All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2022 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
01:02:48
The Lindell Report (9-19-22)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the Lindell Report, bringing you news combined with hope by offering practical and
achievable action points to assist you in defending and preserving faith and freedoms.
And now, here is your host, Mike Lindell.
Hello everybody.
Welcome to the Lindell Report and what a report it's going to be.
Big announcement tonight that we are suing the United States government and the FBI.
We're going to have the lawyers on tonight to tell you all about it.
I wanted to tell you, I just got back from four days.
I went from Omaha, Nebraska, Council Bluffs, Iowa.
We did a flashpoint event.
I'm going to have I'm gonna have Logan get the whole thing up here on Frank's speech.
Logan, you don't have that ready yet, right?
We'll have to get that by tomorrow?
Okay, we're gonna have the Flashpoint speech up, everybody.
Then I went from there.
We did a Clay Clark event in Idaho, and flew there the very next day.
We did that.
That was amazing.
There was 10,000 people, I believe, at both events, and I was able to get the word out of what was going on With the FBI taking my phone and what's going on with where we're at with everything in our country.
Then I went to the President's Rally in Ohio and had a great time there.
I spoke outside to the crowd.
I spoke for about an hour and 15 minutes.
Boy, that was a huge, huge crowd and a great rally and great message by our President.
I just seen he's, I was just watching him before I was coming on here.
He's back in Mar-a-Lago and he got a great, just a great reception there of all the people from lining up for miles on both sides of the road.
And so anyway, well, before we get started though, I want to tell you a couple of things happened, the manifestation from this FBI Hardee's fiasco.
One of the things was I had vendors They canceled at my store.
Now they're afraid.
They're afraid to deal with Mike Lindell and my store, where there was four of them that said, I, you know, I don't want to sign up.
These were going to be drivers where we were going to come kind of combine efforts.
And it would be, they were great products to drive them to the site, but now they're very afraid.
They're afraid that they're afraid of the FBI.
And they're afraid that, uh, that I did it, that I've done something wrong.
I haven't done anything wrong.
If getting rid of electronic voting machines and saying, I want to melt them down and Turn them into prison bars is wrong.
Well, arrest me.
Okay.
Um, you notice they didn't arrest me.
Well, um, anyway, then also we had a financial institution.
I'll call it a bank.
It was an outside lender that was going to borrow money for one of my, uh, one of my other, um, um, um, uh, vendors for my store.
And they canceled too.
They said in light of the FBI, our board says, no, we're not going to do it.
So, uh, there, That part of their attack worked, but the part that did not work is we made it to Fox News, everybody.
God bless Tucker Carlson.
He put it on there two nights in a row, and we're gonna show those clips tonight.
I was gonna tell you about our new towel offer.
I think I'm gonna wait on that.
Maybe we'll tell you about it halfway through the show here.
I want you all to see What Tucker had to say the first night.
Logan, if you can tee that up before we bring in, uh, your, um, Brandon and, uh, Kurt and Patrick, uh, the lawyers.
I want to show everybody what Tucker said.
It was breaking news.
I actually talked to you guys.
He was interviewing a guy from Ohio that's running for office.
And I talked to the guy in Ohio and he goes, he goes, Mike, he's the one that did the big lawn size that said, uh, uh, Trump 20, uh, 20 or, or, um, Trump won or whatever in his field, and I'd actually become a friend of mine, and he was telling me at the Ohio rally, he goes, Mike, I was actually on Tucker, and they said, hey, we have breaking news, the FBI went after Mike Lindell and took his phone.
So here's what we have.
Here's the tape that they broke in, if we have that.
The two minute, do the two minute, the short one first, yes.
This was the first night, everybody.
But this was the biggest breakthrough.
I really, I wanted this to happen so bad.
I would have, I would have took it and spent days in jail if I had to, to get Fox to finally talk.
Listen, Fox has not had anybody on to talk about machines.
Neither has Newsmax, for that matter, Sala Media, since that day on February 4th, 2021, when Smartmatic sued Fox News.
That's the day that everything stopped.
Everything stopped.
Nobody could talk about machines anymore.
That's the day that lawfare started.
And then, and incidentally, just today, another judge made another horrible decision in Minnesota here and said, Smartmatic, you can go ahead and keep suing Mike Lindell and my pillow.
Shame on him.
But anyway, let's show that video.
This is the great part that, It's a Fox News alert, and a shocking one.
actually broke into the news.
And actually, if you listen to this, you're gonna hear the word dominion,
which we know is not supposed to be said anywhere, but right here on Frank's speech.
Go ahead, go ahead, Logan.
It's a Fox News alert and a shocking one.
We told you last night that the Biden administration has politicized law enforcement to the point
where it feels Soviet, and we were not overstating it.
The FBI has just raided the guy who sells pillows on this channel, not because the pillows were bad,
but because they don't like who he voted for.
Matt Finn is tracking the developments in that story tonight, Matt.
Tucker, Mike Lindell, known as the pillow guy, reports on his livestream, Lindell TV,
that FBI agents located him, questioned him, showed him their badges, and asked him questions
about Colorado and Dominion voting machines, and then provided him with a warrant to seize his cell
phone.
Bye.
And he says, we're FBI.
He says, show me your badges.
So they show one bandit.
I said, how about yours?
You know, I don't trust anybody.
Like, you know, there's bad people.
Well, they do that and they said, what do you want?
And, uh, he says, we need to talk to you.
So I pull over and, uh, Mike Lindell said he initially told those agents he would not surrender his phone because he does not have a computer and runs all of his businesses off of that phone.
Lindell published on his live stream what he claims was the warrant for that phone.
We do not have Lindell's account confirmed right now, but we will be looking into it and keeping you updated, Tucker.
FBI raiding the Pillow Guy.
This has got to be peak insanity.
If that's true, at some point, you know, we just can't continue.
Matt Finn, I appreciate it so much.
Thank you.
And now everybody, this was the same night, this is when Fox first found out about it, when I announced it on the show.
You all heard it here first on Lyndale TV, the day that they surrounded me and took the phone.
And I want to say, we are going to show the 10-minute clip later in this hour.
I mean, I was so happy that we broke through to Fox News, everybody.
I might not even say shame on you, Fox, anymore.
I mean, if this keeps up, this is the breakthrough we needed, everybody, that we had to break through the media and have them start talking about these electronic voting machines and getting rid of them.
I also have, tomorrow, I have the New York Times coming here to my pillow, to our corporate office.
I've given them full—I said, you know what?
I'm not even going to say who the reporter is so he doesn't get attacked until he gets his article done.
I've talked to him and talked to him.
I said, you know, what is it with you guys?
I said, why wouldn't you, you like being the failing New York times?
I said, maybe you could, you know, come clean and tell everything and start telling the truth.
And you could be the sailing New York time.
Uh, anyway, um, he, uh, he laughed at that, but he said, uh, you know, he's going to come here.
They're going to come to the corporate.
I said, you can talk to my employees.
You can go down to my factory and see who we are here at my pillow.
And, um, And this is sad that the attacks keep coming.
And one of the things I want before we bring the lawyers on here to tell you about the lawsuit, but one of the key things in this attack by the FBI that they did down there was, there's a couple of things, everybody.
I want you to all think of this.
If this would have happened at night, this is the scary part.
I've actually kind of got to go, wow.
What if this happened at night?
Where the car pulls up like this, one like this, and one behind me, no markings whatsoever.
It wasn't what you see in the movies, like a black sedan with black sunglasses, and they got little FBI coats on.
No, these were all different cars.
You would have never, ever thought that they were law enforcement of any type.
Well, pulling up, and back, and behind me, I would have done one thing at night, and that would have been bash these two cars out of the way with my pickup truck, And head on a high-speed chase and to try and find law enforcement that I knew was law enforcement.
And that's scary when you think about it.
They still did it in broad daylight, but if I hadn't really, I've been in situations before, I stepped out of my truck and said, who are you and what do you want?
And I said it loud enough to draw the attention of people in the parking lot and inside the drive-through.
And so there was that.
I just want everybody to know that.
The second thing I want people to really know here is that when they finally told me at a half hour that they said, we're going to take your phone.
And I said, no, you're not.
I said, everything I do on this phone, there's passwords on there and files to wire money between companies.
I don't use a computer or a laptop.
I use a phone.
And that's what I've used for years.
I have not used, everything's on that phone.
Well, and I had one of them.
And anyway, they said, they said, no, we're taking a look at these subpoenas, which I still have right here, all these subpoenas.
And I said, and he said, I said, well, I want to call my lawyer.
He said, no, you're not calling a lawyer.
And I go, let me get this straight.
If you arrest me, I can call a lawyer, but since you're not going to arrest me, I can't call a lawyer, but you're going to steal my things from me.
I said, how do I know these subpoenas are real?
And I went back and forth, and finally he said, okay, call your lawyer.
I had to put the phone like this and hit the button and dial it right in front of him.
Kurt Olson, that lawyer, is going to be on here in a minute with us.
Brandon, are you there?
I'm definitely here.
Hey, Brandon, I know you did a little research on the, um, we got two attorneys coming on here.
Why don't you take it from here?
I'll just sit back and watch how you do your hosting.
Okay.
Well, I think most of our audience knows who Kurt Olson is and his, uh, he's a former Navy seal.
He's been an attorney, uh, with a prestigious law firm and he's done a lot of work with you.
And we've kind of met him first time publicly during the thanks-a-thon, uh, last fall when he came on and had a big part.
And he's been a regular since then.
The audience met, and then I met him last February, and he's quite frankly probably the best attorney in this country and maybe ever seen.
You met him a year ago.
From morning until night, everybody, for a year and a half now, from morning till night, I don't know anybody that works harder.
I mean from morning till night.
6 a.m.
Until 2 p.m.
in the morning.
And I can verify that because of the times that we talk and he calls and we text and yeah absolutely he does.
He works very hard.
He's been all working for all of you out there and Relentlessly, so that's right who else we got and then we got with us a first-time guest Patrick McSweeney now folks you need to Yeah, his his resume is is is just really astonishing He's a practice law pretty high up in the Department of Justice where he handled Confirming help to confirm and doing the work and the research to help and confirm
Justices for the U.S.
Supreme Court as well as people that would go on to the presidential cabinet.
So he's been around Washington.
He knows how the Department of Justice works.
He then started a law firm in Virginia in 1977 and has handled a lot of very interesting and high-profile cases and had again a very Thank you, Brandon.
Good to see you, Mike.
the DOJ so he understands what it is we're talking about.
So Kurt and Mr. McSweeney, both of you, welcome to the Lindell Report with Mike Lindell.
Thank you, Brandon. Good to see you, Mike. Hey, everybody. Well, gentlemen, who wants to go
first? Well, Brandon, why don't you talk to What's your questions, Brandon?
Why don't you pretend you didn't watch what I did there in the intro?
OK.
Let me start with you, Kurt.
Let me start with you, Kurt.
You've been working on this lawsuit that will be filed tomorrow, correct?
Yeah, we're going to be filing it tomorrow.
Pat has actually taken the laboring oar with the claims and just done a terrific job.
I mean, his experience and background in terms of the issues that are raised in this action And you're suing on violation of Mike's civil rights and civil liberties, and specifically, I've heard certain amendments.
His First Amendment rights, his Fourth Amendment rights, I think I've even heard Sixth Amendment.
I think most of us know what the First Amendment is.
