All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2020 - Louder with Crowder
01:24:47
EXCLUSIVE! Texas AG interview discussing SCOTUS SUIT! | Good Morning #MugClub
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
🎵 Music 🎵 1 in 40.
That's roughly the Trump legal team's record in court, getting smacked down by judge after judge, in state after state, because they've pushed ludicrous accusations without actual evidence.
Your president's legal team has not been able to produce any evidence of systemic fraud.
The president, without any evidence, tries to peddle his own alternative.
I want to be very, very clear.
There's absolutely no evidence, at least none we've seen, of any widespread voter fraud that the president and his team are alleging.
No credible examples.
No credible instances.
And now, Trump campaign officials, without any evidence to back up their claims, say the new law is ripe for voter fraud.
And they're suing Nevada now for expanding this mail-in voting in the middle of a public health crisis.
In Nevada, the Trump campaign claims, without any evidence, That thousands of people improperly cast their mail-in ballots.
And that's the actual registered address?
Yeah, we have hundreds.
They voted from that?
Yeah.
Wow.
This is definitely gonna take a while.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm not gonna lie.
I'm not gonna lie.
Subject for today!
Andy, the landlord, he's a nasty one.
Andy, the landlord, Andy, they've got one for today.
Mmm.
Mmm.
Delicious sip.
Steady.
My half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman is here with me, by the way.
People thought you disappeared, but it's because we can't talk about it.
Working.
We're working.
Working, and he makes his fingers like this, which means you know he's serious.
And they're stubby.
Half-stubby.
Porter Black Garrett is here.
Good morning.
I'm excited.
Sorry for the lack of acceptance.
Gerald A. is here.
We have a lot to get to, some updates on Swalwell, I was sad that you weren't here yesterday.
And by the way, everyone watching, the best thing you can do for this right now, just hit like while we're live, and if you're watching the Archive, just comment.
Comment on the video, that helps us cut through the YouTube algorithms.
I don't know if this will still be up, because it could be considered against YouTube's guidelines that we wanted to have someone authoritative.
I know it's not AP, but we actually have here with us for an exclusive, the Attorney General of Texas, Mr. Ken Paxton.
How are you, sir?
Thank you for being here.
Hey, I'm doing great.
It's been kind of a slow morning for me, but pretty good.
Yeah, you're moseying.
You're doing it at a Texas pace.
By the way, do you prefer Attorney, Mr. Paxton, Attorney, or just General?
Just call me Ken.
Well, come on now.
I appreciate it.
You know, it sounds weird.
The title is General Paxton.
That's what the title is.
The title is General Paxton.
Now, to be clear, because a lot of people will say, oh, hold on a second, we need authoritative sources.
You're a real Attorney General, right?
Not a patsy for the higher-ups.
That's true.
I'm a realtor.
I don't like the people in Texas.
Okay, good.
I want to make sure.
So you too, please don't remove him yet.
Really quickly, because I know you're busy, you're about to walk over to the Oval Office right after this spot, and I appreciate you making the time.
Treat me like many people in our audience, because I'm sure you know this has gotten convoluted with different suits.
Some are brought by the Trump team, some are brought by other Lawyers and some have been brought now, in this case, by an AG like yourself.
What is the suit from Texas?
Who are you guys suing?
And just in a summary, what is the basis of the suit?
Okay, the first thing I have to say is my daughter is having a baby today and my son-in-law said, I love this guy, can you get me one of those mugs autographed by him?
And I said, I'll do my best.
Well, I tell you what, I can't because we're rough on budget and I don't know him.
Okay, well, listen, I can't.
Love's a strong word.
Not only will I get him a mug, I'll get him a whole gift package.
We have some new hoodies, and I really appreciate that.
And we'll talk after you deal with some more important pressing matters.
But recap for people who don't know.
This suit that you have brought against the state of Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.
Tell them what it is, what the basis is.
So we simply are saying That these states ignored the Constitution, they ignored their own state laws, and throughout these states local elected officials and judges changed the law and made their elections not follow state law, which
Under the Constitution, they're not supposed to do.
Those elections are governed by state law, by state legislators, and when they start mucking around with state law, individual counties having different election laws than other counties, It creates credibility problems, and it's unconstitutional, and it affects my voters because we did it the right way.
We fought off all these lawsuits.
We followed state law.
And our elections are credible, and theirs are not.
And that disenfranchises my voters, and the voters of the rest of the country.
Absolutely.
And not only that, but Texas was one of the states that rejected using Dominion software, correct?
We've rejected it three times, and we've also had 12 lawsuits in federal court, state court, all over the state of Texas, 5th Circuit, Texas Supreme Court, challenging our laws on mail-in ballots, challenging our laws on signature verification.
We were successful in every single one of them, 12 lawsuits, and had we not, we would have been in the same situation as Georgia, and Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
You rejected it three times.
So like a voter fraud rejection hat trick, which by the way, I apologize, my half-Asian lawyer is here, he's breathing like a bulldog.
Let's turn down his microphone.
He's so interested, he's going...
Now, I want to go back to the constitutionality here in a second.
But before that, you know, there's there been a lot of rumors circulating and unfortunately some disinformation has taken place on the right as well as the left.
Now, 17 states have joined in as friends of the court, right?
Amici is the term.
But that doesn't mean that they've officially signed on.
And you said that this morning you can announce right here, right now, which states thus far have officially signed on to this suit with you in Texas.
So we have Actually no, 18 states.
Arizona is now part of that amicus process.
The other states that we are talking to about intervening have not actually filed, so I cannot say who they are, but there are several states that are likely to intervene in our case sometime today.
Sometime today.
Okay, you can't give us a hint?
Like, I don't know, they might have something to do with eyes that are bucked.
Well, because you never know what's going to happen until they file.
So until they file, they're not in.
So I know the president tried to intervene, so it's a big deal.
I mean, this is a big case.
Right.
And I had heard, listen, not from you, I want to be clear about that, but from some inside sources, they expect a minimum of four and a possibility of ten.
Does that sound about right?
Yeah, that sounds about right.
And like I said, it could happen or not happen.
I'm not in control of other states' decisions about whether to intervene.
I am only in control of what Texas did.
We obviously filed a lawsuit.
Right.
But these 17 other states, or 18, sorry, that have joined in, so what does that mean for people who don't understand?
Because some people think that means that they've officially joined in on the suit.
And Donald Trump has, by the way, the president, he's talked about intervening.
But what does it mean when they're just friends of the court?
We're talking about that amicus.
So intervening, you're actually a party.
You're standing alongside of us saying, hey, this was a wrong done to our citizens in our state.
And amicus is a friend of the court brief providing guidance to the court on issues that those states think will be relevant to the court.
And my understanding is that amicus will be favorable to us, obviously, but it's not like intervening.
Intervening is like, I'm part of this fight, I'm getting in, totally getting in, Very helpful.
We do a lot of amicus briefs ourselves, because sometimes we can't intervene, or it's not strategic to intervene.
It's not quite the same, but it's certainly useful.
Well, yeah, and I understand, but how could it not be strategic for them to intervene?
I guess, what should be the tipping point for someone who's saying, well, I support it, I'm a friend of the court, versus, you know, really having skin in the game?
Because a lot of Americans out there feel like, you know, they've been gaslit, they're taking crazy pills.
You, obviously, have the brass pair to step up.
Americans want to see other states officially, you know, sign on that dotted line, hey, we hear ya.
No, I'm with you.
I'd love to have them.
I'd take all 18 states intervening if they wanted to go with us.
We want them in.
We'll take them.
We're encouraging them to join us.
And to stand on the front lines with us and when we're in front of the U.S.
Supreme Court, be there, be there present, be a party and be part of the fight.
Right.
And we'll know by the end of the day, that's probably a big part of your conversation, who is joining in officially.
I wish you could tell me at least even like one or two, you know, I mean, please, can you also just, you know, have some kind of complaint?
Can you put it in there?
I know like with a bill and an earmark, something with John Kasich, just say like, and by the way, he pisses the rest of the country off.
Can there be a legal filing?
I don't know if he's going to be a part of this one.
Maybe tomorrow.
Maybe we'll follow that one tomorrow.
Well, just double dog dare him to lick a pole in the middle of December and that would be
good enough for me.
Let me ask you, recently filed brief, you called, or sorry, called this lawsuit a mockery
of federalism and separation of powers, right?
This is the arguments that they're using.
And they've suggested that it's not under the Supreme Court's constitutional purview
to serve as a trial court for the presidential election dispute.
So seeing what we've seen before, where a lot of these suits have just been tossed,
Right?
And that's been parroted by the media where they say, oh, 40 of Donald Trump suits have been tossed.
We know those aren't necessarily Donald Trump suits.
These are suits brought on by many different people.
Why do you think this, or why is this suit, why should Americans understand that this is different?
That as Donald Trump has said, the president, this is the big one.
So this is different because it's being brought by state.
So we have no other recourse other than to go to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
All these other cases, at least, whether they were tossed or not, At least you can say they had a chance to be heard somewhere.
We have nowhere else to go.
I feel like we've had a harm to my citizens, that their vote, they've been disenfranchised by these other states in a federal national election.
And so if the court doesn't grant us the ability to make the argument, we have nowhere to go and we're just being told, not only you're being tossed, but you don't even get to make the argument.
You don't even get to be heard.
Right, and that's the difference because, you know, I was watching CNN, SCOTUS was trending, you know, on social media, and I thought, oh, this must be because of General Paxton's suit, and instead it was about the Supreme Court, you know, kicking it back down to the lower Pennsylvania court, that other case that happened on the same day, and I think people don't understand that, listen, that's something that's happening within a state, it kind of came down to a deadline issue, but that's very different Uh, compared to a suit between states.
Necessarily, the Supreme Court has to intervene because you can't just say, well, let the state of, let the Supreme Court of Texas or Pennsylvania figure it out.
That's a, that's a very stark contrast that I think hasn't been really nailed into Americans' heads yet.
I don't think they fully grasp the consequences.
No, it's so important because I think there are some who think that the Supreme Court has to hear our case.
I mean, there are some on the court who I think believe that when the Constitution was written that states had nowhere to go because if they can't be heard, their only other opportunity was to go fight each other, right?
Right.
That's why they have to have a place.
If you don't want a war or some other type of action, you have to have a place to go redress your harm.
So there are some on the court who believe that they are required to hear that.
Unfortunately, the majority opinion on this has been it's up to them.
They can decide for whatever reason, yes or no.
They don't have to even have a reason.
They can just say no.
And unfortunately, that is the current, I think, majority opinion.
I'm just hoping in this case they'll see it as important enough to hear it.
I guess, you know, we've seen these voter rolls as it relates to these issues, you know, voter irregularities.
Sorry, on YouTube we can't say voter fraud, but irregularities.
People have brought forward videotape, hundreds of affidavits, and so many cases have just been tossed, right?
Tossed.
What does it take?
I mean, the evidence hasn't even been examined in some of these other cases.
How do you, I guess, how do you remain hopeful that at least what you're bringing forward and the evidence is seen?
Because we've seen judges say, don't want to see it.
So, you know, we referenced some of the evidence that we have, but our case is fundamentally not even built on that because I've watched what's happened.
And, you know, frankly, I'm disappointed that it hasn't gotten a more thorough review by our judiciary for whatever reason.
Our case doesn't rest on how valid the fraud is or not.
Not.
We are resting completely on the Constitution that we know for a fact that these legislatures We're not basing it on anything that we have to go prove as it relates to fraud.
and that there are equal protection issues about different voters being treated differently,
that there are ballot fraud issues that were not addressed, like no signature verification.
You've got drop boxes being dropped in Georgia that are just dropped off and people can throw
their ballots in there. I mean, those are in violation of state law. That's a fact.
Right.
So we're not basing it on anything that we have to go prove as it relates to fraud. We're basing
it on what we know happened as a fact, and we're asking the court to say, hey, look,
this is wrong.
It needs to be addressed.
And it negatively affects, you know, members of other states.
Listen, as someone who's sort of more of a libertarian conservative, right, we talk about federalism on this show, I understand states having the ability to govern themselves.
But this is a question that I have, and maybe you might be able to help clarify, because I could be wrong.
We do have a baseline minimum, you know, of laws, meaning, okay, you can't kill, you can't steal. We do have a baseline
minimum, for example, nationally what an adult is for enlistment. Now states can change
where you can drink, right? But why don't we have, it seems like we have a baseline nationally when
elections need to take place, right, election day, but how is it, how do we juxtapose
this with the Constitution where you have some states where you require a valid address and some
state laws don't?
It seems like there should be some kind of standardization just to set a baseline that we know legal American citizens are voting.
And am I off base there?
Well, and the way that it was set up was that the states could determine some of these rules as it related to their election.
So, for instance, I think Nevada legislature actually went back and changed their laws as it related because of COVID and made it very easy to vote by mail.
I mean, so we do have states where the legislature set it up, so it's It creates some of these issues that we're talking about.
And that may be a national debate that we need to be having at the federal level to say, hey, we need to fix this across the nation because we can't trust these elections.
If the legislature goes and changes these rules, it makes it really easy for people to Yeah.
Well, I appreciate it, and I know you're busy.
I have a couple more questions for you, real quick.
I will go to you, but one second.
And the reason I bring that up is because we are doing a show next Thursday, right, where we are going to be driving across Nevada in an RV.
So we have some brilliant researchers who work here and we have between 30 or 40 or 50 addresses.
We'll hit as many as we can live streaming uncut for four to six hours.
Addresses that we know don't exist or are invalid addresses.
Empty lots.
We will show people because they hear the numbers and they go, okay, a few thousand here.
But a lot of people don't believe it.
The reason we had to do it in Nevada is because in Michigan, it's okay for someone to register at an empty lot.
And that really struck us as odd.
And it was something that actually narrowed down the states where we had to say, actually, it's not lawful for you to vote from a place that doesn't exist.
But in some states it is.
My half-Asian lawyer here, Bill Richman, did have a question for you.
He's far smarter than I am, and I appreciate your time.
Go ahead, Mr. Kraken.
General Paxton, one of the interesting things I thought stood out from the filing you made with the Supreme Court was the phrase, an unconstitutional relaxation of ballot integrity protections.
And to me, that said it all, right?
It's saying there are laws in place, there are rules in place, and the states are not following them.
We all agree about what they did, now it's just a matter of determining was it constitutional or unconstitutional.
For our audience members across the country and in these states that are only amici or haven't even jumped in to file an amicus brief on this particular issue, why should they be interested in making sure that their voice is heard and that their attorney generals are actually joining in to combat the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot integrity protections?
That's a great question.
It was a little bit of a boring one, I'll be honest, but a little wonkish, but go ahead!
It was a little long.
I'll say a little long.
What was the question again?
Are you sure about those five minutes?
Alright, here we go.
Why should citizens want their AGs to join the fight?
Because I think that they are being disenfranchised.
If your state followed state law and produced election results that were based on state law as required by the U.S.
Constitution, and other states said, we're not going to follow those constitutional requirements, We're not going to follow our state law and as a result we don't really know, we can't verify whether any of these 2.5 million ballots, mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania are real.
Well, that's a problem for my state because my state is following the law and now we've got all these states we don't know what the real result is and it affects the outcome of the election.
And that affects my state.
Yeah.
It affects a federal election.
You know, if state's changing laws, it ultimately affects a federal election.
Three quick questions for you before you go, and I know you're busy, and tell the president I say hi, though I don't think he'll care.
If at 3 o'clock... He might.
Somebody will.
He might.
He might be like, that guy, he wears pajamas!
No!
At 3 p.m., right, and we'll know today, people watching, the states that officially join in, but let's say the Supreme Court declines to hear your case, what are your next steps?
You know, we have nowhere to go.
I mean, that's our only place to file our case.
We don't have another filing place.
We can't go to district court.
That's why I am saying this really matters for the Supreme Court to give us a chance to at least present our side.
Right.
That's all we're asking.
And another question, is there anything that the American people, you know, we have hundreds of thousands of people watching right now, right now, this second, there'll be millions of people, is there anything they can do to help?
Yes, I think encourage your Attorney General to intervene.
I mean, or participate in this process.
It's our last chance, and it may be our last chance forever because if this gets set this way...
I mean, we may never have elections again that we can count on.
This is setting the future of our country and how elections are going to be done.
Right.
Here's my final question, and I don't mean for it to be a hardball question, but I will say this.
The sort of feeling from a lot of Americans with, you know, Donald Trump in office and Republicans in control of a lot of areas of government.
Not a lot has been done.
You know, I go, for example, it required liberals in New York to file suit on the grounds of, you know, 230 or monopolies with big tech.
When do you think all Republicans are going to, or can we hope for other Republicans to grow a backbone like you seem to be, General Paxton?
I'm just going to tell you, we're really disappointed.
I'm glad to see you doing this, but we're really disappointed with the people we've put in office.
Well, you know, I understand that.
I have my own disappointments.
By the way, on that Facebook complaint, we're on that complaint.
Yes.
And you will see more from us on different issues coming very soon.
So, no, I get it.
I find it shocking that, you know, there were so few people interested initially in being a part of this.
I'm grateful that, you know, this case has created enough interest that now we've got people focused on it.
I think there's good reason to have some disappointment in what Republicans have done, and I'm hopeful that this will galvanize us to realize that we could lose our democracy in the way that the founder set it up, and that this really is like crunch time.
It's a threshold issue of survival of our democracy.
Yeah, I agree with you and there we hear it for American people to petition your AGs.
Tell them to grow a pair.
And please, let us know.
I know you're busy and you have to go.
We'll be looking for the official announcement here later today.
If there's anything we can do, don't hesitate to reach out.
And please, be safe today and give them hell, Mr. Paxton.
Hey, I appreciate you having me on, and your reputation precedes you from my own family members, so thanks for having me on.
Well, it sounds to me like you need better family members, but thank you, Mr. Paxton.
I appreciate it.
Give him hell.
That was lovely to have him on.
Yeah, I loved hearing that because he made that same point that we've been talking about.
You can't just break your own laws with elections and disenfranchise every other state.
You just can't do it.
So if the Supreme Court does not give him an opportunity like he said, I see very difficult times ahead trying to get somebody to listen to what you're saying if you're in a state that gets disenfranchised in the future.
And I had other things that I wanted to ask him about.
They've had 12 suits in Texas on election fraud that they've won.
Correct.
For people who understand this, these things happen within the states.
The consequences, if they had lost even one of those, could be monumental.
Right.
Every single one of those was an opportunity that would have been a monumental failure, but they didn't.
They pushed forward.
They did it the right way.
And really what they're saying is, and I would encourage people to read the actual complaint that was filed.
I would encourage you to bring the microphone a little bit closer.
No, I don't want to breathe in it.
Earlier you were wheezing into it like a pug.
I am a pug.
Okay.
Whoa!
But here's, breaking, Will's a pug!
AudioWay just really liked me now.
So here's the thing is when you actually read it like that phrase for example was just incredible where you know the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot integrity protections.
I feel like I'm in the locker room in high school.
Except it was a penis, unfortunately.
Every time I run into Gerald, this is what he tries to do to me.
So when you listen to that, go read that and compare that to some of the other lawsuits that were filed.
And the way that it says is, look at the facts.
We know how you were running it in these states.
We know how you were running it in the TCF Center in Detroit.
We know how you were running it in Georgia.
We know how you're running in Pennsylvania.
We're not saying you should have done something like you should have changed the laws.
We're saying you didn't follow your own laws.
And that calls into question.
So now that that last question I was asking about why should other people care, it's because if these states are allowed to do whatever they want with regards to ballot integrity protections, Yeah.
That means your vote is reduced in statute.
I tell you, though, we had gotten into the scoop that he was going to give us the actual states that are joined on.
So I'm sorry if I told you guys, because that's what we had.
But I guess, you know, legal issues.
But you'll probably know in the next couple of hours.
However, the number, it's a number that might surprise you.
I'm looking forward to that.
Listen, there's a little inside baseball and I can't tell you because I don't want to be subpoenaed on that.
Though, you know, on the big tech issue, God, I hope I never get dragged in.
It was a bigger number than we thought on the amici thing.
18 rather than 17.
Yeah, that's surprising, and if just a few of them actually sack up to actually have some skin in the game, that could be a big deal.
Did I make his audio better for you, or did I make it worse?
So good.
By the way, hit the notification bell if you are subscribed, because subscriptions don't mean a whole lot.
And let me know, by the way, comment if you got a notification yesterday, because a lot of people didn't get a notification or only got it after the stream had been off air for an hour.
That's another example of YouTube screwery, which we will get into in a little bit.
We have a bunch of news to get to.
Also, there are hearings right now going on in Georgia, which we'll be covering in a little bit.
But first, we talked about Eric Swalwell yesterday.
We did.
You know this, right?
You weren't here with us.
No, no, no.
Banging fang fang.
You know your people were involved.
Fang fang.
Fang fang.
Is that how it's pronounced?
Fang fang.
I love you, my fang fang.
You don't know Wang Wang, the spy?
No.
Is he Indonesian?
We can bring that up.
Eric Swalwell, we covered this yesterday, and we so boldly assumed that he did it.
And he just released a statement, I think we have a clip now, in response to it.
At first, what he said, and what he should have continued saying, was nothing.
There's some wisdom there.
Instead, he responded, see if you hear, uh, not guilty in there.
This is Swalwell's response.
But the wrongdoing here, Jim, is that at the same time this story was being leaked out, is the time that I was working on impeachment on the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
And if this is a country where people who criticize the president are going to have law enforcement information weaponized against them, that's not a country that any of us want to live in.
And I hope it is investigated as to Who leaked this information?
If I'm if I'm if I'm if I'm for sure I just go what'd you do you mean the FBI sex tape?
And I understand by the way using arms of the government like the FBI or the CIA
Uh, or the internal revenue service to target political opponents. I understand that's a problem
Obviously, I would agree with you on that but more pressing did you bang an an asian spy on tape?
Right and by the way, the surest way to derail impeachment was to go after swalwell like
He wasn't in charge of it, he was working with other people at work!
At that point, just lie.
Clearly the Chinese spy has no problem lying and leaping their way to the top of Swalwell, but once the story is released, just say it was Obama at that point.
If you don't have a problem lying...
Are you saying he should have said he was sleeping with Obama?
No, the Chinese spy.
Once the Chinese spy probably didn't really know, you know, cultural differences and then came back and was like, you know, like a dog bringing in a dead bird and they brought you a gift.
You're like, I don't want that.
Like, hey, hey.
And they're like, oh, it's Swalwell.
Son of a bitch.
You're fired.
Really, it was like sleeping your way to mediocrity, not the top, right?
She really aimed wrong.
She was like the C-team, and they were like, yeah, yeah, yeah, just see if you can find just some random guy.
It was training, basically.
It was Swalwell being like, I'm really important.
I'm really, really... Oh, Swalwell!
Oh, please tell me you double bag it!
Also, this is something interesting.
I think Andrew Klavan has talked about this.
If there's a scandal with a Republican or a Conservative, it's about that scandal.
And if it's a scandal with a Liberal, like Swalwell, it's how did they get the information.
Same thing happened, by the way, with that man, Andrew Breitbart, with Anthony Weiner, where he had pictures of his giant, throbbing erection from the Space Odyssey angle.
And they just claimed that nothing was going on.
And then they said, well, how did Andrew Breitbart procure this?
And that was Andrew Breitbart's story.
He was saying, well, that's my question, is who else has these pictures and what kind of leverage do they have on our officials?
Just prosciutto.
Jim Prosciutto at CNN.
Just, did you have sex with the Asian spy?
And was she worth it?
That's the question.
I'm sorry, was that a yes you slept with a spy or a no she walked out when you dropped your paper?
Can you imagine if there were, I don't know, let's say actual videographic evidence of Donald Trump watching Russian prostitutes peeing on furniture?
That would be the story for the entire day.
I've been watching seen in a 24-hour cycle.
They barely touch it.
And then they ask him that and they go, well, what happened?
I can't believe that this information was leaked.
Good enough for me.
Back to you, papi.
Well, we don't have to imagine, Stephen.
His taxes were leaked illegally and then covered in contravention to all of the YouTube, Facebook, Twitter's policies on hacked information being leaked.
And it was put out there.
Nobody asked how they got it.
Which was Swalwell?
No, no, no.
Trump.
We don't have to imagine if something could happen like that for Trump.
We have a specific case.
Oh, speaking of which, we have more info on Hunter Biden.
Turns out, now that the break is certified, he is under investigation.
It's a tax issue.
That's what people say.
It's a tax issue.
A tax issue in relation to China.
Going down with China.
Corruption with China.
Sorry, half-Asian.
A lot of the Chinese stories today.
Look, look, look.
I'm just going to say that the Chinese version of the KGB slash CIA is right now killing people's families for having been caught.
I mean, the person who slept with Swalwell, her whole line is going to be wiped out for having gone over someone so low.
They're very ruthless.
What can I say?
You think she'll be punished for not being someone higher up?
Yeah, they're going to make her go back and do it again with Swalwell.
No, no.
Go until he's important.
Go until he's important.
That's what he said to her.
That's what he screams.
I'M IMPORTANT!
He did that in the interview with Prosciutto and Cheese.
They let her live for better than this.
Come on!
As a baby, come on.
Hey, by the way, we don't know how long we'll be on here, so we are on Parler.
Facebook things are changing a little bit, and we'll be taking some live chat as we cover these hearings in a little bit on Georgia for Mug Club only.
Lightoffcutter.com slash Mug Club.
That's what allows us to do this, and that's what allows us to do the live stream next week.
Still, you know, 10 a.m.
Eastern from Nevada.
We will be driving around.
We're creating the maps.
If I could go to hundreds or thousands of addresses, I would.
I think we'll probably be able to hit somewhere between 20 and 40.
It'll be between 3 and 6 hours of streaming, and you can see that these addresses don't exist.
Nothing to see there!
I double-dog dare you to ban this, YouTube!
Oh, another story before we move on, because we have a lot to talk about with YouTube.
Thank you so much.
I'm glad my half-Asian Kraken's here.
You guys probably know that Michigan Representative RuPaul Cynthia Johnson threatened to trump supporters on Facebook since she's actually been removed from her post.
So many of you have seen this probably, but I watched it and I was appalled.
And sometimes what happens with the show is I'll watch something, I'll see it breaking, I'm appalled, and then by the time I have to cover it on the show, I've seen it two, three times, and some of that fire is gone.
So, um, actually this is what we will introduce as a new segment.
So, you know exactly how he's feeling at that moment in time.
So, you know, that I'm in this fight with you where we will watch this tape, uh, and
uh, I will get into the zone in what we call reacting.
Okay.
Uh, so let me get in the headspace of when I saw this yesterday.
Maybe it was the day before.
So you can know exactly how I was feeling at that point in time.
Let's go to Michigan Democrat State Representative Cynthia RuPaul Johnson.
So this is just a warning to you Trumpers.
Be careful.
Walk lightly.
We ain't playing with you.
Enough of the shenanigans.
Enough is enough.
And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it.
Do it right.
Be in order.
Make them pay.
I love y'all.
Bye-bye.
It's like you were there.
Yeah, yeah.
Wow.
That was riveting.
You're amazing.
Did you have to go under your past to use something?
I read a book from Daniel Day-Lewis.
But then I just kept running around the house going, GIVE ME MY NAME!
I've abandoned my boy.
Going through the fridge looking for a milkshake.
If I drink your milkshake, I drink it up!
What is this film?
It's Oscar bait!
That's when Joe Louis goes and hides behind the couch.
He's like, not the milkshake!
I don't want him to take my milkshake.
Alright, so we just went through that.
My question to you, by the way, as we go into YouTube, again, just comment below.
This is the best thing you can do to help these get through the YouTube algorithm.
Have you seen, can you remember any example, while we're talking about YouTube and their interference now in not only pre-election but post-election news coverage, can you think of anything comparable happening with someone from the left?
And I don't mean a leftist channel being taken down for a copyright strike.
I mean actually removing fake news from the left, for example, like Russia or peeing Russian prostitutes.
Tell me if anything comes to mind.
I remember a really good one.
It was back in the beginning of COVID when all these sites were like, don't wear masks.
Terrible.
And you remember YouTube came by and they just removed all of those Yeah.
Oh no, they didn't.
No, but we were fact-checked because we said, you know, wearing masks is good.
Yeah, yeah.
Commie.
Yeah, and YouTube said, see Fauci.
And he was like, don't wear masks.
And we were like, oh my gosh.
We can never put one over on Fauci.
It's tough to do that when someone has no accountability or track record of being right.
Um, just Google for people out there.
Fauci AIDS.
Just run a quick search.
Look in the history.
Fauci AIDS.
Yeah, okay.
I don't know if Google will tell them.
Yeah, I don't know if Google will tell them.
Just put safe search on.
So here's YouTube.
We'll recap what kind of happened yesterday.
I wanted to go through this with my half-faced lawyer, Bill Richman.
YouTube claimed about the election, you know, stories.
We will start removing any piece of content uploaded today or any time after that misleads people.
Can you bring this up there as an overlay?
That misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
In line with our approach towards historical U.S.
presidential elections.
I guess we don't have the policy up here.
You guys saw it yesterday.
Do we have it there?
Just know that I'm not lying.
Just go to Google or YouTube and type in policy.
Now if you're looking for it it's under the heading of spam and scams.
Yes, exactly.
Or by the way, just hit lottowithcrowder.com.
There's a link in the description below and we have all the links and the sources that we try to make available to you.
Spam and Scam sounds like a buddy cop movie.
It does.
Spam and Scam.
Could you clean up your room?
Oh, you're so uptight.
It's like fake ham and the other fake ham.
I mean, it is like a buddy cop animal movie, you know, where it's like a cat and a hedgehog or something.
But no, that's what it is.
It's like a buddy cop film with YouTube and Facebook, where all they do is beat down black guys mercilessly with no cause.
While they cackle on their billions of dollars.
So a quick, by the way, a quick YouTube search reveals, it shows us that this is not true, to be clear.
So I want to read this quote again, that they will remove any piece of content uploaded today or after that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors.
Change the outcome of the election.
Now, the key there is they say 2020 election.
Yeah.
Because why doesn't it apply to other elections?
In other words, the spirit of the law should be, okay, you want to remove fraudulent information.
Yeah.
Well, as of right now, I think we have a montage.
There are still many clips up claiming that the 2016 win of President Trump, your president, not president-elect because Jim Prosciutto says so, lost because of fraud in 2016.
Russia hacked the 2016 elections, and they're going to do it again.
It's not that the Russians will be back.
Still up!
They haven't left.
And they will only get better.
Their methods will only grow more sophisticated.
U.S.
officials say that they have no reason to believe the Russian cyber attacks will stop.
Elaine, the other problem is, it is likely that the Russian hacking units hit targets that have yet to show up on U.S.
investigators' radar.
If you can get a hashtag trending on Twitter, or chum the waters with fake news directed
to audiences primed to receive it, or drive journalists to dissect terabytes of email
for a scent of impropriety—all tactics used in Russian operations—then you've got
a shot at effectively camouflaging your operations in the mind of your target.
If this were Red Dawn, they'd be fighting against the Wolverine.
Get out of here, Swayze!
They themselves, in perpetuating this narrative, have been doing the bidding for, not really so much the Russians, but the Chinese.
Oh, absolutely.
That's also how Swalwell fell into the trap.
I appreciate the cooperativeness.
So that, by the way, so they can push this, which is verifiably false, there has been an investigation.
Unlike right now, where there have been suits filed and there hasn't been a full investigation.
The suits aren't even done.
The election, the disputes have not even been resolved.
That is resolved.
It did not happen.
Donald Trump basically, he was a victim of the greatest witch hunt of modern American history for a phone call.
You may not like it, but, and Bill Barr had to say it, and you know he probably really didn't want to.
Something else, while we're talking about this, sure they still have disinformation up there about the Russian hacking, but YouTube Well, they're saying right now they're going to get rid of anyone who even addresses widespread voter fraud.
They still have content up on their platform that is bordering on... Well, some of it, no, is outright illegal.
Here you go.
What you do is you light it and you keep the flame about an inch away.
Now, if you see what I'm doing, you slowly rotate it left and right.
And then you'll start to see a vapor start to come up and then you hit it.
Keep it lit and hit it and keep rotating it.
We got some hash.
We got some molly.
How to sell drugs.
We got some shrooms for 60.
What a title!
How do they ship it?
Is it private or are they shipping it to FedEx?
We use all three providers actually.
He went on Shark Tank.
Shipping it, driving it.
Whatever it takes to get it, here we go.
How to sell drugs on YouTube.
They're not stupid either.
They know what's going on.
Everybody's doing it right now.
So I'm going to try and order some drugs online.
And to do this, I'm going to set up my own Instagram account and Snapchat account.
Animal cruelty.
We'll try and keep this as short as possible.
That's the one that I guess YouTube might say is borderline content.
No, that's a copyright strike from Netflix on Cuties.
Yeah, it's a copyright on Cuties.
Let's turn it because you have little girls and thongs and apparently that's not a problem.
And we blurred it, so it wasn't blurred originally.
But we didn't blur the drug dealer guy.
Though we knew who it was when that same face and blur showed up on Shark Tank saying, I'm seeking $20 million for a 10% stake in my crack house.
What do you think?
Maybe not.
I know Lloyd Grineer might be right for this because you sell cheap shit on QVC.
She can't sell anything.
And by the way, YouTube is now, we're opening up the floor to Bill Richman and stuff, and everyone can let us know what's going on with the Georgia hearings.
YouTube's not only let these videos obviously flourish regarding the 2016 myth, but they also have allowed many videos that just claim Donald Trump is an illegitimate president, right?
You can still find these things right now available on YouTube.
And the funny thing is, too, there's fact checks About the election, they just redirect to a general government website that says, oh no, the election's been called, or any claims of voter fraud are in dispute.
That's all they do.
There's no link to ongoing lawsuits.
There's no link to evidence.
There's no link to voter rolls.
There's no link to the complaints to the file.
There's no link right now to the Supreme Court case.
You may not like it, but that is relevant, and these disputes are still ongoing.
Well, and I know that there's this fraud kind of thing that they put in there, but why did they use the word errors?
If you refer to election errors, like, the only way we're going to do that is if there was an error made.
Like, it's a binary thing.
They either did it right or they didn't do it right.
Why would you give that caveat?
And the other part of it is the phrase widespread, right?
Right.
No one's alleging that, you know, there was some, like, election... Hold on one second.
Giuliani is on.
He looks pretty good for a guy with a disease with a 99.97% survival rate.
Stands out in a way and will always stand out in posterity with regard to this election because you have the thing that's going to live after this election no matter what and that is the videotape that proves that anyone who says that fraud is been debunked or there is no fraud is just plain blind or lying.
You have live from Atlanta, you've got Voter fraud right in front of people's eyes.
It's tough to tell the difference between COVID Rudy and non-COVID Rudy.
Yeah, debilitating disease.
But that's just the way he is.
It seems like he's doing okay.
It seems like he's quarantining, but I thought he would be wheezy.
I think he stared COVID in the eyes and goes, you can't take me lower than I already am.
And COVID was like, yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry dude.
You know what, you're right.
I forced a meeting of the five COVID families and used Rico.
By the way, we have some personal info as well on YouTube that we've experienced, but YouTube said they're looking even further ways to decrease anyone who contradicts the election narrative.
Here's another quote.
Despite these encouraging results, we recognize there's always more to do.
For example, while problematic misinformation represents a fraction of 1% of what's watched on YouTube in the United States, we know we can bring that number down even more And some videos, while not recommended prominently on YouTube, yours truly, continue to get high views sometimes coming from other sites.
We're continuing to consider this and other new challenges as we make ongoing improvements.
One quick thing too, Tim Poole reported that YouTube clarified to him, so I don't know if I can necessarily, if I can confirm this.
Sure.
Have we heard any answer from YouTube at all?
We haven't had a comment yet.
Okay, we haven't had a comment yet.
Well, that's always heartening.
It seems to be the common response.
Nothing.
The two conditions that must be met, according to Tim Pool, a video to be removed is they must claim widespread fraud and error and say that it made Trump lose.
So you can still say there's evidence maybe of fraud, and you can still say that Trump actually won, but you cannot combine the two.
And here's what's crazy.
Talk about controlled opposition.
I'm not talking about some deep state mind control technique, but when you say, OK, listen, you can say that Donald Trump, you think Donald Trump won, OK, but you just can't substantiate it.
The opinion is, I think this election was unfair, or I don't think Biden won anyway.
They go, OK, well, what makes you think that?
Well, I can't tell you that.
Why?
Because you're a stranger.
If someone says, I think Donald Trump won because there are these thousands of votes from addresses that don't exist, thousands of votes from people out of state, thousands of votes from people underage, they're algorithmic, statistical, improbable, banned.
So what do you end up with?
YouTube ends up with liberals, NBC, ABC, CBS, Universal, Vox, Disney, right?
All of these.
Turner.
And then the conservative on there who just goes, I don't care what anybody says, I think Trump won.
They go, see?
See?
That's all conservatives have.
Because someone like us saying, well, this is why I actually think it was an unfair election.
And we point to the actual irregularities.
And the court briefings get banned.
Isn't that brilliant?
The way that they've kind of threaded the needle here to make it impossible to give A truly credible argument at this point, going forward, is they've said you can either say Trump won, but don't give the substantiating evidence, to which then anyone can go, if they had evidence they would have said it.
Exactly.
Or you can just say, without saying what the conclusion is, give the evidence, which is to say, oh, this number of votes was wrong, this number of votes were incorrect ballots, shouldn't have been counted, came in after a deadline, etc.
But you can't then tie it to the conclusion, which is, it's impacted the outcome of the election.
So now you can just give this, but it's irrelevant.
There's no context.
Okay, so 5,000 ballots.
What do you mean?
Well, I can't tell you what I mean by that.
I can't tell you how it impacts.
I can't tell you why it's relevant.
YouTube is trying to cultivate an environment where you can voice an opinion and not substantiate it.
What's being banned from YouTube right now, what causes a problem, is statistical, factual, legal substantiation.
You can say, I think Donald Trump won, or I think the election's unfair.
You just can't provide the sources and evidence, which is great, that makes perfect sense, because the people who've, you know, housed in YouTube Studios, the Young Turks, or places like NBC Vox, where they co-produce shows with them, They don't provide sources, so wonderful for them.
They stand no risk to run afoul of something that limits transparency.
But these are strange times that we live in, so we cannot talk about widespread voter fraud if we were to insinuate that that may have impacted the election.
However, from what I understand, and I don't understand much, YouTube can't stop us from thinking About widespread voter fraud which may have led to Donald Trump winning the election.
So, I'd like to take a moment and exercise that remaining right.
Alright.
Bye.
So we still have that going for us.
Are we still up?
I don't know if we're still up.
That felt good.
I like that.
Some Minority Report spiders are gonna crawl in here in a second.
I didn't even have to have the tinfoil this time.
You were about to say something earlier, sorry, and I had to cut you off for Crazy Rudy.
And I love Rudy Giuliani, but he's a little, you know, that's what makes him fun.
So what's interesting here is now you're starting to see more of kind of the true colors, right?
So you've always said, right?
Like, hey, you're a business.
You own the same way that you can decide who comes in your business, that kind of thing.
You just have to be open about it.
And you can't violate certain laws as they're related to who you're letting in your business.
And so with YouTube, now you're starting to see the true colors.
What's interesting is you aren't seeing those same true colors when it comes to Facebook and the stuff that they just randomly take off, throttle, remove, that kind of thing.
Do we have an answer yet from Facebook on why the biggest independent election stream was taken down?
No, they haven't even answered.
And you let them know that you're a lawyer, correct?
I did, I did.
I said, I was like, look, I'm a lawyer.
I don't know where my law degree is, so I didn't send it to them.
I will find it under, you know, in my mom's closet and take a photo and send it to them.
Your Honor, motion to dismiss.
Why?
We don't really give a shit.
It's a motion to confirm no shits given.
Yes, exactly.
No answer.
We're just taking down an election night from Facebook.
None.
Whatsoever.
Think about that for a second.
Millions of fans, millions of followers on Facebook, and we spent a substantial amount of money advertising on Facebook.
We don't need more, of course, because they courted me, reached out and said, hey, you want to spend money and grow your business on Facebook?
And then they ban the election stream and don't even answer, not only through the channels available, the email,
the contact forms, but an actual notice from a lawyer.
A reach out.
They don't answer.
How do you run a business?
Imagine that.
Imagine that's like, wait, hold a second.
You were going to build my house.
There's no house.
And you send an email, hey, where's my house?
I paid for a house.
And then you make a phone call, I paid for it, and then you have a lawyer saying, hey, we're gonna have a problem.
What happened to the house?
Just radio silence!
Must be nice to be worth 700 billion dollars!
Right.
Well, and I watched an entire CNN segment this morning that was supposed to be covering this.
They had two correspondents in there to talk about it.
I'm like, oh, a little bit of back and forth.
That'll be fantastic.
All they said, I swear to you, you can go back and watch this, all they said is that there was nothing there.
They didn't mention the statements that were made in the suit that General Paxton brought.
They didn't say any of the other states that came on.
No, of course they didn't.
They just said they didn't like the election results, and that was what they... I was like, this is your, like, billions of dollars budget to go out and produce something like that?
I don't like the YouTube search results!
Where's my restitution?
Where's my 40 acres and a digital mule emoji?
There's no question here, and when you look at all the antitrust... There are many questions here.
But there is, of all the questions, a question that is totally answered already is, Are all of these different companies at some level working together to make sure that there's a consistent lid, if we're using Joe Biden's words, a consistent lid on any questions or dissent going forward about where this is.
I mean, this is what's crazy, and this is why America is so great, is even though these companies are coming in and feel that they can suppress any discussion about this going forward, at least we still have a legal system that allows us to file these briefs.
But as General Paxton said, this is the last resort.
And I'm really tired, I will say this, I'm really tired of the Republicans out there grandstanding on 230 and not really doing a whole lot.
Listen, guys, let me tell you, I may have a major announcement here to make next week.
afterwards.
And I'm really tired, I will say this, I'm really tired of the Republicans out there
grandstanding on 230 and not really doing a whole lot.
Listen guys, let me tell you, I may have a major announcement here to make next week.
There's no cavalry come over the hill.
Not to be, unless it's people like us, but the people who are perpetually employed and
even if they're Republicans who fancy themselves bulldogs, there's some information out there
that we know has been presented to people who could do something about it and they don't
So there's a problem with that too, and we need to vote him out.
And we'll cross our t's and dot our s's.
But actually, I have someone here that's a slight disagreement with my lawyer, and because it's a little disagreement, he's going to kick my ass.
So comment if you're watching.
Just hit like, comment right now.
It's the best thing you can do if you're a freeloader and you won't join Mug Club.
Which may be our only place not too long from now.
You know, I've run into this quite a bit while you're talking about sort of the legal recourse.
Right.
That's also something that YouTube, when we're talking about 230, they don't even follow, and I know what you were saying about, let me explain this first, then you make your argument, and then I would like to make mine.
I think we're about to agree.
Okay.
Oh no!
YouTube enjoys protection of the platform, but they don't even follow laws as it relates to states.
They don't even follow state laws, meaning single-party, dual-party consent states.
Meaning that if you videotape someone, you record somebody in a single-party consent state, you don't need their permission.
That's how investigative journalism is done.
However, YouTube decides that they don't follow that.
So you just saw that right there.
We've had videos removed from people in single-party consent states, by the way, so we don't need to ask for their permission, who gave permission.
On camera!
I think, actually, in one case, written, and then afterwards said, well, I don't like the way that it turned out, so I want it removed, and they were removed.
Yeah.
Wow.
But that's not the state law, and I know you were saying they can go above and beyond the law on that front.
Well, so the law itself says that here's the threshold you're required.
If you don't follow the law, then you might have that content removed.
So illegal content that violates state law might be removed.
There's no obligation that they allow us to do it, to put it up.
But here's the biggest problem is they allow that content up all the time.
They allow Vice, Vox, CNN, TMZ, they allow all of this content up where the person has affirmatively not consented to be up there.
And they go, well, it's a single-party consent state.
Sorry, you've got to let it up.
But then when we do it, it's, oh, this random person who yelled in public, came into a place that clearly they knew
they were being done, they signed, they agreed in the video they were going to do
it, but then later they realized they said some stupid shit and they complained to YouTube
and YouTube goes, well I understand it's a single party consensus but we need
you to take it down.
Right.
That is the hypocrisy that's coming through on this particular issue.
And also I do think that it's a violation of law overall because if YouTube is going to be a
platform, right, you don't get to stop someone in a town square.
For example, let's say you're a police officer in a town square and someone is videotaping people in public and someone says, I don't want to be videotaped.
All the police officer can do is say, well, you get out of the town square.
So if you are enjoying the platform of being the digital town square, which is what you guys have claimed under 230, you do not get to say, actually, you have to stop filming.
Especially not if we say, hey, we're filming, someone agrees to it, or sits down, for example, and it changed my mind, where they clearly know there's a camera, and a camera, and a camera, and a camera, and a camera, and afterward they say, well, we don't want to do it, you take it down.
That's just, let's recap this really quickly.
YouTube can create a policy that says, we will remove any substantial claims, any substantiations of the idea that Donald Trump lost If it includes voter fraud, right?
Any claims of voter fraud resulting in the outcome of this election being in dispute, we will remove.
That's something they will enforce.
They do not enforce that when the left says that the 2016 election was hacked by the Russians and that Donald Trump was illegitimate.
Then we move down the list and it's, hey, you know what?
We enjoy the protections of 230 because we're a platform.
We are not a publisher.
And then they say, but you have to take this down because this person said they didn't want to be filmed.
We don't care if it's a single party consent state.
That can remove all investigative journalism from the right.
You've seen it with us.
We've experienced it.
You've seen it from people like James O'Keefe.
And then they say to Vice and these, or Vox, these other outlets.
No, no, no.
But in your case, as long as you're following state law, it's fine.
It gives them the selective process to determine what information you can and cannot see, and that is what a publisher does.
That needs to change now.
It's almost as bad as if YouTube reached out to creators and said, like, hey, hey, before you submit anything, let us review it and give you some changes, just like an editor at the New York Times.
The major point here is when you look at 230 and the protection that incorrect court decisions have allowed them to continue to do is to translate 230's good faith application of removal policies and say that oh it's okay for you to say you do it one way with regard to single-party consent but then do it a different way and the only difference Is because of the types of content that's being done.
The policies are exactly the same.
The ignoring or following a single consent law by the creator is exactly the same.
But you let some people do it when you're okay with the content and you don't let them do it when it's other creators with other content like your stuff.
And that's where you fall out of 230.
That's where you violate what 230 is.
You should no longer have the protection because you're no longer acting in good faith to remove that.
This is just when people get mad about the fact that they decided to try and leak, which is illegal, Donald Trump's tax returns and then not cover Hunter Biden.
Listen, that's you get mad at Fox News, CNN, ABC, NBC.
Great.
OK, we understand.
And also on Twitter, they allowed Trump's tax returns, but they punted the Hunter Biden story saying there was a violation of hacking.
Now take that and apply it across anywhere anyone can get information.
And then these people at YouTube and Facebook have the gall to bitch about echo chambers.
Yes!
Yes!
You!
You're the chamber!
When Half-Asian Bill reaches out to Facebook to say, hey, hold on a second, why did you ban our stream, stream, stream, stream?
It's just an echo!
Right.
Well, and this was our protection, right?
So this was the thing that we could go to to make sure that our voice was heard.
We went to these other platforms because we know the media wasn't going to necessarily cover all of the stories fairly.
This is how democracy, this democratic republic, dies.
It dies.
It dies here.
Because if we can't get out factual information that maybe isn't convenient for the people that own these companies, or maybe isn't convenient for a political viewpoint, you can never have freedom of speech again in this country.
You're just going to believe whatever you're told, right?
And so for any of you out there who are like, why do you keep talking about 230?
Because it is the very most important thing going on right now.
And if your representatives don't take action on it, get them out.
Get somebody else in.
No, there's some stuff I gotta do.
It may mean that I might not be able to do this show in this capacity for much longer.
If other people aren't going to step up, there's some stuff I gotta do.
So we'll have some announcements coming up.
What's that, Patient Bill?
You can't announce it.
No, I'm not announcing anything.
I'm just saying, don't be surprised if I'm not here doing this show as you see it now, because I'm not going to be one of those guys who, you know, you see these people on online message boards, and if we bleed together, we are brothers together.
What are you doing?
What are you doing?
Now, we've filed suits in the past where we've filed petitions of information, but there's more that I can do.
I just can't do it and do this at the same time.
So there's some decisions that have to be made because, yeah, I'm not gonna see the thread of our constitutional republic be tugged on and have the opportunity to do something and not do something about it.
And it requires a little more than... You know who's holding that thread?
I got the tingles.
It's Zuckerberg with his little alien finger.
Like Mr. Burns in the cornfield with nuclear radiation.
That's a great episode.
Is there something here that we want to watch?
Is that why this is up on here?
Georgia?
I think, yeah, I think it's Giuliani going through the security footage.
Okay, let's see this really quickly and then we'll talk about Hunter Biden.
But because the media was part of the cover up here, and we know it is, it wasn't done.
This is a horrible crime that's been committed against the American people.
Georgia has... Fact check.
They weren't suitcases.
Probably the piece of the most dramatic evidence.
You don't have the most cheating.
You didn't have to cheat as much.
I mean, the margin was only 10,000.
The most cheating, obviously, occurred in the places where they made the most money.
They're going to say, the margin was 12,000.
Pennsylvania.
Which, by the way, it was 14,000 plus before a recount without signature checks.
What is that?
What's a level of cheating?
I am guaranteeing that they're using this to, the policy is directed specifically to Giuliani stuff.
Like, the new policy, this is the kind of stuff that they're going to be like, oh, nope.
Oh, you're gonna try and ban us from listening?
Well, no, they might.
The policy's so vague, it's unclear.
Oh, then you know what?
You'll billable hours, Bill.
Because we let this happen.
We let this erosion of our free speech take place.
We let the erosion of our freedom of religion take place.
Let me ask you this, while we're talking about this right now, and people out there, there's back and forth, people go, oh, it's conjecture.
This is an election of the most important person in the free world.
Yeah.
Why do we not have the ability to simply check what votes went in at that time in those machines?
Yeah. The unconstitutional relaxation of ballot integrity protections. Right.
Hey, well, hold on a second. It happened between, what, 10 and 1?
Well, we weren't counting. We were tabulating. Okay. What was tabulated?
Yeah. And the answer on some of this stuff has been like, well,
these are the sorts of machines that you can't audit.
Yes. Right. What? They gave us the option.
You can't audit? You guys tell me. Is it unreasonable for me to say, well, okay,
how many went through with that?
Because it just happens to coincide with the dump that flipped the state.
Just those ones.
Look at those notes.
Go right in.
Open it up.
Go on through.
Use a pen.
I think you open it up and hidden in sign is a little Fauci.
It's the Indian in the ballot.
They don't have to show their work.
It's the Wizard of Ballots.
We just take the incompetence of the DMV and then you transfer all those people over to the state elections and there you go!
Pay no attention to the man in the ballot machine.
Yeah, nothing could go wrong.
They didn't debunk anything, they just said that they lied.
That was their claim.
They were like, no, no, no, no, no one, actually, no one was sent home.
And, uh, yeah.
We said, well, hold on a second.
You said people were sent home and you stopped counting.
No, no, no!
No, because what we said was, we said was, um, we sent people home and we stopped counting.
Said the election official.
Yeah, exactly.
Now we have this video.
But what happened is we didn't send anybody home.
We didn't stop counting.
We just did another bad thing.
Debunked!
Yeah.
You just got WAPOED!
Fact check.
You just proved my point, actually.
WAPOED.
Oh look, if they're about to show this video of this broad with the absentee ballots, it's like Giuliani has been watching our show.
I feel like way when I watch the news.
In one of these next hearings it's just going to be our six hour stream from next Thursday where we're driving from non-voting address to non-voting address and that's happening.
What is next Thursday?
What's the date?
Can someone let me know? 17.
Thursday the 17th, we'll have Dave Landau, some special guests.
We are trying to set this up.
Now listen, the connection might drop, so we have to stream here to this studio, and if it drops, it'll just drop for maybe 30 seconds to a minute.
Stay with us.
The reason for this is so many people say, well, the numbers, you don't really know.
We have done research, and we don't have enough time to show you all of the bullshit addresses, but we will drive in an RV.
That's the correct pronunciation, by the way.
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Addresses, but we will drive from address to address to address to address for as long
as we have a tank of gas and show you the voter registration.
Where people voted from!
Which, by the way, is illegal!
Oh, no, no, no, irregularities, right?
Right, right, right.
Maybe irregularities.
You gotta say non-widespread fraud.
You can say, like, there was X tens of thousands of votes, but not... Can we get a definition of widespread?
I will say there are many, many tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of this example, of the kind of address example that you can find online, but We don't have time.
No.
We're still up.
Because we'll be in an RV, not a DeLorean, so I don't know how many we'll be able to show you, but I just think it's important that you see at least a couple dozen, right?
That way you know, hey, put a bullshit asshole address to the asshole name that they tell you doesn't exist.
It exists.
Some are empty lots.
Some are random boxes.
Some are just addresses on streets where the numbers have already ended.
Really?
We've done our due diligence, and we will be driving from address to address to address on Thursday.
We're taking a risk, and we just want you to go along with us.
Our last show of the year.
I don't expect it to be on for a very long time.
And look, when we're out there, I mean, you've made this point a number of times, which is, hey, guys, if you're sharing information... You're welcome to come.
No, no, I'm sending my Chinese spies.
Don't worry.
You're closer to them.
That just sounds like a party.
Yeah.
Hey, Swallow will be there.
Oh, no.
He doesn't share.
So look at it.
We've talked about this.
If you're sharing unvetted information as a conservative who's questioning what's going on in this election, and you haven't vetted that information, there's no doubt that well-meaning people are sharing bad information.
And that is creating a smokescreen that allows the WAPOs to come in and go, see, that one's bunk, that one's a bunk, that one's a bunk, that one's a bunk.
And it's like, okay, fine.
I didn't share those four.
These are the ones that really matter.
And that's what Paxson was saying was, look, some of that other stuff may or may not be good.
It's not what we're doing.
But what we are saying is indisputable facts about how these elections were run were run in violation of their own laws.
They set the rules.
They didn't follow them.
And it led to a potential impact on an election.
I haven't said which election.
No, it could be an election somewhere.
You never want to use the definitive article.
THE election.
We don't know what happens.
We don't know the inner workings of the parliamentary system in Botswana.
We don't.
I do.
It's true.
Whether this had an impact on it or not.
Son of a bitch.
Ghana?
Let's pick one that we don't know about.
They don't have a constitutional system or a parliamentary system.
I don't know.
Someone put me in a Santa suit and give me a kid to talk to.
Can I go back to something real quick?
You said something about this, but at the end of that first quote where they're saying that it impacted the 2020 U.S.
presidential election, this is the most laughable... Careful?
I know nothing!
This is what they said.
I'm reading their policy, right?
This is the most laughable part.
In line with our approach towards historical U.S.
presidential elections.
That last part.
It is.
This policy has been historically the same policy that you've had in previous... I know we covered talking about 16, but I like how they threw that in there right there on the thing.
Didn't even have to say that.
And said, it's just the same that we've been doing before.
YouTube's been around since 2005.
Yeah.
You did this for Bush.
Not Bush, I guess the end of his deal.
So Obama, you did this for that.
McCain and Romney.
Yeah.
You did it for that, too, right?
Well, I mean, those people were wieners and inconsequential, so they weren't really willing to fight.
They didn't really need to try and beat the fight out of Romney or McCain.
No, they just folded.
Certainly not Romney.
Yeah.
They just placed him on the top of their car like he did their dogs.
Yeah, they grabbed his ponytail.
Exactly, they grabbed it!
Holy underwear wedgie!
No, I think holy underwear doesn't wedge.
Oh, that's true.
It's very thick.
We speak of holy things.
Speaking of Hunter Biden!
Hey, by the way, many people may not remember this.
10% of Americans said it would have changed their vote had they heard about the Hunter Biden story.
I don't know if you can bring that up there at some point, or have someone send it there to Tokunawa, because I do have some other overlays here, but Hunter Biden now is the subject of a federal tax investigation.
What?
It just happened, right?
This is breaking news.
He confirmed it.
Of course, this is breaking news that was reported in October.
Wait.
Maybe this is the component that Tucker Carlson lost in the mail?
I remember, you remember way back in the October days?
Yeah.
When we were like, why isn't this...
What?
Bigger story, right?
This is, what?
And it was taken off Twitter.
It was taken off Twitter.
It was taken off Twitter and said it was hacked.
It wasn't hacked.
He was so strung out on crack and foot jobs that he left his computer with Geek Squad.
There was nothing illegal.
It's not his fault.
He didn't even wake up.
I think the rule was that 60 days or 90 days, whatever it was, it was past that rule.
He didn't even come back after a 90-day crack and foot job stupor and go, hey, I didn't leave my incredibly incriminating laptop here, did I?
He didn't even have that awareness.
But Jack Dorsey decided that they were going to remove the Hunter Biden story.
And they were the ones stupid enough to outright Yeah, it looks like the number was 1 in 6 Biden voters would have changed their minds if they had known the full story.
1 in 6 Biden voters would have changed their minds?
What's the margin in swing states?
So let's not even talk about the widespread fraud, which of course never happened, and this hearing isn't going on, and we didn't just have the Texas AG, right?
None of that!
Figment of your imagination!
Nothingness!
I'm thinking about it!
It doesn't matter!
Stop it!
I'm thinking about it!
It's not!
It is not a fair election because of the fact that the media controls all this information.
If you take away the fact that they completely suppressed the Biden story, that they'd amplified the Russia story, that they'd amplified the impeachment story, that they'd amplified Donald Trump's tax returns, let me ask you this.
How many times did you hear in the mainstream media that we had unemployment at 3.6%?
When did you ever hear that?
Ever!
When did you ever hear that more Americans had dollars in their pockets, both in their paycheck and saving from their paycheck paying in taxes?
When did you ever hear about that?
When did you ever hear in the media that the average family household income went up $5,000 under Donald Trump, where it was $1,000 under the entirety of Obama's administration?
When did you ever hear that?
None of it.
You heard none of that information.
It wasn't a fair election because these big tech billionaire oligarchies effectively decided that it could not be.
And by the way, while we're talking about this, I do think that businesses have the right to make political donations.
We're talking about Citizens United.
Again, you don't know about that case.
What that was was Hillary Clinton actually trying to ban an anti-Hillary Clinton film.
But Democrats talk about how they're against big money in politics.
How about the $350 million from one guy, Zuckerberg?
To get out the vote campaigns.
How about that?
You don't have a problem with that?
So let's not act like this is a fair election regardless of the hundreds of thousands of voters that either don't exist or out of state, underage, or double voted.
Illegally voted.
So one thing, and I'll say this may be a controversial opinion, there is a distinction between Influencing, rigging, and fraud.
Right.
And I would say that at a certain level, there could even be violations of campaign finance laws through supporting a particular candidate or belief or set of systems or a party through your actions that may not be fraud, because fraud is lying or not lying.
So what's interesting about the Hunter Biden thing is the timing of going through and saying, we're not going to let this information out.
Right.
That may not be fraud under a legal standard, but without question, it was influence.
Without question it was trying to rig the election so that information was not getting
out that clearly citizens would have been using, and that was demonstrably at the time
true, under an argument that we don't let this kind of information out because it was
found surreptitiously.
When you let that information out all the time on other topics.
That's where the phrase fake news comes from, is where the left was saying that all of these
Facebook headlines were deceiving and that was the reason that Trump was elected.
But they can point out the media influence, and they can also point out some kind of fraud that might have happened in 2016, but we can't.
Hey, by the way, really quickly, can you bring back up that Swalwell clip?
Yeah.
Let's bring that back up because, you know, Swalwell, who was banging Asian spies... Certainly.
He can't tell whether it's the same one or multiple.
He's just in a pool of Asian spies like Gary Oldman in the awful rendition of Dracula.
So it's just Eric Swalwell and pointy tits.
Let's play the Swalwell clip because there's something in there that he said that I think might be relevant to the Hunter Biden scenario.
Play it.
But the wrongdoing here, Jim, is that At the same time this story was being leaked out is the time that I was working on impeachment on the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees.
And if this is a country where People who criticize the president are going to have law enforcement information weaponized against them.
That's not a country that any of us want to live in.
And I hope it is investigated as to who leaked this information.
So his problem was with selective leaking, right?
Well, we know that intelligence agencies, I don't know, maybe Tocanaga can grab this, I don't know if it was the CIA or FBI or the Internal Revenue Service, had Hunter Biden's laptop while the story was being covered in October.
FBI.
It was the FBI?
I believe it was the FBI.
The FBI had the laptop.
And decided to hold on to that until after the election.
We're suave on that.
I know you have a problem when someone's leaking your leaking on an Asian spy prostitute, but where are you when it comes to drip drip, you know, buttoning this up and fixing the leak in the pipe so that nobody knows and people are made to feel crazy if they say this Hunter Biden story is really important because it could compromise the next leader of the free world.
They had access to it all this time.
Yeah.
How about the selective leaking outrage there?
You're a conspiracy theorist.
Yeah, pretty much.
And it's not like... So, CNN, I was telling you... I mean, you understand the point that I'm making?
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Well, as well as saying, oh, the real problem is, isn't it suspect that they're leaking this now?
I would argue, sure.
But...
You did have sex with Asian spies.
You can literally deal with both of those things at the same time.
You can deal with both of those things.
You can say, hey, wait a minute, we need to figure out how these investigations are being compromised and how it's being released.
That doesn't change... You didn't un-bang the bell.
Un-bang the fang.
You didn't do it.
Well look, I had to watch that same segment.
Just hold on a second.
General rule of thumb, just don't have sex with any Chinese women anymore.
They're not really that into you.
No, I wouldn't be around.
No, I wouldn't even be here.
Chinese men are fine.
Steven, we have it the wrong way.
He actually recruited her.
He was like, please involve me in a scandal so that I'll be on the news again.
I need to be relevant.
I want people to care.
He told her he was president-elect because that's just...
It's the other office of President-elect.
Well, it gets even worse.
So CNN, not only did they say that this is breaking news, I watched a segment this morning on this as well, they had the balls to say it was because of the intrepid reporting of blah blah blah, our reporter, and people shaking their heads.
Yes, did a fantastic job uncovering this.
So what did you do?
Go back and watch our clips from October to get your information?
Because this is not only not breaking, you didn't do a damn thing to get the information!
I bet you know that if they've come out and said he's under investigation now, it must be really bad.
Yeah.
Because just what we have is really bad.
And what's funny is former Vice President Joe Biden released a statement saying that he was deeply proud of his son.
That was really his only commentary.
And you know what?
Listen, we can see why.
Yeah, he has every reason to be proud.
So many things to be proud of.
Man, I hope I can raise a son.
And they're gonna get him on his taxes!
Look, Hunter, you're in the news!
It's like Al Capone if Al Capone were the former vice president's retarded son.
Can you just, I just can't wait when we see him designing the new, what is it, he's gonna go out to the Rose Garden, you know, it's gonna be Hunter Biden, and you're like, why are all these roses white?
Why are they so powdery?
That's weird.
That's weird.
That's strange, man.
Are these poppies?
Are you throwing poppies at me?
It's the poppies!
So hey, hey, Bill, just to clarify, so taxes, right?
Regarding, his taxes regarding his influence, his business dealings, where?
It's not, you know, it's not clear.
It's either Vermont or China.
Oh, oh, it could be China.
China, Vermont.
Like there's a place called Egypt, uh, Texas.
Yeah.
Mexico, Missouri.
So the place that Biden is going to be tougher on than Donald Trump.
Yeah.
So I'm just making sure I can connect all of the dots here.
For crying out loud, the Vibes were having cocktail parties with Swalwells.
They were probably handing out numbers for their masseuses.
You really think they're It's that hard to connect the dots?
You think I'm some serial killer with yarn?
Hold on a second.
No, wait.
We really only need three points of contact.
Hunter Biden, crack cocaine foot jobs from Chinese hookers and Chinese business dealings.
Eric Swalwell, banging Chinese spies.
Joe Biden!
There you go!
There you go!
Connected the dots!
It's like a children's menu at Denny's!
I can't wait.
There's gonna be the next policy that comes out that's like under the spam and scam, right?
It's gonna be like... The integrity of the first son needs to be respected.
He needs his space to sow his wild crack.
That was even easier than the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
So that was nice.
I like it.
Let's go really quickly to the Georgia hearing.
And by the way, the best thing you guys can do, if you're watching right now, The Archive, just comment something.
We're doing an Ask Me Anything next Thursday, where we will be streaming live December 17th.
All of these addresses, and we'll be taking your questions in your chat.
So load them up!
And no question is too uncomfortable, though I don't promise I'll answer.
All the way back into counties in Kentucky, or in your case, Georgia.
All right, that's enough about that part of it.
It's important to understand at a very high level sort of how the Dominion system works.
Can you explain it in a way that resembles paint drying?
I'm already on it.
I have been told that my voice is quite similar in frequency to that of crickets getting busy.
Or as we say in the South, In the middle of the road with a dead armadillo and a lone star candlelight.
What are you talking about?
We southerners don't make sense.
He's not even watching paint dry.
The paint's already dry.
Now this is paint eroding.
I think what he's saying is that the computers were connected to the internet.
That's a big thing.
And this is the problem, too.
That's why we wanted to have Attorney General Ken Paxson on the show to try and boil this down.
Listen, I will tell you this.
There are too many Spocks in the conservative movement, as you see right there.
Not enough Kirk.
So it's great to have information.
That information needs to get to people who can distill it, communicate it, delegate it, and Fight with it.
And I tell you what, we see a lot of people presenting information.
We don't see a lot of people out there, certainly with our elected officials, fighting with that information.
Fighting the information war.
Actually going to war for the American people who elected them.
We do not see that enough.
Do you know how you can confirm that's true?
You're shocked when you see it.
The fact that everyone is going, Lion Ted!
Lion.
He went from Lying Ted to Lion Ted because he's willing to go forward and argue at the Supreme Court.
That shouldn't be an event.
That should be the rule, not the exception.
And we have seen time after time people sit on the sidelines who were not brought into office to sit on the sidelines.
And then they bitch about Donald Trump and how he's a bull in a china shop.
You know what?
Maybe he wouldn't have to be a bull in a china shop if some of you guys just went in there and bought some shit.
Took some stuff off the shelves every now and then.
We shouldn't need one guy.
We shouldn't hope for one.
And I don't believe that he's one guy.
I don't believe that there's any savior to the political party.
But I am at the point right now Where if the Republicans who we've elected, conservatives who we've elected, haven't done enough, if they sit in the silence and go, well here's some information that maybe you might want to look into, hey, how about you look into it?
How about you do your due diligence so that I don't have to work 15 hours a day actually confirming it, and then you go forward and fight because you have the legal standing to do so?
How about you stop being pussies because guess what?
You don't deserve any of our votes!
Whoa, really?
You just think, oh, are you going to... No, I'm not going to vote for a Democrat.
That's not what I'm saying.
Whoa, what about the future of the Constitution?
What about the future of the democracy?
Guess what?
You're not protecting it!
You're not protecting it!
If you're not doing enough at this point, Republicans out there, there are a lot of people, myself included, out there going, hey, you know what?
What we've been doing isn't working.
They don't seem to be... Not only do you not seem to be fighting for us in the way that you have been overwhelmingly requested to, You don't seem like the kind of person who would even understand the language that we're all speaking here at a party.
Seems to me like you would be confused if we bring up that Georgia video, or if we bring up the voting rolls, or if we bring up the idea of unconstitutionality and legislating from the bench in Pennsylvania.
Seems to me that a lot of these Republican representatives will be like, well, I don't know, that's for the course to decide, I don't know, I've seen a lot of conspiracies.
Hey, hey, how about you take it upon yourselves here, since you have resources, for crying out loud, endless resources, you're welcome, tax dollars, here's more, and start getting to the bottom of this, and at least using what we have publicly available to Fight.
Okay?
That's why we're here right now and that's why we'll be here as long as we can and I will do the show as long as I can until my role in fighting might have to change because I am getting sick and tired of folks who aren't doing anything.
Let not your heart be troubled in that this country has some great safeguards.
It really does.
And there's never the end of the Constitutional Republic.
People said that with Bill Clinton.
People said that with Barack Obama.
But we are at a tipping point in this country, and we are at a tipping point where there isn't that cavalry coming over the hill because they don't care.
A lot of them.
Not all of them.
I'm not talking about people like Ted Cruz.
I'm not talking about people like Ken Paxton.
But how many other Republicans can you name Who are in the faces non-stop of the people who you know are lying and supporting big tech throttling and censoring conservative voices.
How many?
How many do you see signing on?
You had a New York AG who had to file this suit against Facebook.
You guys have had four years!
What have you done?
Now all of a sudden we're going to talk about 230 with the, what is it, the defense bill that Donald Trump is talking about?
Now all of a sudden, when we're in a lame duck presidency, we're going to do something?
You had four years and it's all people talked about.
And now you're surprised at what happened with the election?
You're surprised that people are saying there's no evidence?
You're surprised that now YouTube is saying, hey, we've broken them up Right?
So now they'll all hang separately.
We've broken them up so they're alone.
We've instituted this mental warfare and told them that there's no evidence.
We can now just remove them from the face of the dialogue and it's because you guys did nothing.
And you know what?
At least At least I'm going to do what I can to try and start holding you guys accountable.
And that means both the left, because we know what our enemy is.
But like I talked about this, and when I say enemy, I mean political enemy, ideological enemy.
I'm not like some Michigan representative who looks like RuPaul, calling people soldiers, asking them to harm people who disagree with me.
I'm talking about an ideological enemy at this point.
That's not a tough pill to swallow.
Like we talked about, you know what?
It's not tough for me to understand that some hipster coffee shop in Austin is going to force everyone to wear masks and walk around with ski poles to make sure that they're six feet apart.
What is a tough pill for me to swallow is a church saying, well, you know what?
We don't really need to meet to be the congregation of God.
Yeah, you do!
You're just using your faith as an excuse for your cowardice.
It's, it's, it's...
It's an easier pill to swallow for me to say, well, okay, of course we see Elizabeth Warren wanting people banned who disagree with them.
Well, okay, of course we see people at dinner parties with Zuckerberg and Wojcicki and these politicians who are influencing our elections and banning opinions.
We expect that.
It's like a disobedient child.
You expect them to be that way.
But when you have the adults in the room, when you have Republicans saying, well, we need to just let the system play out.
Guess what?
The system plays out when you play your role.
Fix it.
Alright, we're gonna go right now.
Leave a comment, that's the best thing you can do.
If you don't want to, I understand.
It burns to touch a keyboard, but we do ask that you join up at Mug Club.
There's going to be quite a bit more show where we will be taking your chats after this.
YouTube, go ahead and try and ban me, why don't ya?
▲
Export Selection