All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 12, 2023 - The Lindell Report - Mike Lindell
59:17
Callers Respond To Kari Lake Case Before 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Panel
| 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, welcome.
Glad you are with us.
Brennan House in for Mike Lindell, who is out on business again tonight.
His phone is ringing off the hook with media calls, all related to those clips that were released as part of that filing against Mike.
He is continuing to also work on the WMDs, the wireless devices, to see if election machines and other devices are running and being connected to the internet.
So he's very busy with all of that, and so I'm sitting in for Mike Lindell again tonight.
Now, we have breaking news we just watched today.
We carried it on Lindell TV 3.
And that is the hearing before a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel related to the Kerry Lake case.
Let me tell you before we play about 20 minutes and then I'll come back and then there's a six minute clip of Attorney Andrew Parker.
This is Mike Lindell's attorney. This is big news. The fact that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
panel heard this is a big deal. We don't know how they will rule. You maybe can get a sense of it
from a little bit of what you're going to hear tonight, but it would all just be, you know,
guessing on our part, right?
But I am told that if this does not go their way, this could very well be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
So in other words, the Kerry Lake case may indeed be going, could, could be going to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
We'll see.
But I want to stress, what you're about to see was brought to you by Mike Lindell.
Mike Lindell and the Lindell Offense Fund are the ones that, which means you, the American people, underwrote the cost of making today's presentation before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
I have very, very good news.
Yesterday, thanks to your generosity, we had a record day for the Lindell Legal Offense Fund for a one-day on-air pleading.
And you guys were very generous, and I just found out before stepping back into the TV studio here, And being with you, that yesterday, due to your generosity, half of the cost related to this Kerry Lake case was covered.
You guys, collectively, we, together, were able to bring in enough to the Lindell Legal Offense Fund, the Lindell Offense Fund, Half of what is needed to cover half of the expenses for what you're about to see.
The fight continues.
The process continues.
We'll see how the panel goes on this and what happens.
But if not, the direction or the ruling or the decision that's really, you know, really desired and required, we are told it will be appealed to the Supreme Court, U.S.
Supreme Court.
So again, thank you, to you, for your generosity at LyndellOffenseFund.org.
Mike was overwhelmed.
He really was not expecting that yesterday at all.
That was something we kind of decided to do here with playing those clips and then asking you to help partner with Mike on these very important cases.
So he was overwhelmed with with generosity.
He's very humbled by it and wanted me to convey to you his deepest appreciation for your support.
So what you're about to see has been brought to you and the American people, largely by you, with Mike Lindell's leadership and the Lindell Offense Fund.
Again, if you'd like to continue making contributions there, you can do so at LindellOffenseFund.org.
LindellOffenseFund.org.
Now, I am endeavoring to take your phone calls again tonight about what you're about to see.
This is attorney Andrew Parker making his pleading, if you will, before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
It's about 20 minutes.
I'll come back and then we'll set up another six-minute clip by Andrew Parker.
The other side was also making their case.
We're going to play Andrew's side tonight and then get your response.
So, without delay, here's what you guys helped cover half the cost of just last night alone.
Watch this.
But I'm not sure that the federal constitution encompasses a right to vote.
Is there a case that you'd cite for me for the proposition that there's a federal constitutional right to vote?
Yes, your honor.
FEC versus Akins, the Burdick case, Reynolds, Saylor, Gray, Baker.
Classic.
All U.S.
Supreme Court cases, and all in different ways, talk about the fact that you have a right to vote and to have your vote counted, to have your vote not diluted, not limited, not diminished by fictitious or fraudulent votes.
In fact, Reynolds says that as well as... So Reynolds says as an equal protection matter, Everybody's vote ought to be counted the same.
So I'm trying to figure out whether you're making an equal protection claim here or whether you're making a due process claim.
Because those are the only two parts of the 14th Amendment that would seem relevant.
I don't think you're making an equal protection claim because you're not claiming that your clients are in a class of people that are being treated worse than other people.
So are you making a due process claim?
Well, the complaint does assert both.
Tell me what your due process claim is.
It's certainly our due process claim is based upon the fundamental right to vote as recognized by the Supreme Court in the cases that I listed including the Reynolds case but also in Gray in particular.
Could Arizona choose not to elect its Secretary of State but rather have that person appointed by the governor you know if it's Constitution so provided?
Yes, I believe that they could.
So there is no fundamental right to vote for Secretary of State, is there?
There's only a fundamental right to vote for Secretary of State if... If the state grants the right to vote?
If the state is electing a certain position.
A state could do away with the Secretary of State if it's constitution allowed.
And then there would be no vote at all.
But a state can also have positions for which there's no voting?
That's true.
But in addition to that, if they do have a vote, they have the right to establish time, manner, place of the vote.
However, there are guardrails to that.
They cannot violate the federal constitution.
What I'm trying to figure out, and I don't want to be, I don't want to joust with you about it, is how you think the federal, what provision of the federal constitution you think was violated by use of electronic tabulation machines.
And what case do you have that supports the notion that using electronic tabulation violates the federal constitution?
