All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2023 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
57:56
The Lindell Report (2-9-23)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the Lindell Report, bringing you news combined with hope by offering practical and achievable action points to assist you in defending and preserving faith and freedom.
And now, here is your host, Mike Lindell.
All right, Brandon House in for Mike Lindell, who is working on a big project that we'll be telling you guys about, oh, I think maybe on Friday, Monday, real soon.
He's working on a big project and he'll be making the announcement about what he's working on today.
Either tomorrow or Monday, but tonight we have a very important show.
We're going to be joined by Garland Favorito for a few minutes.
Then we're going to go to Jason Fike on a very important case related to censorship and big tech censorship.
Also a very important case, probably one of the most important First Amendment cases we could talk about tonight, and that is the Biden regime looking to throw a man in jail for 10 years.
For 10 years, Can you imagine what he would have done to go to federal prison for 10 years?
Well, he put out a meme, a joke, on social media about Hillary Clinton.
He didn't threaten anyone or anybody, anything.
He just put out a meme during election time, a funny meme, if you will, involving Hillary Clinton.
And now he's looking at 10 years in prison by the CCP-captured White House and Justice Department.
So we'll get to that.
And then we'll talk with Ivan Reikland.
Ivan Reikland was tonight in The first congressional hearing on the weaponization of the FBI and the federal agencies.
He was in the meetings tonight.
He will give us a first-hand report from the nation's capital on that hearing, and we'll play a little audio clip from Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz.
All that tonight.
Welcome, Brandon.
It sounds very interesting.
I can't wait to hear about the weaponization hearing today.
Yeah, we got some big news there.
All right, what's the big news in Georgia now?
Well, I've got some good news and some bad news down here, but most of it is good.
So, we are glad to tell you a few different things.
First of all, the people of Georgia have beaten back an attempt to implement ranked choice voting here in Georgia.
That is an unverifiable, very complicated voting method where no one, even the Secretary of State, can't really verify who in fact has won.
So, That one was supposed to be heard, and there was so much flak that the legislatures received, they canceled the hearing on the bill, and one of the sponsors withdrew his support for the bill.
So that's the first set of good news down here.
At the same time, we actually got a chain of custody bill for the ballots passed out of committee, That's it's a really good bill.
It's a really an end-to-end life cycle chain of custody for ballots from the time the elections officials receive that and then all through the time that the election is certified.
So that bill is in play now.
And just today, the Senate, that bill was in the House.
The Senate introduced a bill to make Physical ballots, public record.
So we will no longer have to endure two years of unjust court rulings to simply see ballots and make sure that people, you know, whoever was declared the winner actually won.
Let me stop right there.
Does that, now these bills, have they actually passed?
Will your governor sign them?
Well, yeah, he'll sign them if they pass.
They've just been introduced.
One has passed a committee.
It was likely passed the House next week and go over to the Senate.
The other one will likely be heard next week and pass out onto the Senate floor, and that has until March 7th to cross over.
But these are the bill that I'm referring to about the balanced public record has all of the key people in the Senate form as co-sponsored onto the bill.
We've had a major Turnover here with the removal of Jeff Duncan from Lieutenant Governor and the replacement with Burt Jones.
We've gotten a lot of good key people in key chairmanship roles and who actually want to, you know, do the right thing.
So it's really encouraging down here right now where we have been meeting with the legislators.
We have got a lot of favor with them.
They respect us.
They set up meetings with us.
They Listen carefully and they have reacted.
So we're really, really grateful for that.
That is all on the good side of what happened.
The one bad thing that has happened since we last talked, Brandon, is that Zuckerbux 2.0 is in play in Georgia.
Georgia private money is banned in the state of Georgia, but the Zuckerbux with his new Alliance for Election Excellence is trying to circumvent the law and give DeKalb County $2 million and all by themselves.
No other county is getting anything.
And DeKalb County just happens to be the bluest county in the state of Georgia with an 85 to 15 percent margin, typical average margin, for Democrats over Republicans in the county.
So that is, there's a variety of people looking at that to see how they can be stopped.
There were a lot of strings attached on that money.
We're still looking at the documents before we can even tell you exactly what the strings are.
But it was, it's, that is the one ugly thing.
You know, that Alliance for Election Excellence is what I believe Zuckerberg wants to do to Let me ask you about your Lieutenant Governor.
Are you saying this is a good guy that's going to help you guys?
technical resources. Now let me ask you about your lieutenant governor. Are you
saying this is a good guy that's going to help you guys?
Well yeah so Bert Jones was endorsed by President Donald Trump and so far
things are It seems to have put the right people in place.
Because he's, you're correct me if I'm wrong, but your attorney, your, excuse me, lieutenant governor, that's a pretty powerful office.
Some states have a strong governor and some have a weak governor.
Your lieutenant governor has quite a bit of control in the Senate, correct?
Absolutely, Brandon.
That's a dead-on correct.
The lieutenant governor presides over the Senate and he also Selects two of the Senators to make the appointments for the entire Senate for all the chairmanships.
So we have the Lieutenant Governor, his two appointees, and then we have a new Majority Leader and a new President Pro Tem of the Senate.
The President Pro Tem has already met with us, at least his staff and his key people.
And they've heard our concerns.
So we're very encouraged by the Senate.
And we've also made some inroads into the Election Integrity Committee in the House.
We met with them this week.
Actually, we're meeting with them next week.
And we have testified this week in favor of that chain of custody bill.
So things are looking really good here legislatively for some serious changes between now and the end of the session, which will probably come in late March.
So that's all the encouraging thing.
We just have to stop this $2 million Zuckerbox, which is not only a violation of Georgia law, but it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of both the United States and Georgia constitutions, because The other 158 counties in Georgia got zero and suddenly this one blue county gets two million bucks.
That's a clear violation of the equal protection rights and almost really in every other county.
How do you think your conservative, Trump-endorsed lieutenant governor won?
How do you think that happened?
And not with voter fraud, being the caveat here being voter fraud.
How do you think he won?
It was a razor thin, Margin.
He beat the president pro tem of the Senate from last year.
And I think that he won because the elitist establishment didn't have a dog in the hunt.
Neither one of the candidates were the elitist establishment type candidates like Brad Ravensburger or Chris Carr or Governor Brian Kemp.
So I don't think they had a dog in the hunt and the race just came out the way that it came out.
Bert has tried to be, you know, he's tried to appease both sides.
You know, there's a big rift between Brian Kemp and President Donald Trump.
He's trying to just, you know, ignore the rift and try to, you know, maintain everything he can to, you know, maintain both sides of the equation there.
That would be my guess on how it happened.
It was somewhat of a small miracle given that all the other races down here had these bizarre results that we are still actually challenging in court, including Brad Rappensperger's primary victory.
What do you make of The fact that you have so much, as you said, respect by members of your House and Senate, that they're wanting to meet with you and they respect what you're doing, that doesn't fit the narrative that people that are concerned about voter theft are tinfoil hat crazy conspiracy nutjobs that nobody listens to.
Because they clearly, you're saying, they want to listen, they want to learn, they must respect.
So again, this is not consistent with the narrative the media has told us.
That everyone that's, you know, complaining about voter theft or voter fraud is crazy and nobody respects them or believes them.
That's not consistent with how you're being received.
Well, that's exactly right.
And it's not consistent with the bills that are being dropped.
We've got several bills.
Of course, last year, when they were saying that there was no fraud, There were probably 50 to 100 election bills that were dropped.
So if there was no fraud, all those bills wouldn't have been filed last year.
This year, we've got less so far, but we have very high quality bills that are addressing the exact things that we need to address down here.
And there's more and more coming, really, almost on a daily basis.
Now, did I hear some rumor that Brian Kipnis is setting himself up to run for president?
You might have heard that rumor.
I don't think I have heard it.
I wouldn't doubt that.
You know, he did go to Davos recently at the World Economic Forum where they, I've heard, I haven't seen the clip yet, but it is out there, where they basically complimented him on taking care of the election deniers in Georgia.
And he was pretty quiet about that compliment.
He didn't say anything yay or nay on it.
Uh, so that, yeah.
So, I mean, he certainly, a visit to Davos probably, uh, would be in line with that, uh, Brandon.
So, you know, we'll just have to wait and see.
Also, Lieutenant Governor Jeff Duncan, we've heard, uh, might be running for president as well.
Wow.
Who, who might be running?
The former lieutenant governor, if I remember correctly, the one that took the phone call from the governor and shut the session off before some important bills passed.
Senate Bill 89, which would have made ballots public record and also added chain of custody.
That bill was reintroduced today, thanks to a senator down here.
And he thinks he's going to run for president, having been the lieutenant governor of Georgia.
We have heard that that was rumored to take place, but that's going to be a tough nut to crack.
Yeah, he sounds like he's living in fantasy land to me.
I think so, but you never know.
He got a lot of dark money and came out of nowhere.
Yeah, but if it's a selection, not an election, and you can get a crazy old man who's compromised by the CCP and runs around sniffing children in full daylight on video, and he can be, quote, selected to be president, You can get a guy with a funny name, Barack Hussein Obama, who came out of nowhere, pretty much a CIA creation, and he can get in the White House.
And you can be Bill Clinton with all the things that were in his background and closet.
So pretty much, I guess, anybody can be president if that's who they're selecting, not electing, right?
Right.
And you have to have done a selection when you've got a guy who was literally campaigning in his basement with 50 people coming at him.
To a rally versus another guy who would draw $50,000 every time he comes out.
Yeah, exactly.
That sounds like selection, not election to me.
Yeah, me too.
VoterGA.org, right?
That's it, Brian.
Brannon, I'm sorry.
My tongue is tied tonight.
But yeah, we are 501c3, non-profit, non-partisan, and I'm a volunteer, and your tax deductions are, your donations are tax deductible.
Awesome.
Thank you for being with us, Garland.
Thank you, Brannon.
Garland Favorito.
Check it in.
Check out his site.
Georgia VoterGA.
There it is.
VoterGA.org.
You know how many websites I have in my head?
Because unlike the guys on Fox, I don't use a teleprompter for my live shows.
I do not use a teleprompter for live shows.
So I have to try to remember all their Websites and everything off the top of my head.
And sometimes that's not easy.
All right, so there we go.
Garland Favorito.
All right, joining us now is Jason.
Jason, his name is FYK, but you don't, the F, the F is silent.
It's like Fyke or something, right?
It's silent F. Right, Jason?
It's Fick.
It's pronounced like a soft I. I know it's a strange Latin name.
I get it wrong.
I'm hooked on phonics.
I need to go to treatment.
Every time I try to use my phonics.
So, Jason, Vic.
Vic.
Vic!
You pronounce the F, but the Y is not a hard Y. It's a soft, like an I. It's pronounced like F-I-C-K.
I'll have to remember that.
Why don't you just spell it that way?
That would save us a lot of trouble.
I know, I know.
My ancestors, what can you say, you know?
All right.
Well, I'm glad you did that.
F-I-C-K.
I can remember that.
Jason Fick.
Yeah.
All right, Jason.
Yeah.
I always struggle with that.
Sorry about that.
All right, Jason.
You texted me the other day.
You got some big news coming, and then I want to talk about a guy that they're trying to throw in jail, federal jail, federal prison, for 10 years for putting out a meme making fun of Hillary Clinton.
Well, let's get to first the big breaking news you've got.
I think we're getting a little bit of a scoop here tonight, Jason.
Yeah, just timing wise and that's mainly because it just hasn't been docketed.
It's not public just yet.
I've talked about it on Twitter and that's about it.
So obviously my background for those that don't know is that I have been engaged in a lawsuit with Facebook for going on almost five years now.
We have gone all the way up the chain.
We went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied us cert the first time around.
But we had conflicting law that came out and we went back through the court systems again.
And of course, these are the California court systems, which just don't seem to want to get anything fixed.
And despite the fact that they had a direct conflict between two cases that don't make any sense with one another, and that would be Enigma versus Malwarebytes in my case, Fick versus Facebook, they didn't want to fix it.
So here we are again.
And on Tuesday, we filed a second writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.
But this time, circumstances have changed, drastically changed, in fact.
So the first time that we went to the Supreme Court, Brennan, we went in there with what
is a conflict, but it's between the Ninth Circuit decision and the Ninth Circuit decision.
So Ninth versus Ninth, the Supreme Court's not really inclined to fix internal, you know,
circuit court conflicts, right?
But this time around, we are in the Supreme Court again.
This time, though, we have a conflict between the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit,
and the Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit.
We have what's called a competing circuit conflict.
And of course, this is the kind of case that only the Supreme Court can fix because when two circuits are competing, only the Supreme Court can break the tie.
Not only that, but we also have constitutional issues, which is again, something that the Supreme Court needs to handle.
And it's something that most people do not recognize about this law, which of course, for those that don't know, it's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Most people have not never recognized that it is what's called an illegal taking.
So essentially, the government can't take your property without a day in court, you know, like eminent domain and all those kind of things.
Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that the government has to take your property directly.
They can do what's called a regulatory illegal taking, meaning a law can make it so that they take your property.
And of course, if you're denied due process, well, they just took your property without You know, your Fifth Amendment rights being respected.
Well, that's exactly what Section 230 does.
You know, Brandon, when you put your content up here, that is your property.
It may rest on somebody else's property, but it is still yours.
And the government has allowed them to take property without ever getting a single day in court.
Wow.
So, here we are again.
Round two.
This time, though, I think you're going to like this little tidbit.
The weird circumstance is this, they're already considering Gonzalez versus Google in the Supreme Court right now, right?
Well, in that case, there are what are called amicus.
This is when, you know, bodies, you know, whether they be government or private entities, whatever, they can submit amicus of their opinion of how to handle the case.
Well, there are three very, very distinct ones that align identically with our perception of the way section 230 works.
And let me explain real quick.
Section 230c1 is what I was dismissed under.
We sued for Facebook's illegal conduct, okay?
And we said 230c1 doesn't have anything to do with conduct, but the courts would not fix that.
Do you know that there are three amicus right now, I call them like the three amigos, the three amicus, that agree identically, and none of that, but they articulate it very cleanly.
In fact, Ted Cruz articulated it the best.
Now this is Congress telling The policy and purpose of Congress to the courts.
And they said Section 230 does not protect any conduct at all.
Meaning the courts are flat wrong.
The DOJ, so the Department of Justice agrees with them, Ken Paxson's office, and several others even, even identical.
This would fundamentally change the Internet if the Supreme Court simply recognizes that one fact, that 230C1 does not protect any publishing conduct Period.
Now, you may not know why, because you're watching this show, but I can tell you, without any shadow of a doubt, they make that one fact, you know, that one decision, the internet changes.
It's amazing.
How so?
So, right now, what happens is, that if you, okay, let me put it this way.
Right now, the way that they considered my case was that I was not able to treat Facebook as Facebook for Facebook's own conduct.
That's bizarre, right?
Now think about this way.
They also went on to say that motive plays no role whatsoever.
Now that's another question we're working on because there is a motive in there.
You have to be a good Samaritan.
If you can't be treated as yourself and motive has no relation to what your actions are, what is that?
Isn't that like sovereignty?
You can literally do anything you want.
Ted Cruz specifically called it super immunity.
Great way to explain it.
It is super immunity.
And that is what the problem has been for almost two and a half decades is they have manipulated what is essentially the wrong subsection into this super immunity that you simply can't treat them as a publisher, period.
Well, what happens when they do act as a publisher?
Everybody asks that.
That's what we're trying to sort out this mess, which is to say, no, this section doesn't have anything to do with publishing conduct.
It's only the next section that does.
This is when they don't do anything at all, meaning they don't make any consideration.
It doesn't mean they allow content.
It simply means they had nothing to do with it in the sense of defamatory content.
Meaning if you say something bad, they can't be held accountable because they can't be treated as you.
That's not even immunity.
Let's not even get into that one.
That's not even immunity.
That's what's called a definitional protection.
By definition, you can't be treated as somebody else.
You can't be held accountable for the content.
If we get this done, everything changes.
And I'm not alone.
I have literally congressional members that are now interested because we are going to validate everything they've been saying.
We can actually fix this thing.
It's amazing.
Wow, wow, congratulations.
That's excellent.
All right, let's go to this story.
Revolver has this story out.
I heard about it yesterday, and this was published February 6th, the day being February 9th, but I heard about it yesterday.
Most important First Amendment case you've never heard of.
Biden regime tries to toss a young man in jail for 10 years For anti-Hillary memes.
