Oct. 11, 2024 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
35:15
Going In-Depth on Corrupt Voter Roll Algorithms and a Big Court Loss for the AZ Dems
Dr. Corsi continues to move forward with his extensive research into suspicious voter roll algorithms with election-interference potential in several U.S. states. On this edition of the show, we will be playing a recent conversation he had with Arizona Today on the heels of a recent federal court decision stopping the Democrat Secretary of State from refusing to include a county's vote in the statewide totals if the local supervisors fail to certify the results as part of the “The Real Steal” series on The Truth Central. You can find out more about this effort and how to donate to help Dr. Corsi, Andrew Paquette, Dr. Karlene Graves and the team expose this threat and stop “The Real Steal” through the website: https://GODSFIVESTONES.COM If you would like to donate to help Dr. Corsi's and Andrew Paquette's efforts to seek out and expose corrupt algorithms in states' voter databases, visit https://www.godsfivestones.comIf you like what we are doing, please support our Sponsors:Get RX Meds Now: https://www.getrxmedsnow.comMyVitalC https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.phpGet Dr. Corsi's new book, The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Right Front and One from the Rear, here: https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-President-John-Kennedy-Headshots/dp/B0CXLN1PX1/ref=sr_1_1?crid=20W8UDU55IGJJ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ymVX8y9V--_ztRoswluApKEN-WlqxoqrowcQP34CE3HdXRudvQJnTLmYKMMfv0gMYwaTTk_Ne3ssid8YroEAFg.e8i1TLonh9QRzDTIJSmDqJHrmMTVKBhCL7iTARroSzQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=jerome+r.+corsi+%2B+jfk&qid=1710126183&sprefix=%2Caps%2C275&sr=8-1Join Dr. Jerome Corsi on Substack: https://jeromecorsiphd.substack.com/Visit The Truth Central website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comGet your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on X: @corsijerome1Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.
Jensidie presenterer en dårlig dag på jobben på 90-tallet.
Hei, nå er det litt krise her. Det har vært innbrudd i butikken, og de har bare...
Vi har tatt alt!
Og en dårlig dag på jobben i dag.
Vi har blitt hacka vi nå.
Alle filene er låst, og nå skal vi bare ha masse krypte for å få låst opp igjen.
Jensidie har alltid vært der for bedrifter for små og store uheld.
Og det skal vi fortsette med.
Tiden går, jen sidia består.
♪♪♪ Chris Cordani here.
Dr. Jerome Corsi's producer.
Welcome once again to The Truth Central.
Dr. Corsi continues to move forward with his and Andrew Paquette's extensive research into suspicious photo roll algorithms
with election interference potential in several U.S. states.
On this edition of the show, we're going to play a recent conversation
he had with Arizona Today.
This on the heels of a recent federal court decision stopping
the Democrat Secretary of State there from refusing to include
a county's vote in the statewide totals if the local supervisors
fail to certify the results.
this all as part of the Real Steel series on The Truth Central.
You can find out more about this effort and how to donate to help Dr. Corsi,
Andrew Paquette, Dr. Graves, and the team expose this threat and stop this real
steel through the website Gods5stones.com. That's Gods5stones.com.
Now, here's Dr. Corsi's discussion with Arizona Today.
Dr. Corsi. Mark, I think we've got to combine forces here.
Yes. And we've got to work together.
What I've found, and it's through Andrew Paquette, Dr.
Andrew Paquette's work, we found algorithms written into the State Board of Election voter registration rolls.
These are cryptography formulas that are intelligence agency grade.
They're very complex.
But what they've done is they've enabled the Whomever the criminals are, and I think the criminals may be intelligence agents involved with rogue Democratic Party operatives at this point.
That they allow the voter registration to be mixed up, like shuffling a deck of cards.
And the scheme is very much like marking cards, the same kind of cryptography or sleight of hand or trick involved in it.
So the purpose is to be able to create false records, non-voters, That yet get certifiable, they get state IDs to vote.
So the state gives them an ID. Even though the vote does not exist, the voter does not exist, it's completely made up by the criminals.
And that vote can be used in the election to do a mail-in ballot, for instance.
And since the voter has a legitimate state ID, when that mail-in ballot is voted, It's the same number appears, so it's a certifiable vote, even though the voter does not exist.
And they do this by rearranging the database so that I'm sure that in Arizona, your voter ID is not determined by the date you registered.
And that's fundamental to this scheme.
So I'm going to give you a very quick example, and then I'm trying to get, I'm doing this in a condensed fashion.
So that everybody knows, for instance, their children are born, and my first child, our first child was, and you know who the first child was, and couples will say our third child was one good with baseball.
Well, they know who the third child was.
But you come along with the state of Arizona, for instance, and the state of Arizona is going to say, well, I'm sorry, your first child is number one.
Your second child is number 12.
Your third child is number 23.
The next child is 34.
Then you had 45, and you've now got six children.
Your sixth child is 56.
You say, wait a minute, I don't have 56 kids.
They say, well, we know you don't.
But in between your 1 and 12, there are children 2 through 11.
They just belong to somebody else.
We just threw them into your record.
And by the way, child number 3 and child number 10 aren't real children.
We just made them up. Because, see, when you do this, child 3 and child 10 look just like the other children.
So when you mix up the voters this way and you create a clone voter or a false voter, a clone is just another registration for the same person, Or you vary the middle initial and change the address.
Or you just fabricate a voter.
That looks like a real vote.
Because nobody's going to go out and see if that person really exists.
The Board of Elections just gives that voter an ID number.
They don't go out there and say, well, okay, is this person really here at this address?
Do they have a right to vote?
And so therefore, states can have two, three hundred thousand false votes in them.
You know, in a state like Wisconsin, we just found the algorithm in the state of Wisconsin, they have close to half a million clone voters.
It's almost about five percent of their entire voter registration database are false votes, people who don't exist.
We're finding this throughout the country.
Ohio has a large number of clone votes, and they've got a large number of people who have no registration date on there, or they're all registered on a January 1, which is not possible for thousands and thousands of voters.
So all these databases are filled with non-existent voters.
But yet the criminals who have encoded it know where those non-existent voters are, and they can call upon them to vote them at any time they want to vote them.
Now, I want to look at the Arizona database, and Andrew Paquette is ready to do this.
And we want to see if we can find an algorithm.
If we can find an algorithm in Arizona, we're looking at Pennsylvania right now.
We found one in Wisconsin.
Go look at Michigan. We're going to look at Georgia.
If we can find algorithms in all of the battleground states, then we can get lawyers.
Our website, go to our website, which is God's Five Stones, G-O-D, don't use any apostrophe, G-O-D-S, and you spell out the number five, F-I-V-E, And then Stones is plural, S-T-O-N-E-S, gods5stones.com.
You will see all of the information today.
We've just posted the analysis of Wisconsin.
And I'm going to be writing about this over the next couple of weeks.
Now, what this shows is, in fact, that there is a secret scheme.
And many of the state board officials don't even know it exists.
They usually deny it exists.
We've got an official investigation of this going on in Ohio right now.
And Ohio has not rejected our findings.
We found an algorithm in Ohio.
And so therefore, what we are finding supports a lot of the work that others have done.
And it shows how this scheme can go together with what others have found.
If one last thing, if we can get enough support and if we can work together in Arizona, we can have a lawyer ready to contest the election as it's happening.
To say these mail-in ballots are fraudulent.
And they could be, if there's an algorithm in the Arizona database, it's like if the casino that you're playing in has marked decks and you're all playing in marked decks, they can't prove you lost any hand.
You could have easily been cheated out of any hand you lost.
And so therefore, you can't use a corrupt database to To validate or certify an election.
And so therefore we're going to challenge that since there's an algorithm in the Arizona database, it cannot be used to certify the election for Kamala Harris, which they're going to try to do.
Okay, and they can do it through voting these secret votes.
So I want to get prepared, and I want the poll watchers to demand that they have the ability to sample mail-in votes and go out into the community and field search to see if these people exist.
And if they don't exist, then we're going to challenge the mail-in votes, and we're going to do this while the voting is going on.
We're not going to wait for the state to rush and certify an election.
Because once it's certified, it's much harder to challenge.
We're going to jump in with lawyers at the beginning.
And we're going to challenge that this entire process is fraudulent because of an algorithm.
We're going to make them prove the algorithm isn't there.
And by the way, these algorithms have been in the States since 2007.
So how many elections have they stolen in all this period of time?
I don't know, but I'm asking.
Now, let me just use that much time and let Mark get into here, because I know Mark's got a time, and I really want to hear what he's got to say.
Go ahead, Mark. Well, Dr.
Corsi, this is something that we have suspected for quite some time, that it's actually, I'm going to call it the Tennessee two-step, if you will, where not only do we have corrupted voter rolls, but we also have algorithms within the tabulation itself.
Now, in a case that Carrie Lake and I brought to ask the court for inspecting the code of the tabulation machines, and I believe, if I'm correct, it was April of 2022, we were trying to warn the court.
U.S. District Court Judge Tucci, an Obama appointee, essentially dismissed our case out of hand.
We had ample evidence that we would have presented to show, here's the code.
This is how it's done.
Well, what happens?
We have an election that's irredeemably compromised in 2022 for a number of reasons, everything from tabulation equipment that wouldn't count ballots.
And I don't want to re-litigate this, but there's a whole bunch of functions that were brought to bear to see to it that the chosen few ascended to an office.
So we had selection. We didn't have an election.
And when we alerted the court that Maricopa County in specific had lied to the court and said that they used...
It's EAC certified software in the tabulation machines.
They committed perjury because what had been done is they went in the back end, altered the software, and that's why they had something called an MBS error.
Came up twice, not just in 2022, but you go back and look at the record, the same thing came up in 2020.
Well, that's machine behavior settings.
In other words, the machine was set to not read certain ballots.
This answers the question of why the machine industrial complex is in full freakout mode at the idea that you would compare just the number of papers, the number of paper ballots to the number that the machine says it counted.
That's where you start.
When you start looking at what it tabulated in select races, let's say, for example, we simply look at just the presidential race, paper ballots, and you count those by hand at the same time that you're machine tabulating.
Now, we've had all kinds of people tell us, oh, that's going to delay the vote.
It's going to do this and that.
And the other thing, it's going to be a disaster.
Wait a minute. If you're already tabulating ballots during early voting, and fortunately here in Arizona, I mean, this is the plus side of having voting month in Arizona because we have a whole month to challenge the election.
As you have pointed out, I think you've got a great plan.
Begin the minute mail ballots start coming back in.
Now, here in Yavapai County, I don't think we have a problem.
We're a fairly small rural county.
The vast majority of people actually bring their mail-in ballot to the recorder's office with ID, and they put it in the box.
That is the preferred manner of voting, quite frankly.
And I don't especially mind mailing a ballot to me so that I can fill it out, and then I can take it to the polls and I can submit it.
The other problem that we have, and this is just recently a disclosure about 10 days ago, the two largest postal workers unions in America, previously nonpartisan, they came out and endorsed Kamala Harris.
So let's consider that for a moment.
I'm not saying the postal workers are crooked.
What I'm saying is that the Postal Service heretofore had not taken a position on endorsing a candidate for president.
That's when they were nonpartisan.
Now, they are absolutely partisan.
So in the chain of custody, when you go from the voter to the polls, you now have inserted a partisan organization that is handling your ballot.
What could possibly go wrong with that?
I would not trust my Democrat neighbor to take my Republican ballot, even from me to the post office, let alone into the system.
Now, the point that you bring up, if there's an algorithm that's at work, and quite frankly, we've got guys like Phil Evans in South Carolina.
We've got just a number of people who have called this out, and they've shown the mathematical outcome and high degree of probability that an algorithm has been involved.
And what were they called? Election deniers.
No, we've got a new term.
It's called a fraud affirmer.
These are individuals who caught them.
Yet the media, the industrial media complex, which is backing up the machine industrial complex, wants to tell everybody, no, there's nothing to see here.
These are not the drones you're looking for.
When in fact... This is exactly why Georgia, the Elections Commission in Georgia, has decided, okay, we are going to write a rule that allows the counties to count ballots by hand or to use machines or to use both.
I think we've advocated now for well on two and a half, three years, that a side-by-side count of the paper ballots themselves, not the votes that are on them, just the sheets of paper, with the machine count is the first step of an audit.
Now, if you talk to Joe Hoft, who is a former big box company, I won't name the company, he audited records and caught fraud all the time.
And we have this clown of a Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, saying, well, audits undermine the confidence of people in elections.
No, they don't. Audits exist for two reasons.
Either A, they are designed to prove that the system is operating as designed and flawlessly.
Or B, you got a problem, Houston.
Here's where the problem is.
It's very Six Sigma-ish.
It's very, let's check design.
Let's make sure that it's operating properly.
If it's not, you have a defect.
You take the system down until you address the defect.
So, the fact that we were able to show, in our case, Kerry and I, we actually Submitted a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling out the fact that Maricopa County had lied to the lower courts and misrepresented that they were using certified software on the machines.
The court denied our writ, and we went back to the Ninth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit, of course, no, we didn't make any mistakes.
We don't care that we've been lied to.
So now I believe that we're back to the U.S. District Court.
And really, they're making fools of themselves because they've been lied to.
By internal government actors who had the God keys and literally could go in the back end of the software, alter the tabulation software in its behavior settings, and they could even go to the extent of withdrawing a database, a data sample, the election record, if you will, and inserting an election record that is purely fictitious to make it appear that you had a fair election, when in fact it was anything but.
So I'm very glad to hear that you have found this algorithm.
You know, there's, like I say, a whole bunch of people.
We've worked a lot with Phil Evans, and I can't sing that guy's praises enough.
If you don't know him, I would love to introduce you to him because he may be able to provide a little bit more context around what you and your team have done.
Great guy, and he's just one of those people that he just, he's like a dog with a bone.
He's not going to let go of it.
Let me jump in and ask Dr.
Corsi, could you take what you've already shared And I'm being polite and respectful, but take it down to a seventh grade level and tell our viewers and those listening what you and Mark just shared, because both of you coming from unique positions are talking in parallel about election fraud in gross terms, that since 2007, Our elections have been compromised or highly suspicious,
and clearly, since 2020, 2022, we haven't had fair elections.
So, what you've already learned about the algorithms, can you share for just a moment, at a seventh grade level, what does that mean?
I go vote, are you telling me that my vote doesn't count?
Secondly, are you telling me I have two or three kids I didn't even know about?
Right. Well, basically, yes, I am.
I'm telling you that the system, because it has this code in terms of inside the state board of election actual voter records, where someone, a rogue agent, can see votes that don't exist, voters who are non-existent, who are never going to be recognized as such because these voters look legitimate.
Right. And they can vote them at will.
So what I'm saying in seventh grade later, if I could be, if I'm the criminal, a political scientist, a PhD in political science from Harvard, I can say, okay, now I'm running the computer.
Do you want Camilla to win by 1%, 3%, or 5%?
Would you like her to come on later in the afternoon, or do you want me to have it from the beginning?
Shall I stop the voting at the end and then we come into the next?
Tell me how you want this election to look.
And then I can just sit there and vote my fake voters.
To make it turn out that way.
So if Kamala is lagging a little bit, I just pull in more of my non-existing voters and vote them.
They get counted. They pull in more.
If the day ends and I don't have enough, I stop the counting and overnight I pull in more and they're all certifiable.
So this is what happened in 2020 when I think several voting locations broke down with water pipe problems, toilet, whatever, at one in the morning.
Whatever, folks, don't, you know, 11 p.m., whatever.
And then four hours later, they fix the water pipe and they're back up.
But when they came back on, what I'm hearing you say, Jerome, is all of a sudden Biden had 20,000 more votes than he did at 11 p.m.
when the water pipe broke. That's right, because they voted the non-existent people in the database.
Okay, and Mark...
No, I'm sorry.
What's most curious about that, Dr.
Corsi, is... And you've kind of painted a picture for me in my mind that they had to run repetitive ballots through so that if anybody ever checked, the paper count matched the vote count.
I hadn't considered that before.
But that, because of what Georgia is now doing, it sounds like that is a very real explanation for why they were running suitcases of ballots through.
Apparently they didn't realize that they were being televised.
That would explain why they did it.
Not necessarily to inject votes in, but to inject ballot count in.
Well, and also, they probably did that also to, you know, they used their fake voters.
They had these ballots that they were running through.
They knew that these ballots they're running through are certifiable because they voted someone who doesn't exist but had a state ID voter number for that record.
And then they printed a ballot with that number on it and ran it through, so that was certifiable.
Even though the person didn't exist, and no one went out to check.
I mean, the fundamental fraud starts in the State Board of Election database itself.
And the database is corrupt.
You see, I've got two principles here.
That I think will win this for us.
Number one is, yes, it's too big to rig.
In other words, people shouldn't be discouraged that because they're, you know, these systems are here, their votes aren't going to count.
They can only cheat so much and it'll become obvious.
So if people get out in huge numbers and vote, Well, let's say they could cheat 5% and get away with it, but they have to cheat 8% or 10%.
They can't get away with it because it'll just be obvious.
Right. So one point is too big to rig.
My second point is I want to make all these different schemes very clear to people so that it's like a magician.
You know, when you know how a magician does the trick, you know what the misdirection is, and you know how the rabbit's pulled out of the sleeve, it's no longer a trick because you see how it was done.
Okay, you know it's not magic.
You just see the art of the magician to have this deception.
So I'm also saying that we've got to make all these things that they do clear, absolutely clear, so people, when it's happening, they can see it.
And so you say, hey, that's a sign that they're doing X, Y, Z. This is a sign that they're starting the mail-in votes.
This is a sign that they're starting to vote in the machine, the surge.
It's not happening in the polls.
It's happening in the surge. It's happening in the machine.
So I'm saying we make it too big to rig and too clear to queer.
Too clear to queer.
They can't queer the election, which is what they're trying to do.
Queer it with all these manipulations of the machines and everything else they're doing.
So it's not just too big to rig.
We can make it too clear to queer.
I would add that by doing the too big to rig thing, You are overcoming, and I think maybe this is just restating what you've already said, you're overcoming the number of fictitious voters with real voters.
Going to the polls to show your ID, you know, there's an interesting thing that, and that's what I do, I show my ID, they make sure that on the voter registration tab, okay, Mark Fincham has pulled a ballot, he's voting.
That means that I really was there.
Yes. So it's rather easy to go through the mail-in ballots, of which in, I think, Yavapai County had about 10,000.
Maricopa County will have hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots.
So to your point, it is so easy to put non-performers Those individuals who did not exist, it's very easy to inject those into the system.
And the telltale sign, this would be the tell of the left, actually the Uniparty folks, the power brokers, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent the inspection of the code.
To prevent the hand counting of paper ballots, to conduct an audit at the county level, we're not talking about a recount.
And that's where the Arizona court system has failed miserably.
In Cochise County, they made the argument, well, nobody ordered a recount and the law is specific on a recount.
Time out. There was no candidate asking for a recount.
That's what the law addresses.
The county said, look, there's enough information out there that we have a very low confidence level that these machines are accurate and we want to compare the hand count to the electronic tabulation account.
Hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent such an inspection, not just in Cochise County, Arizona, but all across the United States.
That is a tell of covering up fraud.
Representative Fincham, isn't it correct that the county supervisors or commissioners, depending on where you are in America, don't they have the authority to not certify the election if there's probable cause?
Yes, I'm glad you brought that up, Lyle.
So, the Election Fairness Institute, which I'm the executive director of that organization, we assisted County Supervisor Ron Gould out of Mojave County, who was threatened by the, shall we say, dubious occupant of the Office of Attorney General, Chris Mays. He was threatened with criminal prosecution.
If he dared to vote for hand counting of paper ballots.
Now, Mays misrepresented the law and she said, you have no choice, you have to use the machines.
Kind of sounds like she's working for Dominion or ES&S or one of the machine makers.
The reality is that under Arizona Revised Statute, the word that is operative in the statute that permits the use of electronic tabulation is May.
May is permissive that the counties may choose to use electronic tabulation.
Now, one of the questions that was in our brief was, well, if the county chooses not to renew their contract with a vendor, are they committing a criminal act?
Well, of course not, because it is permissive.
It is not the word shall, which is prescriptive.
Now, the Attorney General, in her brief, made the argument that, well, this has already been decided.
It was decided down in Cochise County.
You can't do this. It's like, time out.
That's not the question that was decided.
So your question is very well placed.
The county, we had two supervisors and one that was cowed by the Attorney General into voting no, but we had two supervisors, Hilde Angus, who is a future senator, and Supervisor Ron Gould.
Both were ready to vote yes, but they were fearful.
By the way, this is a civil rights thing.
They were fearful of prosecution by the Attorney General of the State of Arizona for criminal acts.
For exercising their authority under the color of law that says they may choose to use electronic tabulation.
So that kind of helps to make the point here that not only are the private industry pokes, you know, Mark Elias and all of these government cutouts that have been termed that are NGOs or, you know, American citizens for free elections.
It's funny how they always come up with a name that is exactly opposite of what they care about.
You've not only got these organizations that are fighting it, they came alongside the Attorney General in the state of Arizona in an amicus brief.
Well, just a moment.
The Attorney General of the state of Arizona hardly should need help in defending that office and their position.
Yet we have hardcore, extreme-left Democrats coming in to file an amicus brief, and the judge in this case permitted it.
And then, I'm mystified by this decision, he dismisses the case.
So we, of course, are going to pursue this to the end.
This is the attempt by a judge to rewrite Arizona law, and we're not going to have any of it.
You already know my position on funding the courts.
If they're not going to do their job, we need to cut their budget.
Dr. Corsi, you mentioned that you began to notice this in 2007.
Okay. And I apologize to you, Jerome, but I have to ask it at this level, because we have so many people still that are in denial that there was anything in 2020 wrong or in 2022.
So, bear with me.
You began to notice this in 2007, and you have continued to work through up to present.
My guess is, and that's what it is, my guess is you've uncovered even more sophisticated workings as you've gone about this investigation.
Am I correct about that?
Yes. I mean, we've been noticing this, I mean, since 2007.
A lot of this started when Obama started running for president.
I've actually written two books on Obama's manipulation of data to get voter data.
I flew in Romney's airplane as press in 2012 and saw how their computer systems failed and what the Democrats were doing.
Democrats have had much more sophisticated voter intelligence and voter systems Going back to Obama, Obama introduced a whole new level of bringing massive computer power into voting.
And what Andrew Paquette found when he discovered these algorithms is that this is a whole other level of, I think, intelligence agency interference at a high level.
I'm talking about CIA and NSA in order to determine the outcome of elections.
And this has gotten to a level where they believe if we don't catch this and stop this, they won't need to have elections.
They'll tell you your voting doesn't...
They could run a simulation of an election in the computer and throw the votes away and publish their simulation as the real votes.
Because they can run a simulation that looks just like it was actually voting.
Dr. Corsi, I would argue that we are living a simulation now.
We are living a simulation right now.
They would like it so that what people actually vote doesn't count.
That they can throw that away and they can make it turn out the way they want to.
Then they can control the courts and make sure nobody gets to contest this.
Okay, and that's where I'm saying we've got to make these two—they're trying to queer the whole system.
They want LGBT, now they want to queer the system of voting.
It's the same kind of approach.
This is LGBT voting.
They don't really care whether it's honest or whether it's male, female.
They just want to be able to do their gay pride, and they just want to be able to elect their candidates.
They don't care about your candidates.
They don't care about voters.
They care about outcomes.
Can I guess?
Please correct me.
I'm not trying to be funny, but I'm really trying to understand this as the guy on the next door would, because there's so much still confusion and disbelief.
And both of you gentlemen are subject matter specialists without question.
So please, I'm asking these questions at this level here, not to trick or be funny.
Jerome, would you say that the election...
In the next, how many, 35 days, is already compromised?
No question about it.
All right, let me follow up.
It appears that they...
And again, please just hang in there with me, both of you.
The debates the other night, the stuff that's going on, the campaign trail, it appears that Kamala and Walsh are really out of their league.
They just don't know what they're doing.
And then they bring with them all this baggage from CCP, everything else.
But what I'm hearing you say...
Is that it really doesn't matter because the election's already in the bag.
This is kabuki theater.
The Democrats have gotten so bold on this.
Arrogant. That they think that it's okay that they have a president like Biden who is mentally incompetent.
They think they can run somebody like Kamala Harris, who's never really won a serious election like this before in her life.
Good point. Good point.
They think they can get this guy, Walt, who says, you know, I'm a knucklehead.
And yet they can win the election because what they can do is they control the voting counting.
I mean, it's not who votes is who counts the votes.
Lenin said this. And their Democrats have become communists.
So they're fully on board with the Marxist idea.
It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes.
And so they can manipulate the internal system such that they can vote fake voters, as many as they want to vote, and they can control that.
And so therefore, I think Obama's fourth term, he'd just as soon have a weekend with Bernie, put in a dead person and run them with AI. And he wouldn't have to bother with what the person said because he'd be dead.
And then he'd just have AI, say whatever Obama once said, and then the news media broadcasts that.
That was really good, Jerome.
That was witty.
That's the president right there.
I'm going to steal that.
This party should piece of toast is the president, and here it is talking.
For those of you who think that Dr.
Corsi is just academically brilliant, and he is, he also has wit.
Did you hear that? Mark, your thoughts on what Dr.
