All Episodes
Previous Next
July 22, 2022 - Rudy Giuliani
37:41
J6 is Act 3 of Russian Collusion... Same Cast | July 22nd 2022 | Ep 256
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello again, this is Rudy Giuliani back with another episode of Rudy's Common Sense.
Today's Common Sense is going to be applied brutally to the J6 committee, which has turned out to be probably the biggest It's created a complete distortion of Congress.
It's taken Congress as a prosecutorial body and almost sanctified it.
And it's changed the legislative function to usurp a good deal of the executive and prosecutorial function.
And finally, it's basically almost codified politics into weaponizing your arguments against your opponents.
But there's a real problem with it, with it trying to be turned into a criminal matter.
I mean, J6 is Act 3 of the frame Trump any way you can movement.
And it is populated by similar co-conspirators and criminals who did the frame Trump-Russian collusion.
For that, they spent multi-millions of dollars.
They acted as a unit.
Hillary started it, but Obama was quickly made aware of it by Brennan and McCabe.
By the time we got to the height of it, oh gosh, they all knew about it, they all participated in it, they all lied about it.
When it was proven to be untrue by the FBI originally, they went ahead with it anyway.
It was worse than just a political trick to keep a man out of office.
It then morphed into a full-grown obstruction of justice and an attempt to remove a sitting president based on a completely concocted, false, and paid-for story.
But they got away with it!
Now he didn't get thrown out of office, but they got away with it.
No one's paid a single price for that false story, have they?
And when that fell apart, they developed another false story.
Then, when that didn't work, shifty shiv, Who has some kind of serious problem.
Decided to morph it into the Ukrainian quid pro quo conversation with the president of Ukraine.
Except there was no quid pro quo conversation, and then it turned out that he wasn't removed from office.
And then in retrospect it turned out even worse.
The definitive evidence that the president was not guilty was being withheld by the FBI, by Barr, by the Justice Department in the hard drives.
The hard drives were available.
They were there.
They were sitting there.
Mr. Mack Isaacs, who got them, was livid that they weren't being produced.
That's why he got in touch with me.
How can you frame a president like this?
And how can you cover up what we call in the law exculpatory evidence?
So they want to say that Trump's saying that there was election fraud led to violence.
And maybe they want to say that about me, although I've been dropped from the case, so I don't know.
But this is really the same as Russian collusion.
And it's the fallacy in Russian collusion, it's the unfairness, and it shows you what miserably dishonorable human beings these are.
What's happened to them in Washington is Worthy of a book about how someone gets possessed by the devil or something.
The interpretation is all premised on whether Trump did something wrong or not.
Okay.
So if Trump had nothing to do with Russian collusion, then his admonitions to people To be careful, not to make things up, are perfectly normal.
So if I robbed a bank, right?
And the police are going to interview the guy I robbed it with, and I call them up and I say, hey Jack, tell them we didn't rob the bank, and tell them we were in Atlantic City, we got tickets for that, and tell them we were with John and Mary, they're going to corroborate it.
That's all obstruction of justice, interfering with a witness.
However, if we didn't rob the bank and I'm being falsely accused and I call him up and say, do you remember that we were with John and Mary?
They remember it.
And do you remember?
Please don't.
And particularly if I think he's got a reason maybe to lie because he was four blocks from the Capitol on January 6th and they'll put him in jail for the rest of his life.
And that isn't at all a obstruction of justice.
That isn't a crime or anything.
That's my defending myself, which if I don't have the right to do, I might as well live in another country.
So that's what, when Attorney General Barr was thinking like a lawyer, that's what he was saying when he said, when there's no underlying crime, it's very hard to have an obstruction of justice.
What you obstruct is the government getting information that's incriminating.
You don't obstruct stopping the government from getting information that might frame you, particularly with a government you have reason to believe may be corrupt.
So that's That's the analysis you get here, right?
If in fact there was no evidence of a stolen election, if in fact Trump is making this up out of whole cloth just in order to create dissension, Then you can make the argument that they keep saying he's debunked, he's false, his claims might have a tendency to cause violence, except it didn't.
But in any event, you could say it would have a tendency to do it.
But if Trump's claims of a false election are based on solid evidence that a reasonable person could interpret as evidence of fraud or a stolen election, then his claims are in an effort to Vindicate himself and our country and its election.
It all depends on your analysis of whether there's support for what he's saying.
Now, what they've done very cleverly is eliminate, as much as they can, all the ways you can get support.
The courts wouldn't listen to a witness.
Probably because they didn't want to get involved, like Justice Roberts didn't want to get involved.
It's a political question.
Let the political branches decide it.
We went to the state legislatures.
The state legislatures were very reluctant to get involved, even though under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, it's their prerogative to do that.
At the very, very end they did get involved and they wrote four letters to Vice President Pence saying that they had every reason to believe that the numbers submitted by their states were false.
Lies.
Not true.
That the numbers were not reflective of the actual vote.
Well, that's darn correct.
The numbers weren't.
So if Trump has, let's arguably say a thousand people, about four or five hundred affidavits
from ordinary American citizens in four or five different states observing various levels of
voter fraud from three, four votes to 750,000.
If he's got evidence on tape of ballots being handled with nobody around when the law of the state says those ballots are invalid if they're handled with no one around.
If he has evidence that votes were being stuffed into lock boxes and people were paying for it, which is illegal and therefore those votes can't be counted.
If he has evidence that people who were dead voted or people who didn't live in the state voted, some equaling enough when you put them all together to change the course of the election, some getting very close but needing further analysis.
Then his claims are valid, and his cause is just.
And as his lawyer, my obligation is even a little different than that.
My obligation is to view the facts in the light most favorable to him, not the other side, and give him the benefit of his argument.
And if you come away from it as we did in our analysis of this, in good faith, With a conclusion that massive number of votes was stolen in that election and that it was a deliberate plan that began well before election night with the mail-in ballots and the way in which they were falsified and handled illegally, which was going on even before the election.
Then it becomes a duty to go forward no matter how much you are cancelled by The Democrat Party, the establishment, the bar associations, NBC, CBS, Fox.
Won't talk about the election.
Won't put me on.
I probably was on Fox more than anyone.
But I have an opinion that's not allowed in the United States.
Not allowed to have the opinion that there was election fraud.
Certainly not allowed to have the opinion of the election fraud.
May have altered the election and they want to make it a crime to have the opinion that it did alter the election.
Do you realize they just ruined, destroyed America?
They've destroyed our ability to have opinions of our own.
I mean, Hillary's had that opinion for years.
The chairman of the committee that's sitting in judgment of Trump had that opinion of the 2016 committee, but he's a Democrat.
He's entitled to have First Amendment rights.
I'm not.
I'm a Republican.
So I can't go through with you today, but I will because we're going to do a major, major piece on this in great, great detail as many, many of these reports come out.
But in many of these states, In many of these states, there are now very strong legal decisions and reports that present substantial evidence, much of it available then, some of it since then, that millions of votes, hundreds of thousands of votes were stolen.
They can't be ignored.
Well, this committee ignores them.
This committee ignores all that.
It's as if they want to say that the charge of voter fraud was false, but they don't want to prove that it was false.
They want to ignore it completely.
Just like they want to say that there was great violence on the part of the Trump supporters when the Trump supporters didn't have a single firearm, didn't fire a shot.
And there's only one killing inside that Capitol, and it's done by the Capitol Police under circumstances that anyplace else would bring about a major first-degree murder investigation.
Doesn't that tell you the bad faith of this committee?
I mean, how in good conscience can you sit on that committee and not wonder why was an unarmed woman, Ashley Babbitt, who could not pose a fatal danger to anyone?
How was she shot with six cops all around her?
Being held up by two people as a target.
And the guy was not photographed by the Antifa person taking the film on purpose, not photographed.
And they let the guy disappear for a while.
They never were going to tell us who he was.
And now they just cleared him.
They just cleared him.
It's okay, you could shoot that woman.
Where's the danger to his life?
She was being held up.
Behind her were two police officers who had actually, who had actually seated that door, walked away from that door at the request of Antifa.
The two police officers could have pulled her down.
Had she been thrown over, there were three police officers on the other side that got on top of her.
When the word gun was yelled out, everybody else kneeled down.
She didn't get the opportunity to kneel down because they picked her up.
Don't you want to know those facts as a, just as a, just as a decent human being?
Don't you want to know those facts?
Well, Liz Cheney doesn't want to know those facts.
Kissinger doesn't want to know those facts.
Schiff is way beyond knowing those facts.
Raskin?
Would you say that's a fair conclusion if they are not decent human beings?
I would say the Babbitt family certainly can come to that conclusion.
And so can people who value life.
But a court decision, because they rely a lot on court decisions, no court decision, no court decision.
Fact is, the court would not listen to witnesses, which is why we ended up going to the state legislature.
A court decision, maybe it'll shake things up.
We'll just look at one state today.
