All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2020 - Praying Medic
01:19:13
136V AG Barr, John Durham and the Election

My thoughts on AG Barr, John Durham and President Trump's path to victory. Join CloutHub: https://www.getclouthub.com/prayingmedic

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I want stacks!
I want proof!
Stacks of notes!
What is going on, Janine?
Are we live already?
Hey, honey.
We're live.
We're live.
Okay, here I am yelling about my news.
Joe Hiz, P. Henry, Jodi.
What's going on, everybody?
Hello, everybody.
Just when you thought I was gone forever, here I am.
Well, it's weird because when I told people I was gonna stop doing daily broadcasts, a whole bunch of people thought I'm never gonna do broadcasts again.
I'm like, that's not what I said.
Am I the chat moderator?
You can be the chat moderator if you want.
By the way, my beautiful wife is on the other side of the camera.
I'm not on camera.
Hey, you know what?
Remember when I said that she took 20 pages of notes the other day?
That's on three different hearings and a press conference.
Because there's different hearings and conferences.
This 20 pages, that's from yesterday's Phoenix hearing.
We've got Pennsylvania, Phoenix, Michigan, and the press conference.
Hey everybody, what's going on?
All right.
Sprawlord, hey what's going on?
Jason Balzon.
All right.
Oh my gosh, Gina Haspel for the love of Pete.
You know what I wanted to do?
I wanted to put out on Twitter a bullet list of all the things I'm not focused on.
That's good, yeah.
Number one, Gina Haspel.
Number two, the servers in Frankfurt.
Number three, Julian Assange.
Anyway.
Long list of stuff that I'm not focused on.
And look, if you want to know my take on it, I'll give you my take.
All these reports from YouTubers about the servers in Germany and all that, even though, yes, Sidney Powell has been tweeting this stuff out, I thought it was very telling that when General Flynn was asked point blank about the servers in Germany and the raid and all that stuff, he was like, nope, not saying anything about it.
It's not a talking thing.
So he skipped right over that.
I think, wisely, because there's no way to confirm any of that right now.
There just isn't.
And I don't, personally, I don't dabble in speculation.
If, you know, one of the things you learn on the boards, on 8chan, 8kun, if you don't have sauce, get your story out of here.
I just don't.
I don't really dabble in internet rumors and all these theories and speculation.
I just, I want to report to people what I can verify.
If I can verify this fact, then I'll report on it.
If I can't verify this fact, I'm not interested.
And that whole thing with the servers in Germany, Gina Haspel, the operation, and people getting shot, and all the other stuff, there's no way to verify any of that.
And it can't be verified, therefore, I'm not going to talk about it.
It's a distraction.
The bar story seems like a distraction.
And it's selling a lot of ads.
We're not talking about the boot either, no.
We're not talking about the boot.
Let's focus on the most important news.
That's on my bullet list, things I'm not talking about.
Joe Biden's boot, not talking about it.
Why?
Because it doesn't matter.
How are you going to prove that Joe Biden has or doesn't have a fractured ankle?
You're not going to prove it.
There's no sauce.
Unless you personally take Joe into the x-ray suite, take the x-ray, develop the film, and then look at it and you know how to read x-rays, you're not going to be able to prove whether he has a fractured foot or how it happened.
It's just there's no way to prove it.
So, it's speculation.
And if people want to have fun talking about it, speculating, I don't care.
Have fun with it.
Just keep it off my timeline because it's speculation.
Anyway.
And the memes are cool.
Thank you, Julian's Rum.
They want to know what are you talking about then.
And here's something else I'm not talking about.
I ain't talking about bar.
This is not the time to be talking about, where's Barr?
Where's the DOJ?
How come nobody's getting prosecuted?
I want to see Perk walks!
Uh-oh!
Sorry.
Look.
The Barr angle, it's a story from the AP.
Let's clear this up.
It's a story from the AP.
Look, did you hear audio?
Kevin Quirk.
Did you hear audio?
Did you see video?
Do you even know that this interview happened, number one?
And do we know what Barr said, number two?
I didn't hear the audio and I didn't see video.
And that means it's a sauceless report from AP.
Now it may be true.
Maybe that was what the interview was all about.
Maybe he said that.
I don't know.
I didn't hear the audio and video.
And I know fake news is gonna fake.
They put out more damn fake stories every day.
So you don't really know if you're, when you're listening to or reading, you know, CNN, MSNBC, AP, Reuters.
You don't really know.
What's missing is a context.
And especially, you should especially be Discerning and maybe a little bit cautious because it involves the election.
You know mainstream media is pushing this narrative that Joe Biden is going to be our next president.
They want us to accept that narrative.
And if they can get MAGA to believe that Barr says there's no evidence of any kind of widespread fraud that would change the election results, maybe it's A contrived story to get us faked out to accept Joe Biden as our next president.
Maybe.
I don't know.
And the DOJ spokesperson came out and said that's not true.
I was going to mention that.
Okay, go for that.
So one of the things you should always remember about DOJ is that what is the DOJ's official policy about ongoing investigations?
We do not comment.
On ongoing investigations.
All right, so for Barr to say anything about an investigation into election interference or election fraud, to me that is really out of character.
That's really suspect.
We know for a fact that there's an FBI investigation going on into election fraud.
We know that there are two or three because Right after the election, I posted it on Twitter, there were several confirmations about different field offices that were receiving reports of election fraud, election interference.
And we know, for a fact, that Kevin, no, not Kevin, what's his name?
The guy that's testifying at the Michigan, last name starts with a B. Brainerd.
Matt.
Matt Brainerd.
We know for a fact that Matt Brainerd is cooperating with the Los Angeles field office on election fraud investigations.
So we know there's election fraud investigation going on in California.
Now, we also have Kevin Cork from Fox News who tweeted this out.
I'm just going to read his tweet.
Department of Justice spokesperson, in quotes, some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and has announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election.
That is not what the AP reported and is not what the Attorney General states.
And number two, the department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.
If you think, after watching the hearings for the last three days in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Michigan, that the DOJ is going to say, there is no election fraud, you have got to have your head examined.
There is no way the DOJ is not investigating that stuff.
I guarantee you there is a number of U.S.
attorneys.
In fact, the gentleman with Amistad Project, honey, what's his name?
I'm getting really bad with all these names now.
Phil Kline?
Phil Kline.
In the latest press conference from Arlington.
Thank you.
Maybe I need more sleep.
We're just full of information that we can't even contain.
I know.
My brain is just swelling from all the damn information.
I'm trying to keep all of them.
In the Arlington press conference this afternoon, Phil said he's the head of the Amistad Project.
They have reached out to several U.S.
Attorney's offices because they have a lot of information that is credible with affidavits and sworn testimonies of some massive election fraud.
And they're reaching out to U.S.
Attorney's offices.
So we know for a fact the DOJ is investigating all this election fraud.
And whatever AP is saying, I'm not buying it.
I'm not worried about it.
I'm not worried about it.
Because This is not the justice phase of the operation.
This is the public information phase.
We're trying to wake up normies.
We're waking up normies.
We're producing and propagating on social media evidence of criminality.
That is what this particular phase is all about.
We, digital soldiers, our job right now on social media is to take evidence of election fraud, of every other kind of fraud, and make it available on social media.
Share it with our friends, share it with our families, and we're waking the public up.
It's a great awakening.
That's the phase we're in.
We're not in the justice phase, which means we're not going to get indictments, we're not going to see perp walks, we're not going to see arrests.
There are going to be investigations going on that we're not going to have any information on.
We have no information on Durham, right?
And we did find out, interestingly, on the same day that Barr supposedly said there's no foresight of any kind of mass election fraud that would overturn the election results, Barr also announced that Durham is a special prosecutor, a la Robert Mueller.
So, In this, and on the same day, we now know that John Durham has the same special prosecutor purview that Robert Mueller had.
And contrary to what the mainstream media reported, Durham's scope is able to broaden out and cover any crimes that he uncovers in the midst of his investigation.
So even if the Clinton Foundation, even if the McCain Foundation, even if the Pelosi Foundation was not part of the original scope of his investigation, he can investigate them.
Because that's what a special counsel does.
Anytime a special counsel investigates that type of criminality, they have perfect right to investigate or assign to other U.S.
Attorney's Offices.
Crimes that they uncover during their investigation.
And we don't really know what's going on with Durham right now.
And that's a good thing.
You don't want the DOJ leaking information about their investigations.
We know that at least some aspects of the Clinton Foundation investigation have come under Durham's investigation.
Huber sort of handed some of that off to Durham.
And we're not going to get information on it.
I don't think we're going to get information on any of that until after the inauguration.
That's just my personal belief.
I could be wrong.
Durham might drop some indictments tomorrow.
I don't know.
Somebody says Durham was assigned special counsel in October.
Back in October 19th.
Only announced after election as to not interfere.
Correct.
So, Durham was assigned.
His scope was changed in October.
I think it was October 19th.
It wasn't announced until after the election because, well, the media would have flipped.
Right, and this was at the time when the press was saying, oh, we're hearing that Durham's actually backing off and we're not going to, he's not going to pursue anything and he's afraid of this and that.
And now we find out that he's got the same scope as Mueller, right?
So Durham's, that means he has access to more, more staff, more people.
And it was announced a while ago.
It was made effective in October, we just announced now.
All right.
So, like I said, I could be wrong.
Q's last post was Durham.
Isn't that interesting?
Q posts just a single word, Durham.
And we find out today, what is it, like 18 days later, that Durham was made a special prosecutor.
Who knew?
Coincidence?
All right.
I could be wrong, but I don't think we're going to see any action on any of that until after the inauguration.
So, what happens between now and the inauguration?
I'm glad you asked.
All right, well tomorrow it looks like we have another hearing in Michigan.
And look, we don't know anything about Barr.
I mean, I think there's a lot of speculation going out on social media.
Everyone has their opinion.
Very few people have facts.
I prefer to hold my opinion until I have information, because then it becomes an informed opinion.
All these people on Twitter who are talking trash about Barr, they have no information.
They have zero information on which to base their decision other than, oh, he hasn't arrested anybody yet.
Well, alright, well, yet.
How much time does he get?
Barr was one of the most vocal people, prior to the election, hollering about the potential for fraud through mail-in balloting.
And he was very, very vocal about it.
For Barr to be that vocal about election fraud potential, prior to the election, through mail-in balloting, to say after the election, oh, the mail-in balloting didn't cause any problems, that just doesn't wash with me.
I think we're going to see prosecutions regarding election fraud.
And I think it's way too early to be judging Barr.
I know there are people who, they hate Barr.
Same people probably hate Pence and don't trust him.
And a good subsection of that set still think Trump is working for the deep state.
I don't know.
It's a lot of speculation and theories and very little substance, so I'm not worried about it.
I have no reason not to trust Barr at this point.
Now, I'll say this.
If we get to March or April of next year and no one's been indicted and there's been no arrests and nothing's happening, I would start to get concerned.
And look, here's the bottom line.
If Barr is not able to drop the hammer on the deep state, Trump will fire him and hire somebody who will.
That's why I'm not worried about it.
If Barr ends up not being able to pull the trigger, he's out of there and Trump's going to hire somebody who will.
It's that simple.
Trump is not going to let the deep state get the best of him and it can happen.
So I'm not worried about it.
Not worried about it.
That's why I sleep at night.
All right.
So what happens between now and the inauguration?
That's... what do we got here?
Oh gosh.
We got a little over a month.
A month and a half.
So inauguration is January 20th.
So about six weeks.
Right.
Tomorrow, supposedly, there's going to be a hearing in Michigan.
Lots of popcorn.
Correct.
Let's talk about the hearings that already happened.
Well, the hearings that already happened.
Pennsylvania was a freaking fantastic hearing.
Pennsylvania was an awesome hearing.
That hearing on election fraud was great.
If you haven't had a chance to listen to it, you should listen to it.
Denise and I have been following all the hearings every day.
Like, we get up in the morning, make coffee, turn on the hearing, and we're making notes, and I'm making videos, and I'm posting on Twitter, and that's all I'm doing right now.
Mastriano.
I like that guy.
Colonel Mastriano came out, and he was a badass in the Pennsylvania hearing.
We found out there are a couple of people in Pennsylvania who have some cojones.
And that's my home state, so I got all my family there.
It's her home state.
And it's important to me.
She was very happy to see Pennsylvania step up and take a stand for the Constitution and the Republic and do something that is very likely to be unpopular with certain people.
And then the Arizona hearing.
We watched the Arizona hearing.
I was blown away.
Our legislators asked the best questions.
They were curious.
They were interested.
They wanted to get to the bottom of it.
And it showed.
I was a little surprised at how interested the Arizona representatives and senators were.
I wasn't sure that they were on board with Trump and this whole thing.
They went out of their way to set this thing up, to put it at the hotel, to make it happen.
And then that guy Fincham.
Fincham.
What a name, right?
Mark Fincham.
He just blew it away at the very end with his closing statements.
He really, and actually several of the guys there, the former military guys, very patriotic, had some really good closing statements, very inspiring messages, and we got a lot of good information out of the Phoenix hearing.
Information that is going out into the public through social media.
People are getting to see For themselves, from eyewitness testimony, the kind of corruption that has snuck its way into our elections.
And then we had the Michigan hearing today, which was, I was not impressed with the Michigan senators.
Not at all.
Oh my gosh.
They were, they did not seem terribly interested in really digging into the details of the corruption.
They would listen to people, but it was a little bit odd that they only gave them three minutes.
However, the hearing did go like 10 hours.
Seriously, I would be embarrassed if they were my legislators.
I would be embarrassed.
It was very poor.
They asked questions.
Not my senators.
It seemed like only because they should ask a question.
Okay.
The witnesses were great.
They were cutting people off at the three minute mark, making it very strict.
They don't want to help the people, as far as I can tell.
that's representative of the Michigan legislature.
I'm not counting on those people to have Trump's back. - They don't want to help the people, as far as I can tell, so far. - Now, there's supposed to be a hearing tomorrow, and I wonder if that one's gonna be with the House and not the Senate.
I don't know.
Rudy's gonna be at the hearing tomorrow.
Matt Brainerd is going to be at the hearing tomorrow.
I'm not sure where it's going to be, but there is supposedly another hearing tomorrow in Michigan.
And maybe this will be the House and not the Senate.
Maybe the House, maybe they're more cool.
And maybe they're patriotic.
I wasn't real impressed with But the people in the chat are saying they did scoop up a lot of evidence, and that's true.
Republicans, there was one Democrat.
But the people in the chat are saying they did scoop up a lot of evidence.
And that's true.
Again, the witnesses were great.
The witnesses provided a ton of information.
And all the testimony of GOP challengers being thrown out, agitators in there, causing them to get thrown out of the rooms.
Also having all those people testifying almost identical statements about those 4am, 4.30 drops of trucks coming in, dropping off ballots, taking them in.
The place has been asleep for three hours.
No one's been doing anything.
There's no tabulating, no counting.
All of a sudden a truck rolls up, 80 friggin boxes of ballots show up, and one person after another, after another, after another, told the same story about him.
It was very convincing.
And then we hear from, in Arlington, about the Postal Service sending truck, at least one truck, possibly more, Shipping ballots around.
Probably to counting centers to be counted like that in the middle of the night.
And we know that there were more than one area that had a middle-of-the-night ballot drop.
A lot of these places had middle-of-the-night ballot drops.
My question about that truck load that came from New York.
Somebody said that's Long Island.
New York, across New Jersey.
Did he actually get to drive the load to Lancaster?
Where was it that he was held up?
That's a Trump area.
Is it Bethany?
Beth Page.
Beth Page, maybe?
New York.
Yeah.
The truck driver drove the load.
Beth Page.
Did he actually get to drive the load to Lancaster?
Where was it that he was held up?
That's the question I'm wondering about.
Was it up there in New York or not?
That part wasn't clear.
He got to his destination in Pennsylvania.
That's when the 6-hour thing happened.
If you get a chance to listen to that hearing... It was good.
It was very unusual circumstances that this truck driver picked up a load of ballots at a postal facility that shouldn't have had regular mail coming to it.
It was like a transit center where they just Yeah, it wouldn't have been regular personal mail coming in like that.
So it's interesting and and the lawyer Phil That testimony is very, very good.
Mary Grace, our friend, she livestreamed it, and it's on my Twitter timeline if you need to catch the video.
She started at the beginning and went all the way to the end.
It's actually broken into two sections, but it's there.
We should give people a call to action, like what they can share, how they should share it.
Because the most important thing is getting the information of fraud out to the public.
I'm doing these threads on the public hearings because I think that is the most important thing we can be doing right now.
Even more important than trying to figure out if Gina Haspel got killed.
Right.
Raiding the servers.
More important than whether Obama got arrested or not.
Putting out information about election fraud might be a little more important right now.
Yeah, waking up the public.
I think the most effective thing we can do right now is to be tweeting out information about these lawsuits, about the election fraud hearings.
I mean, the lawsuits themselves have a limited effect on the public.
The information about corruption in the elections, the videos, the testimonies, I think it's very powerful for normies, for people who don't know what's going on.
I think that's the most important thing any of us can be doing right now.
And that's why I'm putting all this information out there.
So it's all on Twitter, everything you're putting out.
Yeah, it's all on Twitter.
My Twitter timeline, I'm just posting all the... I did a thread today where I literally summarized the testimony of every witness who testified.
I just did this long thread.
This person, this was their job, this is what they said, this is what they witnessed.
Next person, next person, next person, next person.
I did that until the Arlington, Virginia hearing, or the presser, and then I jumped off.
The I will say this, if you did not listen to if you did not listen to the testimony of Dr. Tarver, her testimony is flat out freaking amazing.
Oh my gosh.
Dr. Tarver Is this woman who worked for the Secretary of State's office for 29 years, worked under seven different Secretaries of State, and her last job was working for it.
She was a liaison for Election Integrity.
And her testimony, oh my gosh!
She dug into the nitty-gritty of how they're doing all this election fraud.
They've been doing it for years.
It's accepted.
It's normal.
It's become a cultural thing.
And she said, look, it's just because of either ignorance or corruption or both.
And there is no accountability and the powers that be don't want there to be any accountability.
So Dr. Tarver's testimony is is just amazing.
It's 37 minutes.
The video's on my Twitter page.
For my money, that was the best testimony of all three hearings.
If you're not on Twitter, get on Twitter.
If you're not on Twitter, get an account.
We're not able to be on Facebook anymore, so Dave can't be putting it on Facebook.
I'm not on YouTube.
I'm not on Facebook.
Right now I'm on Twitter.
That's where I'm at.
Make an account on Twitter so you can share.
Right.
So, uh, let's see.
Can I move on yet to what happens between now and the inauguration?
Yes.
Sorry.
I've been chomping at the bit.
I want to talk about what happens between now and the inauguration.
I'm on Parler.
I don't post on it a whole lot.
I'm mostly active on Twitter.
There's a reason for that.
There's several reasons why I'm mostly active on Twitter.
And I'm not going to tell you why.
I just, I have reasons.
Right, so what happens next?
Well tomorrow, we believe, there's a hearing in Michigan and it's not it's going to be a different type of hearing because today in the Senate, Michigan Senate, this is an officially sanctioned Senate hearing.
They were keeping minutes and you had to have first-hand testimony and they would not let you Present information if you didn't have first-hand testimony.
No second-hand testimony allowed, even though a couple of people snuck in and they did have second-hand testimony.
I thought they were gonna get tossed out, but they let him talk for their three minutes and then they let him leave.
Alright.
Uh...
The Dominion Worker was also very good.
That Dominion contractor, her testimony, I think it totally hit these guys by surprise.
They're like, you do what?
You work for who?
What did you see?
They were not expecting that, and that's why these hearings are so good.
I mean, you have to sit through three or four hours of boring testimony, and then you have one person who drops a bombshell, and you're like, wait a minute, wait a minute, did we get that on video?
I hope we got that on video.
Oh my gosh.
Alright, so tomorrow there's gonna be a hearing.
Now, I'm going to I'm going to explain to you the ways in which Trump can still win the election.
Because, contrary to what the mainstream media has told you, the election is not over.
Trump still has a lot of ways in which he can win this election.
And if you want to understand this picture, you have to Forget a lot of what you think you already know.
So, it's not going to rest only on the courts.
A lot of people actually think this is going to come down to the Supreme Court and that's it.
Nothing else is going to be involved.
Well, I got news for you.
That is not true.
That is not true.
It may come down to a Supreme Court decision or it may not.
There are many different ways this pie can be sliced.
A lot of different ways.
And I'll say this.
The further along the process that this election goes, the more it favors Trump.
The further it goes down the process, the more it favors Trump.
So if the election would have been called and if the president would have been inaugurated based on what the mainstream media said the day after the election.
They would already be getting ready to...
Trump would be done and Biden would be our president.
But the mainstream media has no say in this whatsoever.
Actually, the popular vote has very little say in this at all.
The popular vote...
and I'm just going to call it the popular vote.
Whether you think... Hey, thanks, Pepper.
I call it the fraudulent popular vote.
If you want to call it the fraudulent popular vote, that may help.
Biden has the fraudulent popular vote.
Biden won the fraudulent popular vote.
Right.
So the popular vote is normally Normally used by each state when they are choosing electors to go to the Electoral College to vote on December 12th.
Alright, so December 12th is a day we need to put on a little calendar.
That's when the Electoral College votes.
And normally the states will choose electors.
In a lot of states the electors are chosen by the popular vote.
You vote in Arizona on our ballots.
In addition to the candidates, they had the names of electors on the ballot, which tells you that you're not actually voting for the candidate, you're voting for the electors who are going to vote for that candidate in the Electoral College.
Okay, so between now and then, we have a December 8th, which is coming.
December 8th is the Safe Harbor Day.
And the Safe Harbor Day, December 8th, is the day in which, if there is any legal action in the courts that is going to affect state elections, those cases need to be resolved if they're going to have any impact on the election.
People are confused.
You say 4th, they're saying 14th.
They're two different dates, right?
I'm talking about the 8th.
Oh, the 8th, sorry.
December 8th.
And then the 14th is another date.
December 8th is a safe harbor day.
And the only reason why it's important is if an election is being contested in court, specifically in a state court, or it's a state election, that case has to be resolved by December 8th or it does not impact this election.
Alright, so let me say that in a different way.
Any litigation that is currently going on has the potential to affect the outcome of an election That was taken on the election on November 3rd.
But, with a couple of exceptions, Supreme Court being one of them.
With a couple of exceptions, if any of those cases are going to impact an election right now, the court cases need to be resolved and the decisions need to be rendered before December 8th.
That's a safe harbor day.
And after that point, the cases can continue to be litigated, but they're not going to affect the outcome of the election.
Now, I said there are some exceptions to that.
And one of the exceptions is a Supreme Court case.
And the reason why December 8th is a safe harbor day is because legislatures start choosing their electors on December 8th.
And it is the electors who go to the Electoral College to vote for the president.
Starts December 8th.
So on December 8th,
States need to know whether they're going to have a vote certified if there's a there's and and look let's talk about vote certification all right a lot of people mistakenly think that when a state certifies its vote that's it it's over that is not it is not over when a state certifies its vote that opens the door for legal challenges to the certification
And until a state certifies its vote, the Trump campaign can't file a suit to contest the certification.
So it's just part of the process.
States have to certify their votes so that they can seat electors that go to the Electoral College.
There's a process.
One thing has to go to follow with another.
So now that states are certifying their votes, that allows It allows citizens and it allows Trump campaign to file legal challenges to the state certification.
Yesterday we had the hearing in Phoenix and on the same day Doug Ducey certified Arizona's vote.
Now Trump people can file a challenge to the certification.
There is a legal process that has to be worked out here.
Some of it is done at the state court level, some is done at federal court, some is done at the Supreme Court.
Some of it is probably going to be done at the State Board of Elections at that level.
All right, so there are currently multiple lawsuits that have been filed in Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.
Some of them will likely be settled at the federal court level, some will be settled at the state supreme court level, and some will be settled probably at the U.S.
supreme court level.
And there's a lot of balls in the air right now.
And if you think this is a lot of balls in the air, it's going to get way worse.
And that is why I'm encouraging you to keep your freaking powder dry.
Because there are many, many Players involved in a situation who can impact the outcome of the election.
So, now that states are certifying their votes, okay, it's irrelevant whether you think that they're... if you think that they're certifying a fraudulent vote, that's not the point.
That can be taken up later.
If it can be proven, that a governor or a secretary of state certified a fraudulent vote knowingly, knowingly, well then that's a criminal matter.
And that's for the DOJ to take up and that will happen months from now.
Not anything to worry about right now.
Right now, we need to concern ourselves with states are certifying their elections because they have to choose electors.
Next Tuesday is the 8th and that is when states choose electors to go to electoral college.
Now, what Rudy Giuliani and Janet Ellis are trying to do, representing Team Trump, is they are presenting evidence and testimony in these hearings to convince state legislatures to convince them that the popular vote was corrupt, that there was fraud, that the popular vote can't be trusted.
And if the popular vote can't be trusted, you shouldn't choose your electors based on the popular vote.
And they don't have to.
So, what they're doing is they're providing evidence that the state legislatures can use to justify not honoring the popular vote in their state.
Now, if you're a lefty, I'm sorry, you're not going to like this.
You're going to argue with me But the popular vote is the one that decides the electors, well, you can't steal the vote from us.
Well, actually, the popular vote does not actually determine the electors for the Electoral College.
Historically, traditionally, and typically, When a state chooses electors, those electors are chosen according to the popular vote in most situations.
This year, it's different.
And it's different because there is reason to believe that there was fraud.
And that doesn't create a new rule, but it does bring into play Article 2 of the Constitution, which is not normally a big issue.
This year, Article 2 is a huge issue.
So read Article 2 of the Constitution.
Read Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.
And it states the conditions and the limitations that are in place when a state legislator chooses electors.
And it's very simple.
It just states that state legislatures have the right and the responsibility to choose electors.
They can't choose somebody who is currently in an elected office.
And that's about it.
It doesn't say they have to choose electors according to the popular vote.
It doesn't say they have to choose electors according to what the vote was certified in the state.
There are no restrictions or limitations in the Constitution.
On how electors are to be chosen, other than it can't be somebody in elected office.
That's it.
I mean some of them, some of these legislators are going to be afraid.
Right.
So let me just explain a couple of things.
There are a lot of state laws on the books that restrict how legislatures can choose electors.
And there are many state laws.
Some states have passed laws that require electors to be chosen according to the popular vote.
Some have state laws where electors are bound by the popular vote.
Right?
There's a lot of different state laws out there.
They're not universal.
Every state is free to pass their own Here's the problem.
Those are state laws.
They do not supersede the Constitution.
The Constitution is the law of the land.
Even federal law doesn't supersede the Constitution.
If a federal law is passed and it's in conflict with the Constitution, when a challenge goes to the Supreme Court, the judge is going to look at the Constitution and go, that's unconstitutional, we're going to overrule that, and you might want to just get rid of that law.
Constitution is the law of the land.
So, and actually this was argued by Chief Justice Rehnquist in Bush vs. Gore.
Rehnquist argued that even though a state legislature might grant, temporarily grant, to the citizens their right to have the popular vote and their right to choose electors, the state legislature is free to take back that responsibility and choose electors however they see fit.
He said that this Article 2 clearly gives State legislatures absolute freedom to choose electors however they want.
And no state law restricts legislatures from choosing electors.
State law does not restrict or restrain the way in which legislatures choose electors to vote in the Electoral College.
So they're completely free.
Now what Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis have been arguing this whole week, they've been trying to get State legislators to understand that you're not bound by state law.
You're not bound by the popular vote.
And this is going to be hard in Pennsylvania because there's a whole lot of people in Pennsylvania who think that state law says they have to do it this way or they have to follow these procedures or that's not how it works.
We have all these little... it doesn't matter.
State laws, traditions, whatever, they don't matter.
But the only thing that matters is the Constitution.
Because if any of this stuff is appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is going to read Article 2 of the Constitution and go, well, you can choose electors however you want.
So here's the reality.
I mean, Rudy and Jenna Ellis have been pushing Article 2 for a reason.
It's the Constitution.
It is the only way in which The founders decided that we would choose electors to go to the Electoral College.
So, the legislatures have total Freedom on how they want to choose electors.
They don't have to follow the popular vote.
And so, it's possible that when Arizona legislature convenes next week, and Pennsylvania legislature convenes next week, and Georgia, and Michigan, Wisconsin, and everybody else, it's possible some of those states may choose electors for Trump and not Biden.
Even though Biden is leading in the popular vote in all those states, The legislature, if they have reason to believe that the popular vote is fraudulent, they can vote for Trump.
They can choose electors for Trump and send them to the Electoral College.
And I would be surprised if at least one or two states don't do that.
I'm not going to predict which ones, but I think it's likely with the abundant evidence that's coming out of election fraud, it's very difficult for legislators to justify supporting Biden in the Electoral College when there's all this evident fraud.
So they have the reason.
If the legislators want to select electors for Trump, they have a reason to do it.
The question is, will they?
We don't know.
We don't know.
We don't know what the legislature is going to do.
Now let me go to the next step in the process.
So let's imagine That in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, those legislatures, even though the popular vote went for Biden, let's say those legislatures select Trump electors to go to the Electoral College.
If all of those electors are certified by their states' governors, allowed to vote in the Electoral College, and that vote is accepted by Congress, Trump's going to be reelected.
Because right now, Trump only needs to keep Biden from getting 270.
And if any three state combination goes for Trump, or if any three state combination is taken away from Biden, Biden loses.
Exception is The only three-state combination that would not work is of the six swing states that are in contention right now.
The only one that would not work is Nevada and Wisconsin along with any other state because there wouldn't be enough electoral votes.
So if it was Nevada and Michigan or Nevada and Georgia plus Pennsylvania, Arizona, that's fine.
Nevada and Wisconsin together plus another state would not be enough.
So that's the only three, two of the three state combinations that would not work.
Anyway, minutiae.
Trump doesn't have to get those.
Here's another scenario.
Trump doesn't have to win all those states.
He just needs to prevent Biden from getting them.
So let's say, let's say this.
Now we'll go to the next step in the process.
So let's say for argument, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona decide to choose Trump electors to go to the Electoral College.
All right, what's the next step?
Well, the next step is those electors have to be certified by their governors.
Governor and Secretary of State need to certify the electors.
That's different from certifying the election.
Certifying the election is certifying the vote.
When electors are chosen to go to the Electoral College, they also have to be certified by the state.
And the governors can decide not to certify.
That is where the governors can come in.
The governors are sort of cut out of this the situation until they have to certify the electors.
So let's say Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania decides he's not going to certify Pennsylvania's Trump electors that the legislature just approved.
Right?
And you got a problem.
Because if the Pennsylvania legislature chooses Trump electors against the popular vote, Wolf as the governor can decide I'm not going to certify the electors and they're not going to vote in the Electoral College.
So Biden would not get Pennsylvania's or sorry Trump would not get Pennsylvania's electors but neither would Biden.
Are you seeing where this is going?
Let's say Arizona chooses Trump electors and Ducey certifies them and they're allowed to vote in the Electoral College.
Let's say Georgia also chooses Trump electors.
And Georgia's governor does not certify those electors and they can't vote in the Electoral College.
So you get Trump picks up Arizona and neither candidate picks up Pennsylvania or Georgia.
Trump prevents Biden from getting those three states.
Biden does not win.
You have to have 270.
And without Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, Neither candidate is going to win.
They have to have 270 and they wouldn't win.
So it would then go to the House of Representatives.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
But you can now see that the governors can actually come into play by blocking the electors that are chosen by the legislatures.
Have enough balls in the area?
That's going to get more confusing.
All right, so Let's say, for example, that... Let's say that, for an argument, Wisconsin
Arizona and Pennsylvania select Trump electors against the popular vote, but they're going to justify it by, well, there's obvious election fraud.
We think Trump won, so we're going to choose electors for Trump in the Electoral College.
Let's say the governors certify all those electors, and those electors go and they vote in the Electoral College.
Now Congress gets to decide what's going to happen, because the electors vote in the Electoral College, but the vote is sent to Congress.
And Matt Gaetz tweeted this out tonight.
I talked today to Republicans in both the House and the Senate, and there's interest in examining voting irregularities and forcing a debate in Congress about whether or not to accept the state's electors where those irregularities exist.
Nothing is off the table.
So Congress can actually vote when the electors vote in the Electoral College, in the Constitution, It says that Congress has the right to object to the vote of electors, and then they're going to have a vote.
If a group of electors from a state cast their votes for Biden or Trump, Congress can object.
They then have one hour in each chamber to debate All right, so Congress can get involved and they can impact how this is going to turn out.
All right.
whether they're going to, then they come back together and convene and vote.
They decide whether or not they're going to block or accept the votes of the electors.
All right, so Congress can get involved and they can impact how this is going to turn out.
All right.
Then you have the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court has jurisdiction over every territory, state, and over every issue.
And the Supreme Court can pick up any case that is at the state or federal level and the Supreme Court can decide, hey, we're going to get involved in this case because it involves a presidential election.
That's exactly what happened in Florida with Bush versus Gore.
It was at the state court level and the Supreme Court said we're gonna get involved.
We're taking this case away and we're gonna decide this.
So the Supreme Court can get involved and they can and probably will make a couple of decisions in this process on some of the laws or some of the cases that are being appealed.
Some cases are already before the Supreme Court.
Some are probably going to end up there.
And the Supreme Court, we don't know what they're going to do.
They also, I don't believe the Supreme Court is bound by the safe harbor day of December 8th.
I think the Supreme Court could make a decision two days before the inauguration if they wanted to that could change the outcome of the election.
So the Supreme Court can get involved.
State courts can get involved.
Federal courts can get involved.
Wisconsin is probably going to decide.
A Wisconsin Supreme Court is probably going to decide a case that's going to have a major impact on this.
I don't know if it'll be appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
But the courts can be involved.
Congress can be involved.
State legislators are definitely involved.
Governors can be involved.
And there is a It is a very unclear picture about what is going to happen.
For anyone to tell you they know how this is going to work out, which I did a week ago, I'm still confident Trump's going to win.
I'm confident Trump is going to win because I see the strategy being laid out.
When I realized what Giuliani and Ellis were trying to do, How they were trying to convince the state legislators to seat electors for Trump just by providing evidence of voter fraud.
I was like, oh, that's a really good strategy.
I still think that Trump has a decent chance of winning.
He's got a lot of people on his side.
He's got some people working against him, but he's got a lot of people on his side in the right places.
We don't know, you know, yeah, there's swampy rhino Republicans who are not going to support Trump in some places.
You have to acknowledge that.
That's true.
Fair enough.
But he's also built a lot of allies in some of the right places.
And I think that he has a reasonably good chance because if the Electoral College is not able to decide the vote, who's going to be president, it goes to the House.
Goes to the House, and the House will then vote.
It's one state, one vote, and Republicans have the majority of state legislatures and the majority of states in the U.S.
House.
If it goes to the House, very likely that the House is going to vote Trump.
If I'm not mistaken, if you read the 12th Amendment, I believe that the House decides the President and the Senate decides the Vice President.
And even though there is a, even though Democrats have a majority in the House by seats, they don't have a majority by states.
That's what matters.
One state, one vote.
Republicans have a majority.
And I don't think there's any rhinos that are going to blow up Trump's chance in the House.
So if the Electoral College can't decide because Either because they don't have enough electors to vote or because neither candidate gets 270, goes to the House.
And I would be willing to bet a large amount of money the House would re-elect Trump and Pence.
And there are scenarios beyond that, believe it or not.
I'm not going to go into them because this broadcast has already gone on long enough, but there are a lot of ways, there's a lot of twists and turns that are going to happen in the next six weeks.
Somebody asking if you think the down-ballot races will get audited.
I wish they would.
I don't know.
The down-ballot races, in order for them to get audited, that would probably need to happen at the state level.
I mean, the Supreme Court could do something crazy.
I don't know that the Supreme Court would go to a state and say, hey, you need to redo your entire election.
Maybe they will.
Maybe the Supreme Court will tell Pennsylvania your entire election is null and void, and you have to hold another election.
I don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do.
A state Supreme Court could do that.
Wisconsin's Supreme Court, in this case that is before them, could say, the election is null and void.
We're going to redo the entire election.
They could if they want to.
I don't know that they will.
So it's really hard to say if the down ballot races are going to be affected, but that would be probably, it would just be at the state level.
Although, although, we do have that one race that's going to be thrown out in Clark County, Nevada.
That's Las Vegas.
So Clark County had enough election irregularities in that one race.
I forget what the position was.
I don't know if his board of supervisors or what it was.
But that race got thrown out because there was too many irregularities in the election.
Now, if you're following Rick Grinnell, he's one of the people that's following all the legal action in Nevada.
And there's some crazy stuff going on in Nevada.
Rick Grinnell.
In Clark County, the register Clark County Register.
They've been trying to serve him with a subpoena all week.
He's been running from them.
They've been apparently locking the building, and he's been hiding in his house for like a week trying to not get served the subpoena.
And Rick Grinnell's been trolling him, like, you're gonna get served, you're gonna get the subpoena, and you're gonna testify, and you're gonna have to tell the truth under oath.
There's some crazy stuff going on in Nevada, in Clark County.
There's massive fraud there.
We haven't heard the beginning of it yet.
I don't know if they're going to have, like, the kind of public hearings that the other states are having.
But, you know, Trump only needs to pick up three states or stop Biden from getting three states.
And I think the chances of that are pretty good because, like I said, if he stops Biden from getting three states, Biden doesn't get 270.
He doesn't win any electoral college and the House is going to re-elect Trump.
So, there's a lot of strategery going on here.
And we also have faith in God.
And we have faith in God.
And the prophecies that have already been given.
And the prophecies.
And we say yes and amen.
Some of my friends have had some interesting dreams about Barr and about Trump and some other stuff that's going to happen down the road.
God is God is able to take care of this.
God is able to make His will come to pass.
Of course, He does that through us.
Somebody said, what do you think Watch California means?
Watch California.
I think California was won by Trump, is what I think.
Just saying, based on testimony from Prince of Wales.
The Watch California post was specifically about election fraud.
When Q said, and Anand said, "Hey Q, is election fraud going to be exposed in California?" Q said, "Yes, Watch California was deliberate." And it was specifically addressing election fraud.
And that makes me very suspicious because the FBI field office in L.A.
is the one that has the open election fraud thing, where Matt Brainerd is testifying.
Yeah.
So, I suspect that they're looking into election fraud in California.
Yeah, if we're going to play the what-if-this-or-what-if speculation game, then I'm going to speculate.
That something's going to flip in California, like some kind of whistleblower.
Look, how many House races did the Republicans pick up in California alone?
Four House seats, I think, in California?
Yeah.
Maybe five?
I wouldn't be surprised if you remove election fraud if Republicans picked up eight or nine seats in California.
So what if Trump wins California, or already won California, and Biden didn't?
How many electoral college votes is that?
A lot.
So I'm speculating on that.
Alright.
Sorry, people.
I don't have evidence, but... Yeah, they're still counting house races.
They're not all settled yet.
55 electoral votes?
Thank you.
We're in Arizona, so maybe we don't have to put a wall between us and California after all.
I think if the full breadth of fraud is revealed, it's going to be a mess.
Now, you know what I didn't talk about is Sidney Powell and Lynne Wood.
So, Sidney Powell and Lynne Wood are filing their own lawsuits through their own law firms, which are supported by people like us.
They're working for us.
I mean, if you think that what Sidney and Lynne Wood are doing is good, you should support them financially.
Just realize they're working on a different tactic, on a different angle.
Rudy and Jenna Ellis are primarily working on 14th Amendment issues of due process and equal treatment.
Sidney Powell and Lynn Wood are working on different angles and their lawsuits are going to be helpful.
I'm not dismissing the importance of their losses, but they're working on a different track.
Parallel tracks.
I think that some of the decisions from the courts on their cases are going to help Trump get re-elected.
So, you know, there's a lot of things to be focused on right now.
Personally, I think don't focus on the DOJ.
Don't focus on the investigations, the indictments, the arrests.
They're not going to happen right now.
This is not the time to be looking at the DOJ or the FBI and obsessing over what they are or aren't doing.
We're not in the justice phase of the operation.
We're in the public information phase.
And that means exposing corruption to the public.
We're in the Great Awakening phase.
Great Awakening!
By the way, if you haven't picked up my book, Great Awakening, it is available on Barnes & Noble and on Amazon.
Yeah, it's just, you know, it's easy to get frustrated and angry, you know.
There's no arrests.
No one's been perp-walked.
Well, just shake it off.
Focus on the main thing.
Keep the main thing the main thing.
Keep your eye on the ball.
A lot of the stuff is distraction.
And Q always tells us, keep your eye on the ball.
Don't look at the distractions.
Bar is a distraction.
Durham is a distraction right now.
I mean, unless some actual news breaks about something, it's a distraction.
Don't worry about it.
Don't even think about it.
Just like, oh, okay, whatever.
AP.
Bars doing nothing.
Alright, that'll change in a week.
Just don't fall for the distractions.
Don't fall for the head fake.
Eye on the ball.
Keep focused on the main thing.
And that right now is the exposure of election fraud.
I want to make an announcement.
Announcement!
The attorneys here for the Amistad Project are still looking for more plaintiffs in Arizona who had, who experienced election difficulties or irregularities.
Doesn't have to be anything big.
Contact?
If it's big, great.
Contact?
Um, where can we have them contact?
Uh, Phil?
Well, I'm not going to give out his... He's on Twitter.
He's on Twitter.
I don't know if he's the best one to contact for Arizona.
The Amistad Project is looking for people who have experienced difficulties with elections in Arizona.
Yeah, I don't know if I can give out anybody's thing.
The Amistad Project, Thomas Moore, they have a Twitter page.
You may be able to contact through the Twitter page.
They also have a website.
You may be able to contact them through the website.
The Honest Ad Project is a sub-group.
Thomas More Society.
The best way is to contact me, but I don't want to give out my personal email or anything like that.
Don't worry about it.
DM me.
Yeah, DM me.
If you want, you can message Denise underscore artist.
On Twitter, if you have an Arizona story only.
If you have an Arizona story only.
If you have a first-hand testimony of some shenanigans at the elections, they're still looking for plaintiffs.
Yeah, and you would have to fill out an affidavit and be part of the class action lawsuit.
A blood test.
I think they check your oxygen sensor and all that emission stuff.
Mary, it might be too slow to contact you through our website.
There is no information on Gina that is verified.
Don't contact us through prayingmedic.com.
It'll be too slow.
I didn't tell them to contact me through the website.
Don't contact me through the website.
DM me.
Message Denise underscore artist on Twitter.
If you live in Arizona and you have a personal testimony.
But really have a testimony.
Don't just fake me out.
Not just some, oh the donuts were bad when I went to the voting center and their lemonade was hot.
That's not what we're looking for exactly.
There is no verified information about Gina Haspel.
Sorry.
There's a lot of rumors, internet rumors, which I don't deal in internet rumors.
So I don't care.
I don't know anything about the servers and neither does anyone else.
James O'Keefe tapes.
I always watch him.
What about my dreams?
I'm still having them.
If they're for public consumption, I put them out on Twitter.
I think Trump has a decent chance for another four years.
My biggest concern is not whether Trump is going to be re-elected.
My biggest concern is what happens after Trump is re-elected.
Because the media has been gaslighting the public for the last month, promising them a Biden presidency.
And if Biden is not installed as their puppet dictator on January 20th, If your favorite president ever is in fact re-elected, the Libs are not going to be happy about that.
And that could cause problems.
Somebody's asking if we want the Sharpie stories included.
I think we don't.
No Sharpie stories for Arizona.
They already have the Sharpies taken care of.
Yep.
I'm sure they have plenty of those.
They want non-Sharpie stories.
Non-Sharpie Arizona stories.
Let's say that.
Non-warm lemonade, non-Sharpie Non-crappy donut Arizona stories.
Let's see.
Martial law.
Yeah, I don't know.
Oh, a point about the servers in Germany.
Oh, the 2018 executive order.
Oh, that.
The 2018 executive order is interesting.
What does it tell you?
It tells you that Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other intelligence agencies have to file a report with the White House that discusses potential foreign interference in the election.
And it could go into other types of interference or fraud in the election.
But that report is not due until I think December 19th or 20th in that time frame.
It's 45 days after the election.
They have to file that report with the White House.
The fact that that report has not yet been filed and people are already saying the DOJ is not found evidence of election fraud.
First of all, the DOJ is not responsible to determine election fraud.
That is Department of Homeland Security.
Election integrity is completely under the discretion of and the supervision of Homeland Security, not the DOJ.
So if there was election fraud, it's first going to be investigated by Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security would investigate, and if they felt that it was criminal, they would make a criminal referral to the DOJ.
But it starts at Homeland Security.
So why people are all wound up about DOJ saying anything about election fraud, I don't know.
Because it's not their purview.
Election integrity is completely under Homeland Security, not DOJ.
Other than, other than, if you have a credible report of fraud, well, you can open an investigation.
And they have.
We know that the FBI hasn't opened investigations.
So, again, I'm not worried about that.
And that's the whole thing with the 2018 executive order.
What it does is it provides a measure of accountability for the election integrity that was not there before.
And once that report is filed, December 19th or 20th, we'll know a lot more about whether there was or wasn't Foreign election meddling and or fraud, possibly.
I don't think we're going to find out anything from Homeland Security or DOJ on election integrity until for several weeks.
So, like I said, I'm surprised Barr made a statement at all about that, if he did make a statement.
Now, you were asking about Gina Haspel, the servers or something?
No, I just wanted to say there's really There's this story about seizing the servers.
If you listen to Thomas Wichter... Thomas Wichter.
He made a good point.
He made a good point that the servers don't have to be seized.
We can hack into them and make a copy of everything on it.
Right.
Why would you... Since we have the technology at the NSA to copy any data on any server anywhere in the world, why would the U.S.
government risk getting a bunch of people killed To go to Germany to seize some servers when they could simply just copy that information off of it through the Internet.
I mean, there's just a lot of implausible data points in that story to me that don't make sense.
Don't make sense at all.
And I think it's going to just end up being another Internet rumor that people got all crazy about.
It was kind of like the watermarks on the ballots.
For like two weeks, everyone was insisting, ah, we got the Trump card, oh, there's watermarks, there's this invisible thing on the ballots, and they're gonna catch them all, and oh, it's gonna be great.
And it's just another internet rumor that people are getting clicks from, selling ads on, getting likes on their social media crap because they like to talk about stuff that can't be proven.
And I'm sorry, other than Q, I don't deal in stuff that can't be proven.
I was telling Denise the other night, like, the only conspiracy, the only unproven stuff I really like to talk about is Q. And I make a disclaimer, look, Q has no sauce for this at all, has no evidence, but this is what Q is saying about this, and there you go, you can take it or leave it, like it or not, I don't care.
This is what Q says.
Because I follow Q. And I put Q's stuff out.
Q doesn't always have sauce for his posts.
But I cut him slack because he has a pretty good job at it.
Yeah, and the thing is we have no way of knowing, as lay people, as non-military intel.
There's certain people we have to trust and there's other people we don't necessarily trust.
Somebody asked about is the book on back order because it said it wouldn't come, the second book, wouldn't come until January 21st.
If you order any of my books through Amazon and you get a message that says it's not going to be delivered until next July or next February or January 21st, don't worry about it.
That's just standard boilerplate nonsense that Amazon puts out.
You'll probably get it in about a week.
Just order it.
It'll show up.
It's holiday season.
It came faster for me than what they said.
You got it in like, what, four days or something?
Sean Parnell's case is going to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, so Sean Parnell and Kelly, their case is going to the Supreme Court and I think that cases going before the U.S.
Supreme Court have a really good chance of getting a fair shake because the Supreme Court is a Supreme Court, and they kind of have to take this crap seriously.
They're the last line of defense.
I mean, they're not going to make the right call unanimously on every call, but this election stuff, it's very clear in the Constitution.
There isn't a whole lot of ambiguity about it.
There is some ambiguity because of COVID stuff, and a lot of this, you know, nonsense was brought into the election thing because of COVID.
And unfortunately, some of our Supreme Court justices have been a little bit flaky.
Roberts.
Oh my gosh!
This is just breaking news from the Election Wizard.
Trump says he will veto the defense bill unless Section 230 is deleted.
Trump says he will veto the defense bill?
This is breaking from the Election Wizard.
He posted this one minute ago.
Well I like that.
Trump says he will veto the defense bill unless section 230 protections for social media is gone.
So that's kind of breaking news.
Trump's not playing around.
Trump wants those section 230 protections gone.
And if that happens, every one of us can sue YouTube, sue Facebook, and sue Twitter for all their nonsense and make them go broke.
I would love it.
So, alright, I'm gonna get going.
That's all I have for you.
I'm sorry I've been gone so long, but I've been busy.
Denise and I, we're working just morning to night, morning to night, watching these hearings, reporting on them.
Really not doing anything else but just watching the hearings.
It's a very boring life, but we are the news now, so we're taking the bullet for the team.
We know you appreciate it.
Alright, gotta jump.
Love you all.
Get some sleep.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection