All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2022 - Rudy Giuliani
41:06
Expert Constitutional Lawyer, Jenna Ellis, Gives an Explosive Interview | May 6th 2022, Ep 236
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, this is Rudy Giuliani, and I'm back with another episode of Rudy's Common Sense.
Today we have with us really an exceptional lawyer, an exceptional person, a great patriot, and I must say a very close friend and colleague, Jenna Ellis.
We couldn't have her at a better time, could we?
Supreme Court, leaked decision, Big change in the law, maybe, right?
And then we have a national Bureau of Truth in Soviet, I mean, in America.
And then so many other things to discuss, particularly with the movie that we're both here to watch tonight, 2000 Mules by Danish D'Souza.
But you can't imagine how good a lawyer this lady is.
Superb.
I work with her under The worst of circumstances, and she was the best.
Jenna, it's so wonderful to have you.
Thank you so much, my friend.
And that was such a kind introduction.
And it's true.
And I appreciate that.
It was the worst of circumstances.
Yeah.
And I think that when I look back on it now, The groundwork that we laid, particularly when we went to all those different legislatures and got out the witnesses, that's the raw material on which everything else now will grow.
And we knew it.
I think we knew at some point we weren't going to win.
And we were laying a basis for history.
Yes.
And now it's nice to see that the history is starting to As you've told President Trump and as I have, the truth will always come out.
And so even though we had such a short time frame to advocate for the truth and to advocate for a remedy, once the legislatures failed, the courts failed, and ultimately the case, the record and the proof didn't fail.
It was the people in power that failed to listen to it.
But once we saw that, you're right, we did preserve the record, and we did at least preserve and I hope encourage the American people to continue always to fight for election integrity and to fight for our Constitution.
And there was no better champion than you during that whole effort.
And you.
I think you remember, of course, like it was yesterday, our first hearing in Pennsylvania.
Gettysburg.
No place better than Gettysburg, right?
He turned on the Battle Hymn of the Republic on our way back.
I'll never forget that.
We were in the back of the car, and he was like, let me get to my Spotify.
And we were all singing it, and it was great.
Do you remember President Trump invited them all to the White House?
Yes.
He didn't realize there was 250 people.
He got it down to about 40 or 50, and the Mastrianos had COVID.
He and his whole family ended up testing positive.
And then the president says, well, you know what, raise your hand if you haven't had COVID yet and was just, he was so kind.
He was.
But you know, so you just, but we could go over all the hearings.
We just focus on that hearing.
We had maybe six, seven witnesses.
They had six, seven witnesses of their own.
All of them individual American citizens, all of them describing how they saw ballots being double counted, triple counted, they never got to inspect 700,000 ballots, all kinds of things, right?
No one's ever bothered to look at that testimony.
And what's amazing, and you and I were talking about this at dinner last night, that the January 6th Committee, of course, subpoenaed me.
And they subpoenaed testimony, but also documents.
And with, of course, the president's permission, I gave them all of those affidavits, all of that evidence that at the time we had.
And of course, there's even more that has come to light.
But over 9,000 pages of documents I gave to the January 6th Committee.
And it's now in the permanent congressional record.
How many interviews do you think that I've done on the substance of those documents?
And how many reporters called me after that?
None.
Zero?
Yeah.
Because just like the legislatures, just like the courts, they don't want to hear the evidence and inspect it on the merits.
Is it a shock?
No, at this point, no.
It's just- Back then.
It's back then, honestly.
Back then it was.
When we started, and we started the first case in Pennsylvania, didn't you think the judge would at least listen to the witnesses?
At least!
That's what judges are supposed to do.
And you and I, in our legal experience, when you bring a case, you at least have a hearing on the merits, because of course we should have had standing, when you have a A client who is a candidate for the highest office in the land and is alleging that there was fraud in the election.
Every other challenge, election challenge before and after that, that's okay to challenge.
Right.
Even up in New York and the Democrats.
But for some reason, when it's Donald Trump, then, no, we can't hear it, you don't have standing, all of these other rules that they manufactured and simply said no.
And that was shocking and it was against the law as well.
I mean, we had two witnesses, Corey Lewandowski, who people know, and Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of this state, Florida, who had documentary evidence.
They had a court order allowing them to see the paper ballots.
The Democrats worked it out, they put up pens, they did 700,000 ballots, no Republican got to see a single one.
When Corey and Pam went there, the sheriff would not enforce the order for two hours.
He finally enforced the order when the higher court, all Democrat, reversed it.
Now, that testimony is, I mean, I've been practicing law for 50 years.
If that's not relevant testimony, there's no such thing as relevant testimony.
And the judge barred it, excluded it, and that happened over and over again until we decided we had to go to the legislatures.
The courts weren't going to hear us.
I don't know if they made a pact, I don't know if they made an agreement, but they weren't going to hear witnesses.
Which is absolutely absurd, because just because you have testimony and you have a claim doesn't always mean that you'll prevail.
But then it's up to the finder of fact, either a judge or a jury, depending on the case, of course.
You know, for people who misunderstand this and they're misled by the media.
They don't understand that assessing the weight and credibility and ultimately the conclusion, which is was there sufficient fraud that determined the outcome of the election, all of those things should have been heard on the merits.
And the courts simply refused to assess the credibility of the evidence.
I believe they were afraid.
I think somewhere they decided, we're staying out of this.
This is a political matter.
No witnesses.
Throw the cases out.
Let them fight it out in the legislatures and the politics.
We're going to, John Roberts somewhere, we're going to stay out of it.
And isn't that- Because it's outrageous.
There's no such thing as not hearing witnesses on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Well, and the thing is that they completely bastardize in that articulation of this is That just because it deals with a campaign does not mean that it's inherently political.
And so what you reaffirmed over and over again is the campaign was over.
Now we're representing a legal issue.
Right.
And this could have been the rules of a contract that was damaged and breached.
This could have been the rules of a homeowner's association.
This could have been in property law.
It could have been in any other scenario that the law was not followed.
And so the fact that That they're thinking about it this way, and I believe the same that you do, that it was also out of fear.
I think they didn't want to get harassed and bullied in the same way that you and I were and so many other lawyers who represented the president.
But to have that view and to say, well, this is political, completely misunderstands what the judicial branch is for and what the law ultimately is for.
Because it's not political when it comes to ensuring there's accountability to follow election law or any other law.
Well, the thing I can assure people of, if they go to Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia, they will get a complete record, particularly in Georgia, who had 200 witnesses.
They'll get a complete record so that these claims of election fraud don't come from you or me.
They come from American citizens that we interviewed.
Yes.
When people say, you claimed election fraud!
I said, no I didn't.
I represented people who claimed election fraud and they're your fellow citizens.
And it's a tragedy.
It's so well said.
It's a tragedy that you don't know about.
Yes, and that the mainstream media won't cover it, and that's why radio shows and podcasts like yours, like mine on Salem, that when we have these conversations, there are so many Americans that are going to alternative platforms to get the truth, to get common sense, because the mainstream media narrative, they see through it now, and they see that the editorializing around these very important stories are feeding them a certain perspective and also excluding very newsworthy content.
So tell us how we get you because people should hear you how you want twice a week, once a week.
Thank you.
It's actually Monday through Thursday.
Four times a week.
So four times a week, Monday through Thursday.
They should listen to you four times a week and if they can't listen to you, they should listen to you later because you're a podcast.
Yes, anytime, on demand.
And they can listen to you like I do, four o'clock in the morning.
Yes, or like my dad does, you know, driving into work.
Yes, you can go to TheJennaEllisShow.com and you can stream it anywhere on any of the streaming platforms for audio, but then you can also go to my Rumble or YouTube channel, but TheJennaEllisShow.com has all of the information.
So if you're a law student, if you don't listen to this, you're probably going to fail constitutional law.
And if you're just a plain, ordinary, great American citizen who wants to know the truth, you're not getting it anywhere else except on these podcasts that you have, I have, and our friends.
I mean, the way I look at it, Jenna, there's a big wall of silence.
And we have to go around it.
Yes.
You and me and Jay Sekulow and you name it, whoever, we have to go around it and somehow, you know, get this out.
And I think we're doing a pretty good job of it.
I do too.
And I hear from listeners all the time and people Who are regular Americans who want to know the truth and didn't have the benefit of seeing everything on the ground like you and I did.
And they say, you know, thank you for standing up and still speaking truth and having the courage to not be silenced.
And the idea of self-censorship to me is ridiculous.
People who, conservatives, who pull themselves off of platforms or are too afraid to speak up because of something that might happen.
Well, then why did our founders literally bleed for preservation of these rights that come from God, that our government is obligated to preserve and protect what we're doing right now and exercising our ability to speak together about truth on these platforms that technology has now allowed us to in even a wider context?
That is the essence of what our founders recognized is essential to the American experiment, because once government says your viewpoint is disagreeable and shuts us down, then the American experiment has failed.
Well, we'll be right back with Jenna very, very, very, very shortly.
And don't forget, four days a week, once again, TheJennaEllisShow.com.
Isn't she great?
Think your homeowner's insurance covers home title fraud?
Think again.
And neither does your Common Identity Theft Program.
The FBI calls home title fraud one of the fastest-growing crimes, which is why you need to go to HomeTitleLock.com, America's leader in home title protection.
Here's the problem.
The deed to your home is the only document that proves you own it.
And the deeds to all of our homes now are online.
In minutes, a criminal can find and forge your name off the deed to your home and refile as the new owner.
Like Jeff, who spent a fortune in legal fees after a thief forged himself onto the deed to Jeff's home and took out loans.
Jeff didn't have home title off then, he does now.
Or Deborah, who thought our common identity theft service would protect her.
Then a criminal got onto the deed to a home and had her evicted.
Deborah has Home Title Lock now.
HomeTitleLock.com is your peace of mind and the deed to your home is protected.
Visit HomeTitleLock.com.
HomeTitleLock.com.
Well, we're back with Jenna Ellis and we're going to continue our interview and we're going to move to a subject that, of course, she knows a great deal about and can give us a great deal of wisdom on.
And that is, I guess we would have to call it the leaked opinion of the Supreme Court of Justice Alito, which declares a role against Wade unconstitutional.
So why don't I let you and Why don't I let you describe what that means and how really very expected this was of anybody who really is a constitutional lawyer.
Even left-wingers would tell you that Roe against Wade was a decrepit opinion.
It really was.
And that's what a lot of the leftists and, of course, the mainstream media hacks and, you know, we can name all of the CNN and MSNBC ridiculous purveyors of misinformation, you know, what they say is that this is just an abortion debate.
But the reality is, is that the Constitution is fixed in the sense that Our founders only provided specific limited powers for government.
And one of those powers that the federal government does not have is to regulate abortion and allow for abortion.
And so when Roe vs. Wade and of course its progeny was decided, It was based on a misreading and basically a circumvention of the entire U.S.
Constitution and this concept of limited power.
It is a question for the states to determine their own policy under state powers.
And so we can talk all day, and I do talk all day, about pro-life and about the necessity of protecting life.
But just in terms of the mechanics here, No credible attorney worth their salt would say that Roe vs. Wade was a constitutionally correct opinion, and that's what this first draft that was leaked by Alito was really getting at.
And of course, it articulated all of this beautifully, but the thing that's so fascinating to me about the leak is because, as you said, Rudy, that this opinion, if this ultimately holds and that becomes the published opinion, That's, everybody anticipated that.
So why would they leak this, you know, six to eight weeks ahead?
Well, Congress is now, members of Congress on the left, like Bernie Sanders, like Ilhan Omar, others are saying, well, now we have to step in before this comes out.
We need to step in and codify Roe versus Wade.
Well, guess what?
They still don't have the power.
But that's how the left works.
They want to say, look, this is actually happening, guys.
So we need to effectively render that decision moot.
By having the legislature now proceed unconstitutional.
I don't think there's any doubt that that's what happened.
First of all, anyone in favor of that decision would never have leaked it, because why take a chance?
I mean, it's like the lesson you learn very early as a lawyer when you win your case, shut up and get out of court, and don't make the next three arguments that are so brilliant.
Because one of them might not be so brilliant and you'll lose.
Well, from the right point of view, from those people who respect life and see life beginning at conception or around that time, this is a perfect opinion.
Why screw it up?
For them, this gives them a long period of time to create fear.
I think they believe they frightened Roberts.
Whether they did or not, it is basically accepted wisdom in Washington that John Roberts can be intimidated.
Yeah, and now, of course, the leftist narrative is, he's lost control of the court, and look, this is a leak that came from likely a law clerk, and so now they're slamming Roberts, and he had to issue this statement, which was very remarkable.
The Supreme Court doesn't often, you know, do anything like that, and they tend to their business, they publish their opinions, they don't speak out in media and on political matters, and for him to have to say that and the attacks that he's getting, absolutely, that appears to be a motivation as well.
And I think they think he has an influence over Kavanaugh.
I'm not sure any of this is true.
I'm just telling what the rumors are.
Right.
But in any event, it had to come from the left.
But do you think it'll change it?
I hope not and I don't think that it should because that is the majority opinion in terms of what was anticipated.
So I don't think that this leak is going to have the effect of intimidating justices that were probably prepared for the left's response anyway.
But what I actually wish and what I think was really smart of our friend, Andrew McCarthy, who's an attorney and he writes for National Review.
And formerly my assistant.
I didn't know that actually.
I hired him as a paralegal.
You were the kingmaker of so many lawyers.
I hired him as a paralegal.
He went to law school and then we hired him to the U.S.
Attorney's Office and he worked on the Pizza Connection case as the last guy.
Then he finally prosecuted one of the worst terrorists in the history of the country.
And what a great lawyer he is.
That is, which makes sense why I thought his analysis was actually brilliant.
His recommendation to the court was, publish this opinion as soon as possible.
Do not give them the time to foment the fear.
Do not give them the time to benefit from this leak.
Just, even though this was the first draft, get everybody together and even if you have to publish the majority opinion, let them concur dissent after.
Don't allow the leak to prevail in terms of the time.
Yeah, Albedo's first drafts are better than most of their final drafts.
Yeah.
It could be the published opinion on the first draft.
The man's a complete genius.
And I'm glad that he got to write it.
But now, explain to the American people that we haven't prohibited abortion.
We've made it a democratic process, small d. It now goes to the states, and each state gets to decide on the morality and the legality in their state, which is what America's all about.
Which is the same thing that should have happened with the Obergefell versus Hodges opinion of same-sex marriage.
So, for example, over 30 states, when that case in 2015 was decided, Right, right.
the court and Roberts shockingly had a great dissent in that case because that was the
exact same premise.
That's what I thought the decision would be.
I did too.
And what it should have been is that every state can decide for themselves and over 30
states at the time that that case was heard had constitutional amends to their own state
constitution saying we will only recognize a union between one man and one woman.
Now if the left had not tried to overplay their hand and they just had civil unions and some other kind of legal benefit to say well I'm going to have you know this person designated as my inheritor.
Then the church wouldn't have had, and I think the evangelicals, wouldn't have had as big of a problem with that because the definition of marriage is what's so important.
Right.
But, of course, the left always tries to use force, and they will circumvent the Constitution in any way.
They will go up to the Supreme Court when they have the majority, and that's why they're talking about court packing.
They will say, we want these opinions for everybody because we want to compel you into our worldview.
It's the same thing what they're doing for abortion.
Because, you're right, this wouldn't outlaw abortion.
It wouldn't be, you know, what Elizabeth Warren and, you know, all these other feminists are ranting about, and, you know, there's going to be blood in the streets.
Well, you know what?
There's already blood in the doctor's offices, by the way, because abortion is defined as a medical intervention that is specifically designed to cause the death of a human being.
And there is a moral argument.
And so for the Supreme Court to step into policy and to tell states when the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over this issue or healthcare period, which abortion isn't healthcare, that's how the left frames it, even if that were true, they still don't have jurisdiction.
That is not the way our government was structured.
in and say we can tell everyone what policy you have to set in your state, they don't
have the power to do it.
And neither does Congress.
That is not the way our government was structured.
And states' rights really is a protection of our liberties.
It's not just for the states, it's for the fact that there's another check and balance on the exercise of arbitrary power.
And when you think about it, right, there is actually a difference between the gay marriage decision and this one.
The gay marriage decision, although easy to criticize, could have been done a different way, probably should have been, It's kind of accepted.
There isn't an awful lot of arguments and debates and tremendous rallies about it.
Fifty years of Roe against Wade and the opposition to it now is stronger.
Which means it was never accepted.
So when they say this was accepted precedent, accepted by whom?
Less than half the country.
And the other thing I think that they made a mistake is There was always an argument one side or the other, you know, sliding scale.
If we let them prohibit some abortions, they'll prohibit all of them.
Or if we let them have abortion, they'll have all kinds of abortions.
Well, that's where it's gone.
So now in my state, they passed a law a couple years ago under Cuomo in which you can abort a child the day before it's born.
That's so disgusting.
You can pull the little baby out of the womb and crush it.
And of course we know the governor of Virginia wants to allow it to happen after birth and there are democratic states talking about a waiting period if a woman has an abortion, the abortion doesn't work, baby's born, once she comes Out of her anesthesia or whatever, she and the doctor get to decide what to do.
What is the option what to do?
Kill the baby?
So I think their having gone that far has really, really changed the nature of this debate.
I mean, that's disgusting.
It is disgusting.
And when you have a moral bright line that Democrats and these elitists think that is flexible and that they can move that standard and say, well, because we're allowing for abortions after a certain time period or There's every time after the moment of conception where the DNA becomes, this is a human being, it's unique DNA and it starts to grow.
And we know that from the advances of medical technology.
If you ever move the moral bright line to any other point on that spectrum, then that is the slippery slope because what is preventing personhood from attaching to a human being And after two years old or three years old or 18, I mean, what's to say, okay, if a mom then decides within the first year of birth, I don't want to be a mom.
I don't want to have, you know, I don't want to have this child anymore.
Should that be a decision between her and her doctor?
And so what I've started trying to, you know, coin this phrase, moral gerrymandering.
Right.
Because if you take lines that are fixed and you just want to, draw them wherever it fits your political policy narrative, then they're no longer moral bright lines to begin with.
So when I was the mayor, the Cardinal of New York was John O'Connor.
He was a former admiral, the chief chaplain of the United States military.
Without going all the... I loved him.
And he told me Very close to his death when he was dying, that if we don't fix abortion, he said, the legal part, that's one thing, but all of the children being killed.
We were getting to the point where more black children were being killed and born.
We aren't there now in New York.
More black children are killed by abortion than are born.
But somehow abortion isn't racist.
Well, it began racist.
I mean, it was a form of eugenics to get rid of black people.
Margaret Sanger was very open about that.
And she must be very happy because it is working.
38% of the abortions in America are black women.
That's six times their percentage of the population.
With regard to white women, it's less than their proportion of the population.
So they are getting rid of mostly black people.
And so Margaret Sanger must be very happy she's getting rid of black people.
Well, the Cardinal told me The whole moral deterioration of this country, which is now decrepit, which was back in 2000, I think.
is based on that abortion decision.
He said that's when we lost God, that's when we lost morals, that's when we became a morally relative country.
Now we're not even relative, we're just immoral.
Yes.
And he said, when you have a society that doesn't respect life, you don't have a society.
And he said, what's the difference between a young man At 18 years old, who has to go fight and possibly lose his life for his country and go through tremendous difficulties.
And a woman who has to go through tremendous difficulties in order to bring a life into this world and then keep that life alive.
In both cases, they're having to sacrifice because life is important.
Yes.
And life is more important than just them.
Yes.
And we've become a narcissistic society.
I don't want the baby, I don't have to have the baby.
And now we're getting to the point where at nine months if I don't like the baby, I can crush its skull.
This is such a narcissistic, immoral society.
This may be the beginning of our moving back to being a country with very strong morals and therefore the greatest country on earth.
I hope so and I think with what President Trump has done for the court system to at least have the legal in place so that we can have conversations about the morality and we can hopefully with all of these different platforms like we've talked about and have freedom of speech to debate these ideas and discuss why moral absolutes are imperative to society.
Those are things that the government should preserve and protect.
And so I hope that when we get the legal right, we can then encourage people to get the moral right.
Which, of course, morality is only premised on understanding that truth comes from God, our Creator, and that He is the personification of truth.
And I'm not a Christian just because I happen to believe in God like I believe in the Easter Bunny.
I believe, like Joe Biden, who believes in the Easter Bunny, right, and gets his direction from that.
I'm a Christian because I believe that everyone has to answer life's most important questions for themselves.
We have to make that determination.
Do I think that's okay that we can kill a child at nine months old?
Well, if I say no, that's wrong.
What is the measurable difference between right and wrong and good and evil?
We all have to answer those questions.
Who are we?
Why are humans different?
Where are we going in eternity?
All these very existential questions.
And I'm a Christian because I understand that the Bible, which is God's truth, is the best explanation for the reality to which we are presented.
We all have to answer those questions, but the Christian worldview and the truth from God is the only consistent moral explanation for our reality.
So I would say it even goes beyond that to a natural law.
In the Hippocratic oath, long before Jesus, A physician vows not to take the life of an unborn child.
It's part of the Hippocratic Oath.
Hippocrates put it there as a basis of Aristotelian philosophy that life begins at conception and if you interfere with it you're a murderer.
And the other thing that black men completely intellectually distorted in the opinion is English common law.
He said, under English common law, it's not illegal.
Well, first of all, under English common law, they make a distinction between conception and quicken.
So they say when the child quick, when the mother is quick with child, it becomes a basically like a secondary murder.
However, if you do it at the very beginning, it's a misdemeanor.
So they have made both a crime.
They've distinguished between the levels of crime.
So they've given the mother like a three-month period to commit a misdemeanor.
Right.
And then the minute you get into the quicken part, which happens much faster now that we realize, you get into going to jail for murder.
And that's been the English common law that we inherited from England, which black men completely distorted.
So let's move quickly to the thing that maybe put me over the top.
I have been questioning for a year and a half, how fast are we going to socialism, Marxism and communism?
So at the end of the year, I did a review and I said express train to Marxism.
I think we arrived there last week when we set up a Ministry of Truth.
Absolutely.
I have never heard of a Ministry of Truth in a democratic government because nobody should be deciding what's true and false except you or me or in the market square debating it.
And for ourselves and our families.
And that's the beauty of why the government is obligated to preserve and protect the right to disagree.
And the Supreme Court has even said that the only absolute right that we have is the right to believe.
If I want to believe in the Easter Bunny, I can.
Now, people might think I'm crazy for it, like we kind of think that we need a 25th Amendment Joe Biden, but the government can't compel me not to believe in the Easter Bunny.
That's my right.
And so when you have this ministry of truth or this disinformation aboard, not only is there no power given to the federal government for such an entity, and most of the agencies In the federal government or unconstitutional.
No power given.
But this is so dangerous because now the government is not only going to compel us to how and when we can exercise our right to speak and articulate and debate and discourse, but it will rapidly become, you need to affirm the propaganda.
Otherwise, you are going to be in violation of this ministry of truth.
That's where it's going to go.
And instead of just, I have to stay silent, And what does that sound like?
A lot like Nazi Germany.
It does.
my sincerely held beliefs.
But now the government is going to compel me to speak their truth.
And what does that sound like?
A lot like Nazi Germany.
It does.
You know, in New York, it is perfectly legal, based on a very important precedent,
to say that you believe in Santa Claus.
That was decided in the miracle on 34th Street.
The judge ruled in favor of Santa Claus because his political, slimy New York political advisor came up and said, you want to get reelected, jackass?
Where that leaves us is, not only have they set up a ministry of disinformation or whatever they want to call it, they put in charge of it, I'm sorry, a whack-a-doodle.
Absolutely.
Look at her.
Look at her eyes.
I've been dealing with whack-a-doodles all my life because I live in New York.
I can pick them out like that.
There's a whack-a-doodle.
This woman is an expert on Russia and she accused me and many of us Of being Russian agents for spreading the hard drive.
There is nothing about that hard drive that anybody who is a Russian expert would see as Russian.
If you're a Russian expert and you saw that as Russian, you're a liar.
You're not a Russian expert.
She never asked any questions.
She never did any research.
She just said it because she is a left-wing Liar.
And that's what we have as our minister of disinformation.
Which is so typical of the leftists because they do everything that they claim they're opposed to.
And when you look at who the Biden administration is putting in these key positions, When you look at the Rachel Levines, when you look at, you know, this other guy who is known for like his furry pet sexuality, you know, fetishes that's now part of, you know, really high security clearance.
You look at people like this and you see how, as you very aptly put it, wackadoodles.
Isn't bestiality a crime?
I thought it was.
I think it was.
I remember when I was a U.S.
attorney it was a crime.
But I mean, but it's just so depraved and so disgusting, and yet these people are now being advanced to very key positions to openly flaunt their immorality.
And so going back to something you said at the very beginning, our society is so narcissistic that people not only want to do whatever, Their passions and proclivities lead them to, but they won't even tolerate someone saying, you know, that's kind of gross or that might be wrong.
You have to now affirm and they expect you to affirm and celebrate every kind of depravity that they want to practice.
And so it is no coincidence that the Biden administration is picking these people who are so disgusting in their personal lives to be leaders of the country.
Well, we'll be back very, very shortly with the final part of our interview with the wonderful Jenna Ellis.
Not long ago, Mike Lindell, the inventor of MyPillow, and his team fit me for my very own MyPillow.
They also introduced me to their wide assortment of other incredible products, like their mattress topper, their sheets, towels, slippers, and more.
Sleep is incredibly important to me, and I can assume for all of you.
It's time you give MyPillow a try and see for yourself.
Listeners have helped build MyPillow into the incredible company it is today.
And Mike Lindell wants to give back to all of you.
You can get great discounts on MyPillow products by going to mypillow.com right now and seeing each of the specially priced items, including those in the Radio Listener Special Square.
You're going to see rotational offers up to 66% off on products like their pillows, mattress topper, geezer sheets, but also new products like their slippers, weighted blankets, robes, and waffle blankets.
All MyPillow products come with a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Enter promo code Rudy for these great specials.
That's MyPillow.com and use the promo code Rudy.
Welcome back and we're interviewing Jenna Ellis.
And now we're going to discuss the new movie, 2000 Mules.
And Jenna, neither you nor I have actually seen the whole movie.
We will shortly.
Very excited to.
I think we have a pretty good idea of what's in it.
Will this have the impact that it should have?
Or are they going to kill this the way they killed the movie in Atlanta of them stealing votes or the testimony of, you know, 30 witnesses that they were forging documents?
I mean, somehow they make these Hunter Biden's hard drive with crimes right on it that you can pull right out of the hard drive.
Can they bury this one too?
They'll try, of course.
And the key is that for everyone listening who watches this movie and wants to talk about it, even if you have, you know, a different opinion or a controversial take or you don't agree with everything or whatever your opinion is, talk about it.
Don't let the media news cycle bury it.
Because if people continue to talk about it, and this becomes more and more of a building of courage upon courage and saying we need to continue to talk about why election integrity is the most important issue, the left cannot silence all of us.
They cannot control all of these other platforms.
They're trying to, but they can't.
And so if we continue to speak out and talk about what you liked about it, what you didn't like, share it with your friends.
That's how we continue to keep this movement going.
It doesn't have to be on mainstream media for this to be a national movement.
People think that whatever editorial decisions are made by legacy media, that those are the only stories that are newsworthy.
But they know their monopoly on determination of what's newsworthy content is rapidly fading.
You get to decide now what's newsworthy.
You know, I was having a discussion with a very left-wing Biden supporter and challenging my election fraud claims, and I'd forgotten which one it was.
It may have been the one about Pennsylvania And 700,000 votes getting counted without a Republican seeing a single piece of paper.
And I explained there was a reason for it.
It's not arbitrary.
The reason for it is a lot of that paper was phony.
Because I had to make up for 800,000 votes.
And the paper was printed somewhere else.
And any Republican looking at it could have said, no, no, no, no.
That paper, that's not the right, no, no, no, no.
So 700, excluding, excluding Republicans with 700,000 votes is a big, big deal.
Yeah.
So I said, would you like to see the testimony?
You know what she said?
No.
No.
I won't believe it.
So it's the same thing as you saying it's raining outside.
The weatherman is claiming it's raining outside.
I don't believe it.
I don't believe it.
Well, go outside and see.
No, even if I get wet, I refuse.
I won't believe it.
That's a great analogy.
Well, with that, Jenna, we're going to do this again.
You're one of our treasures.
And I just thank God that we have you and then a whole group of our other colleagues, because, you know, even even with the censorship, By the time we got to the election, which we had a very short period of time, we had him to 50% on the hard drive.
We should have had him to 90, because it is 90, or 100, but we got him to 50.
I think we got more people now who doubt that the election was legitimate than believe in it.
And boy- That's huge.
We haven't been on any major newspaper or, I mean, my goodness, NBC hasn't mentioned it in forever.
Then they don't want to because that's their fear.
And you know what?
Instead of being afraid, why don't we put the fear of a God in them?
But we're getting it through.
Yeah, we are.
The point I'm trying to make is this, what should we call ourselves?
The alternative media?
The truthful media?
Yes.
We're getting it out.
Yeah.
We're the ministry of real truth.
And we just keep doing it.
We just keep doing it and I think we've got enough time to get this country back.
Absolutely.
There's always hope.
Thank you, my friend.
Thank you.
God bless you.
▲
Export Selection