Okay?
And what is that?
It was during the election, I guess.
Here we go!
Avoid the line!
Vote from home!
Was in his meme.
And then there was text, quote, Hillary.
Notice Hillary is in quotes.
And he gives a number to text.
And it was a joke.
It was a joke.
And then he had another one.
I'm with her.
Hashtag go Hillary.
And again, I guess it was in Spanish.
I don't read Spanish, but I guess that was in Spanish.
So, they're charging this guy and trying to throw him in jail for 10 years.
It's kind of odd because years ago, there was a big Supreme Court case, Jason, where Jerry Falwell, the late Jerry Falwell, Moral majority Jerry Falwell, religious right leader Jerry Falwell, sued Hustler publisher Larry Flynt for putting out a cartoon about some kind of inappropriate relationship between Jerry and his mother, and Jerry sued, if I remember the case correctly.
And there was the case of, you know, this is a joke, this is, you know, allowed under First Amendment.
So, I don't know.
This doesn't seem to fit.
I thought, you know, this is humor.
This is joking.
I mean, there's a lot of things said about me and Mike Mandel and others that are jokes, but I guess they get to do it because it's humor.
Has the Biden regime lost their sense of humor here?
So, there's more to this than most people realize, okay?
I read it.
It is very disturbing.
It is just the precursor to what they really want, which is the control of free speech online.
That if you, um, if you go after any public official that they would be able to, you know, come after you.
Um, now there is, there's a couple of things about this that I look at and I go, okay, avoid the line, vote for home, vote from home.
Someone could argue that it was a call to action, that they're trying to do that, right?
But they're not trying to cause harm.
They're not trying to cause, you know, some sort of riot.
What they're doing is, it's obviously humor, but the question then becomes, well, is that even on the offensive side?
Meaning, is it, is it something that they tried specifically to get to people to Get them to do it, or was it passive in the sense that if you put something online and somebody comes across it, they're not actually distributing anything.
They're getting, they're coming across that information, so they should look into that legally.
Because if you put something out there and somebody stumbles across it, knowing that, you know, the context under which it is, it shouldn't be considered that, you know, it should be protected on the free speech.
Now, does it inflict harm?
No, it does not.
Does it actually get somebody to Not, you know, to interfere with the election.
I mean, that's their whole principles is that they try to stop people from going to the elections.
I think the irony there is unbelievable with the government, you know, and of course, all the election interference and the stealing of elections and so forth.
For them to say that this is stealing an election or preventing people from voting is just absurd.
But it's not about the absurdity.
It's about a biased judge who sits in a biased district trying to You know, um, you know, taint a judge, a jury.
I mean the jury, they want them all to be vaccinated.
Which of course, if they've all been vaccinated, what does that generally mean?
That they're followers.
They're not leaders.
They don't think for themselves.
They do what they're told.
Because here's what Jack Pozovic put out a tweet that the EDNY has ordered that Ricky Vaughn's entire jury be vaccinated people only.
Yep.
And we know that if they've been vaccinated, I mean, at least you have a better shot that they're followers, that they're, they do what You know, the square box in front of them tells them to do, you know, they don't think for themselves.
And that and that by itself is tainting a jury.
I mean, but that unfortunately, what what people don't realize, it's a systemic issue with the courts themselves.
The courts have failed us.
I mean, I'm experienced the same thing with the California courts.
I mean, they're not even rationalizing their arguments anymore.
They don't care.
And then when they're faced with when we faced The 9th Circuit Court with a catch-22 argument.
You know, either way, it was one of those, look, I deserve justice.
And they switched to procedural and they hit me with untimely.
Meanwhile, that's not even valid because the untimely that they're using my case or excuse me, the case that we were talking about had left their jurisdiction.
It has not like the new jurisdiction would take over, which was the Supreme Court.
So the problem is, is that we have courts that have their As Gorsuch once said, they've got their finger on the scales of justice.
And if the courts aren't going to sort this out, I mean, this could be, I suspect this Mackie is probably going to be found guilty and going to have to take this up to the circuit court.
I mean, this may end up being a Supreme Court battle one day, but it's terrifying.
Are they going to let him, not to mention how much money he's spending, are they going to let him stay out of prison while this takes years to go up to the Supreme Court?
you're already looking at what the judge is doing and I mean I feel for this guy you know or
whatever it is I mean I should be able to insult anybody I want in this government however I want
if I'm not calling for their harm leave me alone. I can understand calling for harm is a different
thing but saying that you're interfering in an election because somebody happened to see a dumb
Yeah, so here's what they're saying.
Specifically, the DOJ claims the above meme merits a prison sentence of up to 10 years for violation of 18 U.S.
Code 241, the law which concerns conspiracy against rights.
It's a subset of the Enforcement Act of 1871, better known as the Ku Klux Klan Act.
The DOJ's argument is that by posting the above meme on Twitter in 2016 and designed it to resemble a Hillary Clinton ad, Mackey deceived the public into casting invalid text message votes as part of a conspiracy to deprive them of the right to vote.
To be clear, the federal government can't show that this actually happened.
But the government says that providing a dumb meme fooled a single person is not necessary.
Providing a dumb meme fooled a single person is not necessary to find one guilty of the dastardly crime of disinformation.
That's what we're really getting to here, aren't we?
Setting a legal standard to prosecute people for so-called disinformation.
Well, think about what they just said there.
Conspiracy against rights.
Right?
Think of how ironic that is when the government is conspiring to take away his First Amendment right.
Who's really conspiring?
So the old term we like to use here is psychological projection.
