All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2022 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
01:00:46
The Lindell Report (12-12-22)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Great price, and I'm passing those savings directly on to you.
You can get my Gizadream bed sheets for as low as $29.98 with your promo code.
They're the most luxurious sheets ever, made with the world's best cotton.
It's grown only in a region between the Sahara Desert, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River.
I know my sheets are perfect for you, and I'm extending my 60-day money-back guarantee for Christmas until March 1, 2023.
Making them the perfect gifts for your friends, your family, and everyone you know.
So go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use your promo code to save 50% on my Giza Dream bed sheets.
That's as low as $29.98!
Quantities are extremely limited at these amazing prices, so please order now.
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.
All right, good evening.
Glad you are with us.
Brennan House here in for Mike Lindell, who is out on business tonight.
Joining me tonight will be Ivan Reikland and then Jeffrey O'Donnell with an update.
Folks, there is so much going on in the news, it's hard to know where even to begin, right?
But let's start with the issue of the new Congress coming in in January.
Then we'll get an update on some things related to elections with Jeff O'Donnell.
Joining me now is Former Green Beret commander Ivan Relkin.
Ivan, welcome to the broadcast.
Thanks for joining us.
You got it right the first time.
Reiklin.
I always want to say, for some reason, I always want to add it.
Reiklin.
I always want to add the L too soon.
No worries, no worries.
Don't get ahead of yourself.
So the people have spoken.
I've gotten a microphone.
So hopefully you can hear me much better now than you were able to before in previous interviews.
Yes, absolutely.
And people were complaining about the audio quality, but boy, that sounds really good tonight.
Excellent.
So yes.
So January 3rd you want to talk about, huh?
Yes, I want to talk about January 3rd.
What's going to happen January 3rd?
Are you sensing that things are falling apart for potential Speaker of the House, McCarthy?
Yeah, so when we first started this several weeks ago, essentially showcasing the weakness of Kevin McCarthy and how he should not be Speaker, you know, the first vote was 188, I think to 36 that were anti.
McCarthy.
And I think his his chances of becoming Speaker are crumbling by the day, if not by the hour.
And I'm not saying that to be sound hyperbolic.
It's just a systematic, you know, once once people are focused in on, you know, what the Speaker is responsible for and what they should get from the Speaker, people start to see the rules and distinctions that they're going to have to demand of the next Speaker.
And one of the things that people really need to consider is that do you want the next Speaker of the House who is going to be a Republican guaranteed full stop Uh, to use the same rules that Nancy Pelosi had used in the, in this current Congress.
Most people are going to say no, uh, to include the 222 Republican members that are going to be taking their oath of office on January 3rd.
And what I mean by that is there's a rule called vacating the chair where essentially when Nancy Pelosi took over, uh, there's no one that can really remove her as Speaker of the House, even though, even if she, uh, promised to go ahead and do certain things for the caucus.
Whereas in the past, the ability to what's called vacate the chair was essentially always put into place.
Now that's something that Kevin McCarthy's not even willing to entertain.
So once he's elected as Speaker of the House, even though he's promised all these things, whether it's to Jim Jordan for Chair of the Judiciary Committee, or any of these other folks, whether it be Marjorie Taylor Greene, who basically is a traitor to her constituents, now shilling for Kevin McCarthy, and Bottom line is that his promises are not binding because he's
not willing to even allow this motion to vacate the chair to come through.
I know it sounds parliamentary in nature, but that is so important.
One individual in the Republican conference, or really anybody in the Congress, can say,
you know what, Speaker of the House, you are no longer and we need to hold a vote.
Meaning, he has to have the trust of his conference, which he doesn't.
That's why he doesn't want the motion to vacate the chair to be in the next rules package.
Just so the audience understands, what you're talking about is, say he becomes Speaker.
If somewhere along the way he's not... Won't happen, but hypothetically, yeah.
So if he somewhere along the way does not keep his promises to the Freedom Caucus, let's say, To anybody, not only the Freedom Caucus.
Right.
Then if this motion is removed, at any point they can call for a new election, remove him and put in someone different.
If that is included, if the motion to vacate the chair rule is allowed in the next rules package on January 3rd, then one person can stand up and say, we hold a new vote for the Speaker of the House.
That has always been in place.
Because the Speaker of the House has to govern based on the confidence of the majority of the Congress.
The reason why Nancy Pelosi implemented that is because she didn't have the, you know, support, essentially.
She wanted to protect herself.
And that's essentially dictatorial rule.
I mean, that's tyranny within the House.
It's important to the rest of the country because, what, the House controls, what, $20-25 trillion budget.
And, you know, and and the economic impact of the budget, not just the budget, but just the economy.
Right.
So the most important position that most people don't realize is actually the Speaker of the House, because they they decide the agenda and the financial system, if you will, for the entire nation.
And so that is why that's important.
Now, as far as Kevin McCarthy, I've started a 13 part series, which I sent to you.
I'm not sure if you can pull that up, Brandon.
But essentially what I'm showcasing on my sub stack is I will be presenting the 13 adjudicated guidelines, which, which are the threshold determining factors on whether or not to grant somebody a clearance within our intelligence community.
And considering that the Speaker of the House will be sitting on what's known as the gang of eight, meaning the eight members of Congress that will be seeing all the most sensitive intelligence information.
From our intelligence community, you would kind of want somebody that would be able to pass that threshold.
You know, even though they are in the legislative branch, you probably want them so that they're trustworthy.
There's no blackmail that potentially could be used against them by a foreign actor or even domestic actors.
And so just beginning with the first adjudicative guideline, which is essentially allegiance to the United States.
Next ones that talk about the foreign influence.
Financial dealings, sexual activities.
Let's just stop right there.
Let's stop right there on foreign influence.
What foreign influence are you concerned about?
Yeah, so as I'm digging into it and looking at his background, I'm calling this a counterintelligence investigation by we the people of a potential Speaker of the House, which as I'm finding, it's not going to be the case because, let's just put it this way, for foreign influence to address that point, When you're looking at what occurred with the money that was doled out to Ukraine, right?
You can see Kevin McCarthy, and it's actually the picture of my first post discussing this.
You see Kevin McCarthy on the House floor with his nice little Ukraine flag, and he's out there touting funding Ukraine, the war supposedly, and part of that money goes and is invested to FTX, For them to go ahead and invest into the Congressional Leadership Fund that Kevin McCarthy manages, and then that money is used to go against America First candidates throughout the country in the primaries, as well as in the general election.
And so that's one indication.
The other component is when you're friends and you have a professional relationship with folks that are not residents of the United States, for example, Sam Bankman Freed, and that's going to be detailed in my second of 13 series.
I'm wrapping that up probably after this episode and I'll hopefully publish it tonight.
It talks about how if you have a relationship with a foreign resident, Sam Bankman Freed in this case, and he lives in the Bahamas, and he is essentially financially manipulating you, coercing you, or influencing you, Into doing his bidding and supporting his corrupt efforts with that bank.
And oh, by the way, only about an hour ago, I think, breaking news, the Bahamian law enforcement just arrested him, Sam Banker and Freed.
I'm not sure if you heard about that.
No, I did not.
That's breaking news right now.
That's breaking news.
If you just go on Twitter, I think it's going to start trending pretty soon.
There we go.
CNBC.
So these are the relationships.
Let me show this.
Hang on.
CNBC, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, arrested in the Bahamas after US files criminal charges.
So there you go.
That's breaking news right now.
Yeah, so these are the people that Kevin McCarthy relies on for his campaign funds into his
leadership fund to then go against America's first candidates like we talked about before,
whether it be in Florida, Laura Loomer, who would have easily won that race had it not
been for the essentially last minute 50 I think it was a $50,000 bribe.
If you can look into that, on the last day of voting, that was from folks that are tied to Kevin McCarthy.
Also in Washington's 3rd Congressional District, Joe Kent, $3 million were used by Kevin McCarthy to go against him in the primary, and then another upwards of $9 million were used in In the general election.
And he's going through a recount right now.
There's a small chance that Joe Kent possibly still pulls it off.
And by the way, let's look at this headline.
This comes from your buddies over at the National File.
The National File.
Look at this.
I guess this is a screenshot.
FTX, the Post Explained, Washington Post.
Explained is a major donor to McCarthy's own operation and to other groups backing McCarthy's favored candidates.
Not only is it a problem with the Democrat party, but through back channels, you're zooming in exactly right there.
I don't recognize that as a credible source.
The Washington, I think it's the compost is how you pronounce it.
But nonetheless, it is a source of information that the radical domestic terrorist left The reason I've got it pulled up off a national file is because what I'm trying to show is there are people on the right and there are people on the left that are saying the same thing here.
Right, right.
Absolutely.
And so we're going to go down the laundry list of the, I think you had it up previously, the 13 adjudicative guidelines.
And we can kind of just gloss over real quick if you pull that up and discuss some of the key issues that are going to face Kevin McCarthy.
So as we go through this methodical assessment of his risk to blackmail and his activities that wouldn't pass muster, If you're trying to get a clearance normally within the executive branch, and that is distributed out to the different members of Congress.
And I, I believe I've texted over the last 24 hours, uh, well over a dozen members of the house.
Uh, and I have not received that level of, uh, of viewership on any of my sub stacks.
Like I have this one, it's, it's at least 10 times more than all the other sub stack articles that I've written.
It's making its way through, not only in the halls of Congress, but in the court of public opinion.
As we learn the vulnerabilities that Kevin McCarthy has, I don't see a path whatsoever for him to garner 218 votes from the Republican Congress as they start to see these vulnerabilities.
Wow.
How about this last one here?
Use of information technology.
What do you mean by that?
Yes, so that's the last one.
So if you're using information technology essentially in a haphazard way that creates a vulnerability to our national security, namely, I think National File is going to be breaking something as it relates to a gentleman by the name of, I think it's Kuo, who is in the GOP of California.
I'm going to leave that for National File to break that.
But bottom line is, if you're using any sort of technology to minimize and weaken our national security,
definitely you're a risk, right, to the United States.
The other thing ancillary to that that I'll add is in the past, Kevin McCarthy,
right after January 8th, when Twitter violating their own policies
kicked off President Trump, General Flynn, myself, and many other patriots from the platform,
Kevin McCarthy publicly stated that, Oh wow, people like.
Representative Moore should also be banned and kicked off of Twitter.
Remember, Alabama Republican, who's basically, I think if you pull up the tweet, if I recall correctly, it was essentially him comparing how in the summer of love no one was arrested for all the lawlessness and insurrectionist activity that was occurring by BLM and Antifa, but yet patriots that peacefully exercise their first amendment inside of the
Capitol were just being completely raw-dogged by our law enforcement. And so he was basically,
Kevin McCarthy was basically arguing that those individuals like Representative Moore need to be
censored and banned off of Twitter.
So he's complicit in this whole scheme of going after patriots and Trump supporters
in order to get them off of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, probably the others, so that his
party, if you will, that he's losing grasp over would continue to maintain relevance.
Here's another headline.
Here's another headline at National File tonight.
America First, Colton Moore calls on Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Republicans to vote against Kevin McCarthy for Speaker.
The sub-headline, Georgia State Senator-Elect Colton Moore cited Kevin McCarthy's attack on first America First campaigns and his embrace of Nancy Pelosi's House rules in his scathing rebuke of McCarthy's Speakership campaign.
That's pretty big.
So you're seeing a movement here.
And it's only escalating by the day.
I saw, I think it was yesterday or the day before.
So this is new to you?
This is brand new to me.
You're starting to see some state reps throughout the country.
Mark Fincham was one, yesterday or the day before, actually announced that he supports Andy Biggs and not to support Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House.
Now, I get it.
Those are state representatives and they don't constitute the 218 votes necessary for a Speaker of the House.
But that is showing a groundswell of support, not only, you know, things that I'm laying out and National File's laying out.
I think you're starting to see a groundswell within the Republican Party throughout the country among these state reps to demand that their congressional federal delegation not vote for Kevin McCarthy and start looking for other viable candidates.
And with all of the Twitter releases that have occurred over the last, you know, the five Twitter drops, I said this at the Reawaken tour when I had the opportunity to speak.
Thank you, by the way, Clay Clark, for giving me a platform on the 17th chapter of that Reawaken tour.
My speech consisted of, at the end, essentially, you know, the way we can remedy our current constitutional crisis is to go through this public process of going from TDS to TRS, meaning from Trump derangement syndrome over to Trump reinstatement syndrome.
And I did not factor in Elon Musk's ability to expedite that process.
I thought we would have to do that uncensored on C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3.
I think I mentioned in an earlier interview with you.
You know, when you have the house, you can control the gavel and then you can have hearings across 30 committees uncensored on C-spans 1, 2, and 3 to showcase all of the illegal activity by the entire cabal left and right going back to 2016 with the spying on the Trump campaign.
But luckily, we have Elon Musk that is using his platform known as Twitter to go ahead and really expedite that process.
So I think that couple with with, you know, Elon Musk, coupled with a strong Speaker of the House, such as a wartime Speaker, President Trump, I think we can get to the truth quickly and then move our country's politicians from being cowards like their, you know, beloved Mike Pence and actually grow the courage necessary to then move that Speaker of the House, Trump, by having three states decertify like we've been demanding the last three Excuse me, last two years to then move that Speaker of the House into the position.
Of President exercising that 12th Amendment.
I can go into details on that if you want, but I think your listeners know that process.
Yeah, absolutely.
I'd like to, but I'd also like to highlight this here.
This is over at the Epoch Times.
My buddy Joshua Phillip, who I had on the other night, Supreme Court considers taking Brunson vs. Adams case that seeks to overturn the 2020 election.
They've agreed to do that, right?
Yeah, so I'm actually glad Epoch Times has picked up on it.
So up until essentially this moment, it was considered a fringe theory of their theory of the case.
In fact, let me just stop you right there.
Let me stop you and read the description here.
Show this, guys.
The Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case, which I guess we're now hearing they have, to overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future.
Folks, are you hearing this?
The case Brunson v. Amos Adams sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.
If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, It could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S.
government.
It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.
So, there you go.
I mean, by the way, this is now, we're reading, been accepted.
This is not if they accept it, they've accepted it, correct?
Well, not so fast.
It's met its first stage.
Let me just make a comment here real quick.
So I want to thank the Brunson brothers for actually filing that case.
It is essentially taking the theory that every single person that did not object, which would have been essentially what?
There was 147 House members that only objected to one or two of the states, right?
And then you had several senators doing the same thing.
Everyone else violated their oath.
Now, I had argued this in the past, way back when this was going at the height of my Twitter days and arguing the constitutional violations back in December of 2020 going into January 6th.
So what they did, those two, several Brunson brothers, essentially took that and put it into a case, absolutely brilliant maneuver, to go ahead and do what you just explained.
Now, what we're at right now, and it's probably better for you to contact them since they've been working on the case, but my understanding is that on January 6th, Isn't that quite a godly thing?
I know!
I was talking to someone about that this morning.
You're telling me that there's going to be a hearing on this on January 6th?
On January 6th, there's a hearing for the whole Supreme Court, the nine members, to determine whether or not they're going to take the case.
Okay, so they have not taken the case yet, but they've agreed to have a hearing.
Right, so the first initial process is, you know, you file it before the Supreme Court and you need four out of the nine members to agree to actually take the case, right?
And once four members actually decide to do it, I think it's going to be a long shot, but we'll talk about the vote count here in a second.
Let me remind the audience, you're not only a former Green Beret commander, you're actually a constitutional attorney.
You have a law degree.
You're a lawyer, right?
Correct.
And so you put those two together, I like to call myself America's law offensive coordinator.
Self-proclaimed.
But I don't know, my work will show, you know, whatever it's worth.
But as far as in the Supreme Court, four are necessary to bring it up to the court and then to hear it, to hear the whole arguments on each side.
And then obviously it takes a majority, five out of the nine, to rule in whoever's favor.
Now, remember back in Texas versus Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan case that was filed by Attorney General from Texas Ken Paxton?
Uh, Paxton, yes.
Ken Paxton.
The Supreme Court, even though they had Article 3 a jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, which I argued that
it was mandatory and so did Ken Paxton, they decided due to standing they weren't able, they weren't
going to take the case.
The reason why they said that is because had they taken the case there was enough precedent
for them to rule in favor of Texas, which would have impacted the election and the election would
have gone differently. So Chief Justice Roberts, for those that don't remember, was appointed by
George W. Bush in 2005, okay?
So he is loyal to the Bush family.
And you know that the Bush family is very vehemently against Trump.
And we're part of that cabal that helped the Democrats to not only attempt six times a coup on him, but also were temporarily successful in that coup, along with their beloved Mikey Pence.
And then Mikey Pence's running mate for 2024, I call the Mike Pence cover-up committee, the J6 cover-up committee.
So that whole ecosystem, right?
Bush, Pence, what's his name?
Dick Cheney was the vice president at the time that Chief Justice Roberts was appointed.
So I don't expect, I want to be wrong.
Don't get me wrong.
I want that case to be taken.
And then for the court to look at it, deliberate over it, and then rule on it.
But I just don't see, and I don't want to black pill, I'm just giving you the, probably the thinking of Chief Justice Roberts.
He's going to do everything in his power.
Now I get it, he only represents one member.
Now what about the other four liberals, right?
Or excuse me, three liberals, appointed liberals.
They're going to side with Chief Justice Roberts.
So that leaves us with five Constitutional justices and I would have to argue that Lindsey Graham is going to influence Kavanaugh as well.
Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell were the ones that really teed up three of the other Supreme Court justices along with Mike Pence before they teed him up for President Trump to appoint.
And those are Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Gorsuch?
I don't know.
He's kind of a possible.
So I see maybe at a minimum two people voting to hear this case.
That would be Thomas as well as Alito.
A possible Gorsuch.
But I don't, unless something miraculously somehow changes, Over the course of the next several weeks into January 6th, such as more releases by Elon Musk that make the entire Court of Public Opinion so angry at what they were exposed to over the last six years, that's probably the only way that you might see a fourth Supreme Court Justice side with hearing that case.
So we can only hope that Elon Musk does disclose what he talked about, I think, yesterday in
a tweet, which was Fauci needs to go to jail.
And we'll start to see all of the fraud come out.
So we'll see.
You would think the Supreme Court, however, would want to, I would guess, self-preservation
if nothing else.
Because if the Biden-Harris regime continues, they'd love to stack this court.
Which means all of those nine people will be decreased in their full power.
The more you add, the more they're diluted.
Right, so let's talk about the legal argument.
From one perspective, yeah, you're right.
The Supreme Court may want to essentially push back and say, yeah, you're not going to expand the Supreme Court.
We're going to lock arms and push back against that.
And one way for us to do that is to essentially remove everybody listed in the case, in the complaint.
So I don't, I mean, think about the impact of this, right?
The Supreme Court is stepping in and ruling that the entire, well, Three quarters, two-thirds of the legislative branch, you know, separate co-equal branch of government, violated its oath and thus needs to be flicked like a booger and never to run for office again.
Okay?
Also, the entire head of the executive branch.
That is such a bold move that while it's within the realm of possible, we have to think about if you're a Supreme Court Justice, you know, what are you doing there?
What's going to be the blowback to you individually for making that ruling?
Because at the end of the day, they're humans, right?
They don't have all the security that they need.
Look at what Mikey Pence did on December 23rd.
He was too fearful and he was a coward, right?
As an individual with full lifetime Secret Service detail, and yet he still didn't defend the Constitution.
So we have those things to consider.
Yeah, absolutely.
Just one correction.
Vice President doesn't get lifetime Secret Service, only President.
Are you sure?
Yeah.
Okay.
I thought it was both.
Yeah, it hasn't been extended to them unless it's happened recently.
No, they lose it after so many days.
Okay.
I'll have to take a look at it.
Yeah, look at that.
Me correcting them.
So maybe that's why.
Yeah.
Maybe that's why.
Yeah, well, yeah.
He didn't do it.
Look at this.
This is right off the Supreme Court website.
SupremeCourt.gov.
Respondents were properly warned and were requested.
This is from the complaint.
No one responded, exactly.
The defendants did not even respond.
So I mean it's looking good. I guess I mean wait a minute just so y'all understand
Are you are you telling me the government is not even putting up?
No, go ahead I'm sorry I interrupted you.
Go ahead and read that part so that people understand.
Respondents were properly warned and requested to make an investigation into a highly covert, swift, and powerful enemy as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States.
Respondents purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated.
Therefore, the respondents adhered to this enemy.
Because of Respondent's intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Roland J. Brunson brought this action against Respondent because he was seriously, personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondent's and consequently, this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.
and perhaps the rights of every person living in all courts of law.
Now, who do they say is the enemy?
Because I just did a Control-F I haven't read the entire case yet because there's so many things going on.
I'm focused on the speaker's gavel right now for January 3rd.
The enemies are, first and foremost, it's the presiding officer on January 6th.
And I've laid this out on numerous podcasts, and I laid it out in essentially an oral argument for the Court of Public Opinion on Sovereign Souls podcast.
And in that, I lay out how Mike Pence, after Speaker Pelosi handed over the, she gaveled in the joint session on January 6th of 2021 at 1pm, And at that time, she said that based on the guidance of the sergeants at arms and the medical officer, as well as conferring with the leadership, meaning Chuck Schumer in the Senate, Mitch McConnell in the Senate, and Kevin McCarthy in the House,
All four of those individuals, meaning Speaker, Minority Leader, Senate Majority, Senate Minority Leader, agreed to only have 11 members of each party from each chambers on the House floor.
Let me do the math for you.
11 in the Senate Republicans plus 11 members of the Senate Democrats is 22 members.
11 members in the House Republican and 11 in the House Democrats, that's 22 more.
Equaling 44.
Now, when you look at the 12th Amendment, the only place that references the joint session in our U.S.
Constitution, it requires that the House have two-thirds of the states represented for a quorum, which would mean, what, 34 states.
So, 22 is less than 34, even if they had it allocated by separate states.
Now, on the Senate side, same thing.
Two-thirds of the states are required for a quorum.
That means 34 members of the Senate.
22 does not meet that threshold.
So when Nancy Pelosi gaveled in and Mike Pence and handed it over to Mike Pence to be the presiding officer, a congressman from the Virginia's ninth congressional district by the name of Morgan Griffith stood up and said, point of order, Mr. Vice President.
And this is all on C-SPAN, Brandon, and I include it in these clips and these podcasts that I've done.
So this congressman stands up and says, point of order, how are we supposed to participate in the joint session, we being the Congress, if you are only allowing, you're not allowing a majority of us to even participate?
Over 90% of the House and Senate was not allowed to participate in the joint session of Congress.
Amidst the time when Mikey Pence's Twitter account, at 1.03 p.m.
I believe it was, or 1.02, tweets out, and I'll summarize it, where he tweets out and says, I am the biggest, toxic, feckless, stone-cold coward simp.
I am not going to defend the U.S.
Constitution.
Okay?
But if we go in a little bit more detail, what he meant was, In the text of his tweet, in the memo, he basically said,
The pious one tells America that I am not able to unilaterally do anything as it applies to the electors.
And so what does Mikey Pence do?
He now uses the J6 cover-up committee to go after people that argued that that's not his role.
His role is to defend the Constitution.
So who did he go after?
John Eastman.
He went after others.
I argued back in December of 2020 that he has the unilateral and sole plenary authority to defend the U.S.
Constitution under the Electoral Count Act obligation that he has for when the states send unconstitutional slates of electors back in December 23rd.
He refused to do that, and then he refused, and what did he do unilaterally on January 6th?
He unilaterally denied 90% of Congress from participating in the joint session when he said that he was going to allow them to in that memo.
Totally hypocritical, total raw dog violation, deliberate systematic genocide of our Constitution committed by Mikey Pence and his collaborator, who was the host of the joint session, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her Capitol Police Board.
Are you saying- So there you have it.
Are you saying- That is the lead problem within our constitutional framework.
Sorry, go ahead.
Do you believe, Ivan, that if they had granted, what, 10 days for the state legislatures to look into this?
That's what some of them are requesting, right?
Just give us 10 days, right?
What's your question?
Is that what they were asking for?
It was 10 days for the state legislatures to look at it, right?
10 days?
Right, so that was presented by Ted Cruz and several folks that signed on to his.
And the reason why he was using that 10-day look is because back in the Tilden-Hayes election in 1876, if I'm not mistaken, that's what happened because there was an electoral contact friction between the candidates And they decided to create a commission, five members of the House, five members of the Senate, and five members of the Supreme Court, to hold a vote on who actually would win the presidency, because they had a standoff.
And we never had that.
Bottom line, we never got our chance in the proper venue to adjudicate the electors.
And I argue the proper venue was the state legislatures and the House of Representatives and the Senate.
So what do you think would have happened if they got their 10 days?
I honestly think that 10 days would have created the necessary momentum at the height of this To actually get, at a minimum, a rejection of the electors, or for the state to actually abstain from sending their electors from Arizona, Pennsylvania, and almost certainly those two states, and likely from Wisconsin.
I know it's a long shot, but I think the momentum would have been there to apply pressure to the toxic, feckless, stone-cold cowards such as Robin Voss, To go ahead and pull for that.
And then you would have had a contingent election.
And this would have been the state legislatures making this decision, not the electors themselves.
Right.
Well, you got to remember that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of our Constitution rests all power in the allocation of the electors with the state legislatures.
So the electors are a product of what the state legislature created.
And so it is they have the power to create and allocate those votes through election laws, or they can reclaim it at any point in time under their 10th Amendment powers, which is Uh, you know, anything not in the constitution that's not limited to the states and not delegated to the federal constitution remains in the states.
So those two provisions essentially allow the state legislatures to really have the full plenary authority to allocate their electors as long as it's not violating any subsequent amendment, such as for example, 14th amendment, where they've already created a modus for allocating electors.
All right.
Let me, let me, let me read the details that you probably don't want.
Let me read one more paragraph, then I gotta run to my next guest.
Here's right off the Supreme Court website, this case, Brunson, that they've agreed to have a hearing on, I guess, January 6th.
They have not agreed to take it, but they're agreeing to have a hearing on it January 6th, is what we're being told.
Okay, here's what's in the case, the complaint.
It is an uncontestable fact of
the U.S. and the United States, and this is why I'm here today. I'm here to talk to you about the DHS. This national
security breach is having the same end result as an act of war. It plays into power whom the respondents want, which
is Biden. Brunson moves this court with his powers to order the trial court of this case to immediately grant to Brunson
the damages he seeks in his complaint. This is necessary to immediately secure our national security without any
further delay. That's very interesting paragraph.
I think you mispronounced it. It should be pronounced G-E-D-E-N.
Are you talking about Xi Jinping?
No, no, Joseph Robinette Zhiden.
Oh.
So, yeah.
And I discussed this.
I'm not saying this jokingly.
As we find out more with Marco Polo and all the evidence coming out, and hopefully Elon Musk is going to showcase this, we have a fully captured executive branch at a minimum by our Chinese Communist Party counterparts over there in China.
Which is why you're giving the middle name to Biden that you just gave.
Right.
I consider him the Chinese Communist Party's ambassador to the United States that's currently squatting and defiling our White House.
Well, even people on the left who have traditionally been on the left, Naomi Wolf said when I interviewed her that she thinks this White House has been captured by foreign enemies.
It's an embarrassment.
I mean, I hate to say this.
It is embarrassing to be, to have U.S.
to a U.S. citizenship right now.
Wow.
I'm considering having, changing my citizenship to being a state national.
I don't know if you are aware of that process.
No, I'm not.
Where you actually become a citizen of a, you revert back to becoming a citizen of the state
and you renounce your federal affiliation to our federal national government.
Interesting.
All right, well here- Ann VanderSteel is a prominent state national from Florida.
That is actually a process.
Yeah, she's been talking about that.
I'm going to interview her about that.
Let's show his Substack real quick.
Here's his Substack.
Ivanrakelin.substack.com.
Ivanrakelin.substack.com.
And it's R-A-I-K-L-I-N.
That's how you spell the last name.
As always, Commander, very interesting interviews with you.
Thank you, thank you.
I appreciate you having me, as always.
You bet, my friend.
That's Commander Ivan Reikland, former Green Beret commander and constitutional attorney.
All right, before we go to Jeff O'Donnell, let me remind you, we are brought to you largely by you.
You're the one that makes this broadcast possible.
There's a report out tonight, folks.
There's a report out tonight that Rudy Giuliani ...gave the information related to the Hunter Biden laptop to, well, some pretty well-known conservatives.
Here's an article at Trending Politics.
Rudy Giuliani drops name of prime-time Republican host who refused to share the Hunter Biden laptop, who refused to share Hunter Biden laptop evidence.
During an interview with Newsmax over the weekend, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani revealed that he gave Hunter Biden's laptop to prominent Republicans who refused to report on it.
Huh.
You're kidding me.
Well, that's very interesting.
Who would some of these people be, I wonder?
You think Sean Hannity, Fox News, any of them might be in there?
I don't know.
I guess we'll have to dig into that more.
Here we are.
We've talked about it.
We've interviewed the man that actually had the laptop dropped off at his shop.
We've interviewed Rudy Giuliani about it many times.
I have on Brand House Live.
What's the point I'm making?
We cover the stories a lot of other outlets don't want to touch.
They will not touch.
I guess it's just too truthful maybe?
I don't know.
But the point is this.
If you are looking for a network that is willing to present the truth, the stories.
We don't even have to always agree with them.
Can't we at least present the news?
I mean, can't we just present the news and let the readers or the listeners decide on some of them?
Let's just tell them what's going on.
We can agree to disagree on some issues, but how do you know what to agree or disagree about if you don't even know what the news is because you're not reporting the news?
Something is happening.
Well, we do that here.
And if you appreciate the fact that we are bringing you such wide-ranging topics, you don't hear elsewhere.
We need your support.
Because as I said, we are brought to you largely by you.
So please, do the bulk of your Christmas shopping at MyPillow.com.
Use that promo code L77.
You get savings and you support the work of Mike Lindell.
You're supporting Mike's work to fix 2020, to give us free and fair elections, to get rid of the machines.
To preserve our Republic!
So please support Mike's work, support my pillow, support Lyndale TV, support Lyndale Report.
Everybody wins and you get great products at the same time with a great discount when you use that promo code L77.
Sheets, towels, blankets, pet beds, slippers, sandals, mattresses, mattress toppers, robes, hats, scarves, socks.
Sleepwear, there's a lot there.
You can check it out at MyPillow.com.
Please use that promo code L77.
And then finally, go to MyStore.com, the home for American entrepreneurs, started by Mike Lindell.
You'll find a lot of really cool products and things there at MyStore.com.
Again, use that promo code L77 for savings and support Mike Lindell and the Lindell Report and Lindell TV.
Joining me now is Jeff O'Donnell.
Jeff, welcome back to the Lindendale Report.
Thanks for being with us tonight.
Thank you.
Very good to be here.
Looks like you're sitting in a car.
I am sitting in a car.
Very perspective of you.
I hear Hunter's not getting a laptop for Christmas.
That's too dangerous.
Too dangerous.
Yeah.
Well, thank you for joining us.
You sent me a video the other night.
Very interesting stuff you're always working on.
Tell me about what you're reporting in this latest video.
Where can people see it?
Oh, well, they can go to my site, magaraccoon.com.
Oh, you mean the site promoted by Jimmy Kimmel?
Yeah, it's a site promoted by Jimmy Kimmel.
I still haven't heard from him.
I let him know I'm willing to go on the show, you know, since he's going to endorse me, but I haven't heard back from his people yet.
So, who knows what's going to happen there?
Well, here's the site.
Here's the site right here.
You can even see Jimmy Kimmel talking about it.
Where would we find the latest video by you?
There's a link to my Rumble channel.
It's right here.
It should be near the top where I have all those links.
And the top two are a couple little things I put together for the holidays, just to try to keep the spirits up, make a point, and maybe be a little red pill for some friends if you want to share the songs.
Well, you do look a little bit like Santa right there, my word.
Yes, I thought that was kind of interesting.
Alright, so tell me what you present in these two videos.
Well, I'm kidded that the one at the top, it's beginning to look a lot like treason.
Might as well just submit that as my deposition to most of the election fraud cases that are going on.
I put a lot in there, just trying to get the Kind of the information of where we are right now, what we know and what we suspect, and put it in kind of a little funny parody song of a Christmas song.
But you're serious though about treason, right?
Oh, I'm absolutely serious.
What else do you call it?
There's really no other word for it, what has happened.
I mean, the takeover of the United States of America.
We're now two years into it, and by every definition I know of, that's treason, sir.
Yeah.
Were you listening at all to us talk about the Brunson case, that they're going to be hearing it on the U.S.
Supreme Court as whether to take it?
I was, and I've been following that.
Hopefully.
And to be frank, the way things have been going, I expected it to get shot down, you know, a couple of the areas, a couple of places along the way that it could have been.
But it's charging right along, and the new information that Ivan so aptly discussed is actually looking like the Supreme Court is ready to have the courage to take on the election fraud and all the other things that went with it.
You know, somebody said to me, oh, you know, the Supreme Court will never touch an election fraud case.
And I reminded them that if I talked to them a year ago, they would have said, oh, the Supreme Court will never touch a Roe v. Wade case.
Oh, the Supreme Court will never touch a true Second Amendment case.
Yet, this year, both of those things happened.
I'm hoping that that is a signal that the elements within the court that were not, I don't think, working for America's best interest at heart may now have been convinced to do so.
What do you think would have convinced them?
I could only speculate, and the speculation would probably get me in a lot more trouble than I'm already in.
I do think that there's probably... I think there's been, from what I've heard, a lot of discussion going on about... I'll say this.
I think it's just possibly an issue of courage amongst a couple of the Supreme Court justices.
And yes, I'll name John Roberts as one of them.
And I think he lacked the courage to do the right thing.
You know, be afraid of other things that might, you know, might happen.
Oh, if I do this, then there's going to be violent outbreaks.
Or if I do this, you know, the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutionality.
That is the beginning, the middle, and the end of what they should be ruling upon.
And there should be no other considerations to that.
And I'm very much hoping that our Supreme Court is now ready to sit down and look at the evidence, because I think, you know, they didn't even want to see the evidence when it was presented right after the election.
That's, you know, that's what dismissed for standing is, and I've come to understand.
It's, I don't even want to see it.
Because if I see it, I might be forced to do something about it.
Well, one has to wonder, Jeff, again it's just my opinion and asking a question, if watching what's happening to our country has been a bridge too far for some of them.
You know, I think about people who have come from the more progressive side of things, obviously, like I mentioned already tonight.
One of them, Naomi Wolf.
So here's Naomi Wolf, you know, coming from the progressive side, now saying, wait a minute, these shot mandates, COVID passports, this is a bridge too far.
You know, censoring people, not allowing for free debate, bodily autonomy.
And of course, she ends up writing a great piece in defending the Second Amendment.
And I'm honored she gave me the first television and spoken interview on her article about her evolution on the Second Amendment.
And so I watch what's happening to her and I say, wow, that's great.
I mean, that's encouraging to watch that intellectual honesty and the research and the curiosity by which she's examined these issues and said, hey, let's use common sense here about where this road ends.
Ideas have consequences.
What's going to happen here?
Well, I'm not for that.
I may be more on the progressive side.
But I'm not a communist.
I'm not for this kind of idea.
And then I look at someone like Steve Kirsch.
Same thing.
A guy that was a big, reported big donor to the Democrats, it's reported.
Now he's not claiming to be a Democrat anymore.
He's like, you guys, this is a bridge too far.
I'm having to wonder if maybe there are some guys on the Supreme Court or gals saying the same thing.
Hey, this is a bridge too far.
And I also have to wonder, just in my opinion, just asking questions, if when you start Violating the security of these guys and showing up at their house and doing these things if they don't have a common sense reaction, which is we have to have law and order.
We have to have law and order and respect for institutions.
And one of the most important institutions we can have is the voting booth, right?
Absolutely 100% correct.
And the bridge too far thing is really, really, I think, accurate here.
I mean, we've had presidents in our lifetimes that caused damage to America.
Not on this scale.
This has been a nightmare scenario.
And I think that some people who could have done something about it took the old, well, you know, presidents come and go and everything always ends up okay.
So it was not that much of a big deal.
Well, in this case, it turned out to be a really, really...
Big deal.
Well you know some of them have to be watching these FBI guys knocking down the doors of people.
They have to be watching the Attorney General talking about, in his memo, talking about going after moms that complain about mask mandates or critical race theory or whatever, transgenderism.
You know they have to be watching some of that saying that sounds awful like a police state.
You know, I thought some folks on the progressive left were all about the freedom of ideas and the freedom of debating and debating the ideas of the day.
And I think some of them are going to be sitting there thinking, wow, this looks a little police state, third world dictator-like.
I mean, we've got now FBI whistleblowers.
We've got one gentleman, Steven Friend, who was supposed to be, I guess, a part of one of these SWAT teams and go get some of these people that were, you know, on the lawn of the Capitol or whatever, and apparently he said, wait a minute, that's a bridge too far, I won't do that.
And now that FBI whistleblower is suspended and waiting to find out what his fate will be, which I'm sure is going to be losing his job.
And so you have young FBI agents with families saying, oh, that's a bridge too far.
You have to wonder if some of these justices say, well, you know what?
I'm not a young FBI agent with a wife and young children.
If these guys can stand up and put it on the line, surely the Supreme Court justices who are appointed for life can do so and say, hey, this is a bridge too far.
That's their job.
And I think the thing that surprises a lot of us and probably shouldn't It's how fast it all happened.
When we look back in the history books, and we look at fascists or totalitarian regimes, and we always wonder, how did the people let that happen?
Like, you know, how did it happen?
You know, when the Soviet Union, you know, took over after the revolution, and others, and, you know, even Germany in the 30s, it's like, how did the people let that happen?
You know, they should have had lots of chances to stop it.
And I think we've gotten a lesson here how quickly How quickly the wrong people in power can turn the whole country into a police state, as you said, into a place where rights are trampled every day.
They're just simply disregarded.
And the firebreak against that is, frankly, the Supreme Court.
That was the constitutional firebreak against it.
Well, isn't that what Mike Lindell has been saying for almost two years?
That it's going to be the judges and he believes the Supreme Court that can save America by making the right decision.
You know, as he says, they have families, they have children, maybe they have grandchildren.
They want a future for our country for their own.
You know, they live in neighborhoods with people.
These guys are not immune.
They don't live in a bubble to the degree that some may think.
I mean, yes, in some ways, yes.
But the consequences that are happening today impact their family and their friends, their neighbors as well.
And again, as you said, they've taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution.
So surely at some point these guys say, this is not constitutional what's happening.
I mean, I guess I come down to this.
Jeff, the more I read the case tonight right off the Supreme Court website, the more I'm shocked that they've even agreed to have a hearing on January 6th.
I'm shocked they're even going to have a hearing on this.
Does it the fact that... Go ahead.
No, no.
I want to hear what you were just going to say.
It means they what?
It means to me that they might have actually read the case and looked at the evidence.
Which means this case keeps citing an enemy, a domestic enemy, and a threat to national security.
And that the elections were not right, they were not just, they were not the way they're supposed to be.
They needed to be investigated.
But the fact that the Supreme Court has reportedly tonight, we're hearing, agreed to have a hearing on it, as to whether to take it.
That should validate and back up you, Mike Lindell, Rudy Giuliani?
Sidney Powell?
I could keep going, right?
Because now here's the Supreme Court saying, well, there must be some enough merit for us to hear about it.
Now, again, they're not agreeing to take the case as I understand it, but they're agreeing to hold a hearing.
That in itself is a big deal because it's saying there must be some merit to what's being said by these people.
When you prosecute a case, the first thing you need is probable cause.
This finally, to me, looks like that we have established in their mind a probable cause.
And we've all been working, all the people you mentioned plus so many more, have been working for two years to do that.
The judges have to be the answer, because if the judges aren't the answer, all the other answers are terrible.
Not only that, do they want to have equal, co-equal branches?
Co-equal?
Do they want co-equal branches?
Or do they want the Supreme Court down here with people bullying them, showing up inside their house, public officials encouraging this kind of behavior onto our Supreme Court, which again is illegal as I understand it, doing that kind of thing to a judge.
Do they want to be watered down?
They want the court stacked?
So again, I would think at some point they have to say, hey wait a minute, we have to have co-equal branches.
Separate, but equal.
A balance of power.
I mean, you think about the beautiful system of the executive, judicial, and legislative.
And one of them gets out of line, the other one, or the other two, can help correct it.
We pray that's what's about to happen, so we can get back on a firm footing.
Absolutely.
And, you know, the founders were very wise in that.
And, you know, as you're aware, the system kind of became broken when we started electing senators through popular vote.
That was not the intent of the founders and, to my mind, just opened up the system even more to coercion.
Prior to that, our legislatures picked them, right?
Oh, the governor, that's right.
The governor reported them.
So the governors had a lot more power, which was the whole idea of states' rights.
The governors were extremely powerful, as they should be in their states.
But still, we have one branch, the Supreme Court, which is not elected, meaning George Soros can't throw a bunch of money.
And get his guys elected to the Supreme Court.
You can do it everywhere else.
Well, don't you think some of these guys in the Supreme Court realize that if you don't have free and fair elections, as people are putting in and pumping out a bunch of money to steal elections, ultimately they're going to steal your seat.
Ultimately, you nine will have virtually very little, if any, power.
They're going to water you down by flooding the bench, stacking the bench, and it's all going to be done through powerful financial sources. I mean, you would hope that their first
duty would be to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, but you
would also hope some self-preservation for themselves because they make up the Supreme Court. They're
there for life. So you would hope that it's self-preservation to preserve the autonomy
of the court.
The leftists don't care about the Constitution, and that should frighten every single American
because the Supreme Court, uh, who says something like Peru?
You know, in Peru, their corrupt president just woke up one day, realized they
were going to impeach him, and they, and so he dissolved the Constitution. Yep.
Say that these leftists will not come up with a similar strategy to just get rid of this,
uh, this very annoying Supreme Court Supreme Court.
Jeff O'Donnell.
Jeff O'Donnell, always great guest.
Magaraccoon.com.
Magaraccoon.com.
Thank you, Jeff.
And folks, thank you for supporting Mike Lindell's work, and the Lindell Report, and Lindell TV, and Liberty, and Freedom, and an American-based company, MyPillow.com, MyStore.com.
Use that promo code L77.
In for Mike Lindell and Brandon Howes.
Thanks for watching.
Take care.
You're watching Lindell TV.
Hello I'm Mike Lindell and I'm excited to announce my original MySlippers are back in stock.
Last Christmas you made them the number one selling MyPillow product and now I've added smaller sizes, larger sizes, wide sizes and all new colors.
And with your promo code you still save $90 a pair.
What makes my slippers different is my exclusive four-layer design that you're not going to find in any other slippers.
My slippers patented layers make them ultra comfortable, extremely durable, and they help relieve stress on your feet.
Wear them anytime, anywhere.
You'll absolutely love my slippers and I'm extending my 60-day money-back guarantee until March 1st, 2023, making them the best Christmas gifts ever.
▲
Export Selection