That's freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
Fourth Amendment, if I remember correctly, has to do with unlawful search and seizures to be securing your papers and your persons and your things.
Sixth Amendment, I had to go look up.
It seems pretty vast, but I think it, correct me again, you're the lawyer, but as from a layperson reading it, I guess what I got from it is the part that seems to apply to this is you kind of have to know what it is you're being investigated and potentially looking, what they're looking at and for.
They can't just take your stuff and not tell you anything.
You have to kind of give you an idea of what's going on, correct?
Well, as you said, we're going to be asserting violations of the First, Fourth, and it's the Fifth Amendment.
Oh, it's not the Sixth.
OK.
So the Sixth Amendment, which is a right to counsel and other issues, that there is a claim there.
But right now we are focusing on the First, Fourth and Fifth.
But I would like to turn it over to Pat to explicate that those issues a little bit more.
You know, Brandon, we don't have enough time to go through everything because I haven't seen a case involving the FBI or Justice Department with this many issues arising.
Wow.
The First Amendment issue is very important.
It's important even in the earlier case involving the subpoena that Mike got from the January 6th Committee.
Mike has been working in developing a network, an association of people who share his beliefs, This is an effort to intimidate not only Mike, but everybody who's associated with him, interested in finding out what actually happened in the 2020 election.
That is privileged under the First Amendment, the freedom of association.
It's also the freedom of speech.
When the Justice Department acts to intimidate people in the exercise of their freedom of speech and freedom of association, that is a discrete violation of their constitutional rights.
We also have two significant Fourth Amendment issues.
One of them is probably the thing that's being repeated when you hear it on Tucker's show, you hear it given the broadcast networks are picking it up on.
This widespread invasive practice by the FBI of seizing telephones, seizing information, arresting people, has simply got to stop.
But to compound it here, we have reason to believe they were tracking Mike and Mike's vehicle, Illegally.
You cannot do that in this country.
You can't use a tracking device or what we call cell site location information.
Using your location because of the use of your telephone when you ping a tower in location.
The Supreme Court has said you must get a warrant if you're going to use that to surveil an individual.
They didn't do that here.
Lord knows how long they've been surveilling Mike.
That's an independent claim.
Yet another claim is, and this is perhaps one of the most important in the whole complaint.
When the Fourth Amendment was adopted, was ratified, it was in reaction to something that The framers called a general warrant.
The hated general warrant was something that allowed governments, in that case, the British, to invade anybody's home and take all of their belongs, all their papers, and then rummage through them and decide how they wanted to prosecute.
It's even worse with a cell phone.
You have years of electronically stored data.
It covers not only what you communicate with others, what they communicate with you, in Mike's case, all of his interactions with his business associates, how he operated his company.
He also had countless numbers of communications with attorneys.
Those communications are covered by the attorney-client privilege.
This is a startling development, in my estimation, to have the Justice Department seize a telephone knowing that it contained Mike's attorney-client communications over a period of years.
They are collecting that presumably from Verizon, which is a service provider.
They can rummage through this massive amount of data to decide how they're going to proceed with an investigation when there really is nothing there.
The predicate for the search and seizure warrant were three criminal statutes.
I have believed since I first talked to Mike that the Justice Department had no warrant, no justification for applying for this warrant because they did not advise the magistrate That there were legitimate, credible, credentialed experts who had looked at the Dominion software that had been installed after the Secretary of State in Colorado insisted that this update be installed.
It destroyed the evidence of what happened in the election in 2020 and 2021.
That's a clear violation of federal law.
They didn't bother to tell the magistrate about that.
They didn't bother to tell the magistrate that the basis for the claim or for the warrant, which was a potential violation of mistaken identity or identity fraud, and violation of the Computer Act which Congress enacted in recent years.
Neither one was justified under the facts which they withheld from the magistrate.
This should never have been brought.
It's a bad faith exercise that warrants are invalidated because of when you omit important material facts from a magistrate who's asked to sign the warrant.
But the warrant itself, it's so broad.
It is broader than these hated general warrants that drove the framers to adopt the Fourth Amendment in the first place.
If we allow this to happen, there is that and this surveillance technique that I mentioned earlier.
No one in this country is going to be free from constant surveillance or the likelihood that the FBI is going to seize their sensitive information, whether it's attorney-client privilege or privilege because of the First Amendment.
If this case is not successful, it will have tremendous repercussions and impact on everybody in this country.
When I heard of this, of course, one of the thoughts that came to my mind was the old saying from the Soviet days, I believe it was, show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
Yeah.
What do you think of that?
It's an apt description, really.
When you put all of these circumstances together, the way Michael's arrested, the way he was tracked, what I call the totality of the circumstances here, it is outrageous.
And it has to be understood that way.
The more we can get this out, the more people will see it.
I don't care what their political persuasion.
No one in this country can afford to let this go by.
It's a shocking behavior, and someone has to call the FBI and the Department of Justice out for it.
I don't know if this raised red flags with you, but Mike testified here on the show, the night it broke, that one of the FBI agents said, why are you flying around so much in your plane?
Why are you flying around so much?
And he's like, are you tracking me?
Well, your tail number's public information.
I felt like that, as a citizen, I felt like that comment alone was highly inappropriate.
Very inappropriate.
That's not the only inappropriate comment.
You guys, he also asked me stuff like, you know, I was down hunting and he said, he looks in the back of the truck, sees all the guns back there from Duck Hunt and he goes, he goes, um, I can't, I goes, are you sure you can go hunting and have a gun with your past?
I go, what?
I said, uh, have you read my book?
If he read my book, he would know my past of being an ex addict, crack cocaine.
So on, but there was nothing that said I could not go hunting or have a gun.
And that offended me right there.
And then he said, well, my brother read your book.
I did, but it changed his life.
I said, well, and then I started witnessing to the FBI, which I take every opportunity I can to, you know, hope that he had a moral compass.
That's when I kind of got at him about About a moral compass, I said, you guys should be whistleblowers.
Why are you letting them weaponize, uh, weaponize you against the public and, uh, against the people?
I said, I've done nothing wrong.
If I had, you'd be arresting me.
This is, it was, I couldn't even believe this.
And then, um, to not being able to, to have it reversed.
You can call a lawyer if you're arrested, but if you're not arrested, they could take whatever they want from you and you don't get to call a lawyer.
I mean, that right there is, uh, Patrick, I didn't get a chance to ask you, what do you think of, uh, of the damage that it does to my business?
You know, that, that, you know, the stuff that's on there and the stuff, now the perception of the public that I deal with every day, this brought it to a whole nother level.
And this is what I believe they wanted to do.
Bring it to a whole nother level.
Don't deal, don't talk to Mike Lindell.
Don't do business with him.
You know, he must have done something wrong.
You know, I mean, is there, I hope we have, is there anything in there like that?
There is, Mike, and of course, we're not asking this complaint at this stage for damages, except for damages for the taking.
Brandon, the Fifth Amendment claim is twofold.
One, it was a denial of due process, the way he was arrested, the way he was surveilled.
But there's also A prohibition in the Fifth Amendment that you cannot take property without just compensation.
You also cannot take it without using it for public purpose, for public use.
This violated both of those provisions of the Fifth Amendment, the due process clause and the taken clause.
Because they knew.
Mike had repeatedly said he used his telephone to communicate with all of his businesses.
All of his operations and instructions and oversight was handled through his phone.
When you take that phone, you're effectively taking the business.
But it also affected others who are on that phone in the collected data that will be accessed by the government if we don't prevail.
These businesses, Mike's and others affected by this search warrant, are going to be badly damaged.
But it's also, as he says, it's a clear sign to intimidate anyone who associates with Mike.
That's what this is all about.
What about the way they- Wait, I want to say something else here.
I didn't know, you guys, I also, you know, let's face it, there's cell phone companies out there and there's phone companies and they're very They've done some very bad things of late to and even to myself and to my pillow as far as their censorship.
And I want to say that one of the fears I had as I left there, now I had no way to contact, I had my friend had a phone, but I don't know anybody's numbers.
And this day we're living in, we had another hour and a half to get back to the cities, to my corporate office.
We had to call, you know, you call someone to get ahold of someone to call his phone back and like that.
My question was, what if I wasn't able, what if they had got to the cell phone companies or to the phone companies and said, no, this number is locked up too.
If I wasn't able to transfer that number to a blank phone so people could actually communicate with me, that in effect would have shut me down for doing business.
It would have been over right there on the spot.
And to be able to get that transfer done, I don't know how many hours it took, but, you know, this is the power.
There are certain things out there like that.
That would have just been devastating.
It was bad enough, but that would have been over.
Over.
You don't get that back.
If nobody could have reached me, of course the media couldn't have attacked me, though.
That would have been one thing.
You know, Mike, I can Brandon, I think it's important to point out is there are constitutionally acceptable methods for the government to obtain this data if they were interested.
And that would have been a simple subpoena, which is what would have been called for under these circumstances, which would have allowed the segregation of data so that the government would not have obtained Mike's cell phone and the entire contents thereof, which the vast, vast majority of it Isn't even related at all to Colorado.
And so there are constitutionally permissible methods which they did not follow.
And the issuance of a subpoena would have accomplished that and been constitutionally acceptable.
And that's going to be another one of the issues that we raised in this complaint.
Kurt or Mr. McSweeney, what about the way they approached Mike?
Three cars, not identifiable, as he said at the beginning of the broadcast, as FBI.
Being a public figure, the threats that have been made against him, they put him in a very precarious situation.
What does the law say in regard to the way they even approached him in unmarked cars?
Not to mention, he wasn't under arrest, from what I understand.
So, when you're blocking his car in, again, I'm not an attorney, so I'm just asking, does this not fall into the category of false imprisonment at this point?
We address that in the complaint, Brandon.
Anytime an individual is locked in, unlawfully imprisoned, even for a temporary period, it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
You can do that if you have an arrest warrant.
They didn't seek an arrest warrant.
They were acting entirely in violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain Mike, even for 45 minutes.
And they used that period.
During that period, they refused to let him, initially, call his lawyer.
But he was entitled to have his lawyer present if they were going to ask questions about Colorado or anything else that might lend credence to this charge that these three statutes that were listed in the warrant had any credence at all.
This is an outrageous... That's only one of the facts.
That's why I mentioned totality of the circumstances.
How they tracked him, how they surrounded his car, how they treated him after he was out of his vehicle.
You shouldn't have the FBI confront citizens.
I don't care what they've done.
Even those who are guilty of crime are entitled to be treated in a way that the Constitution has prescribed.
They've totally ignored that.
It is... With no...
No sliding of the president, President Trump.
This, in my view, was worse than what they did at Mar-a-Lago.
Why?
Because of the extent of what they gathered, the way in which they gathered, the surprise element, the tracking beforehand, refusing to let him have a lawyer president.
When he was detained, physically detained, the Supreme Court just two years ago said, And another thing they didn't do everybody that you got to realize this is they didn't pull up with like a little siren going or jump out of their car and say FBI.
They just sat there.
The one guy didn't even look our way.
And I had to say to my friend, Um, this is a bad guy.
This is a deviation.
I call it, that was a very much, I've never had that happen in my whole life.
In a drive-thru, park like this and then another car come flying up.
Neither one of them were looking at us and then the other one came flying up the drive-thru.
Remember everybody, I'm the one that had to step out and yell, what are you doing?
Who are you and what do you want?
They didn't get out like it would have, would have maybe, um, like I say, if this would have happened at night, I would not have got out of that vehicle.
I would have rammed through and it would have escalated into something really bad because I would have had to, I would have been searching for law enforcement.
When in fact they were supposed to be the law enforcement.
It really kind of reminded me of, wow, if they were trying to do this, if they'd have done this at night, it's one of the things like where, where somebody calls in a false thing and you end up getting shot by law enforcement.
Swatted.
And, uh, and this, uh, that's the part that really, um, I know my friend's going, you know, I said, these are bad guys.
And he's looking at me and he goes, He goes, what?
And I go, no, something's going down.
Something bad's going to happen here.
And I really, I didn't think law enforcement in my head, I haven't done anything wrong.
I didn't think of the last thing on my mind was that.
I thought these are bad guys and not fans, if you know what I mean.
This wasn't somebody wanting a picture, I'll tell you that.
That's what, you know, so that, um, the way they did it.
What's that?
Tucker, Kurt raised an important point that Tucker alluded to.
The pattern at the Justice Department is totally different than it had been and should have been, which is you use the least invasive method to get the information.
You don't go immediately to a search warrant or get a judge's order.
They never considered that.
It's part of the pattern which was established from the top of the Justice Department.
There are edicts that anyone who discusses election fraud is deemed a domestic terrorist.
That's going to chill through much of this country.
That's exactly what they intend.
There's another issue Right.
I think it's, you know, the timing of this, everybody, it's right on the heels of just a few short weeks ago, we had the Moment of Truth Summit, and I did a shout out for everybody to get the cast vote records in this country.
And we've got, we've got upwards over a thousand now of all the counties.
But as you've seen, the news did not know what to do with that.
The media didn't know what to do with it because they know the cast vote records are a hundred percent proof of machine manipulation or none.
There's nothing in between.
So all of a sudden you have all these counties and the media is trying to go, Oh, look at the people are, You know, Mike Lindell is tying up these counties there.
He's trying to do this to screw up the 2022 election because they won't have it ready in time, all their systems that are corrupt.
Well, you know, by the way, on that, everybody, San Francisco Township, what they did there is they just put the cast vote records right up on their website.
Problem solved.
But I believe that the media, in order to get this out of the media or whatever, I mean, what a way, let's attack Mike Lindell again and make it look like he's done something wrong.
So people, maybe they don't want to give the cast vote record.
No, maybe they're afraid to do anything against these election crimes.
There's a lot of reasons which we might not know why they weaponized the FBI, but it's always the timing of these things.
Just like today.
Smartmatic, they say a judge in Minneapolis says, oh Smartmatic can go ahead and keep suing Mike Lindell and my bill.
It's disgusting.
If they think, you know, they can keep piling it on and piling on, but I'm telling, I'm promising everybody out there, we will get these machines melted down and turned into prison bars.
I'm sick of it.
But this is going to be a great start by suing the United States government and the FBI.
Because you can't—I don't know if you know this, Patrick, but I asked the one FBI guy, I said, why didn't you come and just bash my door down like you did the other people in Colorado, like Sharona Bishop?
And the FBI guy—here's a quote, Mike, Sharona answered her door too slow.
I'm thinking 42 seconds.
So if you get everybody, if you're watching right now on Facebook or Frank speech here, I got Facebook live going.
Remember, set yourself one of those little egg timers or get yourself a watch, a digital watch by your door.
And if you hear those words, FBI, you better get there in 40 seconds.
So you're going to have your door bashed in what made, you know, where's their threshold and where do they stop?
Um, you know, I, I know the president has said, Hey, I'm between you thereafter, all of you.
And he always says I'm between you and them.
The great president Trump.
Well, I'm telling you with this, the FBI, I mean, That stuff like this, that's one of the reasons I want to put this lawsuit and get this lawsuit forward because there's other citizens out there that get this stuff happen to them, their doors bash it, and they don't have either the resources or the platform of notoriety to have a say-so against this government and weaponizing the FBI.
And this is why I think, like we said, Patrick, you said, if they rule this, if they rule that this was okay, that will be one of the biggest, darkest days for our country, for our amendment rights.
Don't you agree?
Forget civil rights.
Civil liberties after that.
Forget it.
It's Pat, Brandon.
I feel much older than Kurt anyway, but it's Kurt and Pat.
Without getting into a lot of debate about the legal process today, but isn't the reason why if this stands is because we kind of have a system now based on case law theory versus the clear interpretation of the Constitution or the original intent of the founders.
We're at a position and have been now for several decades where once you have a precedent going, it starts to overshadow the Constitution case law theory.
Is that why this case is so important?
It is in part, but Kurt found a very helpful case.
He expressed it in our favor.
The law is catching up with the technology.
We had certain laws developed under computer service providers.
network providers, we had not had many cases involving cell phones until recently.
This is a very important case because it brings to a head the most important issues involved
in procuring information from not only the subscriber, but the provider, the carrier
who has the, who collects that data.
This is a very important case that most people in this country, there are 300 and some million
cell phones, everyone who has one should be worried.
Do you think this case will go as high as to the Supreme Court?
One of these cases will.
Really?
Because the Supreme Court, it has addressed some, for example, I mentioned the cell site location information.
The Supreme Court recently said, despite the third party doctrine, which says that if you give your property to someone else, a third party, you have given up your right to claim privacy or property rights in it.
So the government can take it without coming to you.
They don't even have to notify you they're going to go to that third party.
The Supreme Court said no, that's not going to apply to information that is gathered from every cell phone in this country using cell site location information.
Otherwise, we're in 1984 and beyond.
This is something that wasn't even contemplated in 1984.
The court is catching up with that, and the lower courts are addressing those issues dealing with the very thing that Mike confronted.
If you don't understand how important it is to treat as private and protected, particularly the privileged information that is collected on your telephone, forget about civil liberties.
There won't be any.
That's right.
And I want to say, and we're talking about what?
A computer here.
We're talking about technology.
I like to say the courts are catching up to technology.
Well, you know what?
The media out there, all you media watching, and like I'm talking to all you journalists out there, do you realize the technology of these electronic voting machines?
All I've been fighting for is so we have to get rid of them.
We can have selections instead of elections and have our country go the way of Venezuela, Australia, and over 50-some countries that are gone.
You don't get your country back to the people that are in charge, and I'm not talking about parties.
I'm talking about the CCP, the Uniparty, the Globalists, the Deep State, These parties, this evil that's been exposed now in our country, this is it, everybody.
We get one shot at this.
God gave us grace for such a time as this, and this is all—we're going to look back and say, well, gee, you know, everything had to happen exactly the way it did, even the bad, even the bad.
When I got—when this happened the other day, I'm going—all I could think of myself is, wow, I don't want to give up my phone.
I'd rather be arrested.
Kurt, you can attestify to that.
I was telling him to arrest me.
You're not taking my phone.
Kurt was on the phone.
Kurt, didn't I?
When you got on the phone and I said, what was your thought when I was running through your head?
You probably thought I wasn't giving up my phone, I was going to get arrested, correct?
My thought was, how do I keep you out of jail?
Because they were going to arrest you anyway.
But there is this one point, if I may, I really want to emphasize a point that Pat brought up earlier.
And it's every bit as why this case is extremely significant, not just for The Fourth Amendment issues regarding cell phones.
But as Pat alluded to earlier, the Department of Justice has issued guidance that those who question elections, and the November 2020 election in particular, are associated as domestic terrorists.
That's a shocking association for the Department of Justice.
And it goes straight to the heart of our claim that your First Amendment right, freedom of association and speech were violated as part of this illegal search and seizure.
And so these are very, very weighty constitutional issues that have arisen in the current circumstances of where we are as a country.
Well, that brings up a very interesting point, Kurt.
If you have the Justice Department and the FBI putting out documents and alerts that people that are opposed to masks or forced vaccination or are questioning the election.
And we've had a Department of Homeland Security alert.
It's in my new documentary.
I show them reporting it and it's people can go look it up.
They did put out a DHS alert on potential domestic terrorists.
If you looked, if you're concerned about the election, So, is it possible, either attorney here, that they'll say, oh, well, we're using the Patriot Act or some other act because they've classified him as a domestic terrorist?
Well, the issue there, you know, I think, you know, one thing just to make clear, this is not a partisan issue.
Right.
I mean, there are, you know, you can look back at any number of statements by, you know, Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary Hillary Clinton and many, many others who repeatedly challenged the results of the 2016 election, saying it had been stolen, saying the Russians had hacked, saying all these things.
But the FBI wasn't knocking down their doors.
There weren't lawsuits filed against them by the voting machine vendors.
And, you know, Kamala Harris is right on there talking about how she watched a voting machine hack before her very eyes.
That's a great transition, Kurt, and I am going to show—you guys have to realize, everybody, that on February 4th of 2021, a very significant day in the United States history, is the day that Smartmatic sued Fox News.
When that happened, my life changed forever.
Everyone else that's out there did.
Anybody that spoke up about election crime, especially the machine.
It was the machines.
You can go back and you look at social media back in November and December of 2020.
You can find everyone saying all kinds of stuff about the election, but you can't find anything about the machines.
They've been completely scrubbed from the internet.
This is the big gorilla in the room.
They do not want these machines gone.
And when Smartmatic did that, like Alan Dershowitz said, that started lawfare, which has not happened in this country since 1798.
But that all changed this week.
When, where, where Tucker, but God bless you, Tucker, went on with the one night.
And now I want to show the next clip.
It's about 10 minutes long.
Curt and Patrick, Pat, thanks for coming on.
I want to show this to everyone and end on this because you know me.
For a year and a half now, I have been saying, shame on you, Fox.
Shame on you, Fox.
Because one of the things, we can have all the evidence and everything in the world, but if our trusted outlets that we used to hear from, I compare it to a weather channel that quit reporting hurricanes and tornadoes.
Well, I might have to, you know, I might have to say, you know, hey, Fox, you know, maybe this is it, where this is a start.
I even went on Newsmax and did an interview.
Of course, I couldn't say anything that rhymed with dominion, but this is where we're at, and I want to show this clip to everybody.
If you guys want to comment when it gets over here, but it's about 10 minutes long, and I would really like Logan to start it now.
If you're just tuning in, everybody, we're suing the United States government And the FBI tomorrow, and for the break of my first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights, one of the most important cases, you've just heard it from the lawyers, that this country will ever see, because of what the ramifications will be if they say, no, everything was just fine, your constitutional rights being broke.
So, one of the things that I prayed for, that Fox would start talking, Hey, here's Tucker in this second night, right after this happened, everybody.
If the leader of one party, who happens to be the president, redefines the other party, not as a political party, but as a criminal organization, what is he doing?
Well, of course, he is demanding a one-party state.
And that's what Biden is doing, and he's using federal law enforcement to make it happen.
So the question is, how is he getting away with it?
And he's getting away with it by changing the terms.
You can't just say openly, I want a one-party state with me at the head.
No.
You have to make the other side unacceptable.
So when Biden talks about Trump voters, he doesn't talk about voters or Americans.
He describes an insurgency.
He implies an armed rebellion, not unlike the Confederate Army.
Trump voters, Biden tells us, aren't just wrong.
They tried to overthrow the U.S.
government.
And you can't debate people like that.
You have to crush them.
Democratic leaders across the board appear to believe this.
Tim Ryan, who's running for the Senate as a Democrat from Ohio just yesterday, told
Morning Joe on MSNBC, quote, we've got to kill and confront that movement, not defeat
it, kill it.
That's how dangerous populist Republicans are, according to the Biden White House.
This is the language of totalitarianism.
It's very obvious.
And in a functioning system that wanted to remain democratic, people in power would push back against it.
The media, business, any responsible person would say, no, you can't do that.
That's too much power.
We can't vest all the power In one political party.
That's the road to something awful.
But no one's pushing back.
In fact, daily the media reinforced the message.
Daily the media remind us that anyone who has questions about the outcome of the last election isn't a disgruntled voter.
That person's a criminal.
That person has embraced the big lie.
You see it in every news story.
The big lie!
People like that are irrational and dangerous and they will be punished and rightly so.
And now they are being punished.
Yesterday afternoon, FBI agents apprehended a man called Mike Lindell at a Hardee's drive-thru in Minnesota, and they seized his personal cell phone, the one he does business on.
Mike Lindell is not a wanted criminal.
He's not even a public official.
Mike Lindell, as you likely know, sells pillows, especially on this channel.
So why would the FBI, armed FBI agents, be apprehending Mike Lindell?
Because he questioned the outcome of the last election.
He participated in the big lie.
He's a threat to the system.
That is the consensus view in Washington now.
This is a very big change.
In a free society, by definition, all questions are allowed.
You can't have a democracy unless you are allowed to discuss its mechanics.
Free speech is a prerequisite for a democratic system.
Obviously.
And until very recently, everyone in America unquestioningly understood that dissent was not a crime, it was a patriotic act.
And people committed it.
At scale.
Especially Democrats.
For years after the 2000 election, Democrats claimed that George W. Bush was not the legitimate president.
Some still say it.
They may believe it.
And then in 2016, the entire Democratic Party rejected the outcome of the presidential election.
A foreign power got Donald Trump elected.
Democrats said that, and they continue to say it every single day of Donald Trump's term.
They impeached him over it.
They hamstrung the executive branch of the U.S.
government with an investigation into Russian influence that in the end turned up nothing.
What would you call that?
You would call that election denial.
You would call that the big lie.
But no one was punished for it.
No judge removed Adam Schiff from office for doubting the election results.
The FBI didn't raid CNN's biggest advertisers.
Everyone just moved on.
You may have hated the Russia hoax, and we certainly did.
But there was never any question that all American citizens have an absolute, constitutionally protected right to question election outcomes.
And by the way, you are even allowed, maybe even encouraged, to question the mechanics of voting.
Why wouldn't you question them?
Voting is the means by which huge amounts of money and power are transferred from one party to another.
There is an awful lot at stake at the richest, most powerful country in the world.
So of course Americans have an absolute right to see proof, not suggestions, but proof that the system is on the level.
And when they are denied that right, maybe it's a sign the system isn't on the level.
Once again, that used to be obvious.
It was certainly obvious to Democrats.
Here's a clip you may not have seen before.
This is the current vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, speaking not so long ago, June 2018, about the integrity of electronic voting machines.
Kamala Harris was a senator then.
Watch this.
We recently also, I actually held a demonstration for my colleagues here at the Capitol, where we brought in folks who, before our eyes, hacked election machines.
Those that are not, those that are being used in many states, but are not state of the art from our perspective.
Oh, Kamala Harris publicly raising questions about the integrity of voting machines.
Well, you know what didn't happen next.
The FBI did not trap Kamala Harris at a Hardee's to seize her cell phone.
No one in the media called her an insurrectionist.
And honestly, whatever you think of Kamala Harris, why would they?
If you actually cared about democracy and the trust in the system that is a prerequisite for democracy, you would encourage all questions from U.S.
citizens about how your democracy was administered.
You would never censor those questions.
You would never punish the people who asked those questions.
Ever.
Even news organizations once understood this, not so long ago.
During the Trump years, CNN published a video entitled, We Watched Hackers Break Into Voting Machines.
Oh, that was allowed then.
CBS ran a report entitled, How Electronic Voting Machines Could Hack Your Vote.
Oh, really?
Did the FBI come after you at Hardee's?
No, they didn't.
That's what news organizations used to do, ask obvious questions, make sure everything works.
If there's corruption, we'll sniff it out.
We're going to reassure you that your vote counts.
You have to be reassured or else the system collapses.
You can't just tell people to shut up, ban them from Twitter, and arrest them.
And once again, even Democrats understood that.
In 2019, a couple of them, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner of Virginia, wrote to the makers of election systems complaining about potential security vulnerabilities.
Quote, there has been a lack of meaningful innovation in the election vendor industry and our democracy is paying the price.
End quote.
Is that true?
Honestly, we have no idea.
We're not endorsing that view then or now.
We're merely saying it is not a crime to ask.
In fact, it is a prerequisite if you want to have a healthy system that people are allowed to ask and the people who are asked are required to show proof to reassure them.
Of course.
But now, Democrats and the media who serve them are pretending that no one ever asked questions like this until 2020.
Ever!
Never happened before!
Watch.
This is a nation that believes in the rule of law.
We do not repudiate it.
This is a nation that respects free and fair elections.
We honor the will of the people.
We do not deny it.
Oh, the rule of law.
So the rule of law, the new law, is shut up.
Right.
They were telling you it was a, quote, free and fair election about which no debate was allowed the day Joe Biden was certified the winner.
The day.
Right.
Before they could know, in other words.
So that's Joe Biden's new position.
Here's the same, and we checked it, this is the same Joe Biden, a little dimmer, but still the same guy today, back in 2019.
He's an illegitimate president in my mind.
That's it.
He's illegitimate.
And my biggest fear is that he's going to do it again with the help of Vlad, his best pal.
And we're going to be stuck for six more years with this guy.
And that is terrifying.
It's terrifying.
Would you be my vice-presidential candidate?
Folks, look, I absolutely agree.
Oh, faced with an election denier who violates the rule of law and our sacred norms in public, on camera, Joe Biden doesn't scold her.
He doesn't call for the FBI to trap her at Hardee's and seize her personal communications device.
He jokingly offers to reward her.
We're so on the same page we could run together.
But he didn't run with that election denier.
He ran with this one.
Elections matter when you win an election.
You get to set the rules.
How can you win with Russian interference though?
That's what I'm scared about in 2020.
But rightly.
Because I think he's an illegitimate president that didn't really win.
So how do you, you know, fight against that in 2020?
You are absolutely right.
So again, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I will tell you that we should believe exactly what the intelligence community has told us, which is Russia did interfere in the election of the president of the United States in 2016.
So that clip is from three years ago.
This is how insane the conversation we're having is right now.
No one seems to remember that.
It was just Sunday.
It's Wednesday, this Sunday, like three days ago, that that same person, Kamala Harris, did a taped interview with NBC News and Chuck Todd, the Combover guy, to explain that Republicans who have the same questions about the last election that she had about the election before that should not be allowed to hold office.
It's a threat to the Republic that they are running for office.
In other words, democracy is a threat to democracy.
This is the currency of the Democratic Party and has been for years.
Lose the election, immediately question the election.
Stacey Abrams anyone?
We could show you dozens and dozens and dozens of clips like this.
Not from small-time people, from Kamala Harris, from Hillary Clinton, from Karine Jean-Pierre.
You get the point.
This is crazy.
But under Joe Biden, the Department of Justice appears to be doing everything it can to criminalize questions about the last election.
Complain about election fraud, the FBI might show up.
Well, everyone, I don't know.
Kurt, are you still here?
Yes, I am.
Hey, Kurt, I want to say there, I mean, that's everything we've been talking about.
The Democrats have been learning about the machines for 18 years.
And I want to say a couple of things in closing here, because we only have a couple of minutes, and I want to tell everybody about a new special we have in light of what's going on.
But, Kurt, okay, so we are doing the—tomorrow, what time can we expect the lawsuit?
Because there's a lot of media watching here, a lot of these, a lot of the terrible journalists in this country watching.
They can't wait to read it and see how they can spin that to be a thing that doesn't affect them.
Do you know a time or do we have that yet?
Well, Mike, it'll be filed tomorrow.
Okay.
All right.
I want to say one more thing.
Probably towards the early evening.
Okay.
All right.
And that's filed in what, I keep asking, is that in Minnesota?
Yes, it'll be in federal district court in Minnesota.
Okay.
And I want to tell one thing of, uh, uh, to, to people have been asking me, uh, since the moment of truth summit and that you were on stage with Dennis Montgomery's material and everything.
Tell us what that is that's sitting in Nevada.
What kind of, what, what was filed in Nevada and what are we waiting for there with all the, all the terabytes that I have of information on the 2020 election?
Go ahead.
What is that called and what do we need to happen?
What was filed in Nevada was a motion to lift the protective order that currently encumbers Dennis Montgomery and the information that is part of his work with the federal government.
And this one thing to note with that protective order, there were two items that supported it.
That was the public declaration Of then DNI, John Negroponte, who went through about a 12-page declaration as to how secret this information was and how the revelation of it would damage national security.
This is the revelation of information that Dennis Montgomery has.
The court also, in its order, referred to a classified declaration that was not publicly disclosed and that was reviewed by the court, what's called in camera, meaning in his chambers and ex parte, Meaning, without anybody else present.
And so, we are seeking to lift that protective order, so that the entire body of information, which Dennis Montgomery is a whistleblower, and he has filed actions, and actually has appeared, or people have appeared on his behalf, namely Sarah Carter and John Solomon, talking about how the U.S.
government was spying on Americans in general.
And Dennis Montgomery was a whistleblower of that.
Right.
And then the election, everybody.
There's one thing, Mike.
Go ahead.
Let me interject one thing real quick, because it was such an extraordinary thing that happened to me yesterday.
The people that fear what's going on now in the country the most are those that have escaped totalitarian regimes, like those in the former Soviet Union.
One woman that I spoke with yesterday, who's a friend, Escape from the Philippines, where she grew up in the seventies and which was a totalitarian regime yesterday.
And what she sees, she's terrified because she sees what's going on in the country now in terms of the weaponization of media, the weaponization of law enforcement against, you know, anybody who is going against the official narrative.
She lived that experience.
Right.
Well, that's what we're fighting for.
That's what we're fighting for, Kurt.
You know, so anybody.
If you have any friends that have escaped totalitarian regimes, such as in the former Soviet Union and other countries, if you talk to them, you'll see exactly what threats the country is now facing from this persecution.
Right.
Well, thanks for Kurt.
And everybody out there, I encourage you all to go to DennisMontgomery.com.
DennisMontgomery.com.
And I'm going to say this before we get off air.
I'm putting a special out tonight.
We need support for MyPillow.
We need support for Frank's Speech.
And the Lyndell Report used that promo code L77.
As you see behind me here, we have these three-piece towel sets.
1998 with your promo code at MyPillow.com.
I did it right before this show, set up this special, specific for such a time as this.
We really need your help now, everybody.
Thank you.
God bless.
Thanks, Brandon.
We can't wait for tomorrow to get this lawsuit filed.
Indeed, indeed.
Great show, Mike.
That's the Lindell Report with your host, Mike Lindell.
Thank you for supporting him, as he just told you how you can do that.
Till next time, take care.
You're watching Lindell TV.
Hello, I'm Mike Lindell, and due to your incredible support, the original MySlippers are almost completely sold out.
As a special thank you, I am launching my brand new all-season slippers, slides, and sandals for as low as $29.98.
This is a limited time offer, so go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen.
▲
Export Selection