Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 22, 2020 - Praying Medic

01:30:06

140V Praying Medic and Ivan Raiklin - President Trump's Path to Re-election

Attorney Ivan Raiklin explains the constitutional path to President Trump's re-election.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon, Patriots.
	I'm Prang Medic, and this is my news update for Monday, December 21st.
	I've got a special show for you today.
	I've been following a fellow on Twitter named Ivan Reikland.
	Ivan is an attorney.
	He specializes in constitutional law.
	Today, Ivan and I are going to discuss the constitutional path that President Trump is likely to take to get four more years in the White House.
	Hope you enjoy the broadcast.
	What's your background?
	Yeah, so my background is, I got 20, what is it now, 23 years of collective service, not quite as much as you, thanks for, again, thanks for kicking butt, your whole family, for serving our great country.
	We've only put in 23 years, maybe that'll continue in the reserves, we'll see, but I've served as an intelligence officer, tactical operational strategic, I've also, you know, done some cool stuff in that space, also served as a As a special forces commander and as a detachment commander and the company commander and have experience deploying, right?
	So I understand foreign internal defense.
	I understand unconventional warfare.
	I understand insurgency and counterinsurgency.
	And we're kind of amidst all of that right now in the collective when it comes to the political landscape.
	To answer your specific question about my legal background is, you know, I've been an attorney For what is it now 15 years my focus has been on constitutional national security law and what I've not really done anything with it other than get involved in cases that are you know the most important cases not as counsel but as kind of outside advisor on certain things because of my contextual understanding when it comes to national security right
	Uh, there's things that I've seen and understand within the national security apparatus, the policies, procedures that could impact on doing good analysis, conducting good analysis as it applies to the law.
	And you're kind of, you're grimace on your face.
	Let me explain that, what that means.
	Your non-verbals are telling me you don't understand me.
	So let me explain.
	The example, the General Flynn case.
	There's a lot of components to that that's behind the scenes that cannot be accessed by the public, right?
	Because of the FISA, the FISA court, the FISA warrants, and then the classification of some of that content.
	So if you don't know how things operate within the intelligence community, you may not know what questions to ask to then be able to obtain that information, right?
	So giving that context to start going down the right path can help out.
	Similar with the Roger Stone.
	When the crux of his case was hinged upon what?
	His involvement with the WikiLeaks and then Russia collusion, right?
	Even though the judge said it had nothing to do with it.
	Well, the foundation of that case was on an assessment conducted by the intelligence community.
	Well, in the past, I've taught intelligence analysis, so I know how that process works.
	And when somebody makes an assessment about an event that either occurred or will occur, It's not a definitive, beyond a reasonable doubt, standard.
	It has its own set of rules under the Intel Community Directive 203.
	203, you can look it up, it's public information.
	And then you take a look, you know, what was the assessment?
	Well, it was finally released and it was, depending on which, it was caveated, depending on the agency, it was either moderate or high level of confidence.
	And then you also look at the probability of the information of being, you know, Up to near certainty.
	Now, even if that assessment was a high, high degree of confidence with the near certainty of that assessment using the highest probabilistic language that we use in the intelligence analysis.
	Well, does that equate to beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding?
	Who knows?
	But the problem is that that wasn't the assessment about the Russian interference in the DNC hack.
	It was a lower level assessment.
	So now we're much below The reasonable doubt standard.
	So things like that, right?
	What other cases are going on?
	So I'm heavily looking at I'll be heavily looking into the Carter Page piece.
	But as things kind of develop nationally, politically and legal, national security and constitutional law, that's where I jump in and try to assist.
	Right.
	Last thing I'll say on that on that part is.
	Due to that context, right, you can just Start doing different sorts of analysis that most other people have not done.
	I look at it and research this stuff and most people know the law and maybe not the other components to be able to... because at the end of the day to advocate for something you have to have a compelling reason and argument behind it and by bringing in other data sets that people can relate to that are compelling.
	And a lot of us on social media are just spitballing A lot of, most people don't actually understand the law aspect behind what's happening.
	Most of us don't understand the intelligence aspects that are involved in these cases.
	I mean, we can sort of guess and presume and make assumptions, but there's a lot of uninformed opinions out there on social media.
	In any type of analysis, you always have to, the key thing is to lay out the assumptions, right?
	So that you know what you're basing off of.
	That segues into what what I wanted to ask you about, and that is, you know, looking at the election and the process and the timeline of how election rolls out, how the vote happens, how it's tabulated, how it's counted, how it's canvassed, how electors are certified, how elections are certified, and then When the Electoral College votes.
	And what happens to the vote after the electors vote?
	And, you know, as we move toward January 6th, you know, I've been following you.
	You have this timeline kind of mapped out.
	You got a chance to take a look at that?
	Excellent.
	I've been looking at all of that for the last month.
	I've been following you, retweeting your stuff, and I went... At least somebody's reading it.
	Oh, at least I know it's not just all bots that are following me, right?
	Yeah, so I've done a bunch of videos since the election.
	I've done a bunch of videos explaining possible pathways to Trump's re-election based on what happens with the Electoral College, what might the courts do, what could state legislators do, what might Congress do, you know, all those things.
	I've been tracking very closely with what you've been putting out, which is why I want to- Lots of paths to victory, paths to victory.
	It's OK.
	We the people that will have the most critical component in success of all of these paths, almost all of these paths at this point.
	Us, you know, a lot of people DM me like, what can I do?
	It's really us that will apply the necessary pressure and educate those that have the authority To actually execute these paths.
	Right, because a lot of members of Congress... I know you've been working with Jim Jordan.
	I saw your picture that you've been talking to people in Washington, educating them about the process, because a lot of them are ignorant of the process.
	I'm just one person, and I'm trying to row as fast as I can with... I use the analogy, I have a needle for an oar, and I'm riding the Titanic trying to right the ship as fast as I can, and the more people that can bring out their needle and Right.
	So, do you want to talk about the constitutional path to inauguration?
	It's divided up into three major components.
	One is the state legislature's path, which hasn't expired, and I'll explain why.
	The second path is Vice President Pence, on Wednesday, has a pretty big role that he could play.
	Actually, I argue that he has to play it the way I'm about to explain it.
	And then the third path is in the United States Federal Congress.
	You know, the U.S.
	House, the U.S.
	Senate, and we're going to go through that if we have time, if you want to discuss the details of that, right?
	Yep, let's do it.
	So the first path, a lot of components to it, is the state legislatures.
	One way is for the legislatures to go ahead and
	Recall The slate of electors that they've already submitted and certified on December 14th because since December 14th until December 24th to 21st today and even on through January 6th More and more evidence is stacking up fraud criminal indictments we've seen Audits of machines we're potentially going to be seeing more of all this mounting evidence that will show more and more of these state legislators
	To convince them, based on the standard, they each have their own standard of proof that they need to meet to show themselves that, you know what, I cannot certify this election as it stands.
	And an example of that is what they're doing in Georgia.
	Georgia Friday, you saw the State Legislative Committee, I think it was the State Senate, That essentially came up with a 15 page document at the very end.
	They said, we cannot certify based on what we've seen and the hearings that we've had.
	And they essentially presented it and directed it to the state, uh, the speaker of the house.
	And now he's going to, so it's mounting pressure.
	The people mounted pressure on those committee members.
	And now the committee members are applying pressure to the speaker of the house and the Senate.
	I think it's the pro tempore, the Senate president down there in Georgia.
	And they're gonna have to call a legislative session.
	How that legislature decides to call it.
	Everybody's been talking about, oh, Governor Kemp, he has to call a special legislative session.
	No, he doesn't!
	One he doesn't he has no say whatsoever and there's been a lot of lawyers that have been saying oh there has to be oh the Georgia Constitution this Georgia law says this I don't care you know why because I'm basing my analysis on article 2 section 1 clause 2 and now since I was the only one beating this it seemed like for a while and now people are starting to realize that oh yeah that's the proper reading of the US Constitution in the sense that
	The state legislature has plenary power.
	100, full stop, unconditional, unwavering authority to call their own special legislative session.
	Because it's a federal election.
	Regardless of what the constitution says.
	But only in the instance of selecting electors.
	Only in that one instance.
	Right, because it's a federal election.
	It involves the office of the presidency.
	And state law and state constitution is superseded by the U.S.
	constitution.
	Hey, it's not my fault that your constitution violated My U.S.
	Constitution, and I'm gonna enforce the U.S.
	Constitution because it supersedes it, and I'm not a resident of Georgia.
	But I love all the Georgia Patriots, particularly Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Yep.
	And Lynne Wood.
	Yep.
	So.
	So we're, oh yeah, so we'll pause there.
	So that, that's one component.
	State, state legislatures have a role to play.
	Right.
	So we talked about the The law there real quick about the state legislatures.
	I'm going to keep diving into this component.
	The Supreme Court could still apply necessary pressure to ensure that the state legislatures either pull back their slate, you know, recall it, not send a slate, recertify another slate.
	You know, all of these states, as well as all the contested states and New Mexico now are up to seven that sent dueling electors, D-U-E-L.
	You know when you do the old-school 1800s 1700s dueling so two slates of elect of electors Now we're gonna get to I know you have questions about that a lot of people do we'll discuss that not yet But Supreme Court there as far as I understand there are ten cases before that maybe nine at this point before the Supreme Court that are yet to be Addressed in some capacity whether it be docketed whether it be dismissed whether it be
	Ignored until after January 6th because that seems to be that's the way the courts going but there are nine I'm tracking that the Republican Party of Pennsylvania alongside a congressman candidate Purnell Are suing the Secretary of State along with a bunch of other people in this Pennsylvania case right before the Supreme Court.
	We'll see what happens And this, this information may be dated because I haven't looked this stuff up in a couple hours, right?
	So it could be dated.
	Everything's changing by the minute.
	So Sidney Powell, four cases.
	Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona.
	Okay.
	What else?
	Uh, Trump campaign just filed one yesterday.
	Lynwood, Georgia case.
	Waiting on it for months.
	So Lynwood has his own.
	And then Trump campaign filed one yesterday.
	Three.
	They filed three yesterday.
	Right.
	So that is... Asking for an overturn of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision.
	So yeah.
	So all three of those are Pennsylvania.
	So there are four Pennsylvania-based cases before the Supreme Court.
	And most people ask the next question of, well, how does that impact?
	Does it only impact Pennsylvania?
	It'll depend.
	So the issues that are being raised in those cases, and I haven't specifically I haven't read all of that because I'm trying to I'm going to try to step back and give that over overarching view.
	Other people obviously are doing the deep dive.
	The cases are involved with the 14th Amendment, right?
	Does allowing an illegal voter to vote dilute the right to somebody that's actually a live human legal registered voter to vote?
	That's a 14th Amendment claim that the Supreme Court has to Or doesn't have to decide, right?
	Right.
	They do decide on it.
	And it favors Trump, which is... I don't know.
	We'll see.
	We'll see.
	I'm not putting a lot of faith in the Supreme Court.
	That impacts potentially not only... Exactly.
	That not only impacts Pennsylvania, but also potentially impacts all the contestants.
	Right.
	Because if the Supreme Court made a ruling that disqualified electors in Pennsylvania That same ruling could apply to other states for the same purpose.
	Right.
	And then the other issue that is Pennsylvania, so that one is more broad.
	The other issue that is Pennsylvania specific, I think it may apply to a couple other states, but it'll be different because the wording of each state's constitution is different.
	But it's essentially an argument that Pennsylvania violated Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 because the state legislature Passed a ruling in a law on how they were going to conduct their elections, and it was overridden by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
	Which again, doesn't have the authority to change how the legislature.
	As they got the power from Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.
	The Supreme Court and the governor and the Secretary of State, none of those people outside the legislative bicameral body in the Pennsylvania legislative branch.
	Those other people don't have any say in how to run elections.
	So those are the two main issues.
	And then some of these other ones, uh, there's, there's different claims.
	There's, you know, Sidney Powell's been focusing on the fraud piece as well as constitutional claims.
	And there are a plethora of state cases that are being filed, whether it's pro se, I don't have a list.
	I'm sure somebody out there is doing research, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are hundreds, if not thousands of other cases that are being filed.
	You have a lot of lawsuits by the Amistad project.
	Amistad is another big one.
	That's another one to keep an eye on.
	That's a good point.
	So those are alongside Amistad and what I've just mentioned.
	Those are the real, the big cases potentially, right?
	Right.
	Again, state judicial.
	And since December 14th, based on the plan that I put together, you saw the whole PowerPoint presentation?
	Yep.
	Okay.
	So based on that, essentially, I was kind of forecasting that after that certification is when all these different lawsuits would start to pile on.
	Not lawsuits, but investigations would pile on.
	Because up until the 14th, the state can remedy all the anomalies, illegalities, and all this other stuff that was alleged, right?
	Because they can technically say, you know what?
	We can fix it internally.
	But when they did the stamp and submitted their Electoral College vote on the 14th, that's when they consummated the crime.
	Right.
	That now needs to be investigated.
	Because... Boom!
	Because the Safe Harbor provision Yeah.
	in the Electoral Count Act, is essentially an agreement between Congress and the state legislatures that they have agreed to resolve disputes, investigate disputes, and then resolve them prior to seating their electors.
	If they don't do that, if they don't investigate allegations of fraud, if there are still, here's an example in Arizona where I live, Ducey certified the election on the day there was a hearing where evidence of election fraud was being Ducey certified the election on the day there was a hearing And that calls into the question the legitimacy of any electors in Arizona.
	Right.
	So just to go back to the initial question you had before we continue on with the different paths.
	So the election started really on November 3rd.
	Right.
	And I get it.
	You can argue, no, no, it didn't start then.
	The mail-in ballot, the early voting.
	I got it.
	Right.
	I get all that, I'm not even gonna address that.
	According to the Constitution, it started on the 3rd.
	November 3rd is when the election occurs.
	And there's an argument that after midnight, that's it!
	November 3rd.
	So that's another... Because the Constitution specifies a day for the election, not three days or four days.
	Exactly.
	So you know that piece.
	Now, November 3rd.
	January 6th, so it starts on November 3rd at the state level and the states have decided across the board in all 50 states and in Washington DC that they're going to hold an election where the people are going to provide input to the legislature on how that legislature is going to allocate electoral votes to the United States Congress when the United States Congress on January 6th receives those electoral votes, right?
	And then the president is elected on that day on January 6th.
	That period is what we're talking about, November 3rd to January 6th.
	Using that timeline, the day after Christmas, December 26th, for those baseball fans out there, is when we are in the 7th inning stretch.
	We're about to start, we're in the bottom of the 6th, about to kick off the 7th inning today, right now as I'm talking to you.
	So you're going to quit in the seventh inning?
	No.
	No.
	Because you can score unlimited runs in an inning.
	There's no time frame, right?
	Well, in this case, it's a time frame, but you can score unlimited runs.
	Like today, we could win all this technically.
	It's going to be a massive, you know, 410 electoral vote.
	I'm not predicting that.
	That's a long shot.
	We'll go into the predictions.
	But so that's the timeline aspect of it.
	You talked about December 8th.
	The Safe Harbor date, right?
	And then December 14th.
	So December, again, this is all in Title III, you talked about the Electoral College Act.
	December 8th is when the United States Congress tells the states, you guys need to determine from November 3rd to December 8th, you have a period of time to figure your stuff out and determine who are going to be your electors.
	So you decide who your electors are on that date, but then on the 14th, In your own states, respectively, and in D.C., you then have those electors vote.
	You know how you want to do it.
	You stamp it.
	You sign.
	There's a procedure.
	You have six copies.
	You got to be sure that I'm not even going to go into those details.
	Right.
	And then on that date, the governor stamps and certifies it.
	So if you've been following me since the election, you saw the coloring scheme of how I was rating each state.
	It factored in The governor's certification.
	It factored in the legislative makeup.
	It factored in the composition of the vote and then whether or not there was a dispute.
	That's where we're starting to see it come into play.
	Technically, a governor could say, you know what?
	I'm not certifying that.
	If they had the intestinal fortitude and the courage to say, you know, I'm not going to be complicit in this fraudulent election, but no one did.
	So now where are we at?
	We're at, you know, December 14th.
	We talked about that since December 14th and today it's been a week.
	What have we seen in the last?
	Let me ask you this question and I'll add on to it if you don't hit the points.
	What have we seen over the last week since the certification by the states that would cause legislators from those states to come call into question their certification?
	And I'm going to give you a hint.
	Think foreign and think domestic.
	Right, so we've, some people are digging into the voting machines, right, and in Antrim County and here in Maricopa County, there have been forensic audits ordered.
	Antrim County, they actually did it.
	Maricopa County Board of Supervisors here is stalling.
	They don't want to do the forensic audit because, well, they're afraid that Uh, that this cat's going to come out of the bag and they're going to find fraud.
	So you have that on that level, you have legislatures now looking, state legislatures looking at, okay, well, what do we do with this now that we know that or suspect that there's fraud?
	Same thing in Georgia.
	Uh, we have, uh, a pending report from DNI Ratcliffe.
	So on Friday, he was supposed to deliver a report on foreign election interference.
	And his statement was, uh, you know, we're going to hold up on that report because, uh, because the report doesn't accurately reflect the role that China played in foreign election interference, which, which kind of tells me, and I read this article on the Epic Times, they said that analysts want their work to be accurately represented and not politicized.
	So Radcliffe is working on straightening out the reports from probably the CIA, I'm sure, to more accurately represent- Can I chime in real quick on that?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Give you my take on it.
	Yep.
	I think, and I'm not confident in what I'm about to say, but I think it may be playing- I'll give it a moderate level of confidence that there are two components driving that delay.
	Okay.
	One component is that your viewers deep state, right?
	That's a common term, right?
	Yep.
	The people in these agencies that are not fans of Vice President, or excuse me, President Trump will do at least everything within their discretionary power to hurt his chances of re-election.
	Right?
	So they can, you know, within their authority say, you know what?
	We're not quite there yet.
	We still need to look at some stuff.
	And since we are what are known as career professionals, I want it to be very authoritative and clear And our analysis to be spot on.
	And I would, if, you know, since I'm in charge of this particular component of the analysis, I would be more comfortable in providing that analysis on January 7th.
	Right.
	So that's one prong, the slow rolling.
	The other prong is maybe it's probably more probable, if you will, that The new information that came out with the CISA report on the hack that people are... I haven't looked into it in detail, but I guess... The solar winds thing?
	Yes, the solar rays.
	It looks like maybe Russia, but I don't know because I haven't done a deep dive.
	I can't give you a good assessment if that's the case or not.
	My assessment, just knowing and reading about the stuff, is that three main actors globally tried to impact our election.
	Did you see my bottom line assessment on my pinned tweet?
	Where I talk about China, Russia, and Iran?
	Yep.
	If you haven't, essentially, since DNI didn't provide an assessment on Friday because he was either slow-rolled or because they still wanted to incorporate the information, the new information that just came out, if I was the president, I would have said, give me the assessment that you have right now.
	The deadline is clearly articulated in the executive order.
	You can't make the deadline?
	Well, you can pull an all-nighter.
	I don't care.
	It's not for me.
	It's for America.
	You're here under their, you know, under their taxpayer dollars.
	I don't pay taxes on my salary because, as the president, because I donate it.
	So you need to, you need to act, right?
	And you get your staff to act.
	And then if you do have updates to it, by all means, give me updated evidence.
	And then I'll determine whether or not I declassify it and provide it to the public, as well as the state legislators, to determine whether or not, based on the body of knowledge that they know, You following my train of thought?
	with the foreign information that was collected by the federal government to be able to better determine whether or not that had an impact on not only critical infrastructure overall, but specifically election infrastructure in, say, Arizona.
	Right?
	You following my train of thought?
	Yep.
	Because the federal government houses and knows and understands and has collection mechanisms through the intel community to know what's going on contextually globally.
	Right.
	That is not resident at the state level.
	Right.
	So they have a complete gap in understanding what's going on as it applies to foreign.
	Which makes it critical for that report to be declassified and made public.
	Absolutely.
	I would go one step further that not only does it get declassified and go public, if you read everything I put out, the United States Senate needs to host joint committee hearings with a slew of Of witnesses that testify under oath their knowledge about all this.
	This is all information that informs everyone.
	It informs the public, it informs, and then the state legislators are part of the public too, because they don't have any special privileges to access classified information that the executive branch does, right?
	Right.
	And certain components of the legislative branch, which we're seeing is very likely compromised with Swalwell, right?
	Right.
	Everybody has a gap of information, so the people on the federal level There's a blind spot for the federal government on what goes on in the states.
	There are silos of information that can legally be accessed by those in the intel community.
	The states can refuse to provide anything that they have from law enforcement to the federal government.
	So there's a blind spot for the federal government on what goes on in the states.
	There's a blind spot from the state level on what's going on at the classified level that the executive branch collects through its intelligence community.
	The executive branch at the federal level, unless there's an authorized FISA, right?
	Okay.
	They cannot collect on U.S.
	persons.
	Right.
	So you see how that creates a gap of then how does the FBI investigate somebody that is supposed to be the oversight body of your own self?
	So I'm an FBI agent.
	I'm in the executive branch.
	I'm investigating Congress.
	Eric Swalwell.
	How does that play out?
	Hmm.
	He's on the committee that has to provide oversight of me.
	He has more leverage than I do as a lower level person.
	Why am I going to risk investigating him?
	FBI has the responsibility for counterintelligence for the whole country.
	Right.
	Right.
	So that includes Congress.
	But if you're investigating a congressman that is then going to be able to provide you a world of hurt, It doesn't work.
	And how do we fix that?
	You, me, everyone listening to this, that shares it out, we force it into the public conversation to expose all of it.
	One last component on this piece.
	Guess who is the person that appoints and that has appointed all 11 members of the FISA Court and all three members of the Review Board of the FISA Court?
	It's a big one.
	Roberts.
	Yes!
	Chief Justice appoints, but he's actually the one that appointed all of them that are currently sitting.
	Right.
	Key takeaway there is the federal government has information that helps the legislators at the state level determine On whether or not foreign influence impacted.
	And that's what Sidney Powell is really, I think, at the nexus of.
	With the Dominion machines, the software companies that are out there, right?
	Really investigating it.
	Because at the end of the day, who else is going to file a claim, right?
	Right.
	It's difficult.
	It almost has to come from an outsider because no one inside government is going to want to touch that.
	Yeah.
	If you're kind of complicit, the thing is, is that, like you said earlier, once you start investigating, there's criminal investigations going on.
	Say, for example, at the TCF, some of these facilities, you know, Detroit, the Convention Center in Philadelphia, people are being investigated for fraud.
	It could be something minor.
	Hey, that one ballot that you changed Trump to Biden for, that's kind of illegal.
	You can't do that.
	Yeah, but that was only one.
	Well, we're going to prosecute you.
	Well, why are you going to prosecute me when the person sitting next to me did 8,000 of them?
	And the person to my left did 33,000 of them.
	Well, you know what?
	Why don't you just, uh, let's do a plea agreement.
	Who are those people?
	Now everybody, oh, I'm going to be a whistleblower.
	That takes time, right?
	That's why we're seeing more and more whistleblowers.
	So since the December 14th to today, I think I've seen one person already being indicted.
	That was just yesterday, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so I mean, my guess would be, hmm, cop a plea deal here.
	We're probably going to find out some more.
	Go up the chain.
	Now the pressure starts to come up.
	Yep.
	Yeah, now massive pressure.
	And what are they trying to do?
	You know, continuance, delay, don't do anything, don't do an audit, violate the subpoena request, like I think in Arizona, right?
	Violate the subpoena request.
	Why?
	Their only path to victory Wait it out.
	Wait it out and a Trump concession.
	Like you said, Biden's best chance of winning was getting Trump to concede.
	Yep, that's it.
	And it didn't happen.
	And I think people are starting to realize it.
	I get it's hard when 99.9% of the media that you receive is saying, you know, Ivan Reikland is completely idiot, wrong, drifter, right?
	Everything.
	I'm like, I get it, but I'm pretty persistent.
	Bring it on!
	I've noticed.
	When I know I'm right on something, I'm going in everybody's feed and forcing it down their throat until they block me or accept it.
	I've put a few people on blast myself, so that's all good.
	But no, if somebody calls me out, I'll be like, hey, I always say, fact check me.
	If you have another analytic train of thought that you have, blast me.
	Great!
	And if you're right, I'll adjust my analysis, but no one's done it, so I'm pretty confident at this point.
	Right.
	Well, if no one's pushing back on you, then there's a good chance that you have a pretty sound theory.
	All right, so let's go.
	So we got the SCOTUS cases.
	We talked about the dynamics at the SCOTUS, right?
	Yep.
	With the FISA court.
	You know, he's supposed, the Chief Justice, as well as all the justices, are supposed to make decisions not based on fear or favor.
	Remember Amy Coney Barrett's testimony?
	She said that multiple times.
	Yep.
	I don't make decisions based on fear or favor.
	Well, what happened there?
	Right?
	How do you square that with Texas?
	Yeah, Texas presents a case with an original jurisdiction, and it's between states.
	No other venue can hear that case.
	How do you decide you're not going to hear that case?
	I don't... Right.
	And the president retweeted, as soon as I got word of the Texas case being filed, it was kind of early in the morning, and I'm waking up, I'm looking at Whoa, this is big because I didn't even think about that.
	When that dropped, I'm thinking that is a brilliant move.
	Excellent.
	And I'm seeing that they're, you know, they're dropping a case against four other states, equal protection grounds.
	They violated Article 1, Section 2, or excuse me, 2, Section 1 within their states, thus having impact on Texas's electoral vote and diluting it.
	Brilliant argument right I immediately tweet out saying hmm if our Supreme Court judge if I was SCOTUS and Five states were suing four states.
	That would be very compelling So then within 24 hours with a couple of retweets from big names to include the president We had I think 18 if not more states jump in yep And the Supreme Court, with fear and with favor, decided to not take the case.
	Fear of riots and fear of... And realistically... John Roberts.
	Yeah, as we're looking at this from a game theory perspective, you know, a lot of us were hopeful that the courts would get involved and do the right thing.
	But I think there's still way too much political compromise in the courts to expect them to step up They don't want to be the ones to set the precedent of overturning an election.
	They don't want to take the heat.
	They don't want to be responsible for a civil war.
	They're gonna kick the can down the road and it's gonna come down to somebody else, I think.
	I mean, obviously, they could step up if they wanted to, but I don't think they want to.
	There is a component of self-preservation, right?
	So, you have zealots on both sides, right?
	Politically.
	Especially on the left you have and they're funded by foreign power.
	I mean that's that's gonna come out right, right?
	Okay, let me just back up and put my analytic hat on as a you know foreign intelligence if I'm China Russia and Iran I'm gonna have meetings together and figure out a way that we can just completely make massive chaos in the US and And then at the end of the day, have as much influence as possible inside of the U.S.
	and how their form, how their, from their perspective, the United States foreign policy is on China, Russia and Iran.
	China's interests are, you know, with 1.4 billion people, resource based, economic based, right?
	Russia's interest is to lower America's influence globally because they are, you know, it's a waning I wouldn't say waning, but it's definitely a second tier power compared to China and the United States.
	And Iran, it's retribution for Soleimani and Mohandas.
	But they don't want to do it in a kinetic way, because especially now, while President Trump is still in office, he would react in a very unfavorable way to Iran if they were to go kinetic right now.
	I did see something that rockets were going on in Iraq a couple days ago.
	Yeah, there's been several rocket attacks on the base there.
	No retaliation yet.
	No response yet.
	I need to look into that.
	I've been focused obviously on constitutional legal analysis.
	And again, this is the prime moment for all of our adversaries globally to do as much disruption and damage while they can.
	During a transition, Or during a potential transition while it's still being figured out.
	I'm just going to jump in here.
	My biggest fear is that if the deep state perceives that Trump is going to gain the upper hand, and particularly if he gets reelected, that's where I think that's where the critical juncture hits because
	If it's clear to corrupt members of the military-industrial complex that Trump is in for four more years, and if he has a different Attorney General, or if he decides to start prosecuting people through the military, it's going to be full-out war.
	The military aspect, I know some people in very big names, names that I 100% respect, Have been discussing that option?
	I have not been discussing it because I don't think it's necessary yet.
	It's not.
	It's way down the road.
	We're not there yet.
	Right.
	I have six, seven paths.
	Last line of defense.
	That would be eighth and ninth path.
	Right.
	Right.
	Agreed.
	In the big picture, if the Department of Justice is an abject failure And absolutely refuses to do anything about this.
	If the courts are an abject failure, they refuse to get involved, refuse to correct anything.
	If every civil institution that is ordained to give us the rule of law, if they all fail, the military is the last resort.
	I mean, that's the reality.
	I agree.
	I 100% agree with you.
	And I'll say for two critical reasons.
	Capability, and most importantly, trust.
	It is the most trusted institution across the board in the United States, full stop.
	And I'm with you that we are not anywhere near the time where the military needs to be involved.
	We have plenty of civil institutions that need to be allowed time for the right thing.
	We need to completely exhaust those.
	I totally agree with you.
	That's a good point.
	That's a really good point you raised.
	So, SCOTUS, judicial, the criminal investigations are going to, in all these different states, both federal and state, are going to impact whether or not these state legislators are going to recall that slate of electors, right?
	That's that pressure as more evidence is building.
	And the way we can help expedite that is I've been putting out regularly a list of phone numbers, Twitter handles, and I believe addresses of the offices of the U.S.
	Attorneys in these eight contested cities.
	Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Madison, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Atlanta.
	I may have to add New Mexico because I got to see kind of what what they were doing there because that was a that was out of nowhere.
	That was out of nowhere.
	So at least those eight.
	So you have U.S.
	attorneys are the ones that investigate the FBI special agents in charge in those eight cities.
	The election district officers.
	So Department of Justice has what's known as election district officers, federal electoral officials that investigate, you know, fraud, voter fraud and public corruption issues as it relates to voter fraud.
	Okay.
	They better be busy and they better be doing daily briefings to the public, at least in their city, explaining what they're doing.
	If they're not, everyone listening in here needs to start getting them to do it.
	And the way you do it is demand it.
	Like, where are you?
	What are you doing?
	Look at all this evidence.
	This person in Atlanta was just charged.
	What else are you doing?
	You know, this case here, I mean, it's going to start building up, and it's going to continue past January 6th.
	Now, we talked about ODNI.
	Congressional testimony is going to feed that.
	So one thing that I didn't mention before is there's that gap of information.
	So the executive branch can't look into U.S. persons without the FISA.
	But here's the problem.
	So, To get information on them, it has to go through a FISA because they're U.S.
	citizens.
	Right.
	Right.
	Now, at the same time, those same senators and congressmen, those staffers, because they provide oversight over the FBI, they have friends in the FBI, deep state, that will tell them everything they need to know.
	Hey, so-and-so was asked to do an investigation on you.
	So it goes to, you ask AG Barr.
	If you use a chain of command, right?
	A.G.
	Barr.
	A.G.
	Barr talks to Chris Wray.
	Chris Wray talks to the folks at the National Security Division, which are still there from previous times, right?
	And the National Security Division does what?
	They open a counterintelligence investigation.
	Oh wait, we got to get the legislative guys involved.
	Oh wait, this is kind of a sensitive issue.
	It's Congress.
	Wait, they have oversight over us.
	If we do this, we're not going to be funded.
	And it's going to screw the agency.
	Then I don't have a job.
	You see how this all plays out?
	That's why they're almost untouchable unless we, unless we touch them.
	We need to be the piranhas.
	How many piranhas does it take?
	We, when I say we, we the people.
	We need to be the piranhas.
	They're in our waters.
	How many piranhas does it take to devour to the bone a rhinoceros?
	I'm not going to be able to do it alone, but I can take a big chunk.
	You know, 8,000 pound rhinoceros?
	I'm sure a million piranhas within seconds will devour a rhinoceros.
	Rhino.
	And then how long does it take?
	How many, how many piranhas does it take to devour to the bone or more a donkey?
	Times a couple hundred, right?
	Right.
	So when we organize Unstoppable, they're going to do, we're going to shine so much light on these people over the next few weeks and it's going to continue on.
	And unfortunately it's going to be from both political parties.
	We're gonna, we're gonna, we're gonna devour rhinos and accidentally get some... The DC Uniparty needs to go down.
	What's that?
	The DC Uniparty needs to go down.
	Yeah, so, anyhow, let's see here.
	The Gap and the NSA, so there's rules in place of how to collect information on a US person, right?
	So you're limited.
	Right.
	And if you're trying to publicly show that there's this involvement of China, The executive branch kind of legally is tied on on showing how Congress has that relationship.
	The state legislatures can't do it, right?
	They can't find that information out.
	The federal government is limited based on privacy rules, right?
	And protecting U.S.
	persons.
	Right.
	So then how do you get that out?
	You do it through congressional hearings of the other party.
	So this is the framework.
	If you can clip this part out and tweet it, whatever.
	This is so crucial and important in this message.
	I'm not sure if a lot of people don't understand it.
	So let's go back to the 12th amendment.
	You've read it multiple times, right?
	Yep.
	So the 12th amendment contingent election framework is what?
	In the house, in the house.
	Yep.
	How did the state, how does, how do they vote?
	By delegation.
	So they vote by states' delegations.
	Now stay with me.
	We have 50 states.
	So when we do the 538 electoral votes, it's 50 states and D.C., which has three.
	Outside of that framework, when we go to the 12th Amendment, the contingent election framework, the states vote by state delegation.
	D.C.
	does not vote.
	So it's only 50 states.
	One vote.
	So the 117th Congress 117 on January 3rd at noon swears in.
	At that point in time, the House is 27 majority Republican states, 20 that are majority delegation Democrat, and three that are tied.
	There may be a shift in one taken away from 27 because of what's going on in Iowa.
	Nancy Pelosi might steal You're tracking that so far, right?
	congressional seats so then it puts us down to 26 and then one congressman in pennsylvania i believe that's one of the three tied states has said he's going independent he may go rogue right and then vote with the democrats worst case scenario we're at a what is it 26 to 22 to two right vote still a majority okay now you're tracking that so far right i am under that framework
	the republicans have the majority and And thus, under that framework, they can now hold joint hearings with the Senate, where the Republicans have a majority.
	But representing the House, institutionally, under the 12th Amendment framework, are going to be your committee chairman, Devin Nunes, because he's representing the majority state's delegations.
	You're saying the key is to do it after the new session of Congress is sworn in.
	We need to do it now in preparation because we haven't lost any seats.
	The Republican Party still has majority seats now.
	And we will have maybe one more next time.
	So we're at 26.
	It'll be 26 or 27 next time.
	So under that framework, we need to have hearings now where the Senate chambers hosts it so that if Nancy Pelosi objects to this, it doesn't matter.
	The United States Senate is inviting you.
	Hey, Devin Nunes, you're the ranking member and actually the chairman of the majority states delegations from the House.
	We're inviting you to be the co-chair, me as Marco Rubio, to co-chair this hearing with me.
	And in this hearing, we're going to be publicly asking questions of these allegations that are out there.
	Let's have Eric Swalwell testify before America on his involvement with Fang Fang, right?
	Let's have who else?
	Let's have DNI Radcliffe actually, first and foremost, set that stage of what the foreign interference is based on his declassifications, excluding sources and methods so that we're not You know, impacting national security, doing it through the legitimate process.
	So he sets the stage, talks about China, Russia, Iran, involvement on infrastructure.
	He talks about the recent assessment that has been, you know, that at this point should have.
	And then he goes through those particular cases.
	Who else should we have?
	Who do you think else should be in this hearing on the Joint Intel Committee hearing?
	I'm thinking the CEO of Dominion.
	Right.
	Right.
	The CEO of SolarWinds.
	Yep.
	Tell us a little bit more.
	You don't need to tell us trade secrets.
	What's your assessment?
	What do you think?
	But I want to remind you, you're under oath.
	Oh, Raffensperger.
	There you go.
	Who else?
	Governor Kemp.
	Ducey.
	Secretary of State Raffensperger.
	I want to see Ducey testify.
	I haven't looked into the Ducey piece.
	What are your thoughts?
	I'd like to hear those.
	The Arizona swamp is deep.
	Ducey is not a friend of patriots.
	Let's just put it that way.
	So then I'm going to have to do a little periscope or something, call to action to dive on him?
	Yeah.
	This is a no-brainer.
	I mean, think of the public.
	All right.
	There's the legal constitutional aspect of it, but then there's also the underlying political aspect of it, right?
	And then politics means fundraising also, right?
	To be able to get reelected.
	I'll be honest, realistic.
	If you're listening in, or this gets to a senator, This is what's in it for you.
	You hold this hearing, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, right?
	And the rest of the folks on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or Devin Nunes.
	And guess what?
	The amount of publicity this is going to get is going to be unlimited within your base.
	You call in the DNI Radcliffe, everybody wants to hear it.
	You call in the CEO of Dominion, It's going to be an actual legitimate hearing on like so when when the Dominion CEO testifies, I think he testified in Michigan, if I'm not mistaken.
	Yep.
	Well, OK, he lies, right?
	Say he lies.
	He gets caught lying in Michigan.
	Great.
	He's like he's thinking, you know what?
	I'm never going to be in Michigan.
	Good luck.
	Like, what are you going to do to me that I lied?
	And oh, by the way, I'm going to look at my testimony on January 7th and I'm going to retract it and say, you know what?
	I may have made some mistakes.
	And now he's not under any sort of legal risk on January 7th when it's all like it's irrelevant, right?
	Right.
	But when you're testifying under oath before the federal Congress, a lot more people see that.
	The whole country is going to see it.
	And at this point, that name Dominion is Everybody on the planet has heard of it and not so favorable So you either one just by stating that you're gonna have a hearing with those people.
	They're either gonna one not show up Which in the court of public opinion means equates to you're hiding something That's a win right show up.
	You plead the fifth in the court of public opinion.
	You are hiding something or option three you testify you provide compelling evidence and That nothing was wrong.
	America wins.
	Or, you accidentally slip and tell the truth, and identify that there are other paths, investigative paths to go into, to then further uncover fraud.
	Again, a win for America.
	Yeah.
	And then on the political side, the spectacle and the little clips you can make, the fundraising videos, you're gonna raise money like crazy!
	What members of Congress are failing to consider right now, and I'm talking Lankford, Cornyn, all of them, all the Republicans in the Senate, they're on social media tweeting about the COVID bill, tweeting about the continuing resolutions that have been passed, tweeting about the end of the year budget bill that's coming out.
	They don't realize that most people don't give a crap about any of that.
	That most patriots, all they care about is the election.
	That is the number one issue they care about.
	And there are millions of pissed off patriots who are not going to be very happy if they understand that the Senate has the ability to change the outcome of this election and they don't do it.
	Now, I watch social media very carefully.
	I observe and I watch what's going on.
	When Matt Gaetz led a bunch of members of Congress down into Adam Schiff's little star chamber and busted up the hearing that they were having to try to impeach Trump.
	That day, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, and the people that were with him became rock stars on social media.
	Their engagement on Twitter was nothing.
	I watch these guys and they're lucky to get 200 likes and maybe 50 retweets on anything they tweet.
	When they went into that star chamber and busted up Adam Schiff's little... Patriots like bold, decisive action.
	Those guys all became stars.
	On social media they were getting tens of thousands of retweets and likes and shares and people were recognizing that, oh wait a minute, members of Congress actually did something to help us and the president that we love.
	What members of Congress fail to understand is that People who support Trump love Trump for who he is, for what he does for this country, and there are millions of people in this country who will die for their president.
	Members of Congress don't understand.
	There isn't a patriot here in this country that would die for a member of Congress.
	There are millions who would die for their president, and they have an opportunity right now to connect with The most important issue to patriots in this country, which is overturning the results of this rigged election.
	If they fail to do that, they're going to set us on a course that is going to be very difficult for everyone.
	If they hold these hearings, and if they allow some transparency into the system, the election system, and if they allow the people to see and they allow people to testify, they're going to show us, patriots, That they're, that they're acting in good faith and their star is going to continue to rise.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, that was part of the kind of the analysis of make this as transparent as possible because the way it stands right now, 50% if not more of the country is not going to accept the election.
	If it's completely open.
	Now, if the state legislatures actually call a vote and do a vote, Whether it's either way, they've done their constitutional duty.
	Right.
	Right?
	They've done their constitutional duty and all of us have to accept it because it was done according to the law.
	The left is going to be angry.
	They're going to be infuriated.
	Some of them are going to take to the streets.
	But the more we put this message out that this election isn't over and that Trump could win based on these scenarios.
	The lower the temperature gets, because they start getting prepared for it, right?
	One.
	And then two, 100% of the country will accept it as being legal if you actually look into the law.
	Right.
	To your point, the only way that we are going to avoid mass civil unrest is if one side is convinced that their guy cheated.
	Yep.
	You could be pissed at the legislatures, but at the end of the day, you're going to say, you know what?
	Dammit, I hate Trump, but he won legitimately.
	He used all of the political levers and power according to the rule of law.
	I hate that, but he won.
	I'm saying that as a liberal, right?
	In the most recent poll that Rasmussen put out, 30% of Democrats are convinced that some votes were stolen from Trump and Biden votes were given to him.
	By holding these hearings, you make a great point, that was another point I wanted to make, was by holding these hearings from now until January 6th, 75% of the country is going to think it.
	Now, 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats believe that the votes were stolen in this election.
	If Congress will hold the hearings and present evidence and make a transparent process More and more people will realize, okay, yeah, this election was rigged, and it's more difficult to go and riot in the streets if you realize it was a rigged election.
	Right, so let me just kind of really wrap up the hearings, right?
	So, we talked about all the different folks.
	I proposed Financial Services, Foreign Relations Committee, Intel Committee, Homeland Security, and Judiciary.
	And so, in each of these committees, we already talked about the Intel piece.
	Again, same framework for all these other ones.
	Ideally, it would be in the order of Financial Services, Intel, Foreign Relations, So that all this can start playing out to feed into the legislatures to determine whether or not they're going to accept the slate that they already did on the 14th.
	Okay.
	And then the hearing.
	So financial services.
	Who do we need to interview?
	Treasury Secretary.
	He's going to talk about the hack, right?
	That occurred on the Treasury Department.
	And he's going to talk about, alongside his Office of Intelligence Analysis, he's going to talk about any sort of financial crimes that impacted the election, right?
	I think.
	And then other witnesses would be Swalwell, Fang Fang, right?
	Hunter Biden and his foreign dealings.
	He's a private citizen.
	Please refuse to, you know, refuse the subpoena.
	Great.
	You're hiding something.
	Oh, show up.
	Plead the fifth.
	Great.
	You're hiding something.
	You know, Mark Zuckerberg should testify in that hearing.
	Yep.
	So let me add him.
	That's a good point.
	I have to actually have the slide up.
	Zuckerberg.
	So then we have Maxine Waters.
	She she heads up the fight.
	So in each of these hearings, we call in the the traditional chairperson of these committees from the Democrat side.
	As an opportunity to share what they know as the other party, right, as the of the of the finance service, because we want we want to be fair, but they're not going to be co-chairing it.
	There will be a witness to have their opportunity to say what they need to say.
	And they will be questioned by the Senate.
	Well, yeah, in order for the legislature, the U.S.
	the majority states delegations and the reason why the it's done in that construct is in order to be able to inform both chambers on whether or not on january 6th to accept legislative the the electors from these states it's to you know it's we have to inform them right make sense right because it well yeah
	in order for the legislature the u.s legislature to accept or reject electors they have to make an informed decision.
	Exactly.
	So the more hearings that are had, the more witnesses, as it relates, you know, bring in all the witnesses that came in to the states levels, and then have the federal Congress now see what's going on.
	Because they're not going to have time to do it on the 6th.
	We've got to do it now through the 6th to be able to make that informed decision.
	Okay.
	So, yes, we talked about CEOs of SolarWinds, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris.
	I think she was mentioned in some of the Hunter Biden emails as the go-to person for transactions.
	So we want to give her an opportunity to explain what that meant.
	Of course, right?
	You know what else would be interesting?
	And I'm not sure where this would come in, but in addition to Zuckerberg and asking him questions about the money that his nonprofits gave to various local The cities to run their elections.
	Right.
	The other questions that need to be asked about Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey is, were they compensated and were they directed on how to run their social media platforms with respect to censorship before and after the election?
	So I had them later on for another hearing that I was going to discuss.
	That's a good point.
	The financial nexus between Facebook, Twitter, right?
	And influencing the election, right?
	Right.
	So, yeah.
	And YouTube.
	YouTube, yes.
	YouTube, there you go.
	Lying under that whole Google apparatus.
	All right, so we got... All right, Intel we talked about.
	I mean, I think the key players on the Intel side are going to be Nunes, Stefanik on the house side.
	Cotton's probably going to be the first person to accept something like this just based on, you know, what I'm tracking.
	Would you agree?
	Well, yeah, as soon as you talk about foreign election interference, Cotton's on board.
	He'll be there.
	Yeah, because Rubio's, I mean, that's a rhino that we got to drag across the finish line, right?
	Right.
	I mean, it is what it is.
	You got to give him an impetus to move.
	All right.
	So we talked about that framework.
	This completely boxes out Pelosi and her role as Speaker of the House.
	She has no role as Speaker of the House under this construct.
	Right.
	And it's in the Constitution.
	Good.
	This is great.
	All right.
	So next up, foreign relations.
	We bring in the U.S.
	ambassador to China, U.S.
	ambassador to Russia, senior representative to Iran to, you know, to share what they know about the, you know, the foreign influence potentially.
	We also, again, bring in Hunter Biden on that foreign piece.
	You know, we give him an opportunity to really lay things out on Foreign Relations Committee, on the Financial Services Committee and later on on the Do we call in Joe Biden?
	Whatever committee.
	Absolutely.
	Call in Joe Biden.
	Because currently he's only a candidate for office.
	He has no immunity of anything.
	All he is right now, his status is a candidate for President of the United States.
	Candidate.
	Candidate.
	Private citizen.
	And his candidate status will terminate on January 6th.
	Alright, so, Judiciary.
	So Graham, Hawley, Cruz, Kennedy, Blackburn, Grassley, Tillis, Crepo, I mean some of the weaker ones.
	And then you have, it's represented by Jim Jordan.
	That's why I had a conversation with Jim Jordan to kind of brief him on the situation of this 12th Amendment framework.
	So again, co-chaired in the Senate Chambers, where we have the majority.
	We'll have to drag McConnell to make sure that he's tracking that this is going on.
	And then as we do these hearings, and these are multi-day hearings, by the way, because there are a lot of witnesses.
	So we're looking at 4th through the 6th of January is when we have to really hit it hard and heavy.
	Because we want to, with the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, we want to give as much time as possible for all of these investigations to flourish and come to fruition and factor in the holidays, right?
	Because they're slowing down.
	Right.
	We need to give as much time up until January 6th to be able to get these people that I'm going to mention as witnesses to build their case of all the fraud that has happened in those eight cities in the six states.
	A.G.
	Barr, he's going to testify and talk about all that stuff going on, or whoever, if he's not there, maybe the number two is acting.
	Chris Wray is going to discuss any FBI investigations that he can talk about, right?
	Every single special agent in charge we're going to call as witnesses in those eight cities to give us, shed us, you know, give us more context on it.
	Also, we're going to talk about the election district officers, what I mentioned before, The U.S.
	attorneys will have an opportunity to shed light on what's going on and maybe give us a historical background of all the cases of public corruption and election fraud that has occurred in their district over the course of, let's say, the last 20 years or 100 years, and then ask them, well, if this many have occurred in the past, how come you have zero now?
	It's going to really shed a lot of light in determining whether or not this was the safest and securest election ever, right?
	There's going to be so many data points for the Congress to be able to pull from, and I think it's going to take the public along for the ride at the end of all these hearings to make the decision that, yeah, we can't accept electoral slates when all of these shenanigans are going on.
	Right?
	Right.
	All right.
	And then lastly, the last day of the Judiciary Joint Committee hearing, you invite the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
	Because there's no equivalent in the Senate.
	The closest one is going to be judiciary.
	You bring Greg Walden, Congressman Walden, who's the ranking member to represent the entire House body in his capacity as a ranking member.
	Morgan Griffith, maybe Mark Wayne Mullins on there.
	And then you invite Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, possibly Jeff Bezos.
	Throw in, sprinkle in a little bit of Tim Cook in there.
	Maybe James O'Keefe, right?
	And then they talk about what?
	They talk about big tech, censorship, manipulation, blocking, right?
	Right.
	And how it impacted the election.
	And it is still impacting the election.
	Because even though the left thinks, oh the election's over, it's not!
	The election's over is on the 6th of January.
	So everything you've done illegally to manipulate the election from November 3rd, Or even like, oh, we didn't do anything and we didn't do all these blockings until December 14th.
	Well, great.
	You just admitted to it from December 14th until January 6th, when we're having you testify before the one o'clock hearing of the joint hearing.
	Right.
	Right.
	In the House, because they're going to move from the Senate over to the House, according to the 12th Amendment rules and Title three.
	They're going to testify that, yes, we manipulated it, but the election's over.
	They're going to say the election was over on the 14th.
	No.
	And so there you have it.
	They're going to be complicit in a crime and we could potentially use that later.
	So anyway, that's the judiciary.
	And then the last one would be Homeland Security.
	That's when everything is wrapped up of everything that was going on in the past with all these hearings coupled with daily 9 p.m.
	primetime briefings by the executive branch to update the American public, kind of like you did with the COVID.
	He needs to.
	The president, along with the executive branch, needs to brief daily what the status is within the Intel community and declassified of all the shenanigans and foreign attacks that are occurring in the cyberspace, specifically as it applies to the infrastructure and election infrastructure.
	OK, the messaging.
	So, again, the last one, what is it?
	Mike Rogers from the House walks over to the Senate chambers where Ron Johnson co-chairs it.
	And what do they bring in?
	DHS Secretary Chad Wolf and he tells us all of the investigations are going on within DHS and they're going to bring in the U.S.
	Postal Service Postmaster General to tell us all the investigations that they've done over the last several weeks that the whistleblowers have come forward on that they had to post backdate some of these mail-in ballots in all of these jurisdictions.
	Then we're going to bring in the eight Postmasters from these cities under oath to tell us, hey, did you have any things going on?
	We're also going to bring in the U.S.
	Postal Inspector Service and the Inspector General to tell us about all their investigations of crime that have occurred.
	And for good measure.
	We'll give an opportunity to the House Homeland Security Chairman, Benny Thompson, to say his piece under oath as a witness.
	And then, oh, and then the Sunrise Project folks.
	You heard of them?
	Uh, no.
	They're the ones that were going to do the 50-day siege on the White House.
	Oh, okay.
	After the election.
	Okay.
	Uh, that didn't happen.
	Have them testify?
	Yeah.
	Tell us what their plans were, what their new plans as it relates to the election.
	Maybe AFL-CIO and their plan to steal the election.
	There's other ones that we could add on there.
	Right.
	All right, so that leads us to January 6th.
	Okay.
	But one thing, one major thing, Wednesday.
	You know what's going on on Wednesday?
	Right, so that's the day that Pence is supposed to verify and check whether or not he has all the true votes of the electors from all the states.
	Yeah, so this is big.
	This is the biggest thing that's happening this week.
	December 23rd, which is under the statute, it's the fourth, what is it, the fourth Wednesday of December.
	The Vice President, if he does not receive, I'm doing it from memory right now, if he does not receive electors from the states, then he submits a demand letter on the state Secretaries of State telling them to submit their electors, the presidential electors.
	I submit that he did not receive Electors because the ones that were sent illegal fraudulent criminal electors and this is kind of how I would recommend he respond and To these secretaries of state.
	I drafted a memo in My recent tweets and told the asked the vice president to sign it and I has this as a seal it's addressed to the Secretary of State and it goes something like this and Dear Sir, Madam, pursuant to the requirements of Title III of the U.S.
	Code Section 12, I hereby request that you send the certificate and list lodged with you by the electors of your state and transmit the same by registered mail to the President of the Senate at the seat of government.
	As listed, right?
	The papers received by President of the Senate and the Archivist, which is required according to statute, You know why?
	the United States Senate are not certificate of votes and lists by electors as recited in Title 3, USC, sections 9 and 11.
	You know why?
	Since Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors.
	The electors of your state were not appointed in the manner that Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, the state legislature directed because the manner in which your state's election was administered were marred with violations of laws passed by your respective state's legislatures that included fraud, public the state legislature directed because the manner in which your state's election was administered were marred with violations of laws passed by your respective state's
	And Exhibit A is going to include absolutely everything that we've seen thus far in all of the testimonial hearings, all of the lawsuits that have been filed, right?
	Yep.
	All of the hearings that we had thus far.
	You know, the big one was last week before Ron Johnson, all of that stuff.
	So exhibit A is going to include evidence, documents, memos, showing how your state constitution and electoral election statutes were violated.
	Additionally, are included copies of pending litigation, other pending administrative actions, audits, and, and that will even further vitiate the results of your election.
	I sincerely regret sending huge volumes of books, boxes of documents, truckloads of paper, video evidence, and audio recordings.
	Should more evidence come to light showing more violations, I will follow up if necessary with additional documents, memos, boxes, truckloads of paper, and evidence to add to Exhibit A.
	It is likely that the entirety of Exhibit A may be delayed due to the voluminous nature of fraud and public corruption that is being exposed in your respective state.
	I am in the process of procuring several 18-wheel tractor trailers to ensure there is sufficient room to deliver all of the evidence I have thus far.
	Kindly send the certificates and lists as required by Title III, Sections 9 and 11 from electors that were appointed in the manner that your state legislature Directed as soon as possible, but before January 6th at 1 p.m. 2021 in the manner prescribed in Title III.
	Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Best Regards.
	Signed, Michael Pence, Vice President of the United States, also President of the Senate, and President, Presiding Officer of the Joint Session of Congress, January 6th, 2021.
	I like it.
	You know, if Trump was the Vice President, he would send that letter out.
	I don't think Pence will, but... I mean, I wanted to make it, you know, there's a little entertainment value in there, but it's well within professional reason to say that, because it is accurate.
	That's how voluminous... Imagine compiling every single lawsuit that has occurred, all the legislative hearings that have occurred, the transcripts from that,
	All of the I mean you saw even in Nevada there were 20 volumes David's right with Sidney Powell sitting on I don't know personally But based on how her and her team operate What you saw in Nevada that little video clip of the 20 volumes and what Rudy Giuliani put together just massive amounts of affidavits Yep, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 to 100 X that of the amount of people that have Submitted affidavits to her.
	Yeah, there's there's tens of thousands of affidavits out there right now so I say that that's compelling and There was an article in the the national file It quoted me saying that it would be illegal for the vice president.
	He would be complicit in Participating in fraud if he were to accept electors right as they stand so this this we're getting down to the point where I think We're getting down to the point in the plan where I think this is the most realistic, likely scenario that is actually going to happen.
	I think that Trump... It only involves one person.
	Right.
	It involves Trump and Pence.
	It's not going to get involved.
	Right.
	This part of the plan doesn't involve the courts.
	It doesn't actually involve Congress.
	It doesn't involve governors.
	It doesn't involve a lot of people who don't want to be involved in the process.
	Pence puts out a demand to the governors, you either give us the legitimate electors or we're just going to reject the electors you've sent and here's why.
	And I think if I'm Trump strategically looking at all this, And knowing Trump the way that I know him just from observing him over the last four years.
	Right.
	He is a he's a very successful CEO, successful businessman.
	And if as any successful business person and CEO knows, there are certain parts of your operation that you can delegate to other people.
	There are certain key points you have to keep control of yourself.
	Trump knows that.
	Trump knows that Him maintaining his presence in the Oval Office, getting another four years, is going to save this country and potentially save the world from a long period of enslavement to communism.
	Trump isn't going to allow, I don't think Trump is going to allow that to happen, and I don't think he's going to risk flaky judges on Supreme Court or flaky members of Congress to do the right thing.
	I think that Trump would want to have this in his own control.
	I think if he was able to control the process and control the outcome directly, this is the one thing he would want to maintain control of.
	This is the ideal method.
	This is the cleanest, most compelling, most legitimate, and it's not going to be dirty.
	Here's my analysis on this.
	The Vice President submits this.
	Well, then what happens if you disagree with it?
	If the governors don't respond, well, then we go forward to January 6th.
	Right.
	If they don't respond.
	So here, I argue that there are three ways that they can remedy it at the state level.
	One is that the state legislature calls a vote.
	They call that special session.
	Governor's not needed.
	Right.
	They vote the electors.
	The governor certifies that and resubmits.
	That's one path.
	Fairly simple, right?
	Knock it out in, you know, same day, right?
	Get everybody in, do it whatever, Skype, remote, whatever they're doing.
	Or they can do it inside the chambers, you know, whatever.
	Two days max.
	So the 20, you know, Christmas Day.
	Or the 26th if they want to wait.
	The second option is to hold a completely new election.
	How feasible?
	Almost, that's not feasible, right?
	To run a complete – it's possible.
	It's within the realm of possibility, extremely highly unlikely due to cost, due to the holidays.
	I mean there's just so many different dynamics.
	And then the last option is if they don't agree with it – again, the states.
	I'm talking about the states as a party here.
	Then they go ahead and go into court, file in district court, wait, wait for a response.
	Somebody appeals, either side, whoever lost.
	It goes to the Court of Appeals.
	Wait.
	Somebody loses.
	It's appealed.
	It goes to the Supreme Court.
	How many days do you think that is?
	Couple weeks.
	During the holidays?
	Right.
	Couple weeks?
	Probably.
	January 6th is a couple weeks.
	Right.
	Good luck with your Supreme Court case, buddy.
	Yeah.
	If you disagree with the Vice President.
	Because he has the authority until the Supreme Court overrides him.
	As the presiding officer.
	And we already know how much the court wants to take up a case that's involving the election.
	Now, let's say that they get involved.
	What is our argument?
	Our argument is that, so there's two parties potentially to this.
	It's the states, which has one line of argumentation, and then the Biden campaign, right?
	Okay.
	So with the Biden campaign, and I would argue that the states Potentially have a cause of action before January 6th.
	The Biden campaign does not have a cause of action.
	They lack standing because they're not an injured party.
	They're not an injured party until January 6th.
	And maybe even both the state and the the Biden campaign is not an injured party.
	So let's take that train of thought.
	They become an injured party after the president's reelected 232 to 227 because those six states were rejected.
	And so Trump gets 232 electoral votes.
	Biden gets 227.
	The presiding officer of the Senate, again, the vice president, he says that because the states did not, I did not receive an electoral slate that was non-fraudulent in order to get a majority, it doesn't require 270 because those states are outside of the denominator because we didn't receive them.
	And that's a really good point because in looking at the Electoral Count Act, the 12th And only other electoral law I don't see anywhere in there where it says that if a state's electors are rejected.
	That that denominator has to be changed.
	I mean, some people sort of assume you start out with 538, 270 is your majority.
	And if you disqualify Pennsylvania electors, it goes to 260.
	It goes to 260.
	And if you take out Wisconsin, it keeps going down.
	I don't see anywhere where it says that that denominator changes.
	So it doesn't say that anywhere.
	This is OK.
	This comes down to analysis of the existing laws.
	And this this is where I've been standing on this the whole time.
	If the states submit their electors.
	So the first case scenario, I already explained my analysis.
	They're rejected outright.
	And so he wins 232 to 227.
	No contingent election needed.
	Right.
	Right.
	Now, those states do submit an electoral slate.
	Let's move to January 6th, 1 p.m.
	Pence and the U.S.
	Senate go into the House of Representatives chambers.
	Vice President Pence is no longer the president of the Senate in this construct.
	He is now the presiding officer of both chambers, the House and the Senate.
	They go in alphabetical order from A to Z. Alabama, Arizona, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas.
	Does anybody object to Arizona?
	Yes, my name is Mo Brooks.
	I object.
	Well, who's the senator?
	My name's Tom, also from Alabama, the great state of Alabama.
	My name is Tommy Tuberville.
	I object as well.
	OK, go to your separate chambers and then vote on whether or not you're going to accept those electors.
	The Senate votes 52 to 48 because we're going to postpone the runoff in Georgia and we're going to have those two senators back.
	They vote to reject the electoral slate.
	The House votes 222 to 111 until we figure out the other two seats.
	They vote to accept that electoral slate.
	There's a conflict.
	Me, as the Vice President, well not now, as a Presiding Officer, Mike Pence, decide that because there's a conflict between the two houses, I'm going to go to the tie-break rule.
	And the tie-break rule comes from the construct of the 12th Amendment.
	Before we go to the Title 3 of Section 15 and certify what the governor certified.
	We're going to go through a tie-break procedure as our last resort before having to go and execute on Title 3 Section 15.
	And what is that?
	We're going to go to majority states delegations on the House side.
	Oh, 27 to 20 to 3.
	OK, so both houses agree we're going to reject the electoral votes from Arizona.
	And then now to answer your question, the original one is.
	I argue that.
	You still have to get 270 because those states submitted and it was the Congress that denied them.
	And so now if you throw out a state and no one gets to 270, That triggers the overall 12th Amendment contingent vote.
	A secondary contingent vote, if you will.
	I'm confused with going to a tiebreak in the House, because my reading of the Electoral Count Act, it's pretty clear that if a representative... I'm the presiding officer.
	What authority are you using?
	Well, he is, but if you look at the Electoral Count Act, when My analysis is based on the Constitution, the 12th Amendment.
	Your analysis is based on what?
	A federal statute?
	My analysis is based on the Constitution.
	You see where I'm going, right?
	The problem with the Electoral Count Act is, some see it as a federal law, some see it as a procedural rule.
	And if it's a procedural rule, it can sort of be overlooked, actually.
	And again, I'm, as the presiding officer, I looked at both laws and my interpretation is that the 12th Amendment is binding and supersedes it.
	Right.
	As the presiding officer, I want to give all opportunities available to exhaust any conflicts between both houses before we have to go to the statute.
	Okay.
	And under my authority as the presiding officer, that is how we're going to play this out.
	And here's what's gonna happen.
	If Pence flexes his muscle.
	Sergeant-at-arms!
	escort the presiding officer and the rest of the senate out of these chambers now mr president now it's time to go kinetic work.
	Meaning, the Department of Defense is going to have to, or somebody, right?
	Is going to have to enforce that the Senate remain in the house to continue these proceedings.
	Right?
	Yep.
	And I just think that Speaker Pelosi has a sergeant in arms.
	200 people protecting or whatever it is.
	The vice president.
	And the president.
	Have a few more assets than that.
	Right.
	And again, not only that, he's the president and vice president from January 6th through the 20th, at the very least.
	Right.
	So they can make sure that that vote continues according to how the presiding officer wants it to continue.
	And if the Speaker of the House has an issue with that, by all means, her recourse is a Organization called the Supreme Court.
	Pence, on the 23rd, could contact the states, ask them to submit electors.
	We're going to know whether they do or don't.
	Coming into January 6th.
	We're going to know a lot with more clarity by January 6th.
	Right.
	Pence is going to know, coming into January 6th, what his path is going to be.
	His role is going to be an unknown thing.
	That's it.
	I think I explained everything in two hours.
	All right.
	Ivan, I appreciate you spending time with me.
	It went way longer than I thought, but... Yeah, yeah.
	Your contact on social media, on Twitter, you're at... Yeah, just follow me at Twitter.
	That's where I do all my stuff.
	At Raiklin, R-A-I-K-L-I-N?
	Correct.
	Yep.
	At Raiklin.
	I'll put a link to it, your Twitter, in the show notes.
	Can you tag me so I can make sure that I can share it out?
	I will.
	Awesome.
	I will.
	Thanks, man.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you, Mr. Praying Medic.

▲