Again, in Gray in particular, it talks about the fact that diluted votes, diminished votes... Well, but see, but the problem with diluted votes is that's a vote that's actually cast.
that is somehow not counted as much as somebody else's vote.
And in this case?
In this case, just focusing on these two plaintiffs, who I assume now are only really asserting standing as
voters as opposed to candidates, because the election's over.
But as the voters, what evidence is there that their votes won't be counted in the same manner
as everybody else's?
Well, the unreliable nature of what can occur when a malevolent actor intrudes into an election system and how the votes are being counted is what our complaint is all about.
Our complaint is about the potential for bad actors to influence the system.
Not just influence the system, but to switch votes, to dilute votes, to add votes, to diminish votes in an undetected way.
And we had numerous experts, credentialed experts, that looked at this prior to our filing of this lawsuit.
And we made sure that we had a plausible argument to be made to protect the democratic nature of the vote.
I wanted to go to the other point you just raised about the fact that The plaintiffs in the case are now only voters and not candidates.
In fact, we would say that's not the case.
Well, they lost the election, did they not?
Well, the election is over, and one very important point is... Another election's coming up, but we don't know whether they'll be fortunate or unfortunate enough to be candidates in the next election.
Yes, but in the complaint, as it was alleged, This was for prospective injunctive relief, not just on this single election of 2022.
That election is over.
I'm not questioning for a moment their standing as voters to seek that relief.
I'm just saying the complaint that they raised was that we're also seeking this relief because we're going to be affected by this next election.
And that seems to me to be moot as candidates.
I don't think it is moot, Your Honor.
Standing is determined by the facts that exist at the time of the complaint.
The Supreme Court said that you have to have standing throughout the entirety of the proceedings.
That one might have standing at the time the complaint is given, but you might lose the standing because of the way events occur later.
I'm not sure you want to spend a bunch of time on it, because I'm not questioning the voter aspect of it.
No, I don't.
But I think the difference between candidates and how they are impacted by this system and voters is a real difference.
And these are candidates who, at the time that the complaint was filed, had standing, and their and our judgment was made in dismissing the case.
And they should not lose, through mootness, their right to proceed in light of the fact that there are going to be future elections.
So are you claiming they're capable of a repetition exception to mootness?
It's capable of repetition.
In addition, the Ninth Circuit has looked at and evaluated in center for a biological diversity case.
But being a candidate is not something that's capable.
I mean, it's not something that happens very frequently, at least in my experience.
It seems like it's moot as to them as candidates.
Well, future elections are not moot.
The defense has not raised mootness as an issue.
And they have a high burden.
The only time that mootness would kick out a case that had standing when it started is if there is absolutely no relief that can be granted to the plaintiffs at all.
On that point, can I ask you a question?
Do you have the right defendants at this point?
Yes, I believe we do.
Mr. Fontes has replaced... Did Mr. Fontes change the election machinery used by the... I take it you're only challenging the Maricopa County use of electronic tabulation?
And Pima County, Your Honor, yes.
Only those two counties.
So in the rest of the state you think electronic tabulation works fine?
Well, we were focused on these two states.
Well, but if it's a violation of the Constitution, we should forbid it in all parts of the state, shouldn't we?
Yes, and we do not disagree with that.
They are not all defendants.
As to Maricopa County, Mr. Fontes is no longer the recorder.
Yes, he's Secretary of State.
That's right.
Former Secretary of State Hobbs is now governor.
So I'm asking whether or not maybe this is an easy thing to fix.
You really mean this suit to be against Mr. Richer and Mr. Fontes?
Well, it's against the county board of Maricopa and Pima County and Mr. Fontes at this point.
So you're not bringing a suit against the current county recorder in Maricopa County?
I don't believe so, Your Honor.
Councilor, I have a question.
Judge Gould.
When Judge Hurwitz is done, I have a question.
Go, please.
My question is this.
Does the record contain any evidence that vote counts made by human processes, like human counts, would be More reliable than vote counts made by the electronic voting machines.
Yes, your honor.
I believe most all of the complaint asserts that fact and requests.
But I was asking not what the complaint alleged, but whether there was any evidence of that that wasn't submitted in this record.
Well, I would submit that under Rule 12, it is only the complaint that should be considered.
And at least in my experience, when a complaint is filed, other evidence that comes in, except in the unusual circumstance, is not considered on a Rule 12 motion.
And so all of this other evidence, which basically turned on its head the Rule 12 rule that Facts in the complaint are accepted as true.
And what happened here is the facts in the complaint were viewed as false and rejected resoundingly and consistently, which is reversible error.
It is critical to this case that viewing the complaint, which was a detailed complaint with footnotes, And going outside of that... Let me just stop for a second, because I think you may be mischaracterizing what Judge Tucci did, but I'm not sure.
My question requires that you accept my premise.
It seems to me the fundamental question posed by this case, from your side, is whether or not a system which can be manipulated is unconstitutional.
And that's why I think Judge Gould's question is sort of pertinent because we all know that hand voting can be manipulated.
It's been, the Supreme Court's told us that in Bush versus Gore.
It's, we all know that from history.
So my question is, is it enough that the system is capable of hacking or manipulation for you to state a constitutional violation?
You haven't alleged that it actually was.
You just alleged that it's capable of being manipulated.
So let's assume that that allegation is true.
Is that sufficient to state a constitutional violation?
Yes, I think that it is.
So if I were to bring a complaint against a county that did hand voting, hand counting, as your clients seek as a remedy, and I had evidence that hand counting had often been manipulated in the past.
Votes had been thrown in the basket and people had ignored them.
Then I would be entitled to a declaration that hand counting was unconstitutional?
Your Honor, in this case, on the record, the difference between hand counting, where minimal errors or issues or even fraud can occur, and over hundreds of years, there have been instances where it has occurred, And the experience of the United States has reflected those minor matters.
That's the reason that electoral systems went to different measures of counting, because it was widely documented that hand counting was the most inaccurate way of counting.
But what we now know, Your Honor, is that election machines that are electronic can be manipulated in exponential ways.
No, I understand.
And I'm taking that as a fact for a moment.
Because you allege it.
My question is, is the potential for manipulating the machines enough to make the use of them unconstitutional?
Yes, it is.
Under Susan B. Anthony, substantial risk of harm is sufficient.
It's sufficient to give you standing.
The question is, is it sufficient to make it unconstitutional?
Yes, and I believe it is under the gray standard of fictitious, and if it is under a hand count, it certainly is under an electronic machine count.
So then what system would be constitutional in your view?
Well, the hand count system is... But we know it's subject to enormous fraud.
Nowhere near.
We know presidents of the United States have been elected because the system, because ballots have been thrown out and not counted correctly, or corrupt county recorders have provided incorrect things.
So my question is, is there any system under your view of the law that would be constitutional?
Yes, Your Honor.
I think it's laid out in the complaint.
We describe it... I know, but this is a legal question.
It's not a matter of allegations.
Sure.
If your test were to be applied, which is that the system is capable of manipulation or fraud...
Then isn't it true that there would be no system that would be constitutional?
Well, it needs to not only be capable, but to cause harm.
And if it is harmless error, if it is minuscule error, if it is fraud at a level that doesn't make a difference, then it wouldn't be.
But this is not that case.
You've gone through and lost a series of state election challenges.
So we know that the vote, at least to the extent the law allows you to challenge it, the state courts have found that the vote was accurately counted.
Correct?
I have not been involved in those cases.
and whether they were... Your clients. The question is not whether or not there was
hacking of the 2022 or 2020 election or any other election.
We are not looking back at overturning any election.
That's what I'm asking.
You're saying the system is capable of manipulation?
Yes.
You're not alleging that it was actually manipulated?
Correct.
Well, it could have been.
We don't know, and there are a lot of reasons.
But you don't allege that.
I've read your complaint.
Well, we don't allege that, but we do allege that there are a number of issues that occurred that have serious questions behind them that have not yet been answered.
Weren't those questions that you were entitled to address in the state electoral contest?
In other words, you could say, Mr. So-and-so says he voted, but his vote was not counted.
You could say you could do any number of things there.
This case is about the potential for manipulation.
Well, it is a prospective injunctive relief case.
We are not looking back.
We are only looking back for purposes of historic fact.
That's all.
We're looking forward.
And so on the legal question that you raise, if it can make a difference, and here we have alleged it definitely can, exponentially, people can get into the system through a number of different manipulations and vulnerabilities that have been testified to by serious experts across the country, and it's being ignored by the courts, and the courts are shutting down.
Review.
Why?
The court should allow discovery.
This case gets beyond the Rule 12 argument that you shut down the case and close down discovery.
This complaint gets beyond that.
Counsel, the biggest hurdle I have is the, you know, page 14 of the district court's opinion where he describes a long chain of hypothetical contingencies that must take place for any harm to occur.
What's your response to that?
I'm not sure if you're familiar with what I'm talking about, the four points.
Yeah.
Can you respond to that point?
Certainly.
I couldn't disagree more.
The long list of alleged security failures that we have alleged, the safeguards that fail to detect, The testing and veracity testing that is claimed by the defendants, that we have a whole series of paragraphs in the complaint that dispute, each of those results in an overall view that
This isn't speculative at all.
It has happened a number of times across the country, even in Arizona.
The voter registration computerized system was hacked and that is in the complaint and the paragraphs where Congressional committees held committee meetings in 2018, between this 2016 and the 2020 election.
Letters written by U.S.
senators, all in our complaint about the difficult issues.
You're about to run out of time and I'll give you a couple of minutes for rebuttal because we've used a lot of your time with questions.
But I want to be just clear in my own mind.
You are... your case is based on, however likely or unlikely, the potential that the system may be manipulated, correct?
Well, it's based on the unreliability of this system.
I understand.
I mean, you keep saying that.
But you're not contending that voting machines unreliably tabulate votes.
You don't have any contention in your... In other words, if they're perfectly observed and perfectly protected, There's no allegation that they miscount votes.
There are much more reliable way of counting votes than by hand.
What you're contending is that an outside actor could get into the system and somehow manipulate the voting.
Your Honor, the most hardened computerized systems in the United States, military systems, have been hacked.
You're not answering my question.
I understand your point.
I'm trying to figure out whether you're arguing that voting machines unreliably count votes, or whether you're arguing that the vote count can be manipulated by an outside actor hacking it.
I think it's the second and not the first.
If it's the first, I see no allegation in your complaint that voting machines unreliably count votes.
It's that somebody else can get into it and make them unreliable.
They could unreliably count votes if they're not set up properly, if they are hacked into in order to make them... You're not going to answer the question I asked you, so I guess I'll stop asking it.
No, I do want to answer your question.
I'm just, it's a very simple question.
I have a machine here.
Let's assume it's not, it's one of the machines used in Maricopa County.
It's not connected to the internet.
It's not possible for anybody to hack into it.
Are you challenging, in this case, the accuracy of that machine, that counting the votes that are fed into it?
I can only say that... No, I think is the answer, isn't it?
And you're not giving away your case, I'm just... No, no, I understand.
There's nothing in your case that says that.
But the number of things that can play in.
The manufacturer.
What if the manufacturer, and many of these machines are made overseas by foreign enemies of ours, what if that manufacturer puts into the system an undetected device that is filled with malware?
Now if you're talking about those what-ifs, I'm back to Judge.
But that is in our complaint.
Paragraphs 90 to 92.
But the judge characterized that as speculation.
That what, you know, it may be that Kim Il-Jung is manufacturing these machines.
I don't think you could allege that or you don't think anybody could say that in a press conference because when people say it in press conferences they get sued.
It has happened.
But that's speculation.
The argument that you're making based on allegations is that The system is subject to manipulation.
It is.
That's correct.
I thought that was a fair characterization of what you were arguing.
Is it not?
It is subject to manipulation.
The machines are subject to manipulation as well.
And yes, that's correct.
Thank you.
I took you over and we'll give you some time for rebuttal.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Who's going to go up first?
Now, I'd really like to know what you guys think of that.
That judge, a part of that three-judge panel there at the Ninth Circuit, he was very argumentative.
And I don't know about you, but I felt like he was making a lot of assumptions.
He seemed to try to imply, or maybe he didn't even imply it, that attorney Andrew Parker was making assumptions.
But the judge said well what if you have a machine that's not hooked to the internet that can't be hooked to the internet would you then trust the tabulator but but wait a minute do we know of machines that are not connected to the internet do we know of machines that cannot be connected to the internet aren't all of these machines capable of being connected to the internet one way or the other
Either while they're being used or later to retrieve and transmit the data?
Or thumb drives?
So directly or indirectly?
I mean, wasn't it ES&S that testified before the hearing with the Secretary of State in Louisiana?
That all the machines are hackable.
All voting machines are hackable.
The judge there, the one that was talking the most, seemed to be making, in my opinion, a lot of assumptions and I think demonstrated to me he doesn't understand the vulnerability of the machines.
As Andrew Parker said, you've got machines and machine parts that are made in countries where those countries are Enemies!
And we're to trust those?
He also seemed to imply that hand counting is not as accurate and is more open to fraud than machines.
That somehow, due to the overwhelming fraud of hand-counted ballots, we had to go to a better, more secure way of machines.
No one is saying there is 100% no fraud with ballots.
We know of ballots that have been supposedly, you know, in the Nixon-Kennedy case in Chicago, ballots were reportedly thrown in the river for Nixon that helped Kennedy win the White House.
No one's saying that there is 100% perfection.
We don't say that about a lot of things.
Our free market system isn't 100% perfection, right?
But we don't throw out the free market system in America, historically we haven't, because it's not perfect.
Well, why is it not perfect?
It's not perfect because we live in a sinful fallen world.
And as long as human beings are alive and in their fallen state, no system is going to be perfect.
The free market system will not be perfect, but it is the best system to reward the most people and to benefit the most people versus the alternative socialism, which doesn't benefit anybody but the elite who rob from one, redistribute the wealth, and use it to enrich themselves and stay in power.
We can make the same argument with machines, I think, and paper.
Sure, we can point out some historical examples where ballots have gone missing or ballots have been added, right?
Didn't we have a problem with Norm Coleman running for U.S.
Senate in Minnesota against Al Franken and some ballots showed up in a trunk after the fact?
But While the system with paper ballots isn't perfect because we have sinful fallen man that gets involved and starts cheating, it has been, I think historically, the best system versus opening up another system with even more potential abuse and intrusion.
And who knows by who?
When you're talking about machines.
So it was almost a argument that was based on a lot of information that was not in full context.
I don't know about you, but that's what I picked up on.
I thought the attorney, Andrew Parker, did a remarkable job on the fly with that kind of debate going back and forth.
He obviously knows his case.
He had the case law.
I thought he did a brilliant job.
But I was a little struck by the argumentative tone and many of the assumptions, which I think were incorrect assumptions, dare I say, and I'm not an attorney, but the incorrect assumptions by the judge.
Now I got six more minutes I want to play of Andrew Parker.
They brought him back to present some more.
I'd almost like to know if he was that argumentative with the other side.
Maybe we can play a little bit of that.
But before we do, let me take a quick break.
We're brought to you by you.
By the way, last night, thanks to you, as I said, I am told we had a record day at the Lindell Offense Fund and that half of the cost for doing what you just saw there were covered.
Flying those attorneys out there, having them prepare, flying them out there, having them make their arguments and get back to Minneapolis.
That the cost related to all that, which is a ton of paperwork for when you do a filing before the Ninth Circuit, right?
I mean the paperwork and the filings and all that.
Very, very expensive, right?
And I'm told that what you did yesterday by going to lyndaoffensefund.org and making a contribution covered half of the cost.
Maybe we can cover the other half today.
That would be great.
Because if this doesn't go the direction we think it should go for the American people and for free and fair and honest elections, with the correct ruling here, which I think is the correct ruling, we don't get the correct ruling, I'm told that this will be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court and that's going to be expensive.
So LyndellOffenseFund.org, LyndellOffenseFund.org.
Now another way you can support Mike before we go to that next six minutes and then your phone calls is this.
MyPillow.com.
MyPillow.com slippers save $90.
They were down to regularly around $140, now under $50.
Use the promo code L77.
Brickell bedsheets as low as $25.
Use the promo code L77 for Kell bed sheets as low as $25.
Use promo code L77.
The MyPillow 20th Anniversary Edition was around $70, now under $20.
We also have the MyPillow 2.0 with the coolant technology.
Buy one, get one free.
Promo code L77.
Six-piece My Towel Set as low as $39.99.
Use the promo code L77.
And Giza Luxurious Dream Sheets, 50% off, as low as $29.98.
Don't forget about the My Mattress Topper 2.0.
Now, You can do those things, buy those things, give them as gifts.
Also, if you use that code L77, that's helping to fund this broadcast and some of Mike's work.
Otherwise, you can just make a contribution.
Many of you say, I have a lot of sheets and towels and pillows and blankets, and as I need more, I'll buy them.
I just want to help Mike.
Well, then you know what?
You're helping yourself at the same time, because I don't know about you, but I felt like Andrew Parker was arguing for all of us.
They want free and fair elections, because I think, guess what?
He was.
So, you can help, Mike, and help yourself, and help the country by continuing this fight in the courts.
Lyndell Legal... LyndellOffenseFund.org, I should say.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
$5, $10, $15, whatever you can do.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
The proof is in the pudding.
You just saw and heard the attorney arguing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel.
This is, I believe, historic.
This could be going to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
And so you know, based on the actions, LyndellOffenseFund.org is making a difference.
Because without LyndellOffenseFund.org and the leadership of Mike Liddell, I don't think you would have seen what you just saw.
And again, yesterday's generous donations helped to cover half the cost related to this case being presented as it was today.
So let's see if we can finish up the other side of it today.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
Thank you for that.
Mike says thank you.
Now, let's go to the remaining six minutes and then while you're listening to this remaining six minutes, what are your thoughts on what you just heard?
I was getting a little frustrated and I wasn't even the guy making the case.
I think Andrew Parker should get a gold star for professionalism and patience and endurance and perseverance.
What are your thoughts on what you just saw?
We got six more minutes to go, but while that six is playing, I need you to get online so we can go right to your calls.
Quick and pithy comments.
901-316-8404.
901-316-8404.
What do you think about what you just saw?
Let's listen to this last six minutes while you get on board.
We'll screen you guys through and we'll take off and take in as many calls as we can.
Watch this remaining six minutes.
And I do want to get to the standing issue as it relates to speculative nature.
But this was all argument on the merits, patently.
And we disagree.
This air gap system that separates the voter registration from... We disagree.
And we've got proof and we will prove it.
They think they will prove it.
We'll see.
That's what litigation is for.
But the question was whether you had allegations.
We do.
Wait, wait.
You don't know how the question ends before you answer it.
Do you have allegations that the Maricopa County system or the Pima County system have been manipulated in the past.
The voting, she was saying there may be some allegations that the registration system was manipulated in the past.
Are there any allegations in this complaint, I don't see them, that the Maricopa County
or Pima County tabulation systems were manipulated in the past?
No, but.
That may or may not be determinative, but I think that's the point she was making.
Well, I think the second point she was making is they're not connected,
and one has nothing to do with the other.
That is a critical point because we believe that the registration voting being hacked can in fact infiltrate... But your complaint doesn't allege that.
Your complaint is an attack on the tabulation system for voting.
It's not an attack on the voter registration system.
No, but it does raise the voter registration in the allegations in the complaint.
Well, all you say is that the system has been hacked in the past.
Is there any allegation in the complaint that a hacking of the voter registration system would affect tabulation of votes actually actually cast?
Well, I think it can be read that way, yes.
And in terms of Pleading of a complaint, I think absolutely.
Paragraph 12 speaks to a whole range of vulnerabilities.
One of them is this air gap idea that separates these two.
No, and I'm accepting that there are vulnerabilities for purposes of your argument.
You've alleged them.
I'm accepting there are vulnerabilities.
The question I have is, is there a separate allegation that somehow the hacking or whatever happened with the voter registration system It is not stated that way.
machines in some way. And I don't see that allegation anywhere in the complaint.
It is not stated that way. However, when you take the registration voter hacking,
along with paragraph 12 talking about the vulnerabilities, it should alarm you
to the point where it is a real threat.
It is a credible threat.
It is more of a threat than existed in election integrity project, which this circuit viewed was sufficient to get over the speculative nature element of the claim.
The curling case, which counsel says is completely separate and different.
It isn't.
We know that paper ballots have to be fed into the optical scanners here.
And in curling, ultimately, you take paper over and you put it into the optical scanner.
5.5A is what is used in Georgia.
5.5B was used in Arizona.
They are different, but they are substantially similar.
And that is an allegation in our complaint.
Georgia and Arizona and the issues that existed in curling while not identical and while they are different systems they apply equally and that is an assertion that should get us standing as well.
The the speculative nature issue it's not just Susan B Anthony but it's the fact that curling is There hadn't been any intimidation that had occurred.
The election hadn't yet occurred.
in that one.
The election integrity project speaks to credible threat of harm.
And the case that the district court ruled on, Democratic Arizona Party
versus Republican Arizona Party, that was the voter intimidation case.
There hadn't been any intimidation that had occurred.
The election hadn't yet occurred.
But in advance of the election, the court determined that the Democratic Party should be able to vote.
I do have one additional question.
against the facts that there might be intimidation.
And this case really is no different.
The key here is, if Rule 12 is applied correctly and appropriately, and we argue that the district court did
not do that, if it is.
I think you've gone over the additional time.
I do have one additional question.
I think you can answer yes or no, but perhaps not.
I don't read your complaint as making any statutory claims.
Am I correct?
We have a Section 1983 claim.
Right, but that's merely a vehicle.
1983 is a vehicle for making either constitutional or statutory claims.
Yes.
So, do you make a claim that any statute was... I don't read in the complaint any claim that a federal statute has been violated.
No.
We have a declaratory judgment.
It's just a constitutional claim.
It's a constitutional claim with 1983 and declaratory judgment.
Yeah, 1983 just gives you the ability to come into federal court to make a decision.
Correct, your honor.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Kevin.
Alright, look at this headline.
This is from Just the News today before we go to your calls.
Carey Lake attorney alleges courts are ignoring manipulations and vulnerabilities in voting system.
Quote, the voter registration computerized system was hacked.
And that That's what Andrew Parker said, as being reported also by Just the News.
Here's a tweet from Carrie Lake's war room.
This is what the attorney said, Andrew Parker.
Along with paragraph 12, talking about the vulnerabilities, it should alarm you to the point where it is a threat.
It is a credible threat.
It is more of a threat than existed in the election integrity project, which this circuit viewed was sufficient to get over the speculative nature element of the claim.
So if there's, well this is speculation, this is speculation, I guess Andrew Parker again is pointing out that there was another case Where there was more than sufficient evidence to get over any kind of speculative claim.
So what do you make of what you just saw?
901-316-8404.
Your thoughts, your comments.
Let's go to the phone lines and hear from America.
Line one, Wayne from North Carolina.
Thanks for calling in tonight, Wayne.
What are your thoughts on what you just saw?
My thoughts are we have corrupt politicians, Democrat, Republican.
We have corrupt judges.
We are just like going into Nazi Germany.
And I just want to ask you, Brandon, are we stepping into the end of time?
Well, I think if you're asking me from a biblically prophetic standpoint, are things lining up for the stage to be set for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled?
I think the answer is overwhelmingly yes.
If I could give you a few examples, we have the Mark of the Beast technology.
I'm not saying it is Mark of the Beast yet.
It won't be until the Antichrist arrives and declares it to be.
But is it that some of the technology That'll be the foundation for such?
I think it is.
Even people that don't go to church, even people that say, hey, I'm not a Christian, I'm hearing them on some radio show saying, I'm not a Christian, but this sure looks like Mark of the Beast technology to me, from what little bit I know about the Bible.
I've heard even non-Christians saying that.
So yes, I think it is.
Do we see the enemies lining up against Israel as talked about in the Old Testament from Prophet Ezekiel, Ezekiel 38-39?
Yeah, we see Russia, we see Turkey, we see Iran, and we see Syria.
And where are all those people?
They're in Syria, right on the border of Israel.
We got Iran basically building a military base there on the West Bank, if you will.
So I could go on.
Are we going toward a one world currency?
I think we are.
Are we seeing the world being divided into regions?
There seems to be a push for that.
I mean, I could just keep going on all the things that are occurring.
that prophetically are setting the stage for one world government, one world economy, one world religion.
So if your question is, is all of this signs that Bible prophecy is on the verge of being fulfilled, I think there's an overwhelming case to be made that it probably is or could be.
I don't know, maybe things will slow up, reverse, turn around, You know, in the 1970s, when that movie, The Late Great Planet Earth, by Hal Lindsey hit the theaters, a lot of people then were thinking, well, we're at the end.
Well, that was the 1970s.
And now here we are.
But we never have had this many prophetic things lining up the way they are.
Great question, Wayne.
Thank you.
Let's go to Patsy in Texas, line two.
Patsy, thanks for your calls tonight.
Your call.
Hey, Brennan.
Thanks for taking my call.
I appreciate everything y'all do and love your program.
Thank you.
I hate to be disrespectful to the judge, but I feel he was being very disrespectful to the gentleman that was presenting the case or trying to answer his questions.
He was, to me, very, very argumentative.
And it just makes me feel like bought and paid for.
Well, that's why we opened the phone lines tonight, to get feedback like that from the American people.
You just heard it from Patsy in Texas.
Thank you, Patsy.
Let's go to Dave.
Dave in Iowa Line 3.
David, what do you think about what you just saw?
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
I just want to say God bless you and Mike, and thank you for all you're doing, and we really appreciate it.
Thank you, David.
You're welcome.
I thought he was totally biased, the judge that was doing all the talking.
He was obviously setting the table for his judgment, which I believe will be not favorable to Carrie Lake and to make it more palatable.
It seemed obvious to me what he was up to.
I know, which at that point, David, I think after the ruling comes in, if it goes against them, I think it will be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Again, folks, you guys are the ones helping make all this become possible.
David, you and so many others have helped out by going to LyndellOffenseFund.org, and so I want to thank you.
David, do you think this is going to the Supreme Court?
What do you think?
I think it will, if they accept it, and then they should.
But when will the ruling come out, did they say?
You know, I don't know.
In fact, I even inquired of another one of the attorneys we have on here often, and I don't know that there is a specific set time, but you can bet we're going to be watching it, David, and as soon as it does, we're going to even break into programming and let you know.
And we all need to be praying about this.
Absolutely.
That's well said.
Well said.
Thank you, David.
David from Iowa checking in tonight.
Thank you, David.
Let's go to line four.
Kelly from New York.
Hi, Kelly.
What do you think about what you saw tonight?
Hi, Brandon.
Hi, Kelly.
Hi, good evening.
I kind of agree with Patsy, but I want to take it a step farther.
I'm not sure it's they're bought and paid for.
It's either that or they seem to have What I think is Trump derangement syndrome.
And I think that anytime anyone mentions anything that has to do to an election, you know, all the media coverage constantly of the Trump indictments basically traumatized them and they won't, they don't even want to hear it.
They just shut you down.
They can't even talk about it.
And I think a lot of people are just brainwashed.
I mean, it seemed like they lacked intelligence.
I questioned whether they even read what was submitted, but people in their position certainly don't lack intelligence.
I think they're just blinded by the technological hatred for anything related.
Maybe a combination of those things, but it seemed as though the one judge that did most
of the talking, he seemed to not be really up on how vulnerable these machines are or
to think that it's pretty common for these machines not to be on the internet, not to
have computer parts that could hook them to the internet, not to even consider putting
thumb drives into these machines and all the things that can go on to manipulate them,
Much less you have the whole issue with the wrong size ballot put on the, you know, the printing of the ballot being too small for the paper.
I mean, it seems as though he was just very, I'll say in a respectful way, very unaware of all the vulnerabilities to the machines.
I mean, he talked about, well, you know, you don't have perfect elections when you have paper.
Right!
You don't.
Because we live in a sinful fallen world, people do cheat.
But you don't have the vulnerabilities with paper that you have with a machine.
And in many cases with the machine, there is no paper trail, so you can't do an audit.
But with paper, you can actually do an audit.
Not only that, if you do the paper the way it's being suggested today, that paper can stop the counterfeiting.
And if you do it under cameras, you can go back and do the audits.
So he seemed to be implying that, you know, we're comparing apples to apples here.
No, there's a huge difference between the vulnerability of machines and the multiple vulnerabilities and ability for hacking and changing votes to, oh, some people being dishonest and throwing in or throwing out some ballots.
You're talking about multiple ways to cheat with the ballots, are you not?
Yeah, absolutely, on a grand scale.
With the machines, you have way more ways to cheat than you do with a ballot.
Yes, on a grand scale.
And I also didn't appreciate the way he simply dismissed Andrew Parker.
Attorney Andrew Parker?
No, the judge.
Oh, he basically seemed like he didn't want to do his job when he he basically suggested, oh, well, if it made it this far up, you guys must not have any evidence because, you know, the lower courts would have done something.
No, that's it gets to you because they're.
If the judges below are not listening or reading and being up to speed, that's not the fault of the attorney making the case.
Yes, absolutely.
Great call, as always.
Yeah.
Thank you, Kelly.
Kelly from New York.
God bless you.
God bless everyone that's listening.
I love you, Mike.
I have a similar story.
Well, so glad your book loved you.
Thank you, Kelly.
God bless you.
You too, Kelly.
Kelly from New York checking in.
Let's go to Peter in Maine, line one.
Hi, Peter.
Hi, Brandon.
I'm so glad to be online with you.
I'm glad you got on board.
I know that you are a good listener.
I don't know if you're as good a listener as I am, but let's see if we can hear this out.
All right.
I was listening very carefully, and I always do, unless I find somebody to be babbling, so I'll stop.
The judge took the position of telling the attorney What his case was that he was making.
The judge said, Mr. Parker, you're not alleging that these machines that are set up perfectly and they're not hackable and they can't be hacked into, that they're not making that case, that the election could be Hacked into it.
I mean, it could be mistaken, or there would be any problem in this case.
The judge told Mr. Parker that the machines were unhackable.
Just like he could have said, they don't have a modem in them.
But anyways, he said that if the machines are okay, and they count straight, You're not making a case that if the machines are good and count worthy, that there's a problem here.
And the judge told Mr. Parker that, and Mr. Parker allowed him to make that statement.
But the bottom line is, every one of those machines have a modem in them, and they all are hackable.
The machines were, we have videotapes of the machines in Maricopa County being set up and intentionally being reset at a time beyond the set point that they should have been adjusted.
There is no way that the judge should have made the statement That these machines that are all perfect and they're not hackable.
I agree with you, Peter.
I agree.
And I think that the judge either again, I want to be respectful and I want to give the judge the benefit of the doubt, but it is almost as though the judge does not understand the vulnerabilities of the machines.
Either he doesn't know the vulnerabilities of machines.
Or he was just taking the opposite side for the case of the argument.
I kind of think he doesn't understand the vulnerabilities of the machines.
I'm sure they hear a lot of cases.
He has a lot of things to look at.
But this, you know, you, me, This audience?
We've all gotten a good old education on these machines in the last two and a half years thanks to Mike Lindell and his team, right?
I don't think the judge knows as much about these machines as we do.
And I think that's one reason why it is so shocking to us to hear his response.
Which leads me to believe, and I'm going to cite on the side of being gracious, he doesn't have a clue how vulnerable these machines are.
Again, the attorney was like, hey, the parts are actually manufactured in countries that are against us.
So I think that the judge, you're responding, I think, to what I heard, others heard, which is it's almost seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, seeing the machines through rose-colored glasses.
Well, there's no problem here.
There's no, you know, Hi, how are you doing?
being hacked. It was quite shocking. I agree with you, Pete. Let's go to Jesse or Jess. Jess in Montana, line two.
Jess, thanks for calling in tonight, Jess.
Hi, how are you doing? I'm great. I just want to say that the attorney, Parker did not do his homework. Because even
though this judge was a butthead, he was concentrating on the objection by Parker, that it was a potential
objection of machines that they could be hacked.
He had no proof.
He didn't do his homework.
He should have been able to recite all the evidence that Mike Lindell had that the It actually happened.
Not that it was a potential thing to happen.
And that's why he screwed up.
Thanks for the call tonight, Jess.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to the next caller.
Get in as many as I can.
I've just got a couple minutes left.
Nate in Georgia, line three.
Nate, what are your thoughts on what you heard tonight?
Fantastic.
Thank you for taking my call.
And I agree that the judge shook up Attorney Parker.
I think he took him off his game.
I don't think he was quite prepared to answer the judge, but I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Brandon, but if they can be purposely miscalibrated, and then they go to arbitration, and then, you know, who knows, and then it could be manipulated there, but there's so many ways.
You know, that's a very good point you just made, Nate.
Nate, I think you might be onto something.
That the judge was deliberately taking him off his game because, boy, he just kept peppering him.
The other judges weren't doing that.
He just kept peppering him and peppering him.
And, of course, I'm not an attorney.
I've never argued for a judge.
But I know these guys work really hard to be calm, cool, non-emotional, professional, and to make sure, you know, you're not offending the judge or judges that are about to make a ruling for you.
But you have to wonder if that wasn't the goal, if he wasn't trying to gaslight him, upset him, and as you say, throw him off his game.
Exactly.
And also, Amy Tuttenberg in the Curling case has already ruled, a U.S.
District Judge has already ruled that the Dominion Machines are unconstitutional because of the QR code.
They can't be read.
Totenberg.
That's the Judge Totenberg down there in Georgia.
Exactly.
There's so many things.
I do think the judge purposely attacked him like he did and unfairly, I might add.
Thank you so much.
I love you guys and I love your ministry and God bless you.
Thank you, Nate.
Thank you so much, Nate.
Thanks to all of you.
Wayne, Patsy, David, Kelly, Peter, Jess, Nate, Alex from Florida.
Sorry we didn't have time to get to you.
Now, folks, before we go, all of that tonight was brought to you by you through the LyndellOffenseFund.org.
Half of the funds for covering that, which you just saw, were raised last night.
Let's see if we can raise some more and finish that off and get ready for what may be an appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court, folks.
Lindell Offense Fund.
Spread it far and wide.
Social media, everywhere you can.
LindellOffenseFund.org.
LindellOffenseFund.org.
If you go there and you click to donate, you can also then, when you click the button to donate, Find the address for Hudson, Wisconsin to send a check if that's how you prefer to donate.
LyndellOffenseFund.org.
Mike says a big thank you to all of you.
We're going to keep you posted on where this is going.
You know that to be the case.
And I am Brandon House, in for Mike Lyndell tonight.
Thanks for watching.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection