All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2022 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
01:03:40
The Lindell Report - (9-20-22)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
49.98, 49.98 with your promo code.
This is a blowout special.
Once they're gone, they're gone.
Okay?
Now we have Here it is, Walmart canceled us.
This is the 1988 MyPillow they would have got.
You guys have been great support of all my employees at MyPillow to keep making them.
1988 with your promo code.
And we have hundreds of other items here at the Frank Speech Store.
You guys get up there now, get it.
Buy today with L66.
You do it today and I'm gonna send you a free gift with your purchase.
Thank you and God bless.
You're watching Lindell TV.
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.
Good evening, welcome to the broadcast.
Glad you're with us.
Mike will join us in just a moment, but we're going to get started.
Joining me now also tonight is again, Kurt Olson, attorney.
Kurt Olson, attorney, Patrick McSweeney.
Gentlemen, welcome back to the broadcast.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you, Brian.
Kurt, you're with us?
I am.
Can you hear me?
Yes, I can. Thank you. Kurt is not only an attorney, he's also a former Navy SEAL as well.
And Mr. McSweeney, we did a little more reading on you last night.
Is the website correct? You were at one time the acting Deputy Attorney General, is that correct?
I was acting head of the legislative office at the Justice Department during Watergate.
Okay, during Watergate.
Unfortunately, yes.
I left right after the Saturday Night Massacre.
I bet you have some interesting stories.
Not fit to print.
Okay.
Well, you know, yesterday when we left off, we ran out of time.
I kind of alluded to it, and then we got distracted.
We went to the clip by Tucker Carlson, but Tucker almost was alluding.
I would say he was alluding to the same thing I was asking about.
Do you either one of you and would you both comment actually on the fact that we have Joe Biden giving that eerie speech in Philadelphia with the lighting behind him everything talking about MAGA Republicans they don't love the Constitution their lawless.
Republic.
We have the DHS, you know, in the last since Biden got into the White House, putting out alerts about potential domestic terrorists or those who are upset about COVID, masking, critical race theory and or questioning the election.
Do you gentlemen believe that they're trying to lay down a narrative but also a legal narrative that would allow them to do things That maybe they could not normally do with normal laws, but if they invoke certain things like, oh, that guy's a domestic terrorist, they can then start bringing in the Patriot Act or other laws that are on the books.
Is this a legal strategy where they could get away with something they normally could
not get away with by classifying someone as a quote domestic terrorist?
Let Kurt go ahead on that.
I think that I don't believe it's a legal strategy, but absolutely a playbook.
that has been used time and time again by totalitarian regimes.
And that is to demonize and dehumanize your opponents en masse, and to label them, for example, as enemies of the state.
Because once that narrative kind of inculcates into the general public, that is used to justify unlawful activity.
And this is something that, like I said, is out of a playbook.
It's been done time and time again through history.
In fact, as I mentioned last night on the show, we have several friends who have come to this country who escaped totalitarian regimes from this former Soviet Union, from the dictatorship that used to be in the Philippines back in the early 70s, where they dealt actually with death squads, with knocks on the door by agents of the government to take people away at night.
And as fantastic It's as fantastical as this sounds happening in this country, and it's very difficult to get your head around that this could happen.
But when you see speeches like that, where whole groups, millions and millions of people, all of the supporters of former President Trump, are labeled, for example, as MAGA terrorists, enemies of the state, and so forth, this, as I've said before, it is straight out of a playbook.
The speech was, of course, written I believe by John Meacham is what it was reported.
And so these are deliberate words that are put in the speech.
This was not some off-the-cuff statement by President Biden.
This was planned, it was thought out, and it has a specific meaning and purpose.
And they've ratcheted up what strategy they employed in 2008 through 2010-11, when the Tea Party movement began to surface.
What motivated the Tea Party was not simply what happened in Congress when the bailout occurred, but they demanded the followers of the original, the originators of this movement, wanted a return to the Constitution.
In fact, they started very valuable exercises in localities, teaching people about the Constitution.
Well, that set a chill up the spine of the Democrats.
They began to attack the Tea Party folks and label them, as Kurt indicated, as less than human, racist people who are actually opposed to the Constitution.
This is a ploy they've used again and again.
They reverse what they're doing.
They project what they're doing on the other side.
As I said, this has ratcheted up this time.
The other side, under Obama, used the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department, as they had in previous years, to intimidate and deter the exercise of First Amendment privilege.
I was counsel to the Richmond Tea Party, and the head of that put on their only statewide tea party convention.
Thousands of people showed up.
They went after that group, and I told them from the outset, You're going to win this, but it won't matter because this is a war of attrition.
They're just going to grind you down.
It happened 10 years before with the Voting Integrity Project.
They went after us.
We couldn't raise money because we were contending against the claim.
We were misusing our C3, our tax-exempt status.
We proved that was not the case.
For two years, we spent bouts of money most of which we could raise.
We couldn't use it for election integrity.
We used it to fight the federal government.
Well, this is something that has to stop because the greatest threat to democracy are two things, in my opinion.
What Kurt described, this tactic of going after an opposing party or followers of the opponents of the prevailing party.
The second thing, which has been repeated over and over again, when you have a substantial number, tens of millions of people, maybe more, who are concerned that there has been election fraud.
And that it will continue.
So they have no confidence in our system that elects people that represent them.
You can't sustain not only this government, but this society.
This is the greatest danger.
Everybody recognizes that.
You see that in the media, the metric media doesn't talk about that anymore.
They talked about it four years ago, but not today.
So it is a conscious strategy to wear down the people who are opposing The tactics that have been used, but I think they've used, to rig elections.
And if it's not changed, it'll have dire consequences.
I'm not sure how far they can go until a majority of people just won't stand for it anymore.
Hey, you guys, I'm here.
Hey, Mike.
Hey, hey, I was just listening there.
I got on late here because I actually have a reporter that's been with me all day from the New York Times.
Now, it almost ended.
Before it started, because he started down the wrong path, and not focusing on what he's come here for.
I said, if you've come here to do a hit job, I said, I'm gonna spend all day with you, which I did, and explain to you what we are here, my pillow, and myself, and my store, and all these things, and why, why did the FBI do this?
I'm saying, you can all sit here, and I can go how bad it's going to be as I'm telling him, That if this is allowed to happen, I'm telling this guy, this reporter, and I said, but the bottom line is they're trying to suppress people that are speaking out about the election crimes or these machines.
Kurt, I took him down, and Brandon and Patrick, I took him down for seven hours today, a timeline of me going from I had never voted in my life, I was an ex-crack cocaine addict, I told him, I said, you know what?
And he actually is from Minnesota.
He lived in Minneapolis, St.
Louis Park, most of his life.
So he knew, I said, you know, I said, I said, I don't eat with two forks.
I said, I, I've been, uh, I drive around and I drive in a pickup truck.
I said, I grew up born and raised here in Minnesota.
I said, I never voted.
I didn't think politics affect me.
Then I went through the timeline of when I met Donald Trump in the summer of 2016.
And I, and I told him how the media turned on me and started calling me a racist and everything.
I didn't even tell him what we talked about after that private meeting.
I said, that's what you journalists, I said.
They all turned on me.
And I said, but you know, who stuck out for me was the people down in the inner city of Minneapolis going, what are you talking about?
He's a racist.
You know, they told, then they said, you know, they would came out with all kinds of defaming things.
Oh, Mike was the biggest drug dealer.
No, I never dealt a drug in my life.
I said, I tried to rid the state of Minnesota of drugs by doing them all.
You know, I mean, this, uh, you know, this is who I was.
I didn't.
And I said, so I went through with this guy all day long.
And we'll see what the, you know, I said, you guys, you journalists, you guys, you guys have to step up.
Cause he's going, well, I'm heard you're, you know, you're very happy that Tucker said something on Fox or whatever.
I said, and I explained to him, it's all media.
And then I explained to him why four times where the media has went completely silent.
And I said, it's been, it was after I had, after right, right after February 4th of 2021, when Smartmatic sued Fox news, Complete silence.
He asked me why I made Frank's speech, and I said, well, our voices were going to be gone forever, because if you want to silence someone, you just completely don't talk to them, don't even write a bad article about them, you know?
And it was very interesting, so I went through everything, you know, the medias went silent, went silent, and I said, this is about, we have to get rid of these machines, and I said, I said, otherwise, why doesn't anybody want to look inside them?
Why are they so protected?
Why are they... I asked him, you know, and he'd sit there and listen and record me.
Heard I probably said about 20 things that can sound bite me on, but do I look like I care?
I don't, you know.
He goes, yeah, good for them, Special K.
But I'll tell you, then he goes, he goes, you know, you bad mouth Republicans more than you do Democrats.
I said, this isn't about a Democrat or Republican thing.
And he goes, well, where do you sit?
Are you like an independent?
I said, all I know is when I learned about politics in the summer of 16, I said, I couldn't believe that the divide—if you're a Democrat, you have to be an atheist.
If you're a Republican, you've got to be pro-life.
I mean, everything is divided.
Everything was like this.
This is right down the middle, divided, and this is the way you are.
All I know is almost all my beliefs fell over here.
So you can call me a Republican, but I said, it's because I bad-mouthed Brad Rassenberger and the Republican party every day for what they've done to our country for covering up this.
They're the biggest cover-up, you know, it's the cover-up.
And I, and then I explained to the guy that I said, do you understand what's come into our country?
Is I said the Democrats for 18 years, I told him about Clint Curtis.
I said, you know, we talked about the moment of truth summit, Clint Curtis, who made the first algorithms.
He's a, he's a Democrat voted for Biden.
He's come clean.
He'd set it up so they could 5149, 5149.
But now they've just gotten more complex.
And they're in those computers and machines.
And I told him about him.
And I said, I said, He sat for 18 years.
I said, think of him as Mike Lindell, I told this guy.
All he did was go, hey, there's crime, the machine's gotta go.
And he said, all the Republicans would not listen.
And he said, and he couldn't get both parties involved to get rid of him.
Well, I told him, well, there's a reason for that.
I said, here's who's come into our country and what's happened for decades, probably, the CCP.
The Uniparty, I want everybody to hear that, the Uniparty, the Deep State, the Swamp, call it the Swamp, Deep State, Uniparty, and so you have people on both sides.
Evil doesn't hold a, you know, Evil doesn't have a party, you know.
They go, you got over here.
And then he goes, well, you, he goes, I will say that you do a go after Brad Rassenberger a lot.
I said, well, I'm an equal opportunity guy.
I go after Jenna Griswold, the crooked secretary of state in Georgia.
I mean, in, uh, in, uh, Colorado, just as much.
So you have Rassenberger and her.
And I said, I said, the bottom line is we need to get rid of the machines.
So they've weaponized.
I told him about the crimes that were committed in Colorado.
I said, here's felonies committed by Dominion and Janet Griswold ordering their trust to build, ordering an election deleted inside these machines.
They ordered this data deleted and we have proof right here in Frank's speech.
The data was deleted.
It's like two sets of books.
You know, and I told the guy, I said, you know what, when the FBI come up and when they did all this, I'm going, I kind of kidded the FBI.
I said, wow, wouldn't it be great if you were doing a real investigation on a real crime that Dominion deleted and committed felonies, deleted the 2020 election, and deleted these other elections, and deleted the data?
But we have a copy.
We know what they didn't delete.
We know what they did delete.
It's like, you have the gun, everything at the crime scene.
And this reporter, it's like, you know, it's just very frustrating, but it is a breakthrough.
At least he's, you know, he's going to come back tomorrow.
And, um, and he, uh, he wanted to be on, he goes, you think I could be on the call with all the lawyers?
Yeah, you bet you can pal.
At least he asked, right?
At least he asked, but, uh, you know, it's been, uh, Um, it was able, I was able to say in seven hours that you look at someone and go, I spent seven hours telling him the story.
You know, you think I, you know, I go, don't you understand that if these machines stay, these computers, it's over.
We get one chance at this.
And, uh, he kept focusing on the media and that, well, the media, you know, those guys don't want you, uh, um, you know, isn't it a great thing now that they, that Fox talked and you said, that's great.
And Salem media and Newsmax, I said, Yeah, that's great, but it's you guys too.
If you could take some of you reporters like the New York Times.
I told him he could be a hero.
If he went back and told the truth, told everything, and the truth is just simply this.
Hey, all the evidence to this, the Dennis Montgomery evidence needs to be lifted.
We have the Mason County, their image up on Frank's Beach.
All the cast vote records show crime in 97% of all the counties in the United States.
I said, if you went back and reported that, if you weren't fired right away, I said, and if everybody reported, just jumped on the bandwagon, I said, you could be The Sailing New York Times instead of the Failing New York Times, you know?
They could sail any of these news outlets, they would make headlines by being journalists again.
And then I went through with him all of the lawfare and what lawfare has done to our country.
He goes, well, why do you think Newsmax and Fox and Salem?
I said, they're probably a little bit afraid of billions of dollars of lawsuits.
Think of all the little people that this has done.
That's a weaponization.
Don't you agree, Kurt, that the lawfare I mean, that's just another thing.
Just like the FBI, it was just another weapon that they've used against the people in this country.
Don't you agree?
Sure.
It's just part of a campaign of censorship to intimidate and silence people so that the truth doesn't get out.
They're selling a specific narrative.
I'd love to have a half an hour with one of these reporters walking through my files How difficult it is to prove election fraud.
I've tried those cases.
Very difficult.
It's many times more difficult with machines.
One of the reasons we have a 22-month requirement to maintain and preserve the records is because you need that amount of time, at least, to get into election fraud.
Right.
It's ironic that the people who first challenged machines, to my knowledge, were progressive in Georgia, in the curling case.
Right.
It took two years for the Haldeman report to surface.
Kurt knows more about it than I do, but I followed the Curling case because we were litigating in Georgia at the time.
It was decided in October of 2020, and the judge, who was not a conservative, not a Republican, Could not rule because of a rule.
The Supreme Court had decided that if you are close to an election, you cannot invalidate or hold up a state election.
But she pointedly said there are problems here.
Election fraud probably did occur.
But it took all this time to come up with what was discovered in Colorado.
This is not just another allegation.
This is proof.
Right.
This reporter actually brought up Halderman after we talked about these cast vote records and the other cyber guys and these investigations.
And he brought up Halderman and he said, well, you know, Halderman, I've talked to him and he said, he can't, he can't say that there's that these machines show proof of the election crime.
And I said, Well, Halderman looked at stuff before the 2020 election, but he did say they're vulnerable.
And I said, just what you said, I believe the judge ruled that they knew they were bad, but they used them in the election anyway, because it was too close to the election.
Exactly.
But here we are in 2022, and this is what I told him.
I said, Charles, let me tell you something.
That was in 2020, and they still use the machines in Georgia.
Remember, the devil went down to Georgia, and I believe it's Brad Rassenberger.
And I'm telling you, what Brad Rassenberger did is he, during these primaries, I told him about the Democrats, the Democrat that got zero votes in her own precinct.
So here's a Democrat, gets zero votes in May 24th, in her own precinct, her and her husband, and in two other precincts.
So I told him, then they said, oh man, they didn't listen to her until she said she had zero in her own precinct.
They go, well, gee, now he better do something.
So remember, it's three Democrats.
They open up the machine, do this hand count, and they find 3,700 votes, which put her from third place to first.
I didn't stop with this reporter.
I said, then a county, three counties over another Democrat gets 1,600 votes because She wasn't even on the ballot.
She had dropped out two months prior, and they're moving to move ballots from this guy, they want member B to win, so they give A's votes to her, and she's not even in the race.
But they found that out.
And then they also found out, and I believe it was At least 17 other places where they had to look now at these precincts.
None of the numbers match.
None of them match.
Okay?
So now you had this happen.
I'm telling this to this reporter.
So here's Georgia, where they told him not to use these machines and the judge said, well, we're going to use the machines because it's too close to the 2020 election.
Now, here we are two years later.
And you just had this happen in a primary, and Rasenberger's race, remember, was in a primary.
And, well, Brad Rasenberger was polling at 37 or 38 percent the night before the election, and then he gets 51 percent.
What?
51 percent.
Way to go, Brad.
Way to campaign the night before the election, right?
Well, now, then we find, I told this reporter, the cyber guys look, because with the cast vote records, and you see, That Brian Kemp, you could take his total, multiply it every single hundred, all 159 counties in Georgia, multiply whatever his total he got by 5%, and that's what they gave to Candace Taylor.
So that my point being, I told this to this, this journalist, I said, so now all that happens and Brad Rassenberger, who now was warned, Not to use the machines before this two-year investigation by Halderman.
And Brad now has all the selection crime that's right there, all the selection fraud in Georgia, but he called it programming errors, everybody.
Programming errors.
Well, if they're called programming errors, let's take crime out of the picture for just a minute.
Let's just put crime over here.
A programming error or an error in a computer of that magnitude where someone can go from third to first and all and none of the numbers match.
Well, why wouldn't you do it?
Why wouldn't you open them all up and say, let's look and see what these vendors, that one down there happens to be Dominion.
Why wouldn't you open them up when we pay for these machines as a country, our people do and say, um, your machines are, we got to look and see what's going on here.
If you're not guilty, there's something wrong with your machines, or whatever, you know, what's going on.
This is wrong.
But what did Brad do, everybody?
Kurt, do you know what Brad did?
Brad just said, nope, we're going to keep going to the midterms here.
I'm in.
I won.
It says right here, the machine says I won.
And this is where we're at.
And you know what the journalist said?
He goes, well, I go, so is this what you want for your country?
Of course, then they'll ask something like, who does your, how do these promo codes work for these people in your pod, with MyPillow, with the podcasters?
I'm going, did you just hear what we're talking about?
You know, Kurt, you think I don't stay focused.
You should see these journaling.
You know, Mike, you raised a good point about the Georgia situation and Georgia Secretary Rapsenberger.
When you look at that situation, The only reason that that error in the counting was discovered was because the candidate went to her own precinct and saw that she had zero votes.
So those machines passed the logic and accuracy tests.
They passed the certification.
And it was only by chance that that horrendous error was discovered.
The failure of the machine to tabulate the votes.
How many times As this happened and people haven't checked to look.
And that's really greatest travesties here is that people are being told they can rely on certification.
They can rely on logic and accuracy tests.
And that's just baloney.
Professor Haldeman is on the test of his growth.
He can defeat all measures.
Right.
Well, I told this guy, I said, you know what?
I said, he goes, well, you know, I told him what my job consists of.
I said, well, Let's talk about my phone.
I said, a phone, I told him, are charts.
I don't use a computer or a laptop.
And I said, I showed him the charts I look at, Curt, every hour of every day.
Every newspaper, podcast, commercial, I don't care what it is, a TV spot, I will look down there every day and I'll see of the income coming in, because they're all tracked individually.
And when I see a deviation, whether it's good or bad, It didn't just happen by circumstance.
It happened because the input had to be different to get a different output.
So when we see a deviation, I will dig into that.
He was here today.
I dug in for an hour.
There was a deviation.
There's no way that we would be higher today than we were yesterday.
And I said, something's wrong.
This is a perfect example.
I will dig into this deviation until I find out why.
Here's what happened.
Yesterday, during the day, they had the Queen's, I believe, her funeral that they were talking about.
It was on all the news or on the station.
So all the commercials were preempted, which means obviously we didn't have income coming in during that time because the commercials weren't running.
You follow me?
Well, what I said to him was, and I went through the whole history of MyPillow right up until the 2012 collapse when I did my first infomercial.
And I said, yeah, I went from 10 employees to 500.
Over the next six months, I took in $100 million.
And he looks at me like, wow.
And I said, but I was $6 million in debt.
And I said, I learned from that.
I told them all the circumstances in the spring of 2012.
The people, the betrayal, the companies that took advantage, the mistakes that were made.
I showed them how we don't put up an ad.
Everyone's tracked individually.
We don't brand.
Each one is its own.
A 300 ball player hitter, and you gotta make sure that he can hit 300.
And if he doesn't bat 300, you don't bat him.
And that's the way all the commercials are tracked.
So I told him, none of that stuff was in place in the spring of 2012.
All these mistakes were made.
And I said, but over the course of the next three or four years, I dug out of that $6 million debt, and I learned what had happened, what to get rid of, what to fix, what to do.
I learned all of these things.
And I told him I wouldn't be here where I'm at now, 76 million MyPillow sold later, 2,000 some employees, and this marketing platform that is second to none.
I told him how it all works.
But I learned all that, and I fixed things in the 2012 spring in MyPillow.
And I said, that's the same as the 2020 election.
Which will go down in history as the most important election ever because we have to, all these deviations, all these anomalies that happen, we have to learn from them and fix them.
That's why the Hents is saying fix 2021st.
And I said, and one of the biggest things is we, the, the unit party has been exposed.
They've been exposed and they've using machines.
Now these machines have to go.
You can't, we have one shot in history and it's to get rid of these machines.
And I told him, I said, what do you think the FBI, they just come around, they weaponize them and stuff when they're the ones committing the crimes that the government did in Colorado.
And I said, These are out there weaponizing that.
I said, what is, I told him, what has been the common theme of Mike Lindell since January 9th?
Of 2021.
Not before that.
Before that, everybody, everybody seems to think before that the media didn't attack me.
It was the normal, um, oh, he backs Donald Trump, but it was, I mean, I did rallies.
I did campaigns all over Minnesota.
I could go to the streets or whatever.
I have liberal friends, Democrat friends.
It was like a normal, pretty normal, you know, for as normal could be in this day and age.
But all that changed on January 9th when I was handed evidence.
From Dennis Montgomery, or not from him directly, but got that evidence.
Since that day, they've been trying to silence my voice because of that evidence of the machines.
Now, I want to say this.
This is really important, everybody, because I told this journalist this.
If you go back and look at your own social media, or go look at social media, everybody, look at my account back then.
I don't know if you can see it because they banned me a long time ago.
But look, if you're one out there and you aren't banned yet, maybe you can't even find it, but you go back in November and December of 2020, and even going into 21, anyone that talked about that the election was a fraud, that Pennsylvania had all these mail-in votes, They counted and they went after the fact and there was cheating here, they put covers over windows, all that kind of stuff is still up there.
Do you know what has, but if you, back then, anybody that talked about machines, it's completely scrubbed from the internet and from social media.
It doesn't even say contains false where you can look at it.
It's disappeared.
It's gone.
Now, Kurt, don't you think that's kind of strange that the other kind of crime, the other kind of fraud, whether it's, hey, paper ballots were discovered here, or they're fake ballots, or this happened in Pennsylvania, you turn in your electors with more votes than voters.
That's kind of stuff still out there, but none of the machine stuff was scrubbed from the internet.
Which, by the way, it's a good thing, everybody, we have on Frank's Beach here in the Cause of America library.
You can go through and all that stuff was archived.
So, but isn't that, you know, that's kind of like, wouldn't you say that that's, it's strange in a way that it's a deviation.
Why did they just completely scrub the machine stuff?
Because that's what they're using.
That's the age we're in of computers, you know?
And then he brought up, we got brought up Bill Barr too.
Kurt, with Bill Barr, I said, here's what I told him.
I said, you guys, I said, No evidence.
He brought evidence.
I said no judge has looked at any evidence.
They kick stuff out for standing, for standing, for standing.
You two being attorneys, I'll ask both of you separately, but Patrick, we'll start with you.
In your life, have you ever been seen anything like this where every single judge for evidence, when you talk about 2020 or any machine evidence, whatever, they kick the case out for standing.
I mean, is every case kicked off or standing, or can a judge just say that when it's really standing, or is this just, what do you make of that?
No, there is an abuse of the standing doctrine, but there's another problem too, and it happened in Wisconsin in particular.
When you file a case, you don't have to be prepared the day you file it to prove your case.
You have the opportunity to get discovery from the other side and from third parties and put your case on, usually months later, sometimes years later.
That rule did not apply to these election cases.
The judges took the position that if you're not prepared to prove today that this election outcome could have been changed by what you're alleging, I'm going to throw you out.
So it's a combination of two things.
Standing, some other doctrines like rightness and some other providential things we call that have nothing to do with the merits of the case were used to throw the cases out.
But the more important one was You have to be prepared when you put your paper down on the clerk's desk when you file to prove your case.
You'll never be able to prove a case, with the rare exception I've had in election law.
I had one in San Francisco.
We couldn't prove it.
We had to prove it within 30 days.
We happened to have insiders who were prepared to testify.
The day before they were to testify, their houses were firebombed.
I mean, this is an extraordinary development when you have the evidence the first day.
In a case like this, it may take two years.
Well, that is another way to—you know, by looking at it like that, I've never thought of it like that.
Those judges should have accepted it and just let it play itself out, right?
Right.
Exactly.
And how about now, when you have, with these machines, and this—Kurt, I'll ask you, have you—I mean, This isn't common, right, that they're abusing the standing thing, right?
Wouldn't you think one judge out of a hundred?
Don't you think that has a little bit to do with judges in fear that they don't want to be the first judge?
I do believe that there has been an abuse of the standing doctrine, as Pat said.
It's an easy way for a court to kick a case out without performing any of the analysis that would justify dismissing the case.
Because when you do analysis, all of a sudden you have to justify the basis, which creates a record, which creates an appeal.
And the court would actually have to look at the evidence as to what were the allegations, and go through each allegation.
And if they're going to dismiss it, say, well, this allegation is insufficient.
And so they want to stay.
And I, you know, a little bit of a modification on what Pat said.
The election cases that we have now, and that we present even early on, Had clear proof of fraud.
Clear proof of fraud or illegal voting.
I mean, there were two issues from the beginning.
And just to kind of remind people, there were the constitutional issues, where under Article 1 and Article 2 of the Constitution, election laws are made by the state legislators.
They're not made by governors, they're not made by secretaries of state, and they're not made by judges.
And you had, prior to the 2020 election, A wholesale change in many, particularly the battleground states, in their election laws, in violation of the Constitution.
And those changes were made by judges, governors, secretaries of state, and other non-legislative actors.
And here's the rub about this.
Every one of those changes that were made, and this is in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Georgia, in Arizona, Wisconsin, it made it easier to cheat.
Every single one.
Not one of the changes in those laws made it more difficult to cheat or made the vote safer.
So you had signature verification for mail-in ballots that was eliminated.
Nobody's checking.
Or you were to presume that the signature was valid.
You all of a sudden had drop boxes appearing in Wisconsin that were unmanned.
So there was no, nobody knew.
And you've seen 2,000 mules, you know, ballots were being stuffed in by the hundreds and thousands with no chain of custody.
And Wisconsin law specifically says you can only drop a mail-in ballot at a manned location.
And this past July, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the Wisconsin Election Commission, which with Mark Zuckerberg's millions of dollars that funded these drop boxes, that they were patently illegal.
That the election itself, there were three of the four justices who ruled that these drop boxes violated Wisconsin law.
Three of the four justices had a very profound statement in their opinion.
And that, and I'll paraphrase, but if elections are not conducted according to law, they are inherently illegal and do not have the support of the people.
There was no reason to say you need to prove that the election would have gone one way or the other.
If the election is not conducted according to the law, it is presumptively illegal.
The worst abuse of the standing doctrine.
Curt, you were aware of this.
We were both involved in that Texas case, challenging the actions you just described of those battleground states.
The Supreme Court refused to hear that original case brought to the Supreme Court on the basis of standing.
It's the most outrageous proposition.
This country will be torn apart if the deal that was made by the states to agree to the constitutional terms And be violated by one or more states.
And other states that are governed by a president who's elected under those rigged conditions, has to be accepted by them?
This will tear this country apart.
It cannot happen again.
I'm hoping that the current case, pending in the Supreme Court, is going to decide the issue you just described, Kurt, the election and the Elector Clause issue, which gives the power to set those rules that state legislators Not to Democrat judges or Republican judges, not to governors.
Hey, can you, you just brought up this, so the case that Patrick's saying there, Kurt, is that the case that you talked about where it's very similar to the Supreme Court case where the legislatures make the rules and where the judges should be able to overturn?
More of you, North Carolina, I believe.
Yeah, I want everyone to know that here because I have brought that, I got you both on here now.
Will you explain that?
So basically, everybody, what I'm getting out of this is this case made it to the Supreme Court, and it's sitting there, and it's a very important case, isn't it?
Because this could set a precedent saying, or it could set a precedent saying that the old president's back, right?
That the legislatures are supposed to make the law, and all the stuff that was done illegal in 2020 by these Secretary of State and stuff.
Would not be able to be done again.
Is that correct?
Am I saying that wrong?
That's correct.
It's a little different.
That case was brought under the Elector Clause, but both the Elector Clause, which says you select presidential electors by rules set by state legislatures, not by Congress, not by governors, not by judges.
The same is true of the election clause, which allows state legislatures to set the terms of elections, federal elections.
You have the same rule that applies to both the selection of presidential electors and the conduct of federal elections.
If you decide one, you're going to decide the others.
If the independent legislature, if that doctrine survives, it will restore what should have happened in 2020.
Kurt is painfully aware of what could have happened if the court had taken that case.
Right, right.
Many of those illegal votes would never have been allowed.
Just going back to that case, our Constitution is a beautiful document.
It actually contemplated situations like that.
And so where the election would be declared invalid and unconstitutional, It wouldn't just be, you know, go back to pandemonium.
Under the Constitution, under the 12th Amendment, the election would have gone to the Congress, where each state had one vote, and then the president would have been selected under that rubric.
And so, you know, the framers, you know, they basically thought of everything.
And it's only when judges don't follow the law that things break down.
Right, right.
Well, let's go back.
Speaking of the law then, because we've got about 10 minutes left here.
So the case, I've just talked to my assistant here.
We're waiting for the call to say it's officially filed.
I know you guys, Patrick, I want to go back to you.
And you said, you told us, people have been texting me from last night and saying, but you said how important this case is.
You said it could be one of the most important cases ever because with our A right's being violated, and you're saying, by saying important, you're saying, if the judge would say, if they don't, when you said that, it's basically, if they just let this go on, then that's why you're saying it's so important that the judge has to make the right ruling and say, they did violate the
My rights, correct?
Kurt and I have talked a lot about this.
If the government can deter you from exercising your First Amendment rights, it's over.
I don't mean to be dramatic, but it's that important.
If they can succeed in this context, and they can prevent you by just wearing you down and discouraging people that you need to work with you to bring this to the public's attention, to back off, Chase away your business.
Deter anything that you would do to continue this effort.
They'll always win.
And that's the greatest threat to our democracy.
They eliminate freedom of speech, freedom of association.
The abuse of the Fourth Amendment is bad, but the abuse of the First Amendment is what bothers me the most.
Well, the First Amendment, and that's what I was talking all day with this New York Times guy.
I think they've done a pretty good job at attacking me from January 9, 2021 every day to try and suppress the voice.
He asked me, it's funny because he asked me about Frank's speech.
Like, why did you, you know, what, what made you do, you know, make your own platform?
You were worried about these podcasters out there not having a place.
And I, I had to take him through.
That it's pretty scary when your voice is completely gone because they put most people into fear on January 7th and 8th and de-platform people.
I like what, I think it was you that said that too, Patrick.
You said, law hasn't caught up to or is catching up to our world we're living in with phones and computers.
Well, it's a lot easier now, you'd think there would be You know, we think back, I always go back to the shampoo commercial where it says, and they tell two friends and they tell two friends and so on and so on, right?
In the age we're living in now, with computers, phones, social media, when these platforms out there have got little mini monopolies, that's what we had going into 2020.
All these monopolies, Google, owned by Alphabet, and you've got Suckabuck's Facebook, you have Twitter, you have YouTube, owned by Google, you have Vimeo, owned by the Daily Beast.
I mean, these things, and they can fact check me, one owns the other, it don't matter.
But you have these, if you want to silence someone, when four companies own all the newspapers in the United States, in Canada I think it's one, and you have all these things, they control it all.
Now if you want to silence someone, it gets pretty easy, you just go, you censor them.
And then when that doesn't work like it did on me building Frank's speech, I'm going, I don't care what it takes.
I'll go to jail if that's what it takes to get the word out.
And Kurt had to call me out on that, going, no, I'm not giving him my phone.
I'd rather go to jail.
And he's going, Mike, please give him your phone.
Because I wanted the word to get out about this.
I told this New York Times guy, I don't care.
I don't care what the repercussions.
We lose our country.
We lose our freedoms forever.
That's what they went after.
That's what I told the guy, Nazi Germany.
Goebbels is the best marketer ever.
What he does?
Silence the people.
And then with the propaganda, convince the rest they were better than others.
And if you wanted to silence people, you put fear into them.
But they've tried all that.
They've tried all that on myself in person.
I mean, personally, they've tried fear.
They've tried everything.
Instead, they're trying to destroy My voice in every way, shape, or form.
What they did now with this FBI thing, it was kind of a different tactic.
When I have companies, I actually have people now in another bank that said, we don't want to deal with you because now maybe Michael and Joe did something wrong.
I didn't do anything wrong.
It's another, you know, but think of this.
If they would have done this early on, their timing's always a little behind.
Evil's a little greedy.
If they'd have done this earlier on, maybe they would have won silencing my voice.
You know what I mean?
I don't know.
It's not just about silencing your voice, which no one will ever do.
It's about the intimidation and the message that it sends to others.
That's why this case is so, so important.
Because if we don't stop this now, the message that the government is sending by sending FBI agents to block you in a dramatic fashion at a Hardee's restaurant, that tells other people, hey, don't do that.
Right.
Don't speak out about machines.
Whatever you do, don't speak out.
You know, you're exactly right.
And that's what they're trying to do.
And then, this is a good segue, you guys.
I want everybody to know.
They failed in that, by failing in what they're doing, because I believe they went so over the top now, it's so over the top, that people are going, it doesn't scare people, they're going, well gee, Mike Lindell, he's not in jail, he's not in jail, he's still talking, I've done nothing wrong.
But here's what they did today, everybody.
So now they're trying to call me a liar.
And Kurt, you guys were on the phone.
Look at this, everybody.
This racket, this journalist in Minnesota, Hardee's GM of Minnesota.
I know for a fact it didn't happen.
Now, if you click on this, you go down to the end of this article, it goes, is Mike Lindell lying?
You know, it goes all the way down to the bottom.
He writes this hit job on me, and you get down to the bottom.
If you read the last line, which one is lying?
Is Lindell lying or the CEO lying?
I mean, this manager or whatever.
Now, you have this.
How this journalist could even write this article when Every big outlet in the country.
So Logan, pull up the Washington Post.
Here's the Washington Post article and here's an excerpt from that.
If you pull that up, it says, the FBI acknowledged that a warrant was served but declined to elaborate.
Without commenting on the specific matter, the FBI said, I can confirm that the FBI was at the location executing a search warrant Authorized by a federal judge.
A spokesman for, spokesperson for the Bureau's Denver field office said in an email.
So, I mean, this is what the, another example of, go ahead Logan, another example of they, they didn't win one way, you know, it didn't work this way.
So now let's switch it this way and try and say that Mike Lindell is a liar.
They did it last year.
I told this journalist at the cyber symposium, I was physically attacked.
You know, physically attacked.
I did a police report, and all of a sudden there's a big article in the New York Post saying Mike Lindell made it up.
I mean, Kurt, you know that was hard enough doing the cyber symposium without making up being attacked, you know?
I mean, this is just—it was absolutely—this is what we're up against.
It is that First Amendment right of free speech, and that's gone.
It's over.
You are exactly right, Patrick.
It is over.
And Kurt, I like what you said.
They used me for an example by attacking, attacking, like, you know, don't associate with Mike.
And it worked on five of my vendors, four of my vendors or four of my people that do, that have products that are going to go up on mystore.com.
They said, we don't want to, we don't want to do it now.
What's that?
And there's another important aspect of this case.
Which is, how did they track you and find you?
Because, you know, there is now a surveillance state.
But the FBI, the government, they cannot track you without a warrant.
They don't get to follow your every move without a warrant.
And that is another issue in this case that makes it so important.
You asked the FBI, you know, how did you find me?
I was hunting in Iowa, and I stop at this random Mahardi's on the way back.
Just by chance.
I was two hours from my house.
I mean, I've probably been to that Hardee's maybe twice in my life or whatever, like you say.
I even asked him, I said, did you track me?
I said, who shot more ducks?
I'm asking this FBI, these FBI guys.
And then I asked him straight up if he had a, is the tracking device on my truck?
And he did say no.
So obviously it was these phones that Bill Barr said that you can't track people on.
There's been a normalization of the surveillance state.
And it's unconstitutional, but people are so inculcated with it, like they think it's normal.
It's not.
And you can look at, for example, you may recall, Tucker was told by a whistleblower that the NSA was monitoring his communications and showed him an email to prove it, that he had.
And then there was, I mean, there was an extraordinary incident back in 2015.
I'm sure Pat remembers this.
Where former CIA Director Brennan had to admit in 2015 that the CIA got caught hacking into the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Now, you think about that.
You had the CIA hack into the Senate Intelligence Committee.
And, you know, one of the, you know, co-equal branch of government, what did the Senate do?
Nothing.
They did nothing about that.
And so there's this, like I said, normalization of the surveillance state, of this incredibly unconstitutional and illegal behavior that must be stopped.
And this case is a vehicle to do that.
I appreciate what you're doing, Mike, because people don't realize how fragile our situation is.
They have to know how quickly the Chinese took over Hong Kong.
In one month, there were two million people out on the street.
Now nobody wants to speak out.
Because it's not only a surveillance state, but they're doing precisely what our government's doing.
Well, that's what's going to happen.
We get one shot at this, everybody.
One shot.
This guy asked me today, you know, he says, so what's your, like, well, like, what's my intent or goal or this?
I said, well, I said, it seems, it can seem overwhelming, but I said, God's got his hand in all of this.
But I said, Everyone's got to realize the urgency of it and not sit back, especially politicians sit back and go, Oh, like you said, Kurt, they did nothing.
You know, people need to be courageous.
I don't care how smart of a part speaking up at a school board meeting or whatever.
You can't sit back and let, and just go, okay.
Be boiled like frogs.
Be just boiled like frogs.
And because they're not, I mean, the water's boiling and it's, we're almost there.
We're almost this close.
We only get one shot and we have to get rid of the machines.
The only, you know, it's, I compare it to 1984 and even the movie, The Terminator.
You know, when you get, you can see, you know, imagine where we're going with all these, the technology nowadays.
Can you imagine right now I could, You could take someone, and Kurt, I could take your image, and have you make a statement, doctor your voice, doctor you, and frame you for something, and then people, you know, can you imagine bad people out there that could do this, where you can't bring someone and say, no, that's defective, or that's not real, you know, and all these technologies that are out there, drones in Australia that are coming down and telling you to go back in your house?
Go back in your house, you're out of your perimeter.
And so if you have the computers that people got selected that are bad people, and you have politicians that are sitting back that don't care, the ones that are making the laws, if you have a lawless society, it's over.
And that's where we're getting to that point.
So now I do see, Patrick, why this is so important.
Because if they just let this go through, like seeing other judges... Mike, I hate to break in, but we're almost out of time, and we've just gotten Alan Dershowitz.
Mr. Dershowitz, you're on with Mike Lindell.
Hi, Mike.
How are you?
Hey, Alan.
We're almost out of time here, but we've got a... I guess it's going to be filed here in a few minutes, I hear.
Alan, can you tell us the importance of... Can you tell us the importance of this case to the United States of America?
It's a very important case.
It's a groundbreaking Fourth Amendment case.
Whether you can seize somebody's entire computer program and cell phone without first trying to get a subpoena, the irony, of course, is that they issued a subpoena apparently on the same day that they issued the search warrant, but they didn't issue the subpoena for the telephone so that they could get and search the telephone completely.
And what we're seeking is what President Trump got in the Mar-a-Lago case, the appointment of a special investigator to look into this, or return of the cell phone.
Because the search was a general search, the kind of general search that the framers of our Constitution wanted to specifically outlaw in the Fourth Amendment.
So this is an important case, and whether you're a liberal or conservative, whatever you think about the 2010 20 election, this is a case that should bother you because
the government overreached. They held Mike Lindell essentially in
confinement, questioned him without giving him Miranda warnings, didn't allow him
initially to call his lawyer.
It is a paradigm violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, implications from Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
First Amendment, because the reason they're going after Mike Lindell, obviously, is because he exercises First Amendment right to say something that I personally disagree with, but that's not relevant to the First Amendment.
The First Amendment It's not about which side you're on.
It's about ability to express concerns about the government and make objections about the government.
Michael O'Dell has been doing that and doing it apparently too effectively for the government.
So they're coming after him and we're going to fight back.
Right, right.
Well, and by the way, when you say, you know, when you say disagree with my biggest thing here is to go to paper ballots, hand counted.
I don't know, we haven't talked in a while.
That's my whole focus.
Do you think that we shouldn't have hand-counted elections and with paper ballots?
I think we should have backups to make sure that every ballot is properly counted.
But that's not what this case is about.
This case is not about the ends, it's about the means.
And whether you agree or disagree with paper ballots, machine ballots, that's not the issue.
The issue under the First Amendment is Do you have a right to express your opinion?
Do I have a right to express my opinion?
Maybe we disagree.
That's not what the First Amendment is about.
So do you think, were they legal and be able to track me like that?
To track me and...
The question is how they found you, and if they used a tracking device, whether they had a warrant for the use of that tracking device.
You know, they didn't give us the affidavit the way they did in the Mar-a-Lago case, and we're seeking the affidavit.
We want to get that affidavit to make sure that they had a warrant.
If they didn't have a warrant, and they tracked you electronically, that raises really serious fourth-amendment questions.
That means they could track anybody, any of us.
Right, absolutely.
I just got news here.
The case just got filed.
I got it from Andrew Parker here, and I just handed it to me.
So it is filed.
Brandon, I can probably give it to you for your show if you want to put it up.
Yeah, absolutely we can.
And Mr. Dershowitz, before we let you go, you also have a new book out, right?
You want to tell us what the name of the book is and where they can get it?
It's called The Price is Principal.
You can get it on Amazon.
It's about the hypocrisy of the government going after even people like me who defended President Trump.
Imagine how much they go after me when they know I Defend Mike Lindell as well.
So it's about the double standard of the hard left, particularly.
Price of principle.
Price of principle by Alan Dershowitz.
It's just come out, folks.
And thank you for being with us, sir.
Appreciate it tonight.
Good luck.
What was that?
He said good luck.
Oh, thank you.
Everyone, I want to show quick here.
If Logan, if you got that commercial ready, I want to end on that.
I made a new commercial today, everybody.
And here.
Here's our three-pack towel sets.
Brandon, are you ready for this?
Yes.
With promo code L77 or call 800-544-8939.
Call 77 or call 800-544-8939.
These towels, these towel sets, $19.98 with your promo code.
Brandon, we set your promo code up, too, for tonight.
Wow.
I mean, the lowest price in history.
I want everybody a chance to try the best towels ever.
They actually work.
They actually absorb.
And we made a new commercial today.
You're going to see it here for the first time.
Thank you all for watching Lindell Report.
And Brandon, I'm going to get the case over to you for your show.
Awesome.
Everybody can watch it on Brandon's show and see the whole complaint.
One of the most important cases in our country ever.
Absolutely.
That's the Lindell Report.
What a packed show.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for supporting.
Take care.
You're watching Lindell TV.
Hello, I'm Mike Lindell, and for the first time ever, you can get my three-piece towel sets for the lowest price ever.
Go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen now.
Use your promo code and you'll get your very own MyPillow three-piece towel sets for only $19.98.
What makes MyPillow towels different is their proprietary technology.
They're highly absorbent yet soft and made with 100% USA cotton.
Watch this absorbency test.
Here's another towel that we randomly went out and bought.
Here's one of my towels with the nice design.
I don't know if you can see this, but you could line a swimming pool with this.
I mean, this is crazy.
Get rid of it.
Towels that actually work.
What a concept.
I really love the towels.
They're really great.
They're super absorbent.
And now you can get them for the best price ever.
Go to MyPillow.com and use your promo code or call the number on your screen now and get your very own three-piece towel sets for only $19.98.
Please order now.
Tonight on The Worldview Report, we'll take a look at Joe Biden's creepy executive order promoting a new bio-economy.
What does it say?
And why are some predicting it will open the floodgates to transhumanism?
Also tonight, Dr. Anthony Fauci is back up to his old tricks, admitting that COVID vaccines failed to offer any protection beyond a few months.
But now he wants you to get vaxxed for monkey pox.
He is supposedly the science, remember?
So don't ask questions.
Just roll up your sleeves and shut up.
We've got a report on Biden's failed border with some rather stunning video and the impact it will have for years into the future.
And more corruption at the CDC regarding lies told about the COVID vaccines.
While one nation in Europe is now banning all mRNA vaccines for people under 50.
All these stories and more as The Worldview Report begins right now.
This is WorldView Report with host Brennan Howes.
▲
Export Selection