In the future, we'll go through the rest of them and have a suggestion for you.
But you know, there have been a lot of recent Supreme Court rulings.
And I just want to take a little time out now to mention one.
And it's a big win.
And it didn't happen on its own.
It took the support of companies like Patriot Mobile, who have passionately fought on behalf of the unborn, on your constitutional rights.
Couldn't be a greater cause than the cause of human life, which we're talking about here, and we're talking about here, in both cases.
Patriot Mobile is America's only Christian conservative mobile phone provider.
And they have been on the front lines fighting for our values.
A lot of people trying to destroy our values.
They're fighting for our values.
That counts for a lot.
This is why Patriot Mobile is different than everybody else.
But it's just as good.
The service is just as good.
And they have plans for any budget.
And they offer exactly the same nationwide coverage as all those companies.
Wow.
So you get the same great service plus the knowledge that your money is going to a company that is going to, that's going to fight for the sanctity of life.
It's going to fight for religious freedom.
It's going to fight for the second amendment and your right to protect yourself.
Go to patreonmobile.com slash Rudy or call 972-PATRIOT.
Use the offer code Rudy to get free activation.
If you're a veteran, first responder, let them know.
Because, as they should, they have special discounts for you.
Come join our movement and make the switch today!
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Rudy.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash Rudy.
Or call 972-PATRIOT.
As I said, we're going to look at one state and one state alone for purposes of simplicity and so you get the point.
That President Trump, myself, and all of the others who have argued that there was election fraud have a rational basis for it.
I would say are correct, but what we need is a rational basis for it.
In other words, we're not making this up.
This comes from other people, citizens, who observed this or found illegalities amounting to fraud or an incorrect vote.
So let's go to the state of Wisconsin.
This is the original decision of the state of Wisconsin with the original case that was presented in the heat of the election.
It's the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Donald Trump against Joseph Biden.
And it was a very, very close decision of the court.
You can see a very complex decision of the court.
And they didn't find that what they did in Wisconsin was legal.
They found Laches.
L-A-C-H-E-S.
Laches is an old legal doctrine saying you waited too long to assert your rights.
So they dismissed three of the four counts on the grounds that the Trump campaign did not raise these irregularities.
Or illegalities, or fraud, too late.
Now, I of course had great problems with that, as did three members of the court.
So remember now, from the time they began saying that when we said there was election fraud, election stealing, the count was wrong, it wasn't just Rudy Giuliani saying that, it was three judges of the Wisconsin court.
Who agreed with that?
Are they all crazy?
Am I just pushing a four-to-three decision is pretty darn close, isn't it?
And if you read it carefully, you'd have seen they were right.
So, in the case of Wisconsin, I'm advocating for the truth and they're lying.
In the case of Wisconsin, he's advocating for the truth and they're lying.
Now, if you need any support for that, Several months ago, in a separate case worried about the upcoming elections, that the same fraud would take place, a case was brought, and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin now not having to award the election to Trump, the 4-3 decision goes the other way, and they declare all of the practices that were used by the Biden people to elect Biden as being thoroughly illegal and fraudulent, and rendering the votes that they gathered that way not able to be counted.
Yeah.
That was the law at the time the election took place.
The Trump people just were too late in bringing it up.
I think that's a terrible application of the latches doctrine, by the way, when you consider how little time you have after an election to gather this evidence.
And also they say, well, you should have gone in before and tried to stop it.
It's very hard to gather that evidence before.
And very often when you go in before, you're told you're being premature.
Many cases were dismissed based on they're not ripe yet.
So you're between a rock and a hard place.
Something like the sanctity of an election.
Even if it's just Wisconsin, and if you switch Wisconsin, you wouldn't switch the vote.
The mere fact of not getting the vote right, and Wisconsin now having on record with the Electoral College and the Congress, an illegal vote.
There's no question that the numbers given by Wisconsin, which were done by the election clerk, Without reference to anyone, the governor approved afterwards, or a false statement to the government.
The number for Wisconsin is wrong.
That's what the court decided.
Well, that should have been corrected before.
What do you mean, latches?
But let me make it very, very simple.
I think I can.
The law of Wisconsin, then and now, is the following.
If you vote by absentee ballot, you, the voter, you have to personally mail the ballot back or you have to personally deliver it to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.
I'll read it to you.
Wisconsin section 6.874B1.
Provides in relevant part that absentee ballots, quote, see it right up there, shall be mailed by the elector or delivered in person to the municipal clerk issuing the ballot or ballots.
The prepositional phrase to the municipal clerk is key and must be given effect.
Wisconsin Statute 50210 defines municipal clerk as the city clerk, town clerk, village clerk, and the executive director of the City Election Commission and their authorized representatives.
Where applicable, a municipal clerk also includes the clerk of a school district.
An inanimate object such as a ballot drop box cannot be the municipal clerk, says the judge writing this opinion.
Sound right?
So, two ways legally to do an absentee ballot.
One of them, you've got to mail it to the Gotta mail it to the municipal clerk that issued the ballot.
The second thing you can do is deliver it by hand to the municipal clerk or their designated representative who issued the ballot.
If, because of the pandemic, you want to set up some alternative, Subsection 3 does give a way out.
It declares that an alternate absentee ballot site must be staffed by a municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners or employees of the clerk or the board of election commissioners.
Okay, subsection 3 says you want to do some alternatives.
You've got to set up basically an off-site municipal clerk's office.
which is staffed by the municipal clerk, the executive director of the board of election,
employees of the clerk, or the board of election.
Drop boxes are not alternative ballot sites under Wisconsin section 6855.
There's no representative of anyone there fitting that category.
There's no one there to secure it.
There's no one there to look at it.
There's no one there to see who did it.
It's not a municipal clerk's office, nor is it an alternative.
Nor is it an alternative to the municipal clerk's office.
And then the law goes on.
Absentee voting must be completely satisfied or ballots may not be counted.
And this comes from the law again.
Now we're going to section 686, 687, 327, 901, 1B2, and 4.
These rules shall be construed as mandatory.
Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be counted.
So let's remember before we conclude this that there are only two lawful methods, the circuit court now said this originally, because what happened here is this was challenged after the election.
After the election, the courts in Wisconsin said it's an illegal practice, and it went up to the state Supreme Court that originally had not listened to it because it said it was brought to it too late.
The court now agreed and said only two lawful methods for casting an absentee ballot exist.
One is for the elector to place the envelope containing the ballot in the mail, And the other is to hand it to the municipal clerk, municipal clerk's office, and an alternative municipal clerk's office has to include the municipal clerk being there.
Included it's being there.
So here's what violated the law.
Wisconsin Election Commission Administrator Megan Wolf, Issued on her own, a memo to municipal clerks ahead of the fall 2020 elections and it encourages creative solutions, not legal but creative, to facilitate the use of ballot drop boxes.
Memo 2 informs municipal clerks that drop boxes can be unstaffed and states at a minimum you should have a drop box at your primary municipal building such as the Village Hall.
Well, that completely contradicts the statute that says that the drop box, to be an alternative to handing it to the municipal clerk, has to be staffed by the municipal clerk or his or her employees.
Well, this is not authorized by anyone.
The commission has never even voted on it.
The governor never decided it.
And most importantly the state legislature, which is the only way they can really set the rules, never decided
Altogether they set up 528 drop boxes Bye.
That's all completely illegal.
Completely illegal.
That's Memo 1.
Memo 1 says, ballot drop boxes can be used for voters to return ballots, but clerks should ensure they are secure, can be monitored for security purposes, and should be regularly emptied.
But it doesn't require It doesn't require that anyone from the clerk's office has to be there.
No one from the clerk's office was there.
And it also says a family member or another person may return the ballot.
Uh, the commission never voted on that either.
A few months later they made it even worse.
And they said that Someone other than the voter can mail the ballot in.
Someone other than the voter can mail the ballot in.
Which again is completely contrary to the law of Wisconsin.
We'll be back in just a minute to sum this all up.
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 lock then, he does now.
Or Deborah, who thought her common identity theft service would protect her.
Welcome back!
criminal got onto the deed to a home and had her evicted.
Deborah has home title lock now.
Home title lock.com is your peace of mind.
And the deed to your home is protected.
Visit home title lock.com home title lock.com.
Welcome back. Well, just to make it clear, once again, the law of Wisconsin,
which is very strict on absentee ballots says that if you have an absentee
ballot, you have to mail it yourself back to the municipal clerk
who sent it to you.
Two, if you don't do that, you have to deliver it to the municipal clerk's office.
Only exception, the municipal clerk can set up another office and be there to accept it or have his official representatives accept it.
The law also says that any vote in contravention of that has to be discounted and can't be part of the certified votes.
There were 528 drop boxes set up where this law was violated in two ways.
And this was done by Administrator Megan Wolf of the Wisconsin Election Commission, basically on her own.
Memo one.
Memo one to the clerks.
Established ballot drop boxes.
And here's how it was defined.
A drop box is a secure locked structure operated by a local election official.
Voters may deposit their ballot in a dropbox at any time after they receive it in the mail up to the time of the last ballot collection election day.
Ballot dropbox can be staffed or unstaffed, temporary or permanent.
That's one.
You can put it in an unstaffed dropbox.
And then even if staffed, not necessarily staffed by the right person.
And number two, later on, another document was put out that a family member or another person may return the ballot on behalf of the voter.
First, those two rules were never voted on by the commission.
Number two, they were never approved by the governor or the legislature, and they have to be approved by the legislature.
But most importantly, they violate The methods by which you vote by absentee ballot, you must mail it to the municipal clerk.
This does not involve mailing to the municipal clerk.
You must deliver it to the municipal clerk in person.
An inanimate object does not take the place of the admissible clerk, says the justice who decided this, and the four in the majority.
And they conclude that these votes under the law cannot be counted and cannot be put in the certified vote of the state of Wisconsin.
Now what does that mean?
That means the certified vote of the state of Wisconsin by thousands and thousands and thousands of votes Is false.
Fraudulent.
Untrue.
A false statement to the United States government on a matter of grave importance.
A violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1001.
Ignored by the Congress.
Ignored by Vice President Pence.
All these arguments were being made then, not only about this state, but others, and they'll come up later.
And they're all being covered up by the media because they're trying to create their own false narrative like they did with Russian collusion and the letter to Poroshenko.
Just if you need any other support about Wisconsin, there are two others that are quite, quite dramatic.
There's the investigation.
That was done by Justice Gableman, retired Justice Gableman.
It's quite extensive, you can see.
The great state of Wisconsin offers a special counsel.
This goes through many, many things, but probably the most interesting part that renders the election, maybe even a crime, is the Zuckerberg Five.
The five cities, all Democrat, that got the vast majority of the hundreds of millions or millions that Zuckerberg was Spreading around, not only to set up the drop boxes, but to get his people, private people, into handling the election, which is election fraud, election bribery under the laws of Wisconsin.
So that's the Gabelman report.
That's another report.
And then finally, of course, 2,000 mules.
If you go to 2,000 mules, you'll see the computation of the number of mules That were followed, who between 12 at night and 4 in the morning deposited 5, 10, 15, 20, stuffed them into these illegal ballot boxes.
Did it every night, sometimes for 5 nights, 6 nights, 8 nights, 10 nights, 12 nights.
At times, took pictures of it so they could get paid.
There is video of that.
And, uh, when you go and count them, and you use a, a, um, and you determine the number, the number of times this was done, all these votes being, um, illegal, actually all these votes being illegal, irrespective to what you see on, on there, based on the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
You end up, and here's the calculation, Trump wins Wisconsin.
Now, no one has faulted any of these methods.
No one has come forward and said, oh, they all say that 2,000 mules is lying, but they don't go find a route that was done wrong.
This technology has just been widely praised as helping to solve very serious crimes all over the country.
An article in this week's New Epoch Times about it.
This is very, very solid technology and the only way it can be answered is not by the political liars, by science.
It hasn't been answered by science.
It's just the general stuff they did with Russian collusion and with the phony fake conversation.
It's been debunked.
It's wrong.
They're crazy.
They're Russian agents.
There's no proof of being a Russian agent.
No proof there's anything wrong with this technology.
Not a single route wrong.
Not a single route wrong.
Nothing wrong with the legal analysis of the court.
There are only two methods for absentee ballots.
They violated those two methods.
The law says you have to discount those votes.
You discount those votes and Biden loses Wisconsin.
That's what Trump was fighting for.
He was fighting for something just.
He was fighting for you.
They're fighting for the Democratic Party to become the one party that runs the country.
They're fighting for the new world order.
They're fighting for what Soros has put millions and millions of dollars in to destroy our communities, to fund Black Lives Matter and Antifa and the Democratic Party.
And a lot of them are doing it because they're so damn friendly with China and get money from China.
And a lot of them are doing it because they make a lot of money.
And a lot of them are doing it because they've gotten a warped brainwashing in communism, socialism, and ideologies that are clearly against the human spirit.
This is our chance to save our way of life.
This is it.
2022.
Again in 2024.
So stay with us.
We've got a lot more on this.
A lot more.
Just wanted to take it slowly with the first one.
But when Donald Trump says the election is stolen, there are three solid ways to prove that in Wisconsin that gives them every right to say it, and me, and makes them liars when they attack it.
▲
Export Selection