Bost v Illinois SCOTUS Ruling & Tina Peters Appeal Update: The Mike Lindell Show
Stop blindly investing, and start collecting oil royalty checks instead, visit https://LindellOilBoom.com Show more DITCH Covidian Doctors ! From Ivermectin, HCQ, to weight loss & Blood Pressure Medicine..https://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Lindell has you covered. Their Licensed Doctors are on call and can even write you up to a YEAR’s Worth of Prescriptions! Use code LINDELL10 for 10% OFF your entire order.
These air purifiers are the best invention since the Pillow! Sanitize the air you breathe: Https://airwaterhealing.com and USE Promo code LINDELL to receive a FREE air purifier with Cardio Miracle subscription.
Protect and grow your wealth with the America First Retirement plan! Visit https://AmericaFirstRetirementPlan.com or CALL Carlos Cortez directly at 833-813-3446
Go to https://PureHealthResearch.com now, and explore their 45 amazing supplements, and save 35% before this deal ends with coupon code LINDELL
Go to https://Mypillow.com and use the promo code L77 to save up to 66% off My Pillow products and support the Lindell TV Network.
Neil Armstrong’s SHOCKING Apollo 11 confession: He reported a strange encounter he had in space during a post-mission debrief. NASA did their best to keep it secret. But now, unearthed NASA audio is blowing the lid off of everything. Watch Now:https://pro.greatcures.com/m/2473354 Show less
I'll be filling in for Mike today, and we got a lot of stuff to cover, as usual.
We're going to kick things off with our update from D.C. with Allison Steinberg, and then we're going to go over a very important ruling that happened last week by the Supreme Court of the United States and the Bose versus Illinois ruling.
Huge ruling.
And we're going to go over the details of that ruling with a good friend, J.B. Williams from the North American Law Center.
And then at the bottom of the hour, we're going to be joined by good old CanCon Brian Lupo.
And we're going to talk about an article he wrote for the Gateway Pundit regarding Tina Peters and her appeal.
And he's been monitoring this closely, and he's got some good insights.
He's going to share with us about the status of Tina Peters' appeal of her prison sentence.
And then last but not least, we're going to wrap things up with some truths from President Trump.
And then I really want to get in the mode of just reminding everybody of why we're called the United States of America and just start focusing on everything that unifies us because there's so many things going on right now.
A lot of different people trying to divide us and separate us.
And it's time for that occasional reminder on what are the values that we truly appreciate as Americans.
So before we get to all that, though, we want to kick things off with Allison out in D.C. Allison, great to be with you, as usual.
Happy Monday.
Great to see you, Patrick.
Happy Monday to you as well.
And I guess your last statement there about why we're called the United States of America is very prevalent to what we're going to talk about here right now in the wake of this massive division that we're seeing that's really coming out of Minnesota right now due to all of the fraud and the ICE agents who have been deployed there.
Ilhan Omar had some despicable words about our nation, which I will get to in a moment.
But first, I want to start with the fact that, you know, while all this is happening over in Minnesota, we have Democrat lawmakers instead of focusing on trying to unite our country, they are focusing on furthering this divide.
Election Procedures and Free Speech00:15:49
About two dozen of U.S. House Democrats actually went to Minnesota to hold this unofficial hearing on Friday of last week.
You know, people like Pramila Jayapal, Ilhad Omar, just to name a couple, were there.
And these people have been very outspoken in the last couple of weeks about not only defunding ICE, but abolishing them altogether.
Of course, this comes in the wake of the death of Renee Nicole Good, who was killed because she was obstructing law enforcement from doing their job, but they're using this as a political opportunity to try to carry out their radical agenda to not only abolish ICE, but impeach Chrissy Noam now is the latest from them.
So they're going full steam ahead with trying to do this, even though it's all just one giant charade in the end because we know they're not going to get Republicans to support these measures.
But that certainly isn't stopping them.
Ilhan Omar said at this unofficial hearing over the weekend that it is, quote, increasingly clear that the entire purpose of these actions is to provoke chaos and fear in order to justify invoking the Insurrection Act and expand the president's ability to rain terror upon American cities who do not vote for him.
So that's how these crazy lunatics are trying to spin this.
It really is laughable.
But then again, is it funny at all when you have people like Ilhan Omar saying ridiculous things like this and then going so far as to completely just degrade this country that has afforded her the rights that she has today?
Take a listen to this clip from her.
The one place where we thought we would never experience this is the U.S. States.
Yeah, it's because she thought she'd get away with the fraud and we're waking up and we're saying enough is enough.
And I'm happy we're finally standing up because this is a huge issue.
You're right.
They are trying to sow division.
And what's really frustrating for folks like myself, and I can tell from you as well, is that they are accusing us of exactly what they are guilty of.
I mean, I've got undercover videos where these guys are deliberately talking about how they want to sow chaos in the streets.
They want to be the seeds of that chaos.
And they say chaos is a soup by which change happens.
That's an exact quote.
So no, these guys are anarchists and they hope by anarchy that they can rebuild the United States into their own image and their own communist ideal.
So it's so frustrating to see this.
It's incredibly frustrating, especially when you have people like Don Lemon, too, who, you know, claim to be independent journalists that just want to get to the root of the corruption and get to the get the truth out there, you know, and he's literally there egging all of this on, furthering this massive divide.
It really is, it's, it's awful to see it.
We need to be focusing on uniting this nation.
But as Congressman Eli Crane just said, who I sat down with just last week, he said that he prays for unity in this nation.
But can there be unity when our nation has we're just living in a godless society?
I mean, people have fallen so far away from God.
Like you said, Patrick, they want to rebuild this into, you know, something that elevates them and their self.
And it's all about self nowadays.
It's just totally, we've totally strayed away from God, which I think is the root of all of these problems we're seeing.
But like I said, Don Lemon was really a popular character as well over the weekend, really trying to stir up a lot of trouble over there, inciting a lot of the violence that we saw over the weekend of violent leftist mobs attacking churches and innocent churchgoers who are just attending their church services.
Just ridiculous.
Now, we are hearing from Harmee Dylan, who's saying that this is a violation of the FACE Act.
Let's not forget that under the Biden regime, innocent, peaceful protesters would go and stand outside and pray outside of abortion clinics.
They were thrown away, imprisoned for years under Biden.
Now we have these literal violent mobs of leftists who have absolutely violated the FACE Act.
Harmee Dylan saying that they are going to be investigated.
So let's hope that they are dealt with appropriately.
Can't imagine letting them get away with this, especially Don Lemon, who's now doubling down on what happened and refuses to acknowledge that he absolutely violated the First Amendment and the FACE Act.
Let's take a look and listen to this clip from him.
You heard what some of the folks said in there, you know, that this is they shouldn't be there and they shouldn't be uncomfortable and this is our house and whatever.
That's what protesting is about, is to make people uncomfortable.
You may not like it, but I mean, if they went into a church, you know, any church.
The end game for these guys, get rid of the church.
So for them to go off and disrupt the church service, I mean, I don't know if you remember this from the old history books, but I still remember one of the acts of Stalin was to actually destroy the headquarters of the Russian Orthodox Church and replace it with the headquarters for the Communist Party in the Soviet Union back during World War II.
So they can't stand God, and that's at the center of this Matrix of Liberty that I think I'm going to start ending every show with.
It's a reminder of what unifies us, and faith is right at the center of that.
I love that.
That is so important.
And something that I think we all need to continue talking about as this division continues and intensifies.
It's sad to see, but I think we need to remember what is truly unifying.
And I think we desperately need to get back to God in this country.
The last thing I want to bring up with you, Patrick, while I have you here, is the SAVE Act, because Congress, I mean, we've talked about this so many times that the SAVE Act has passed the House twice.
This would require voter ID, proof of citizenship in all of our elections, something we're very focused on here at Lindell TV.
It's very frustratingly passed the House two separate times and it's just sitting dead on arrival over in the Senate.
John Thune refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote.
Well, now, interestingly enough, there's a new development here, and Steve Scalise is saying him and Mike Johnson are unveiling this new turbocharged SAVE Act, which sounds just the same as the original SAVE Act to me.
So I'm very curious to get more information.
I plan on visiting his office tomorrow when Congress is back in session to ask some questions about this.
But let's take a listen to this clip from Scalise about this new Turbocharged Save Act.
Over to the Senate to give them even more incentive to go protect the sanctity of every American's vote.
And that is the SAVE Act plus a picture ID requirement.
You can't even get on an airplane.
You can't go to a bar tonight without showing a picture ID.
Yet there are people in many states where the states actually have laws saying you can't show ID, which is a recipe for fraud, for stealing your vote if you're voting legally, so that somebody can come behind you illegally in another country and actually vote and steal your vote.
Because if somebody's voting illegally, they're stealing your vote if you're following the rules.
So Save Act plus picture ID, we're going to bring that to send that to the Senate.
I think a lot of Americans would like that protection because if they're following the rules, they just want everybody else to.
What makes people angry is when you see boxes of ballots showing up two weeks after an election, and then next thing you know, lo and behold, a Democrat takes the lead after being behind for three weeks after Election Day.
And then somebody who voted by mail in the military, they're overseas fighting to defend our freedoms.
Their votes that got in legally before the election are being nullified by somebody illegally.
It needs to stop.
We're going to have a bill to do just that.
Seems like a wise strategy because even Democrats recognize that, you know, well over 70% of Americans see the value in voter ID.
Matter of fact, there was a constitutional amendment in Michigan that was passed that completely destroyed election integrity in the state.
And the Democrats, they knew people would resonate around the term voter ID.
So they put in a provision in the Constitution that says people may show voter ID at the polls.
They deliberately put in the words.
Yeah, so it's not you're required.
Of course, that's what everybody's assuming on this.
They say it may, and nobody reads the details of this.
They only provide an abstract, right?
So that's the games that are being played.
And you know what?
If adding voter ID to the SAVAC can get it moved through the Senate, more power to them.
Yeah, we've got to get it done.
Let's hope Thun will actually bring it to the floor for a vote this time around and we can actually move forward with protecting our future because we don't have a country if we don't have free and fair elections.
So let's get it done, Republicans.
Absolutely.
Well, thank you for that update, Allison.
I appreciate it.
You have a blessed week.
Thanks so much, Patrick.
You too.
All right.
Now we're going to introduce a very dear friend of mine who's been with me on this election integrity push pretty much since the beginning.
He's been a trusted confidant.
He's been able to go off and help analyze situations and give me a perspective on what's actually happening from a legal perspective all across the country.
He works with an organization called the North American Law Center.
His name is J.B. Williams.
And JB sent me an email this week that talked about the importance of the SCOTUS ruling that came down last week in Bost versus Illinois.
And effectively, a summary of the ruling is that it said that candidates do have standing when it comes to filing court cases.
And you may recall that you probably heard the narrative that says that over 64 lawsuits have been decided against Trump because of no evidence.
And the fact of the matter is that the majority of those cases were dismissed because of either procedural reasons or they said that there was no standing for the candidate.
So this is a very important ruling across the board.
And before I go into too much detail on it, let's bring in JB and let him provide some of the background why he said, guys, this is a game changer.
And what do you need to know as an American?
So great to be with you, JB.
Once again, I love the ball cap.
It's really good.
I'll get mine on here just so we can all stay together here.
But anyway, welcome to the Mike Lindell show.
So why is this Boast versus Illinois ruling so important?
And what do people need to know about it?
Well, first, thanks for having me on today.
It's always a pleasure, Patrick.
And tell Mike said hello and good luck in his gubernatorial race.
First, back up to the, I think it was 7th District Court of Appeals that they were reviewing in this case that had ruled that this candidate had a lack of standing.
That's a term we've heard many times since 2020 in literally hundreds of cases filed challenging election procedures in 2020, not just for the purpose of trying to overturn election results, but the main purpose is to create a sense of confidence for the American people in our elections and to create a sense of free, fair, lawful,
and transparent election procedures that the American people can have confidence in.
And so when a court says that a candidate in the race has a lack of standing or no legal right to bring the case, which is what the 7th District Court of Appeals said, it further erodes any confidence of the American people in our election procedures for starters.
Also, can cause, as was filed in that original case in Illinois against the election board there, it also can cause candidates to have to spend exorbitant amounts of money to overcome some of these things and still, in many cases, not be able to overcome systemic fraud that is taking place under some of these state-level guidelines for elections.
Michigan's a great example.
Minnesota is a great example.
And so, first, understand that this whole issue really revolves around who does and does not have legal standing to challenge election procedures.
Well, the court decided in this case, the Supreme Court decided that candidates most certainly do have a dog in the fight and therefore legal standing.
The question I have coming out of that is: does that extend to citizens, to the legal citizens, legal electors of this country?
Do they have standing?
You know, we're talking about a country where all political power in this country is derived from the consent of the people.
And if the people are challenging election procedures, it seems to me that people are not consenting to what's going on here.
And there's a problem that should be addressed.
It can be addressed peacefully in a court somewhere unless it's determined that the people have no right to ask any questions, in which case, some point it's going to get resolved some other way, probably less peacefully.
So, that wasn't addressed in any way in this ruling by the Supreme Court, correct?
The people.
Not directly.
There are some interesting statements that I took from reading it, and I'll just quote a few of them real quick.
Early in it, it says, to start, candidates also have an interest in a fair process.
Candidates are not common competitors in the economic marketplace.
They seek to represent the people.
Their interest in that prize cannot be served or severed from the interest in the electoral process itself of the most fundamental significance under the constitutional structure.
So they kind of do begin to tie together in that statement here as well.
Whether these decisions help or hurt or have no effect on a candidate's electoral prospects, they deprive the candidate of a fair process and an accurate result.
I'm going to come back to that in just a second.
Candidate itself, its interest differs in kind from the general population in that they have campaign expenditures and things like that.
So I want to visit for just a second what this doctrine of standing is to begin with so that people understand.
It's not a law.
There's no statute that requires you have legal standing in order to bring a case.
Congress has made no such law.
There's reference even in here, even though it's a favorable ruling for the people and the candidates in a seven to two decision here.
Even though it's a favorable ruling, there's reference in here that suggests that Article 3 requires legal standing.
But if you read Article 3 in the Constitution, there's no such text or even inference there.
And so it's interesting that we have all these thousands of assumptions of what is or isn't in the Constitution, most often these days, not in the Constitution, or and certainly not interpreted the way courts tend to interpret things now.
But here again is a case where a court is alleging in their decision, high court decision, that their rulings are being driven by what's in the Constitution, yet what they're referencing in Article III isn't even there.
Partisan Standing and Financial Damages00:13:08
So we've got lots of issues here with all of this.
This particular ruling, I think, is favorable not only to the candidates, but it's also favorable to the American people because it at least opens the door and says, look, people with a dog in this fight have standing.
Well, who has more dogs in the fight than the people themselves?
Yeah, that's a good point.
And there's a lot of people that got up and filed civil lawsuits in the wake of the 2020 election.
I mean, I was party on many of these lawsuits that were out there, submitted affidavits, court exhibits in support of them.
A lot of lawyers were penalized for even bringing up some of these.
They were sanctioned for even bringing up some of these cases.
And as it turns out, you know, this is a, it all boils down to this fundamental discussion of standing.
And there was, I saw a lot of court cases, a lot of lawsuits filed that always referred back to this spurious notion that there were over 60 lawsuits reviewed and they were all dismissed because of the merit indicating there's no evidence to support that.
Well, as I pointed out earlier, and you pointed out, I mean, a lot of them were dismissed on this phony standing argument.
So whenever I see one of those phony, you know, court arguments saying that 60-plus lawsuits were decided on this basis, people need to understand that this one little Kerplunk stick of a court ruling here impacts quite a few.
I mean, literally well over a dozen, dozens and dozens of these lawsuits that could have resulted in significantly different outcome for the 2020 election.
So this is, like you said in your email to me, a very, very big deal.
And if you could pop up, here's a quick little AI-based analysis that I did.
And it's pretty much, that's actually a summary of the court case.
I mean, the candidates have a personal stake.
Let's scoot on to the next summary that we had.
And it highlights that in this so-called 64 election suits were filed and saying that they were all dismissed on the basis of saying that there was no substance to the arguments being provided in there.
You know, only 30 of those cases were quote unquote decided on the merits.
And when you dig into this AI-based analysis on it, you find out one of those cases with the Antrim County lawsuit that I'm very familiar with out in Michigan.
And I can tell you that wasn't decided on the merit at all.
That was waived out.
Matter of fact, the judge said that his decision wasn't based on whether or not the evidence merited further investigation or not.
So it was a big deal.
But this case would have affected, or this ruling would have affected probably everything on that right side of this image here, dealing with all the procedural dismissals and voluntary withdrawals.
And one other key data point that I thought was important to highlight is that 0% of these quote-unquote merit-based decisions use juries.
And very few of them, if any, allowed discovery that would allow plaintiffs to actually go off and get access to the detail data, the evidence that would be necessary to prove their point without a shadow of a doubt.
So every time I see that 64 lawsuit, it just gets me into, it triggers me to use the language of the other folks here because there's no solid basis for that assertion whatsoever.
So hopefully this case kind of turns things around in the future when it comes to that term standing.
Well, the term standing, again, it's not a law.
It's not in our statutes anywhere.
It comes from a ruling that Scalia wrote years ago in a civil suit that had to do with whether or not the plaintiff had A, any direct involvement in the circumstance, B, any direct losses, financial or otherwise, from the involvement.
And number three, whether or not the court had the jurisdiction to be helpful in that situation.
These are the three basic things that were established at that point simply by something Scalia wrote on an isolated case unrelated to elections altogether.
And it's been used to prevent the American people and even candidates from being able to seek justice in our electoral processes.
It's been used improperly to do that because look, the country's $38 trillion in debt.
If that's not financial damages of what's gone on in our elections, then nothing happened.
Okay.
And that affects every taxpaying American watching what's going on with the crime and corruption in Minnesota and in Maine and in New York City and in California now, that's all being investigated by the Department of Justice on all the fraud use of federal taxpayer funds by these different sanctuary cities in sanctuary states.
Again, that's proof of financial damages to every American taxpayer.
But even if you set aside financial damages, it goes back to what I read a minute ago out of the case itself, out of the case ruling itself, that it diminishes.
You know, 50%, Mendami won in New York City for the mayor race by a 50.1% margin in the election.
And they make that sound like socialism's here to stay countrywide now because of that.
But here's what people are not printing in the news.
That was a 36% voter turnout to that election.
64% didn't even bother to turn out and vote.
And that's how much confidence the American people have in our election processes.
And so it's to the point where they don't even bother to show up anymore.
Yeah, we can't let that happen.
Well, you know, there was a couple votes that were taken that ostensibly they were in the majority, but they dissented from the majority opinion in context of the justification for what constituted standing in this in this ruling.
And that was Kagan and Barret, which is kind of an unusual combo, but maybe not as unusual as I'd like it to be, frankly, because some of the rulings from Barrett and Flight are getting me a little nervous there.
But they departed from the five justices and the overall majority in their ruling.
And they said that the reason the candidate had standing was based on financial interests.
Can you dig into that a little bit?
Because I mean, I've run for office.
When you run for office, I don't care if I spend a dime or not.
I got a financial interest because at the very least, I'm taking off from the work that I'm supposed to be doing or opportunities to earn an income.
So how the heck are they making this case for what's interesting about those two for me is they agreed with the court's final opinion, but disagreed on how the court got there.
That's what you're saying.
And they wanted to tack this financial loss concept based, again, on the three points of what constitutes someone having legal standing.
So they were trying to buttress really this idea that it's not a law, that you have to meet all three of those conditions in order to have a right to bring a case.
That's what those two are trying to accomplish, in my opinion.
But here's the problem, and you just stated it very well.
You're the candidate, and you have campaign funds, and you have campaign expenses to try to win a seat somewhere representing the people.
But where'd those funds come from?
They came from the people.
So who really had the financial damages when that takes place?
At the end, it's like they used to say, poop rolls downhill.
And it's true.
Everything falls down to the people one way or another sooner or later.
And so this is supposed to be a bottom-up government, not a top-down government.
And it's certainly not supposed to be nine unelected and unaccountable, you know, political partisan.
And let's face it, they are all partisan appointees.
Jackson would not be on that court.
It wouldn't be on the dog catcher's court.
She couldn't even define what a female or a woman is.
Well, wasn't she an autoped nomination?
I mean, so we don't even know if it was partisan.
It could have been a machine-based nomination.
If she wasn't a reliable partisan, she'd have never been there in the first place.
So these are partisan political appointees we're talking about.
They're not elected by anyone.
And the suggestion, Jefferson talked about this a lot 200 and some odd years ago, that the founders never foresaw that the court would become the end-all beyond of what, you know, truth, justice, and the American way.
Now, we need them, and they have a job to do and a function in our government.
But when I see things, even in a Supreme Court ruling that says Article 3 requires we do this, well, there's nothing in Article 3 that requires that at all.
We shouldn't see rulings like that.
Even though I agree with the outcome of this particular ruling, some of the statements in it, I mean, we just shouldn't see rulings like that from the high court.
Yeah, and it kind of boils down to, unfortunately, a bit of constitutional illiteracy from a lot of the American people.
And, you know, I thought hard to get kids instructed in the actual text of the Constitution as opposed to what people are saying about the text in the Constitution, like this court ruling.
It's really important that people actually delve into that from a civics perspective.
And you're always good every time I talk to you about getting back into the originalist framework.
What does the text actually say versus what are people saying it says?
And guys, this is not a thick document.
I mean, my good old pocket Constitution, this does not take a lot of effort to go off and read this, read the Declaration of Independence.
You want to find out unifying principles that we have on it.
And I just encourage everybody to do that because I think you're right.
I like the way you framed it.
It highlighted, you know, if $37 trillion in debt doesn't give the American people financial standing, I don't know what does.
So I think that's a great point.
So how can people follow your efforts and actually support your efforts out at the North American Law Center?
The easiest way to get to the website is tnalc.org, which stands for the North AmericanLaw Center.org.
You can type it in either way.
It's just easier to do TNALC.
And we've been here since 2011, I believe, is when that kind of was born out of another organization, you know, patriot organization, as we saw the war for America start to move from the battlefields into the courtrooms and watch the courts be able to grant themselves so much power to even try to overrule a duly elected president or even all of Congress.
And when we saw the battle for this, the future of freedom in this country moving to there, our focus shifted to there.
And we became, we're not a law firm, by the way, and I'm not a lawyer, but I probably could mess the bar.
And most people here could.
And, you know, but we're researchers, really, and teachers, I would say.
Well, that's great.
Well, I appreciate your insights.
And not just today, during today's show and regarding the SCOTUS ruling, but over the past few years as well.
And I feel like because we've talked on many of these matters, I could probably pass a bar exam right now.
Probably so.
Probably so.
So thank you very much for all of your efforts, all your work, and all your service.
It's much appreciated.
And thanks for joining us today on today's broadcast.
All right, everybody, we're going to be going to a short break.
And then when we get back, we're going to go back into some legal matters.
This one's for someone near and dear to our heart, Tina Peters, a former Mesa County, Colorado clerk.
We're going to be joined by Brian Lupo to talk about his article in the Gateway Pundit around the appeals trial for Tina Peters.
We all know what my pillow has done for quality sleep, and we know what quality sleep does for our health.
Introducing AirWaterHealing v300:03:30
Well, now we're taking things a step further, introducing our brand new health and wellness line, formulated by a doctor with over 20 years of experience who only uses the highest industry standards.
I've known and worked with him for over 13 years, and they're made right here in my home state of Minnesota.
We have everything from ashwagandha and apple cider gummies, a liquid joint formula, body and beauty detox kits, liquid complex for heart and brain support, a Coldbuster all-in-one immune formula, VIBE, the best superfood ever, fish oil omega-3 pills, pro and prebiotics gut health formulas, and so much more.
So go to mypillow.com or call the number on your screen.
Use the promo code to get deep discounts on all these products.
Plus, for a limited time, your order ships absolutely free.
When you read one news source, you get one side.
When you read two sources, you get an argument.
Read 40 sources and you get the truth.
LindelReport.com, the only place you ever need to visit for your news from Lindell TV.
Over 40 trusted outlets in one place.
No editorial gatekeepers, no hidden bias.
Just the day's news.
Balanced, unfiltered, ready when you are.
Whether you lean left, right, or straight down the middle, this is where you start your day.
One click, one feed, one truth.
The decision is yours.
LindelReport.com.
The news you need, the balance you deserve.
With everybody talking about making America healthy again, I thought today would be a great day to talk to all my fellow patriots about the importance of making your homes healthy again.
Well, we have proudly partnered with AirWaterhealing.com and their revolutionary whole home air purification system.
The V3 from Airwater Healing does 3,000 square feet of purification.
It eliminates dust, mold, viruses, and odors.
But here's the part I love: they require no filters to ever be changed and virtually no maintenance.
Whether you suffer from asthma, allergies, seasonal bronchitis, or just want to protect your family from the flu or even greater threats, don't wait to get your V3 from AirWaterhealing.com today.
Use code Lindel for 20% off in savings and free shipping.
That's promo code LINDELL at airwaterhealing.com.
Welcome back to the Mike Lindell Show.
My name is Patrick Colbeck, and we've got a very special guest joining us today to talk about the latest developments in Tina Peters' appeal, an attempt to terminate her prison sentence.
And you may recall, you know, Tina Peters was put into prison over a year ago as a result of being convicted on three counts of attempting to influence a public servant.
One count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with an order or requirement for the Secretary of State.
Judicial Malfeasance Case00:11:17
All these charges, from my perspective, watching a trial, knowing a trial, knowing Tina, should never have been brought against her.
And it was a case, I believe, of judicial malfeasance.
And that was the basis of this appeal that we had a trial hearing on last week that I thought Brian Lupo covered brilliantly.
And if you go out to the Gateway Pundit, you can see his article on it with a lot of detail associated with statements that were made.
If you can pop that up for a sec and people can see, it was a great article on it.
I encourage everybody to go out to Gateway Pundit and read it.
And just to kind of frame our discussion, I thought this one clip that was contained in the article is worth highlighting before we bring in Brian to talk about what he's discovered in this trial.
So if you could roll that clip.
Is it your position that a person can still be convicted of a crime with which they were never charged and with which the jury was never instructed, as long as the evidence is sufficient?
Yes, I think that that is what the case law indicates.
That if it's just, in this case, I'll just point out, too, that, you know, I don't have the language of the hypothetical, you know, the statutes that you're citing in your hypothetical, but it was one word, might.
And it was.
Yeah, but that one word distinguishes it from a felony to a misdemeanor.
And he's made an extra sentence, 15 more months in the Department of Corrections that couldn't have been given had it been a misdemeanor conviction.
It clearly affects a substantial right.
And I'll just say, I'm confused as to why the people are continuing to maintain that the proper remedy on this isn't to enter the conviction for the misdemeanor because the indictment used the word might and the jury was instructed on that.
So that's what the verdict is.
I am baffled as to the position that's being taken that we can somehow overlook that and still enter the felony because the evidence that was presented at trial would have supported the felony.
Are you still maintaining that position in front of us here today?
Yes, that is our position.
What case law supports that argument?
I'm sorry.
What case law supports that argument?
I've cited it in my brief.
I don't have it right in front of me, but the case law.
It's the omitted elements case law, right?
But that's just where the element was omitted, but the element that was omitted wasn't in dispute.
Here, the jury was affirmatively misinstructed.
It was instructed on the misdemeanor, and it found her guilty of that misdemeanor beyond a reasonable doubt.
This isn't the omission of an element.
This is a misinstructed jury.
And that is just one of the counts that we're talking about.
I think it points to a greater miscarriage, a gross miscarriage of justice on the part of an activist judge that had an axe of grind with Tina, maybe on his own accord, but also maybe at the behest of somebody else.
But to fill us in on more details and give us more insights as to that effect, It's a pleasure to welcome Brian Lupo.
Brian, you've been a straight shooter on your reporting of events, particularly around election fraud for ever since I've known you, since the beginning of this whole 2020 election debacle here.
You've been somebody that I could go to to get the facts about anything dealing with the election.
And I really appreciate your reporting.
So what do you have to say here about Tina Peters' appeals trial?
Where do you think this is headed?
Well, first, thank you so much for the kind words, Patrick.
You, the same.
I've looked up to you for several years now as we've done interviews over the course of the last four years.
And it's been an honor being in this fight.
And we keep going.
The case with Tina Peters was really shocking because it started out, the appellate hearing, it started out kind of shaky.
They had the supremacy clause argument and whether or not Tina Peters had a duty to investigate beyond just preserve the records, but actually to investigate the election by bringing Conan Hayes into the server room.
And, you know, I think that John Case made a good case for that in doing so.
But the real shocking part came when the senior assistant attorney general, Lisa Michaels, was arguing for the state's case in this.
And the appellate judges really turned the screws on her with this.
And of course, the clip we just saw regarding the official misconduct, there was also the criminal conspiracy, the conspiracy, excuse me, the conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation.
And again, once again, they fell really short.
And, you know, Ash and I covered, Ash Epp and I covered this trial live.
And then we've done several shows on it since then.
And we've always held that same benefit harm theory.
This was Ash's actual argument that they never proved that Tina Peters did it in order to obtain a benefit.
During the trial, the benefit seemed to be the fame that went along with being an election denier, right?
Because that was what they put us out to be election deniers.
But they never got to argue that.
They would never let her argue that.
And so that became something that the judges really hit them on.
And, you know, I think they went as far as calling it the sideshow overcoming the circus.
And again, just like the official misconduct, they tried to give the state the opportunity to kind of backtrack on this and they stood firm.
But I think we all know that Tina Peters, the case against Tina Peters in Colorado was a weaponized case.
It was political persecution.
And they had to do everything and they still have to do everything they can to maintain that narrative, that facade, that Tina Peters somehow is this violent threat to the community.
Well, and that clip, we just focus in on possible reduction of her sentence by 15 months or whatever, from a felony charge down to a misdemeanor.
But I'm hoping, I mean, and to what degree did the judges talk about this in that broader context that said this is a gross miscarriage of justice.
And frankly, the judge himself who ruled as Judge Barrett should have been sanctioned for his behavior in the courtroom.
I mean, he even prohibited exculpatory evidence from being introduced on Tina's behalf around the duty of a clerk.
I mean, if anything deserves a little bit more than a hand slap, that does.
So was there any discussion over punitive actions towards Judge Barrett?
So nothing about discussions towards Judge Barrett just yet.
But in regards to the sentence, they did turn the screws once again on the state regarding the sentencing and asking if what Judge Barrett did in his remarks before sentencing was justified.
And he called her a snake oil salesman, a charlatan, said she lies and continues to lie and she's doing this just for herself.
And when he brings all these things up and says that these are things that he's sentencing her over, but she didn't get the opportunity to make those arguments.
And the judges in the appellate court pointed that out, that the judge invoked all these things like election fraud and her telling lies about peddling lies about election fraud.
They did not allow that testimony to come out.
The Mesa reports were kept out of it.
Clay Perik was not permitted to testify.
Dallas Schroeder was not permitted to testify.
I think Dallas Schroeder, the Elbert County clerk that also made a forensic image, he got up there, said his name.
They had like a 20-minute sidebar, and then he was done.
And so, you know, this was just, you know, a complete defense is what they called it, right?
And saying that Tina Peters was not afforded the opportunity to present a complete defense because all of this was kept out.
But then the judge turns around and uses all of that against her in sentencing and gives her not the harshest sentence, but middle of the road, pretty harsh sentences for these crimes, especially considering 70-year-old woman, gold star mother, nonviolent offender, never been committed of a crime before, not as much as a speeding ticket, I think they said during the trial.
And they throw the book at her nine years over this.
I mean, there's literally child sex offenders in Colorado's system that are getting half of what Tina Peters got.
Well, where do you think this is all headed?
Because, I mean, ultimately, we're hoping that this trial leads to an early release for Tina.
Not just a sentence reduction, but time served.
Get her out there.
And so she can go off and start making the case against this Judge Barrett and against a malicious prosecution by Colorado state officials.
What do you think the prognosis is?
So there's a couple things that I think are really important.
First, John Case made the argument that there's only four minimum security prisons in all of Colorado, and all four of them are men's prisons.
So Tina Peters, as a nonviolent offender, you know, senior citizen and all that, is in a medium security prison with murderers, rapists, violent offenders, and she shouldn't be in there.
So first and foremost, I think there's a federal civil rights case to be made in regard to that incarceration.
The sentencing, you know, they mentioned at the end to the attorney, would you like this re-sentenced?
Would that be a relief for you?
And he said, yes, but I'd like it with a different judge.
So get Barrett out of there.
There could be a mistrial over the official misconduct, excuse me, misreading of the jury instructions.
That could render a mistrial for the whole thing.
And then, of course, the benefit harm theory and the criminal impersonation.
So there's a lot of coals in the fire right now for Tina Peters.
And I think one thing that needs to happen immediately is if the appellate court doesn't do it on its own, there needs to be an emergency motion to get her bond while they deliberate on this case, because that could be weeks or months before they render a decision in that hearing.
And she is unjustly incarcerated right now.
There's no question about that at this point.
Amen to that.
I totally agree.
You know, and if it is ruled a mistrial, does that mean she gets out right away?
And then they can't try her again under double jeopardy.
So that would be a good ruling.
Hopefully that's what's going on here.
But frankly, time is of the essence.
She shouldn't have spent one day in jail, much less over a year now, heading towards nine years.
We got to get her out of there.
And, well, anyway, I just appreciate you and Ash following this up on Badlands Media.
You guys have been great at covering the story.
You're my go-to source for what is going on on not just this topic, but on other topics as well.
You do your homework, you get the evidence, and it's really appreciated.
Abusing America's Welcome00:14:12
I know when you say something, I can lean on it as something that's solid and true and appreciate all your work on it.
I know you got something else you got to get to right away here, but what's the best way people can go off and follow you and Ash's work?
You can follow me on X at CanCon Actual.
I write for the Gateway Pundit under Brian Lupo and rumble.com/slash CanCon for my own channel.
And then, of course, Badlands Media on Rumble as well.
Excellent.
Well, thank you very much.
Keep up the good work and let's get those prayers out there for Tina to get a quick release.
I know my wife and I have been praying for her every single night, and hopefully, justice will finally be done here.
So, thank you for that update.
Really appreciate it.
And let's hope that something good for Tina is on its way very quickly.
Amen.
God bless you guys, and God bless Tina Peters.
Hey, thank you very much, Brian.
All right, everybody.
Well, as a lot of people who've been following what's going on in our country for the last few years understand probably better than most folks in America, is that when the president, President Trump, when he says something, he means it.
He follows through on it.
And so that's why I and many others have taken to making sure that we follow what President Trump is talking about on his true social account.
I mean, we've all seen the gaggles on Air Force One.
We've all seen the media clips on various stations that are out there.
That's all well and good.
But when the president really wants to shape the battlefield and discuss messaging about what is coming down the pipe, I found that the best way to understand what's going on with the president is to view his true social account.
And it was just a couple weeks ago that he put out a barrage of election fraud evidence truths, about over 12 of them within a 24-hour period.
And it was kind of like a best-off clip where they're going back in time, reminding everybody of all the stories around election fraud.
That now all the evidence is coming out validating all the assertions that were made five years ago regarding election fraud.
So we're getting progress.
And I think the president was with those posts was highlighting that we're getting close to doing something to help secure our elections coming up and reveal that all these people like Tina Peters, like Mike Lindell and others, like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell have all been unjustly persecuted for their assertions around the integrity of the 2020 election.
So let's take a peek at what the president is sending out a truth post on lately.
And I think one of the most recent ones he put out was on how the Somali environment out in Minnesota, they're getting additional evidence in the fact that this fraud scheme goes well beyond the $19 billion in fraud that they're stealing from the American people, but it ties into an election fraud scheme as well.
And he points to a Justin use case talking specifically about that.
And this is extremely important because at the core of this illegal immigration debate is the idea that Democrats in particular are, because they can't apparently get support from voters for the policies that they're pushing, they're importing voters to do the work that regular Americans won't do for them, which is pull the Democrat lever in these elections.
So they've actually targeted immigration to prop up candidates like Representative Ilhan Omar, who gets a significant number of her votes from the Somali community.
And what we're seeing is that President Trump, perhaps with this True Social Post, is signaling the fact that this whole investigation into The financial fraud and money laundering in the Somali community in Minnesota is likely tied to significant election fraud as well.
And I think what the president is signaling here is that what's happening in Minnesota is not just isolated in Minnesota.
It's not just isolated in Minneapolis.
I think it's going to point to a broader case for fraud schemes like this occurring in other states, including my home state of Michigan.
And one of the things I really wanted to point out in context of this fraud, in context of money laundering, but in context of how, frankly, immigrants have come in and actually abused the welcoming arms of the United States, saying, guys, we don't want to see anybody suffer.
And if you're willing to come into the United States, accept American values and pursue American values, then we would love to have you here.
But unfortunately, that's not what's happening here.
And they're using old world fraud mechanisms here to subvert our new world financial systems.
And one of the ways that they do this is with a banking system that's kind of off-books.
And it's based in the Muslim community.
It's called Hawalas.
And it's essentially a system of trust, unwritten trust.
And I asked one of my AI tools to go off and put together a nice little diagram of what is the difference between one of these hawalas and how can it be used by criminal enterprises in a way that avoids detection.
And how does that compare with a traditional banking system?
And here's just a quick little comparison that kind of indicates why organized crime may want to use the hawala system as opposed to the formal banking system.
I mean, number one, they don't have to worry about all this government oversight.
It's unlicensed.
It's an off-book settlement where there's private ledgers that are not being subject to discovery.
They use code, kind of like the old El Capone accountant that used to write all this transaction.
He had two sets of books, one for the public, one for private.
And the private one was written in code.
It's got minimal records, so it's really just an informal face-to-face transaction that happens a relationship to relationship.
And it's deliberately designed so that nobody can peer into it.
There's no transparency around it.
In contrast with that, our banking system is highly regulated.
You can follow digital footprints through the clearing networks and financial transactions, online transactions.
You've got a responsibility for these banks to maintain a full audit trail.
And the banks also have various legal recourses and fraud mitigation activities and agents that are designed to prevent fraud going forward.
So one of these mechanisms was designed specifically to help enable this off-books fraud, if you will.
This is a case where there's not a shared set of values between folks that we brought into the country to become American.
Instead, what they did is they brought their world that was crumbling around them into our world.
And now that we're pushing back saying we need to start enforcing the laws that we have in our world, that's where all this tension, all this divide is coming in.
So I just wanted to point that out is that when you hear the term hawala, that's essentially what we're talking about.
It's an off-books financial system that makes it more difficult, frankly, to identify the source of the fraud.
But Scott Besant, the director of the United States Treasury under President Trump, he's actively engaged in still pulling on those threads to find out what's going on.
And something else, just to connect all the dots here and show why President Trump is focused in on these financial matters and drilling into them, because I think he started cutting off all these various fraud mechanisms that fuel the election fraud.
Matter of fact, just recently in Michigan, the progressives that were behind this ranked choice voting push to get it in our Constitution said that they're going to sit this next election cycle out.
Most likely it's because they didn't have sufficient funds.
So it's having an effect and they're concentrating their funds on other areas here.
So this financial bone, this financial money laundering bone is connected to the election fraud bone, which gets into a discussion of how immigration ties all these fraud mechanisms together.
And President Trump put out another truth recommending a book by Peter Schweitzer called The Invisible Coup.
So he's highlighting how our government is being subverted through immigration policy pushed by folks like George Soros and the Open Society Foundation and people that, frankly, want to destroy America from within.
And they're using immigration to do that.
So I think when you look at those two truths that the president put out recently, it's highlighting the fact that, first of all, it's underscoring why he said build the wall in the first place.
And then it highlights why he's ramping up ICE efforts to make sure that the folks who got past the lack of border security under the Biden administration are now being shown the door because there's a lot of evidence that they came in not to not to build up America, but actually tear it down.
And so we're seeing that in the president's messaging.
So I'm just going to wrap up today's show here.
Hopefully it was informative.
You got a lot of good information, but I want to address something that we talked about at the beginning of the show with Alison Steinberg.
And it deals with this rampant division that we're having in the country right now.
And just remind everybody, we're called the United States of America.
And we're called the United States not because of a shared geography, but because we all share a certain set of ideals, a certain set of values and beliefs that make us uniquely American.
And it's important for us to kind of get a reminder of what those core values actually are.
And that's why when JB was on, I was saying, guys, get out, read your Declaration of Independence, read your Constitution.
They're not long documents.
And, you know, at an earlier show, I put out a video clip that I want to show again today that hearkens to the fact that our founders knew we were going to lose our way.
They were concerned about it.
If you read the Bible, you understand the same thing happened there.
And God gave us some commands to go up and help us, put up reminders so that we'd never lose our way again.
Well, our founders in America did the same thing.
And I think it's very important for us to go back into that.
So I truly believe we've kind of lost an appreciation for the values that have made America great.
This is partially due to the fact that in our education system, they're redefining our education curriculum to show all these new kids, these kids that are being brought up in America, that America is inherently evil.
You can see it with the Howard Zinn Project and affiliated pushes to destroy everything that makes America exceptional.
And then you can also see it with the immigration policy, as the president was alluding to in his truth.
So guys, it's really important that we get an appreciation for what these core values are.
So I just want to leave everybody with the fact that our founders did leave us with a guide back to the secret sauce.
And it was highlighted in the documentary called Monumental featuring Kirk Cameron.
And I'm just going to close today's show with a little reminder of what makes America truly great.
I wish they had left us some kind of a training manual, some kind of a secret sauce recipe card that we could pick up and go, all right, here's what it is, here's what we do.
What do we do?
How do we get back to that?
You know, when the children of Israel going into the promised land, they crossed the Jordan River and God stood it on end and they walked across.
And before the waters stopped parting, God told them to take 12 stones from the bottom of the river and put it up on the top of Mount Gilgal and make a monument.
So that when your children ask, what are these stones, you'll be able to tell them this is where God parted the sea.
And that's what the pilgrims left us.
They left us a monument that not only gives tribute to what was accomplished here, but it gives us a specific strategy, a breakout of a blueprint of if we would ever forget what made America great, what made us free, we can go back and follow that strategy and it's right up on a hill a half mile from here.
Right here?
Right here.
It's the largest granite monument in America and it's hidden on a hilltop overlooking Plymouth in a residential neighborhood.
I've never heard of this.
Hardly anybody in America knows about it and yet the people of America put this together over a 70-year period, paid for by the Congress, paid for by the state legislature in Massachusetts as a strategy laid out.
You call it the Matrix of Liberty that was given to us by the forefathers, by the pilgrims.
What built America?
This is it.
And if we want to try something else, yeah, people can try other things.
But in the history of the world, the one strategy that has brought more liberty, more prosperity, and more joy than any other is this strategy.