Once again, they're accusing Mackey of what they're doing.
Correct.
That is exactly how they work, is that whatever they're doing, they blame the opposite side, and as I say, you know, you blame the enemy for that which you are guilty for, you're doing it to cause confusion.
It's all to confuse it.
But the DOJ, they didn't want to prosecute the, was it Black Panther guys that were standing outside of a polling place a few years ago with nightsticks or something?
They didn't want to prosecute them at the DOJ, did they?
They actually dropped that case, didn't they?
Yeah, I mean, I don't know the disposition of that case, but that is physically denying them.
That's that's what I'm saying about passively coming across a meme is very different than standing with nightsticks in front of a polling center, you know, a voting center, right?
Yeah, it's very, very, very different.
But it's that they just want to they are conspiring to take away rights.
I mean, that's the matter of fact.
Actually, we said something in excuse me, the Our recent Supreme Court petition, I said, Section 230, and very much like this too, is the courts have become what I would consider a veritable Abbott and Costello who's on first routine.
That they're losing the context to confuse who the hell's where and what's doing, you know, what.
And here we go again, it's one of those, they're blaming, you know, this gentleman for You know, essentially embarrassing and taking a shot at the Clintons when, I mean, the Democratic Party is absolutely doing that to all the Republicans.
But, you know, let's ignore that conspiracy.
Yeah.
Well, here is the case.
I found it.
Charges against New Black Panthers dropped by Obama Justice Department.
And this, of course, was, according to the case, affidavits where they said that these guys were interfering No, because it wasn't.
men apparently believed did not share their preference politically, noting that one of
the Panthers turned toward the White Pole observers and said, you're about to be ruled
by the Black Mancracker, in quote.
Apparently, again, intimidating people.
I remember this case, right?
So they didn't want to go after him.
But there you go.
Now because it wasn't, it aligned with their, you know, their position.
And unfortunately, they have a lot of power.
And, you know, that's a struggle we have here because I mean, I have some people that, you know, obviously they want to take a shot at me and go, oh, well, you're just wasting your time.
You don't know what you're talking about, whatever.
No, you know, they're like, oh, you lost.
No, I didn't.
I didn't lose.
They've never even reconciled anything we've ever fought because we're essentially asking the courts to police themselves.
You know, the courts have to clean their own problem up and they simply don't want to do it.
Because they like the idea of legislating for the bench because they're all powerful.
The problem we have right now is, how the heck do we stop them?
I mean, that's a big problem because those in power control all of this, you know?
Absolutely.
Jason, thank you so much.
Social media, what is your website again?
Socialmediaplatform.org?
Socialmediafreedom.org.
One of these days we'll get it all right.
Social media freedom!
And it's Fick, not Fike.
Right, Fick.
Jason Fick.
Put it back up there, social media.
So I can look off to my left and see it.
Socialmediafreedom.org.
Yeah, socialmediafreedom.org.
We are a 501c charity.
We are fighting for everybody's speech online.
And I do actually want to do one thing that I want to show people.
So my first petition to the Supreme Court, this is it right here.
You can see the width of it.
It's about the thickness of my thumb.
I want to show you our current one.
This is the one that we just filed Tuesday.
This is it right here.
Again, it's about the thickness of my thumb, right?
Right.
How about volume two?
Which is actually substantially thicker.
Wow.
This this alone, just so people understand what we have to put into this, that this right here in the Supreme Court, you have to send every single member books, right?
Bound the whole deal.
Twenty one and a half thousand dollars.
It's only $300 to file.
$21,500 to make the books.
This is why nobody takes this fight this far, because the reality is I'm on my own.
I mean, that came out of pocket.
How many books was that for $21,500?
They have to produce 40, I think, for the courts, and 3 for us, like the people that, you know, my attorneys, and 3 for the opposing counsel.
But I would say this, that is what the social media freedom is.
Socialmediafreedom.org.
Is a donation to that is the real world fight.
This is not about egos or or clout or whatever.
We are doing the real job trying to save your freedoms online and we're doing it in the legal realm, which is how you actually get this done.
But this thing is burying me.
We need your help.
All right.
There you go, folks.
Social media.
Freedom dot org.
Social media.
Freedom dot org.
Joe Jason Fick.
There you go.
We got it.
Thank you, Jason.
Appreciate it.
You can call me Brandon.
I was going to go for Brandon from now on, just in case.
From now on, if you call me Jason Fike or anything, I'm calling you Brandon.
Fair enough, Jason.
Fair enough.
Thank you, my friend.
Appreciate it.
Jason checking in.
I hope you'll check out his site and support what he's doing.
We'll keep you posted on that very, very important story.
We'll be joined by Another guy who's got a funny last name Ivan Reikland took me a while to figure that one out because his phonics wasn't working on that one either when you see it spelled Ivan Reikland he'll join us in a minute, but first don't forget Where'd it go guys?
Where's my pillow?
Where's my pillow 2.0?
Does anyone know where that went?
Throw it to me, would you guys?
The MyPillow 2.0 is out.
It's got new technology.
New technology that wasn't out during the first time that it was developed.
MyPillow 2.0.
It's bigger than this.
It's just rolled up.
This is...
But I got one.
I got four of them in the mail.
MyPillow 2.0.
New technology.
Cooling technology.
Buy one, get one free right now.
Use the code L77 for MyPillow 2.0.
Also sheets, towels, blankets, pet beds, slippers, sandals, mattresses, mattress toppers, robes, and more.
Is she over there?
Yep, she's over there.
I just see if our studio dog's over there on her famous MyPillow pet bed.
Show her.
Everybody likes to see a good shot of Delta every now and then.
Oh, there you go.
You pulled on the lower third.
There's Delta.
Yeah, there's Delta.
Yeah, now you're gonna get up now that I'm talking about you, aren't you?
It's about dinner time.
She eats normally at 6 o'clock Central, so we're actually running a little late tonight.
So I'm surprised she's being as quiet as she is.
All right, good job, Delta.
All right, you can get your dog a pet bed as well and everything else over there at MyPill.com, but use that promo code L77.
Joining me now is Ivan Reikland, who was sitting in on the first committee meeting today by Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz for the Federal Weaponization Committee.
He was up on Capitol Hill.
Ivan, welcome back to the broadcast.
Thanks for joining us.
Hey, what's going on, Brent?
Brandon, no D in there.
Hey, where you at?
I didn't realize you're gonna be in the car.
How y'all doing?
Where you going?
You actually just got me.
I'm wrapping up here.
Yeah.
I had dinner right after the weaponization committee because I had to make sure that we're coordinating some stuff.
And now I'm here.
Well, there you go.
Well, thanks for being with us.
So tell me... I'll just finish up here in the car since I'm in here.
There you go.
We're gonna play some clips.
Which one should we start with first?
The one with Jim Gordon or Matt Gaetz?
Start off with Jim Jordan, and then we'll close it out with Matt Gaetz, because I think that one is really a power punch, the one with Matt Gaetz.
Okay.
Let's set the stage with Jim Jordan, and then keep a close eye on the individual that's making facial expressions related and responding to Matt Gaetz's absolute obliteration of the witness that was trying to take the Democrat's side.
Matt Gaetz, absolutely magnificent.
Are you saying you were in the video?
You don't?
We recognize him.
I don't know.
He looks very similar to me.
You guys will be the judge.
All right.
That'll be the second video.
Here's the first.
Here's Jim Jordan today.
And here we go.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Let me make it bigger if I can.
There we go.
Here we go.
Statement.
November 18th, 2021, an FBI whistleblower discloses to Republicans on the House Judiciary that the FBI created a threat tag for parents voicing their concerns at school board meetings.
April 26, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that the FBI employees are being run out of the Bureau for attending conservative political events.
May 11, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses that dozens of parents with the threat tag designation to their name are investigated by the FBI.
This also happens to be the same whistleblower who said the FBI leadership Not to rank and file members, the FBI leadership is rotted at its core.
His clearance has been revoked and he's been suspended.
June 7th, 2022, another FBI whistleblower is retaliated against after giving feedback on an anonymous survey.
July 27, 2022.
Another FBI whistleblower discloses that agents are pressured to reclassify cases as domestic violent extremism cases to hit self-created performance metrics.
September 14, 2022.
An FBI whistleblower discloses that the FBI views the Betsy Ross flag as a terrorist symbol.
September 19, 2022.
Another FBI whistleblower discloses that the Washington field office is deliberately manipulating January 6th case files to make it appear that domestic violence extremism is on the rise.
He's been suspended.
Excuse me, November 4th, 2022, another FBI whistleblower discloses the FBI accepts private user information from Facebook without the user's consent.
And information is from only the conservative side of the political spectrum.
This is only a sampling.
In my time in Congress, I have never seen anything like this.
Dozens and dozens of whistleblowers, FBI agents coming to us talking about what's going on, the political nature at the Justice Department.
Not Jim Jordan saying this.
Not Republicans.
Not conservatives.
Good, brave FBI agents who are willing to come forward and give us the truth.
And this is just the FBI.
Americans have concerns about the double standard at the Department of Justice.
Americans have concerns about the disinformation governance board that the Department of Homeland Security tried to form.
Americans have concerns about the The ATF and what they're doing to the Second Amendment.
And of course, they have concerns about the IRS and the thousands of new agents who are coming to that organization.
And finally, there are concerns about what we've learned in the Twitter files.
Where big government and big tech colluded to shape and mold the narrative and to suppress information and censor Americans.
Over the course of our work in this committee, we expect to hear from government officials and experts like we have here today.
We expect to hear from Americans who have been targeted by their government.
We expect to hear from people in the media.
And we expect to hear from the FBI agents who have come forward as whistleblowers.
We think many of them will sit for transcribed interviews, as one did on Tuesday.
And we believe several of them will come and testify in open hearings.
And finally, we expect to bring forward legislation that will help protect the American people.
All right, here's what I want to know.
Did we just lose him?
Did he literally leave the chair like Dan Rather?
Was that Dan Rather that got up and left the chair?
Or maybe it wasn't Dan Rather.
I can't remember who it was that left the chair during an interview with George W. Bush.
Remember the interview with George H. Bush?
I'm probably going back too far.
George H. Bush was doing an interview as vice president while running for president.
I think it was Dan Rather got mad and left the chair or something.
I can't remember.
Anyway, there you go.
Glad you're back.
I can't deal with it.
Here's what I want to know.
I have to pull that clip up, actually.
Here's what I want to know.
I appreciate all that.
But what I wanted to hear is, and then finally, we're going to bring charges and arrest the top members at the corrupt, rotten-to-the-core FBI leadership that he just referenced a while ago as he was quoting FBI whistleblowers.
Well, it's funny that you say that.
I don't know if you played it yesterday, but if the producer can bring up the video of Clay Higgins from yesterday's Oversight and Investigations Committee.
Yeah?
Just the two-minute clip.
And that's going to answer your question, Brandon.
That is the, I would call that the most efficient use of two minutes ever in the history of Congress.
Ever.
In the 118 different Congresses that we've had.
How would we look it up?
Under what title would we look it up under?
Go to Clay Higgins, do a search of Clay Higgins on either, I guess, one of the social platforms, and then the Oversight and Investigations Committee.
I don't even want to ruin it by giving a summary of what it is.
It is so precise and low- Oh my word!
The headline alone!
It is absolute fire.
The headline alone.
Here it is.
Here we go.
The FBI had the Biden-Cromb family laptop for a year.
They knew it was leaking.
They knew it would hurt the Biden campaign, so the FBI used its relationship with Twitter to suppress criminal evidence being revealed about Joe Biden one month before the 2020 elections.
You, ladies and gentlemen, interfered with the United States of America 2020 presidential election, knowingly and willingly.
That's the bad news.
It's going to get worse.
Because this is the investigation part.
Later comes the arrest part.
Your attorneys are familiar with that.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to spend five hours with these ladies and gentlemen doing depositions, surely yet to come.
But for right now, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague, Mr. So prepare, prepare to be arrested is what he's saying.
Oh, as soon as he finished that, uh, bartender from the Bronx on That's intimidating the witnesses!
And I in the background said, no that's called forecasting and foreshadowing.
All right, let's go to the next clip.
This is the one I sent you in the control room, guys.
Let's go to the next clip.
Look and see if there's a smiling face in this video clip that you might recognize someone in the meeting today all day who looks an awful lot like my current guest.
Watch this clip.
Roll it.
Mr. Williams, wouldn't the American people feel like this government wasn't so weaponized against them if there wasn't such a revolving door Between Department of Justice senior officials and lobbying?
I don't quite follow the premise of your question, sir.
It's pretty easy.
There's a revolving door between senior officials at the DOJ and the lobbying profession.
Do you think that that gives the public more or less trust?
There are rules governing what employment And this is based on my understanding, I've been in government for 50 years, governing what post-government employment can be.
One, what individuals' actions can be once they're employed elsewhere, but also what they're allowed to do.
Lobbying is influence peddling, and you are the principal at the Rabin Group, which is a lobbying firm.
And I would observe the reporting of Project Veritas, where Jordan Tristan Walker, who's a director of research and development, said on a recording, One of the things we're exploring is, like, why don't we just manipulate COVID ourselves?
Mutate COVID via directed evolution.
Pfizer is a revolving door for all government officials.
It's pretty good for industry, to be honest.
It's bad for everyone else in America.
Pfizer is one of the clients of the lobbying firm that you're a principal of, isn't it?
I do not represent Pfizer.
I do not know, sir.
You're a principal of the Rabin Group, right?
No, that is correct.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to enter into the record the clients of the Rabin Group, which include Pfizer.
Not just Pfizer, but Google as well.
And in response to the Twitter files, we saw a statement come from the FBI.
When you say such engagements, sir, I don't quite follow.
Just Google engage with the FBI, Mr. Williams.
I don't work for either Google or the FBI, sir.
and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements. Are there
such engagements between the FBI and Google? When you say such engagements, sir,
I don't quite... Does Google engage with the FBI, Mr.
Williams? I don't work for either Google or the FBI, sir. Oh, gosh, I'd have to again point
you to your own client list that you advertise on your own website, which includes Google.
Does it surprise you that at the Raven Group's website, Pfizer and Google are clients?
It does not surprise me, sir, no.
The Soros-funded Open Society is one of the clients as well.
Does that surprise you?
Sir, I don't have our client list in front of me right now.
I will, assuming that's what it says, I will take your word for it.
I would think that maybe one of the legislative initiatives we could pursue would be to tighten this revolving door that folks at Pfizer and folks at Big Tech seem to freely acknowledge, in which you seem to be the incarnate of the revolving door.
Mr. Baker and Ms.
Parker, I want to assure you both that we come not to trash the FBI, but to rescue the FBI from political capture.
Wow.
Wow.
And that was you sitting there.
How long were you in that hearing?
You need to unmute yourself.
I could probably do that.
Initially, it was supposed to start at 10, then they moved it to 12, then they moved it to 1230.
So I was in there from 1230 until approximately, I guess it would have been about maybe three or four hours later.
Actually, no, it would have been four hours Later, because that's why I wasn't able to do the full Reikland report today, because it went into the Reikland report and I thought to myself, do I offend?
And maybe have bad rapport with Brannon House, or do I stay in the committee and produce something even more earth-shattering than the Raikkonen Report?
And I think I delivered.
Yeah, you delivered.
You did get seven minutes into your show, I heard, but the guy comes out of the control room.
He's not here!
So anyway, yeah.
Well, we're glad you were up there.
Okay, so what is the big takeaway from today?
What were the big bullet points you were hearing?
Absolutely.
I think this is only the continuation of yesterday when you played that hearing from Clay Higgins.
It's literally the building of the case to the American public that they were absolutely lied to, similar to what I was arguing for months prior to with the whole Speaker Trump play, where we needed a Congress uncensored on C-SPAN 1, 2, and 3 to educate the country that it's no longer Orange Man Bad.
It is the entire media complex Forced by big government, meaning the FBI and DHS, both sides of the aisle, that lied to us, and now we need to focus our attention to big government bad, big media bad, big tech bad, and now we can start to hold those people to account.
And then maybe we can use that as evidence, possibly in Arizona, in the Elections Committee, who's chaired by Senator Wendy Rogers, to take this new evidence and basically take the words of Yoel Roth during his testimony yesterday and then the testimony from today, essentially, Just tell America and Arizona that, hey, Twitter made a mistake.
They were forced to censor.
And Arizona made a mistake as it relates to the allocation of its 11 electoral votes in 2020.
And I think that there is now more than clear and convincing.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence coupled with the hearings, coupled with the the Chinese spy drone that it is way past due time for Arizona to decertify their electors.
And I think there needs to be a hearing where they bring in Garrett Ziegler to testify about the criminal family syndicate laptop.
Also, Justice Gableman can come in and testify and reiterate what he mentioned in Wisconsin during hearings last year.
And then maybe some other folks can be in there to testify.
But those are the primary two.
Yes, interesting.
Very interesting.
of Arizona's electoral votes and that may trigger the domino into a couple of
other states to do the same. Yes, interesting, very interesting. So you're
feeling positive? Yeah, I feel positive.
I mean, what's the first step?
We have to educate the country.
One other thing I would note, Brandon, is if you can pull this, I don't know if I have the time, but if you can pull up Nancy Mace's testimony, not testimony, but her five minutes that she was, this is not the most conservative Patriot Freedom Caucus Republican.
I would consider her a rhino.
How do you spell her last name?
Nancy M-A-C-E.
I want to give credit where credit is due.
She gave her five minutes, and wow, it was explosive.
When you hear this from a super rhino, I actually approached her in the hallway after she did that, and I said, ma'am, I have not been your fan the last several years for many reasons.
What you just did up there, you've converted me.
Is she sitting at a witness table, or is she sitting at the congressional... No, she's a congresswoman.
Yeah, but is she sitting at a witness table, because there's one from one day ago, or is she sitting at the committee?
One day ago.
Yes, Congresswoman Nancy Mace, and she talks about her personal experience and how the censorship basically manipulated her into accepting and taking the clock shot, and she had an adverse reaction after the second clock shot.
I think this is it.
Here we go.
...of what Twitter has done to censor folks is from Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard-educated epidemiologist, who once tweeted, COVID vaccines are important for high-risk people and their caretakers.
Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor children.
The Twitter files reveal this tweet was deemed false information because it ran contrary to the CDC.
So my first question this morning of Ms.
Gatti, may I ask of you, where did you go to medical school?
I did not go to medical school.
I'm sorry.
I did not go to medical school.
That's what I thought.
Why do you think you or anyone else... Wait a minute, were you in the back of the room for that one too?
Of course, I gotta be where the main effort is, Brandon.
I just saw you back there again.
Wow, you're getting around.
Here we go.
Twitter had the medical expertise to censor a doctor's expert opinion.
Our policies regarding COVID were designed to protect individuals.
We were seeing... You guys censored Harvard-educated doctors, Stanford-educated doctors, doctors that are educated in the best places in the world, and you silenced those voices.
My next question is to the U.S.
government.
Oh, excuse me.
I have another chart I want to show you, Ms.
Gatti.
I have another tweet by someone with a following of a full 18,000 followers.
This person put a chart from the CDC on Twitter.
It's the CDC's own data, so it's accurate by your standards.
And you all labeled this as misleading.
You're not a doctor, right, Ms.
Gatti?
No, I'm not.
Okay.
What makes you think you or anyone else at Twitter have the medical expertise to censor actual, accurate CDC data?
I'm not familiar with these particular situations.
Yeah, I'm sure you're not.
But this is what Twitter did.
They labeled this as inaccurate.
It is the government's own data.
It's ridiculous.
Wow.
Wow, wow, wow.
Well, as always... I recommend watching the whole thing because she talks about her personal experience of having an adverse reaction, and that's what changed her mind.
And we're getting rhinos on our side, Brandon.
I'm positive.
Wow.
And I'm happy that things are moving forward as they are.
Excellent.
Well, I'm glad you made it back to your chair.
By the way, I found out late in 1987 is when Dan Rather walked off the set.
Do you want to show it?
Walked off the set for seven... Okay, I'll walk off.
No, no, no.
Don't walk off.
But that was what I was referring to a while ago.
He walked off the set for seven minutes.
And then George, VP Bush, being interviewed, told him, I didn't judge your career by the seven minutes you walked off.
Anyway, that's how I can... I remember watching that... I was in high school and I remember that because that was kind of the night that George H. Bush threw off his wimpy persona by taking down Dan Rather, pretty historic.
But that was my reference when I went to your chair a while ago and you were gone and I mentioned Dan Rather and George H. So that's how they all kind of came together.
All right, so there you go.
He wasn't interviewing George H. when he walked off.
He walked off earlier and then George H. mentioned it.
Anyway, now we got it all straight.
All right.
Hey, you are all over Capitol Hill.
I think we have to put together some screenshots of our man, Ivan Reikland, at these committees back there.
I think we need to get a few of those out.
He's out there reporting for us, and you can watch his show every day at www.tv.com.
Thank you, Ivan Reikland.
Anytime.
Thanks, Brandon.
Thank you.
Check out the Raecklin Report at www.tv.com.
If you don't catch it live, it is on demand.
We've got him up on Capitol Hill doing a lot of reporting for us and reporting back, and he's been here tonight.
Now, if you appreciate what Mike's doing, help support Mike and get yourself a great night's sleep.
The MyPillow 2.0 is out, and you can buy one, get one free.
Use that powerful promo code L77.
Mike wasn't here tonight.
He's working on something big.
And he'll announce it, I think, either tomorrow night or Monday.
We'll let you know.
But he's out busy working on some very important things that he'll be bringing to you very shortly.
If you appreciate what he's doing and the Lindell Report and Lindell TV, go to MyPillow.com.
Use the promo code L77.
Get your own MyPillow 2.0.
Buy one, get one free.
The Worldview Report begins right now.
Thanks for watching.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection