was clear was that The state of Georgia was actually, in a sense, obstructing justice.
They were not going to permit the evidence to be submitted.
I listened to the entire call.
While a transcript is good, you get a little more context and nuance with the inflection of the voice.
Yes, you do.
My assessment, it was the president contacting the Secretary of State and laying out the case essentially with the Navarro report said, as it applied to Georgia, and said, These are our numbers that we've put together to show, and I am convinced as the president, that your elections were done fraudulently.
And this is the evidence.
And he articulated it over the phone.
And he said, we're way over the differential that you guys certified Biden for.
And it's like, you don't even, we don't even need to litigate all of it.
We can just litigate a component of it.
And then the state flips in my favor being, if I'm speaking as the president and that little last component is what was published on the left that he's trying to, you know, influence the secretary of state to flip the election in his favor.
Now he's making the case that, Hey, secretary of state, you violated a lot of rules and laws.
But even aside from that, let's just take a look at the evidence of the numbers.
And then the response by Raffensperger at, you know, every time he would respond would be, well, those aren't the numbers that we see.
And the president's attorney who is on attorneys that were on the call would say, well, why don't you provide us that evidence so that we can match up whether or not our evidence or your evidence, which one is actually accurate.
It doesn't have to be disclosed to the entire country.
You could only offer it up between the two attorneys.
And then once there's an agreement of what is legit or not, I mean, they both learn in the process.
They'll see what systems that are being used by the secretary of state.
And the secretary of state may actually use evidence that the campaign built to clean up the voter rolls for tomorrow or future elections.
It's a win-win for America, in my opinion.
But no, no, he didn't want to do that.
Based on his actions, he is hiding something and they're just trying to, uh, to, you know, play out the clock.
And unfortunately for him and everybody involved in this that are trying to play out the clock, the clock is not going to be over on the sixth.
The clock is not going to be over on January 20th.
The clock is going to be over when the truth comes out.
And that's going to be very bad for the people that tried to run the clock out.
And that could go all the way to Governor Kemp, Secretary Raffensperger, his staff, everybody involved in this.
Because in today's day and age, even with all the censorship from big media and big tech, you and I, collectively, We have more capability to scrape up evidence than the FBI does because we are not limited by FISA.
We meaning private citizens.
We are not limited by the government at the state level and the federal government on what we can and can't do in terms of privacy.
We can stand out there and have a private eye 24-7 monitoring every movement by these individuals until they commit a crime just like they did with Uh, or tried to do with General Flynn and some, uh, you know, you got almost involved in it and George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
So deeply involved.
Yeah.
I'm saying that as kind of an understatement, you get the point.
So as private citizens, as we organize together, we can surveil these Potentially bad actors in a much more intrusive manner legally than anything that the FBI can do.
So if you want us to audit you, please make the wrong decisions because I will use everything in my discretionary authority to make sure you're audited.
And I'm, I'm, I'm telling that to every single legislator, uh, house speaker, president of the Senate in these five states.
Uh, the secretaries of state, the governors, I'm not the, I'm, I'm only one person saying that.
And there are a lot, I would say that there are millions that agree with me and they would be happy to volunteer.
I don't know, two hours of their day to just park outside your house in a public space within the law, quietly, peacefully, and monitoring every single move you make until we kind of find out what is the motivation behind trying to hide.
Yeah, I think it's a very important thing and I want to go back to focus on it.
You said this is not going to be over until the truth comes out.
Yep.
Why not save the country the pain and just do it now?
Even after the 20th, I mean, it could conceivably come to the 20th and it's still in doubt as to whether Biden or Trump is really elected.
Absolutely.
Because January 6th, two hours of debate per state, six states.
I mean, you got to have breaks for food, right?
For these guys.
And then six times two is 12 hours.
That puts us into January 7th.
And if they trigger, uh, I kind of discussed this with some congressmen.
I think they're going to limit it to two hours per state.
But I, but I think there's discretion to say that what's not to say that there will be 4,000 objections for each state on each affidavit saying that there was fraud that puts us into eight years of, of a joint session or 20 years for that matter.
I mean, you get my point, right?
That's all I get the point.
I mean, I get your point.
And also, I mean, I'm just thinking, even from a common sense point of view, I mean, clearly president Trump is going to one way or another, whether it's Peter Navarro or whomever is going to release a ton of information.
I just want to say Peter's doing phenomenal work.
He is the workhorse that I've seen in that white house by far, bar none, hands down.
God bless him.
And he's going to release a ton of information that again, the mainstream media hasn't reported.
People are unaware of it.
So the, unless you're between the Navarro report and what Rudy's doing on the campaign side of things, collecting evidence, all these affidavits, there's, there's more coming in at not every day, every minute he's getting more on his team.
Sidney Powell, Linwood, general Flynn, uh, Patrick Byrne.
They're receiving, I get a fraction, I get hit up a lot.
I have open DMs.
I get a fraction of what they get.
They're probably getting thousands of affidavits daily of more evidence of people coming out.
So you start to put all those pieces together.
What Lynn has, what Sidney Powell, what General Flynn's receiving, what Rudy Giuliani, what Peter Navarro is putting together.
It paints a picture of just complete, massive, unadulterated fraud.
It's just disgusting.
Sorry, I had to throw it out there because I get passionate about it.
And then there's another element to this, which is the Chinese involvement.
We haven't even started that.
How many hours we got, Dr. Corsi?
And Vice President Pence is privy to the national security information.
Yes.
That would allow him to know.
Yes.
I'm glad you raised that.
So when I was discussing from December 20th through the 23rd, that initial Pence card, my arguments, I put out a memo, a four-pager, I don't know if you saw it, but it essentially laid out that the only person in the entire The presidential electoral system, whether it be the individual voter, to the state legislature, to the electoral college, to the U.S.
Congress, the only person that has access and is privy to foreign intelligence, national security information, at the highest classification levels, is none other than the vice president.
Who happens to also be the president of the Senate, who happens to also be the same individual that will be the presiding officer of the joint session.
So overlaying that context on top of his discretionary power, he can say, based on all of the National Security Council meetings and briefings I've had to include all of the preliminary information and assessments that I received from DNI Radcliffe that inured or extended or were created from the Executive Order 13848, That was due several Fridays ago.
Based on that body of knowledge, based on the body of knowledge that I have as the second highest ranking executive branch officer that has the ability to dig in and see what the Department of Justice is doing, the Department of Defense and all the DNI and the intel community.
With that information, I cannot accept Electors from the following states based on the foreign interference in the critical infrastructure in say Georgia as it applies to your systems because I've seen the evidence.
And in fact, today it was revealed that President Trump has now referred, after the conversation yesterday on telephone, this Secretary of State in Georgia, Rafzenberger, to the Secret Service for investigation of espionage.
Yes, I saw that and I was kind of, I thought that that was quite Uh, quite soft on the heart, if you will, that he did that because that, uh, that is a bold move.
And just to just on the constitutional legal framework of that Raffensperger and the governor of Georgia are trying to use all of their discretionary authority under federalism to flex.
And they have it granted they have it, but the president also have has significant power Especially as it applies to espionage.
So we're seeing that friction, even though, you know, purportedly they're of the same party, there's something more to it.
And if that evidence is there, that's going to open a Pandora's box because I've been a counterintelligence officer at the federal level, in the army, I've been an analyst previously at the Defense Intelligence Agency, doing counterintelligence analysis, and there's really a gap.
Because of the federalism, there's a gap that foreign entities, foreign intelligence services, can exploit by going after sitting U.S.
Congress members, by going after senior politicians at the state level.
Because if you're an FBI agent, That has the authority and discretion to investigate these counterintelligence threats.
And the same, and you're investigating, say, for example, Eric Swalwell, who sits on the Intelligence Committee.
He is an individual that is overseeing your department, the FBI, in its intel oversight capacity.
Not the law enforcement part, that's the Judiciary Committee, but on the intel side.
So you're literally investigating somebody that has oversight over you.
What kind of dynamic is that?
That oversight, he... Swalwell is going to reach out to his buddies in the deep state and say, hey, who's investigating me?
Let's apply some of my discretionary power for that not to happen.
Same thing on the state level.
If you're an FBI agent in Atlanta that's supposed to investigate Brad Raffensperger, and this is just a hypothetical here, I'm not saying that it's happening.
That you're supposed to investigate Governor Kemp and Raffensperger, the Secretary of State.
Well, you live in that state.
So the governor has a lot of discretion to make your life miserable if you end up doing that.
Whether it be deploying GBI to investigate you for anything.
So there's that.
The federalism is at play.
But if it comes into the Secret Service as an area of espionage, I mean.
I love it.
Well, I mean, I want to raise this question.
In fact, if there is national security information that China interfered with our election.
In a sense, that's an act of war.
I argue that it is.
So I've been for three or four weeks now and others have done the same.
The president.
Should have last week and every day up until January 6th activated the emergency alert system and said Based on the cyber attacks that have occurred on the Treasury Department on the US government OPM Historically China did it in 2015 to hack OPM security clearance information which allowed them Oh, no one's been talking about this.
By the way.
I want to say this now.
I In 2015, China hacked OPM, Office of Personnel Management, and
Was able to obtain all of what are known as SF-86 information, security, national security questionnaires on essentially everybody in the entire US government that has a clearance.
Incredible.
And based on that information, again, based on my background as an intelligence officer, I would look at that if I was China and say, all right, who are the most vulnerable individuals that have applied and received a clearance?
And oh, by the way, let's cause these government shutdowns, because they're going to be more vulnerable.
And that's when we're going to approach them and recruit them to get them out of their financial situation or whatever counterintelligence concern or vulnerability that they have, so that we can get them on the payroll, on our books, and then be able to manipulate them in our favor.
So from 2015 to 2020, we've had five years to develop that entire infrastructure.
Um, if we're at war, if we have this kind of, I mean, the president can still do it.
I mean, you can basically say, I mean, you know, so if Rafzenberger is blocking the examination of the forensic evidence of the mail-in ballots, shredding them, lying about them, uh, misrepresenting numbers in order to protect the Chinese.
Who have stolen the election.
I mean, you know, how about those congressmen who, like Swalwell, who's compromised by this woman?
Or Mitch McConnell, who has all this money from China?
Can we begin investigating whether China is influencing even the people who are voting in the House and Senate?
So I argue that the Great Reset that the left has been talking about?
Yeah, there's a reset and it needs to happen.
So the Great Reset needs to happen in this manner, though.
The president needs to exert all of his authorities in order to be able to use his executive branch to uncover and expose all of this public corruption, espionage, and the defrauding of the American people.
And he does that with, he can do that in multiple ways, insurrection act, right?
Because at the end of the day, I argue that the states have already gone past the threshold necessary.
We're calling for the Insurrection Act.
You have the foreign interference piece, and then you have clear violations of the U.S.
Constitution, and then also they did it in the summer when they were lawlessly just destroying federal property, which is a federal crime.
Insurrection Act is there to make sure that these states follow the law, specifically federal law, and they weren't doing it.
So I recommend he nationalize, or excuse me, federalize Well, I think these dimensions, what you're saying, you know, if we start focusing on the technical aspects of this meeting on Wednesday, how they voted and everything, there's another dimension to this, which is you can't have a fraudulent election pick a president.
Correct.
You can't have a foreign country involved in meddling with an election.
It's a confluence of foreign interference, foreign attacks from, I argue, China, Iran, Russia.
There's probably a sprinkling of Venezuela and Pakistan in there as well, at the very least.
And then you have the domestic fraud component, where some of these folks are under these foreign actors, potentially foreign actors payroll to influence and manipulate the election.
Add to that, you have the entire media complex, big tech that's also been infiltrated.
As we've seen based on the disclosures of the, I think the 1.2 million CCP members that are sitting in us corporations that are influencing both our media and our big tech companies.
It's, it's all coming together.
And if we don't uncover it over the next couple of weeks.
And then you're going to, you're going to have millions of people, this whole Trump army is Trump train is coming into DC.
Yeah.
How can that be?
That's going to be a political force to be reckoned with.
How these people are demanding that the United States be protected against a foreign enemy, China, that we not be corrupted from within.
I am not calling for any violence, but at the same time, I can't stop other people from committing it.
Well, I think we should refrain from violence altogether, and we should not make that clear.
And that we can settle this just with the political forces at stake.
I pray that happens.
And I think that that will be the wiser course, because as soon as we go into violence, we compromise our moral position.
And, you know, I don't think we're at the same time.
What I'm saying is that what's at stake here, a procedural maneuver to game who's going to be president when it doesn't
address the bigger issue of whether there was fraud or Chinese
or foreign involvement.
and I'll see you next time.
Yeah.
This procedural issue isn't so for vice president Pence, if you're listening, Uh, this is an existential issue for our country.
If you if this procedural issue is not acted on in either capacity to guarantee at the end of the day that he has this discretion on whether or not this country continues as is or collapses.
And so it's really on his shoulders.
And then politically, it'll benefit him in 24 if he decides to run for president, because I think if he runs with either one of these two options procedurally, I would argue that he's the front runner to be the nominee for the GOP in 24.
And if he doesn't, his political career is over.
But in addition to the politics of it, our country's pretty much been overran by a foreign power if this president doesn't Uh, get reelected because there's so much mounting evidence that is Biden's family is, is on foreign, uh, country's payroll.
And that's going to continue to get exposed.
Uh, and it may not get exposed if Biden becomes president.
I think it will still because the people make sure of it, but it would be better if.
Our government does it instead of private citizens.
Well, how could we have a president that was a result of a fraudulent elections, known to be fraudulent, is under the influence of China, a foreign government who's potentially an enemy of the United States.
We can't have our system gamed.
Strong financial interest from his family with China.
Absolutely.
The gaming of the system by these rules and from everything you've said today, One conclusion I think me, not a lawyer, can draw is that between Article II and the Twelfth Amendment and the 1887 law and Title III, there's so many conflicting rules and regulations, and that we're—basically, there's no set, clearly defined procedure here.
It could go this way, it could go that way, it could go this way, it could go that way.
But ultimately it rests on the shoulders of the vice president to make a decision that's in the interest of the country and he has the authority to do so.
Correct.
I argue, not only does he have the authority, he has the moral as well as constitutionally bound requirement to act in this way.
Because if he doesn't, he is complicit in authorizing the fraud on the constitution and American voters.
And if you had one kind of summary statement, last kind of closing statement that you wanted to make to Senators Hawley and Senator Cruz, what would you say?
Let's see here.
I would say this.
I'll make it broader.
If you're in the state legislature, fix this by Wednesday at 1 p.m.
Fix it.
And then if you're in the U.S.
Congress, Have hearings today and tomorrow to continue to expose this fraud by calling in witnesses in a joint manner.
So if you're Senator Hawley, here we go.
Senator Hawley and Ted Cruz, call on your colleagues and then call on Kevin McCarthy to hold joint hearings over the next 48 hours before this joint session.
But do a joint session in the Senate where we have the majority With the representative of the majority state delegations from the House co-chairing it and have DNI Radcliffe lay out the case to America on foreign interference.
Have Brad Rappensperger under oath lay out the case of what's going on in Georgia.
Have Governor Kemp do the same.
Have the CEO of Dominion and Eric Coomer talking about the Dominion in public, public hearing, them under oath with subpoena power.
Congress members from the House say, oh, we don't have subpoena authority because Nancy Pelosi has the majority.
That's why we have the hearing in the Senate where we do have the majority in subpoena power.
And so Marco Rubio alongside Devin Nunes hold a joint hearing and has DNI Radcliffe.
Brings in Hunter Biden on the foreign interference piece.
And hold hearings in each of these joint committee kind of sessions over the next two days to start exposing everything that we have questions about so that these senators and congressmen on January 6th can say for themselves, you know what?
Based on all this testimony and all the documentary evidence that was provided to us, coupled with the unconstitutionally submitted electors from these states, we are confident that we cannot accept the Biden electors.
What have they been doing the last few weeks?
These hearings should have been held for weeks since December 14th when those slates of electors were submitted to the Federal Congress.
Because the final analysis is we the people.
And if the people see the fraud and see the Chinese involvement and feel this was just a procedural gaming by Nancy Pelosi in order to get Biden inaugurated when he was not elected, and see the fraud, they will not have the consent of the governed.
What would be your closing argument to Mike Pence?
What would you say to Mike Pence?
Uh, the fate of the country rests on your shoulder, Mr. Vice president.
And I recommend that you look at all your different courses of action and, and take the one that fits with, with kind of your style.
Uh, but also keep in mind that the constitution rests on your shoulder and really the fate of the country.
I'll just leave it at that.
Craig, do you have any comments and any thoughts?
I'm sure you do want to share them.
Yeah, well, naturally what we're talking about here is a battle that goes way beyond just people having differences of opinion and ideology.
This is, like they say in the Bible, this is a battle of principalities.
This is a power struggle from an army of darkness that's been unleashed a year ago against us.
It's multi-leveled.
It's been planned.
It's been plotted.
Dr. Corsi, in all the interviews you've been doing and the information coming out from the lawfare groups, this was intentional.
Everything was done to take us down.
And all of these foreign elements, these domestic elements have come together to result in what they want.
And that would be Biden and Harris.
And we have to get it.
Yes, sir.
I will say this.
You just reminded me of something I'd like to add that Again, so the main mission of the Army Special Forces is to conduct what's called unconventional warfare.
And unconventional warfare means that you are going into another country on behalf of the United States to link up with an indigenous population force, train, advise, and equip them to overthrow the government that's currently in place that's what's called inimical or unfriendly to U.S.
interests there.
I see China doing exactly that inside of the United States, and China's surrogates are the DNC, the big media, big tech, in order to overthrow the government that is inimical or unfriendly to Chinese interests.
And that government is called the Donald J. Trump's administration.
We can't let the Chinese government do that in our country.
I agree.
Craig, did you want to finish your thoughts?
Oh, he finished it for me.
There it is.
There's the closer.
And that's exactly it.
And so we can either go down separately, or we can unite, fear not, stand strong, and win the battle.
Where I see all of this coming down to is that the Russian collusion was a lie.
Donald Trump is not colluding with Russia.
The Ukrainian collusion argument was a lie.
Donald Trump was concerned about Biden's corruption and had a right to ask about it.
It was Biden's collusion with Ukraine.
Yep.
Antifa and Black Lives Matter were not peaceful protest groups out for civil rights.
Yeah, there were surrogates of the CCP trying to conduct UW, unconventional warfare, inside of the United States.
And you and I are on the side of ensuring that we're having an effective counterinsurgency against these organizations.
That's what I'm fighting for.
The 25th amendment wasn't used because President Trump is not incompetent.
Michael Pence stood in the breach there and said, I'm not going to go along with the 25th.
Now, this whole idea that Biden won an election is equally a lie.
The fraud, the computer system, the Chinese involvement stinks.
American people see it.
And again, a lie is not going to win the day.
And that's where I think what you're arguing here, Ivan, is so important, and why I believe in the end God always wins, why these people coming to Washington, D.C., and Ivan, as I understand it, you'll be in the middle of that group.
You'll be there.
I will absolutely be there, yes.
We'll try to link up with you, with some of our people are going to be there.
Maybe we can do some live broadcasting from Washington, D.C.
I'd be happy to do that, absolutely.
And I'm sure you're going to be following what's going on here with the congressional meeting on the 6th, the buildup.
And it sounds like the aftermath because I just don't see this being done on the 6th.
Yeah.
Just like most people thought the election was over on the 3rd, it started on 3rd and at the very earliest it ends on January 6th.
It's not going to get, it's not over on the 7th because as soon as there's a vote, that's when more lawsuits start flying to contest this entire process.
Stay tuned, because the Hayes election was 115 days in the making.
Right.
This could be that, too.
This could be that, too.
At that point, we'll probably start talking about the 20th Amendment and whether or not Nancy Pelosi becomes the acting president.
Yes, we'll be talking.
What do you think about that?
Let's save that for the next one.
Okay, but I think we're going to be having that discussion because I don't see this being over anytime near soon.
I think you're right.
Okay, well, God bless.
Thank you very much for joining us.
We'll look forward to more of your insight and more of your advice and your counsel.
Any final thoughts as we conclude, Craig?
Just as I said, fear not, stay strong, remain united.
See everyone on the 6th!
And to be continued, to be continued.
Go mega party!
It's Dr. Jerome Corsi.
We're here today with attorney Ivan Reiklin.
I want to make sure I get your name.
And how do people find you on the web, on the internet?
So right now, while I'm still alive on Twitter, please go to my Twitter.
And it's just my last name spelled R-A-I-K-L-I-N.
And I have open DMs.
If you have specific questions, I've probably already answered them in a video.
So I'll most likely just send you the link to the video that answers that question.
But if you have a novel question, there's a good chance I'll probably call you.
Okay.
So that's open direct messages and you have a website too, don't you?
No, just Twitter's fine.
Okay, Twitter's good.
We'll be back with you, Ivan.
This is just the beginning.
Thank you again.
I appreciate it.
It's an honor to be on here and good to finally meet you.
We'll do more.
In the end, God always wins.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi signing off today.
January 4th, 2021, two days before the Wednesday, January 6th joint session of Congress.
Hey, brief event.
I mean, it's going to be a complete epic spot.
Yeah, it's going to be incredible.
One o'clock in the afternoon Eastern time it starts.
We'll be back for more.
In the end, God always wins.
Thank you for joining us.
God bless.
▲
Export Selection