Elon Musk VOTED OUT, May QUIT As CEO, Journalists Write INSANE 'Thursday Night Massacre' Over Bans
Elon Musk VOTED OUT, May QUIT As CEO, Journalists Write INSANE 'Thursday Night Massacre' Over Bans
----
Kari Lake Calls For IMPRISONMENT Of Election Officials, Election Lawsuit MOVING FORWARD. Kari Lake team says there was clear intent to spoil election, Democrats and Republicans in Arizona disagree.
Katie Hobbs team argues with no evidence of fraud the challenge cannot move forward. But Kari Lake's team argues that it wasn't fraud but intent to cause disruption on election day when republicans vote.
The 2022 election isn't just over but the Judge stated he will give a ruling on a motion to dismiss soon. Kari Lake intends to take this to the supreme court.
#democrats
#republicans
#karilake
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is December 19th, 2022, and our first story.
Elon Musk put up a poll asking whether or not he should step down as the CEO of Twitter, and most people voted that he should.
The story's really interesting.
We got a lot of journalists getting suspended, and they wrote themselves their own Wikipedia entry over it.
Called the Thursday Night Massacre.
Funny.
In our next story, it turns out Elon Musk is being extorted to the tune of $50,000 by this young man who was publishing his private information.
And in our last story, Carrie Lake's election lawsuit continues, and she's calling for the imprisonment of election officials.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
In his wisdom and grace, Elon Musk has decided to ask the people if he should step down as
CEO from Twitter.
You see, Elon Musk and Twitter, they put out a new policy saying that you couldn't link off of the platform to competitors for free, and that accounts that existed solely to promote other platforms would no longer be allowed.
Well, there was a tremendous backlash, and some people got suspended that probably shouldn't have.
Following this backlash, Elon Musk rescinded this rule, as I mentioned, in his grace and wisdom.
And then, in his grace and wisdom, put up a poll asking whether or not he should step down as CEO.
Ladies and gentlemen, currently, Elon Musk has lost that poll.
The poll closed.
Most people said, You should step down.
There was a lot that went on this weekend and I think it's really fascinating that Elon Musk is dominating the headlines once again.
It shows how Twitter really is the center of the media universe for whatever reason.
We had a very interesting moment last week and I want to highlight this as what I think, I think it's the best part of this story.
Why Elon Musk is the center of attention.
He has pulled the mask from the faces of these individuals and exposed them for what they really are.
The news today isn't just about Elon Musk potentially stepping down.
It's about how he's exposed the narcissism and psychotic, borderline, and histrionic personality disorders that exist within the mainstream media.
While I certainly think it is massively detrimental to all of us if Elon were to step down, I can point out he's made some mistakes.
And I can accept those mistakes because despite them, everything's been a whole lot better.
But here's what I want to show you.
I want to show you why it's important that Elon Musk not step down.
Now, polls closed.
Elon said he will abide by the decision.
Currently, 57.5% of the people who voted said he should step down.
I don't believe it, and I'll tell you why.
But first, I want to show you this.
A reason why he should not step down.
What you are looking at on your screen, for those that are looking, is an article on Wikipedia called The December 15th, 2022 Twitter Suspensions, redirected from Thursday Night Massacre.
Oh, heavens.
The original name of the article was Thursday Night Massacre.
I'm sure most people hearing that would say, oh, oh my, that must be a truly devastating event that occurred in this nation's history.
Who died?
Nobody died!
A Wikipedia entry was created because, for the first time, corporate journalists had the rules applied to them.
That's right.
A small spattering of media from the corporate press were suspended for doxing, so they wrote themselves an encyclopedia entry.
I kid you not.
Because they knew in their heart of hearts that in a thousand years time, it is vital To our people.
That they know, at some point, a thousand years prior, their forefathers were suspended temporarily from a social media platform.
But this is journalists writing themselves an encyclopedia entry because they broke the rules one time.
One time.
It's absolutely incredible.
Seeing this is all the reason you need to understand why Elon Musk must be the CEO of Twitter.
Unless he's got someone else in mind that's better than him that we don't know about, I can accept that.
But I think Elon will abide by the poll.
Now, before we start reading this story from TimCast.com, there's a lot to mention.
I mean, he's got the Feds going after him.
I think he's got the bots going after him.
This will be really interesting.
But I want to make a note of something.
You may notice that the room I'm in is very different.
Perhaps the audio is not as good.
The lighting kind of sucks.
And that's because I am here in Phoenix, Arizona for Turning Point USA's AmericaFest.
Some of you may have seen me here, and I'm really excited.
Tonight, TimCastIRL, youtube.com slash TimCastIRL, for those that don't follow, will be live, on stage, with Luke Rutkowski, Ian Crossland, Charlie Kirk, James Lindsay and Steve Bannon all at the same time.
Normally I don't announce guests, that's the tentative list, but we're going to put up a big desk, we're going to be on stage in front of 10 plus thousand people in the audience, and we're going to be talking about issues like this, probably this issue to be completely honest, as well as many others like the issue of grooming, perhaps what's going on with Maricopa and Cary Lake and the lawsuit currently underway.
Really excited for this.
So, uh, you won't want to miss it.
Again, it's just gonna be, I think it's gonna be a half an hour early.
That's the, that's the aim.
And it may be because we may run late, and so the goal is for 7 30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
Let's, uh, let's get into the news, and let me show you some of the developments here, because Lex Friedman wants to be the CEO, and, uh, you know what, man?
I just, Lex Freedman asked to be CEO.
And then Elon said, people who want power are the least deserving of it.
And then Lex Freedman said, yes, I agree.
And it's just a good example of everything in this space that I really, really despise.
Look, I don't got any beef or anything with Lex.
I think Lex is great.
It's just like...
Okay, dude, look.
I got people saying Tim keeps flip-flopping on Elon Musk, blah blah.
Dude, flip-flopping?
I think Elon Musk is doing some bad things and he's doing a lot of good things.
They're like, why is Tim criticizing Elon but then supporting Elon?
Because people do good and bad things!
You know what, man?
You get it.
You do.
Let me read, then we'll go through it and I'll explain.
From TimCast.com, Twitter users vote for Elon Musk to step down from running the platform.
Musk had a 12-hour poll on Saturday night promising to abide by the vote.
Should I step down as head of Twitter?
I will abide by the results of this poll, Musk tweeted.
As I mentioned, with 17.5 million votes coming in, it is 57.5% yes, 42.5% no.
Okay, I'm going to tell you why I think this isn't real.
47.5% yes, 42.5% no.
Okay.
I'm going to tell you why I think this isn't real.
I don't believe it.
For one, we know that the feds were operating on the platform.
We know that, for the longest time, the U.S.
government, as well as many other governments, operate what's called sock puppet accounts.
These are fake accounts.
They operate between 30 to 50, depending on which government you're talking about.
A single individual will have 50 fake accounts, and they will vote acting like different people.
But the main reason why I think it is not correct is that Elon Musk becomes Twitter's CEO.
Elon Musk tweets, should I reinstate Donald Trump?
Most people say yes, by about the same margin.
So he does.
Elon Musk says, should I grant general amnesty?
An overwhelming majority say yes, and he does.
Elon Musk then says, should I now step down?
And the majority says yes?
Now hold on there a minute.
Now it's possible that people soured on him because he launched this policy about not linking off the platform.
Maybe that pissed a lot of people off.
I can believe that.
I'm just saying it seems less probable.
You know, I'm somebody who looked at what Elon Musk has done for Twitter, and I say, there's a lot of bad.
But more good, especially releasing the Twitter files so we can see government collusion.
You mean to tell me that Elon has done what you wanted him to do?
All of you, you go on the platform and you vote, and the majority say, yes, Elon, we like what you're doing.
And then you also say, now it's time for you to leave, we want you to resign.
That doesn't make sense.
But far be it from me to insinuate that there's foul play of it.
The simple answer here is that Elon may have genuinely pissed people off with this policy.
Mr. Beast responded to Elon Musk saying, if you're going to keep doing stuff like this, yes.
Well, there you go.
I do think it's possible that a lot of moderate individuals who did like the unbanning of Trump and others did see these rules as going too far.
And there were some people who got suspended who were fans of Elon Musk.
Going forward, Elon Musk says, there will be a vote for major policy changes.
My apologies won't happen again.
Glad to hear it.
Musk continued to tweet as the poll ran saying, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for as you might get it.
In response to Wall Street Silver, Musk wrote that there is no successor lined up and that no one wants the job who can actually keep Twitter alive.
Let's break this one down.
Jeremy over at The Quartering wants to be the CEO.
I nominate personally Ian Crossland.
Y'all think I'm joking?
I'm not joking.
Ian is dangerously optimistic, but he's also got experience running a social network.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
I think also he'd open source it, federate it, and then drop all the costs to near nothing
and morph this community into something decentralized and protecting of free speech.
Not that I think Ian's perfect.
Wall Street Silver responded to Elon saying, yep, he already has the new CEO picked out.
Perhaps Donald Trump, people have suggested.
Elon will retire to being chairman of the board and Twitter.
Elon Musk says no one wants the job who can actually keep Twitter alive, there is no successor.
What does that mean?
It means that everyone who's asked can't do it?
I mean, certainly there are some people who can do it.
It just means that Elon Musk doesn't believe they can.
IAN MILES CHONG SAYS TWITTER'S BIG PROBLEM AS I SEE IT IS THAT IT'S JUST NOT PROFITABLE FOR WHAT IT CURRENTLY OFFERS.
IT NEEDS TO BE A PLATFORM FOR CONTENT CREATORS, VIDEO AND WRITING.
ELON MUSK SAYS TRUE.
I'M SORRY.
WITH RESPECT, YOU'RE BOTH WRONG.
I AM ON YOUTUBE CURRENTLY.
YOUTUBE IS NOT PROFITABLE.
THIS BUSINESS CAN'T EXIST.
I'M SORRY.
IT JUST LITERALLY CAN'T.
I KNOW THE SECRETS.
The secrets are as such.
We have a members-only section on TimCast.com.
I humbly request that you go to TimCast.com and become a member to support our work.
For that matter, I mean, shout out to Project Veritas.
You know, we can sell ads to support our work as well.
Membership is more important because ads are in the decline, but Veritas definitely is an organization worthy of your contributions as well.
I know how much it costs when you guys watch one of our members-only videos, and it is expensive.
I could not sell ads to make enough money to run this platform.
If I was putting up all of our members-only videos for free, like let's just say they're free, but we're gonna put a commercial in front of them, it's like a 90% loss because it's expensive.
YouTube is subsidizing this video right now.
The cost of it, going on an average to hundreds of thousands of people, would be ridiculous.
I don't make that much money off an individual video.
This is the secret.
So how is Twitter supposed to become profitable without subsidy?
That's what I wonder.
I wonder if the government, if intelligence agencies, were subsidizing Twitter through circuitous means to keep the narrative platform alive to manipulate and control.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
But I look at the cost of doing a livestream, for instance.
When we do Timcast IRL, we don't make nearly enough money to fund that infrastructure.
And I've long wondered, I had this question, where does the money come from?
It's being subsidized somehow.
Now it's not entirely wrong that Ian and Elon are saying this.
It does need to be a platform for content creators who can produce something that generates more revenue.
Subscription revenue perhaps can solve this problem.
So I'll put it this way.
Ad revenue would never cut it.
The truth is, y'all as paying members, 10 bucks a month is enough to run this.
Now that's the secret.
And that's what Elon is talking about.
So, I'm not trying to say they're completely wrong.
I'm saying, a platform just for creators with video and writing isn't enough.
It has to be good enough that people pay subscriptions, which means, Twitter needs to be Patreon?
And Patreon's barely cutting it.
But yeah, something like that.
Well, let's take a look at what else we got here.
Lex Fridman.
Ah, Lex.
Lexie boy.
He says, Fun suggestion, Elon Musk.
Let me run Twitter for a bit.
No salary.
All in.
Focus on great engineering and increasing the amount of love in the world.
Just offering my help in the unlikely case it's useful.
Elon Musk with revelation.
You must like pain a lot.
One catch.
You have to invest your life savings in Twitter, and it has been in the fast lane to bankruptcy since May.
Still want the job?
Elon Musk says, the question is not finding a CEO.
The question is finding a CEO who can keep Twitter alive.
And that's the reality, man.
Now, Elon Musk has made some statements for this.
He said, those who want power are the ones who least deserve it.
Yeah, I completely agree.
And it's really, really funny.
I mean, the people who just don't get me, who don't get me, you know what I mean?
So, I tweeted, how do you find the true CEO?
Somebody with passion, with drive, but the reluctance to be a leader.
Someone who doesn't want to run this.
And then I get, I know, I know, I got a lot of followers.
People are like, haha, Tim's trying to make a hint, a suggestion.
Bro, I would not go near Twitter's CEO.
I would not go near public office.
The only reason I'm in charge of TimCast is because it's something I'm doing.
I'm asking people to be involved.
That's it.
That's it.
I would never, in my life, want to assume any kind of authority in this way.
And that's the challenge.
Maybe you think I would be the guy because I criticized and called out Vidya and Jack Dorsey.
I'm not trying to put it on myself even by doing this.
I'm trying to point out who could possibly do this job, man?
The only person who's going to want to do it is going to be the person who wants to do it.
You can't just find someone to do it who's like, I don't want to do it.
It's like, but you must.
You are the king now.
Here's what I really love.
Here's what I really, really love.
Where's Lex?
Lex responds to this, agreed, he says.
Lex, come on, man.
You know, I gotta criticize this, okay?
Because I think Lex is an alright dude.
People are saying, someone responded with, in response to this, saying, mate, you asked to run Twitter literally an hour ago.
Okay, fair point here is, maybe Lex agreed.
Literally.
He heard Elon say this, he says, you know what, you're right.
Right. And the point is here, Lex did want to run it. Elon says, yeah, but those, those who want it
don't deserve it. And then less went fair point and took a step back. What I see too much of is
I guess an inability to just be an individual, not among everybody.
I'm not accusing you or anybody else.
I'm saying there are just some people who are like, Elon, I would love to be the CEO of a big three social media platform.
Lay me king and I shall save this nation.
And he goes, I would never give power to someone who wants it.
I don't think Elon would want to come on, Tim Kast.
I'm a big fan of Elon, and I'm going to tell you this right now.
He may be the only guy who actually I would consider to be an inspiration to me and what I do.
And I think he does a lot wrong that must be criticized.
He put out this policy about He put out the policy of... I don't know if we have it somewhere.
Yeah, banning these other platforms.
And I said it was wrong.
I said he made mistakes.
But he said he'd make mistakes too, okay?
I said this is like a social... No, no, no, I'm sorry.
This is the wrong way to do it.
There is a right way to do it.
And I think he wants to do this thing where if you're verified with Twitter Blue, you're paying.
Signals will be sent out, like who you're muting and who you're blocking, and that will have an impact on the algorithm.
But people can still opt out of the algorithm anyway.
Smart.
I think he's made mistakes.
I think this rollout was a mistake.
But I'm going to defend him too.
I'm not here to defend the guy because he does no wrong.
I think it's cool that he wants to go to space.
I think the satellites are cool.
I think buying Twitter was a powerful move.
I think he follows some questionable people.
I think he's got an ego issue.
Hands down.
You know?
But let me tell you about this platform and I'll defend him.
Because this is the point.
Twitter support says we recognize many users use different platforms, but they're not going to let you directly link for Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribal, Noster, and Post.
They're saying if you exist just to do that, we're not going to allow it.
Well, everybody lost their minds.
I'm going to let y'all in on a secret.
Did you know that YouTube already has that policy in place?
That if you make an account with the express purpose of pushing to other platforms, you're nuked.
Reddit has the same rule in place.
Elon's mistake was PR.
So everyone was like, how dare you?
I wanna link to my plans.
And he's like, no, I'm just saying, he clarified, he's like, I'm clarifying.
If you make an account and the only thing it does is link to another platform, we're not gonna allow that.
That's free advertising.
I think the issue is, Elon is ambitious, intelligent, but a little naive as to this platform.
A little naive.
He's got the machine coming after him in every way.
And I'll give you an example.
In this enough Musk spam subreddit with 90,000 members, all of the comments are insanely, ignorantly anti-Musk.
The top comment, to justify the ban on Mastodon, other platforms are banned by the moron.
Can't wait to see the consequences.
You know, Reddit started feeding me this subreddit.
I don't know why.
I don't follow it.
I don't care.
But all of a sudden, I'm getting notifications from the Reddit app.
Hey, check this one out.
Yeah, we hate Elon Musk.
Yeah, it's probably Cyber Command or sock puppets or bots or whatever.
But let me tell you.
All of these comments, I don't believe they're real.
Probably sock puppets.
Some of them are probably real.
But the issue is that so many of these people are just saying insane garbled nonsense.
This rule from Twitter already exists on Reddit.
And they're on Reddit and they don't even know that.
So weird, huh?
YouTube's notorious for it.
If you post a video, With the explicit purpose of promoting a different platform for video.
Like if you put up a video and said, hey everybody, if you want to watch the full video, then go check it out at Vimeo.
Nuked.
With a strike.
If you do a live stream and you say, hey everybody, welcome to my live stream, I'm gonna be live over here in five minutes.
Nuked.
What you can do with live streams, though, is if you do a substantive live stream, like 15 minutes to a half an hour, YouTube doesn't care about that.
You're allowed to do a video and then promote other content.
That's what Elon was saying.
Guy's not perfect.
You can criticize him.
You don't gotta defend every single thing he does.
But this is where we're at.
What we're seeing here with these posts is, in my opinion, the machine is sock puppeting, coming right for him.
Reddit is a spam bot platform.
That's what it is.
And so as the year comes to a close, I would be sad to see Elon go because one of the most exciting things we've seen in a long time is Elon Musk taking the platform.
There's some questions.
We saw him with some Saudis in Qatar or Qatar, however you want to pronounce it.
People are yelling at me because I say Qatar.
And Jared Kushner.
And so maybe the new CEO is Jared Kushner.
That's what he said.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
And maybe that... Maybe he met... And they point this out on the Enough Musk Spam platform.
They have some good points.
I'm not here to just say they're completely wrong.
He meets with the Saudis, it appears.
Maybe Saudis, I don't know.
One of the biggest investors is Saudi, Saudi Prince.
And also Jared Kushner.
Maybe they're just watching the World Cup.
Or maybe he said, guys, we need money to run this.
And Jared Kushner is going to be the good CEO.
I'm not saying Jared- I'm not saying that.
I'm saying Elon might be saying that.
That could be where this goes.
But I want to give you one last thought on this.
With Elon Musk's Twitter blue signal idea.
Enough Musk spam made a good point.
The only people who have Twitter blue for the most part are people who support Elon, right?
Okay.
So the leftists will lose their verification badges.
Those who are more likely to support Elon will get blue, start blocking and muting people, and that means the algorithmic signals will come from a pro-Elon crowd, or at least a crowd more pro-Elon than the others.
It's an interesting play.
I'm not a fan.
A lot of people have pointed out, Elon, don't be the evil.
Just let us speak.
It's not so simple.
As Elon pointed out, the platform has been on a fast track to bankruptcy since May.
So.
It is certainly interesting days, my friends, and I will tell you this.
We're going to be live on stage at Turning Point USA and I'm really excited for this.
I guess the plan is we're going to go an extra half an hour.
It's going to be, well, it's going to start a half an hour early and we'll try to take Super Chats.
I don't know how it's going to operate because getting a whole podcast set up on stage is going to be really weird.
But we're gonna do it!
I'm excited for this.
Thank you to Charlie Kirk for, um, helping make this possible, and Jack Posobiec, who suggested it in the first place.
And, uh, like, we're gonna have a V-shaped table, so we're facing the crowd, but we're gonna have a bunch of cameras.
It's gonna be really crazy.
And then we'll take Super Chats, but then for the members-only section, we're gonna do audience Q&A.
VIP, uncensored, all that really cool stuff, and I'm really excited for this, so... I'm-I'm-I'm grateful to everybody.
This has been one heck of an awesome year.
And this is our last week of the year doing the show, and we're ending it with a bang.
Basically, the reason was, you know, I don't want to stop working.
I'm a workaholic.
So once Christmas wraps up, I'm like, back to work, back to work, everybody!
You know, I'm not quite Scrooge, because everybody should have Christmas.
But, you know, Christmas is over.
You got your time off.
Let's get back to work.
Yeah, not so easy to be a Scrooge McDuck when your guests coming on the show say, bro, I ain't flying out.
And so that's what happens.
We had a handful of people who said, maybe I could come.
We had some cancellations.
And then I just said, you know what, guys?
I'm not going to force this.
We're gonna relax.
We're gonna enjoy a week off.
Christmas till New Year's.
We're gonna celebrate.
Come back with a bang.
So we have a really big week.
Starting off Monday with Turning Point USA Live on stage.
Then, in the Turning Point USA studio, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
We're off Friday because we're gonna get people home to see their families for Christmas Eve.
We're gonna have some really awesome guests coming on, and I'm really excited for this.
So, I'll leave it there.
Thank you everybody for hanging out.
The next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
We now know who the crazy stalker is, who attacked Elon Musk and his family.
At least we think so, according to this story from the New York Post.
Elon Musk's crazy stalker outs himself as Uber Eats driver.
The guy's apparently crazy, claims that Grimes is sending him coded messages through Instagram, and that Elon Musk is stalking him and barring him from getting work on Uber Eats.
The guy's nuts.
Apparently he responded online saying that that was him in the video.
And we don't know a whole lot about how this went down.
But according to the corporate press, there was no police report.
This never happened.
And there's no evidence this guy used the Elon jet tracker to track down Elon Musk.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Let's break this down so we can understand what it is this guy is doing to Elon Musk and why Elon probably just snapped and said, I'm banning these people.
There was a story about a guy.
He was an executive at Condé Nast, I believe.
And something happened where he got catfished or something.
I don't know.
Someone was hitting him up on a dating app and then said that they were going to expose the fact that he was hooking up with dudes unless they did something for him.
I can't remember the exact details of the story.
But the corporate press assisted the blackmailer.
Because the blackmailer was like, if I don't get what I want, I'm giving this story to the press.
And the press was like, ooh, goodie.
I think it may have been Gawker, I'm not sure.
This is what the corporate press does.
Right now, you actually had, on CNN, this kid say, I mean, this kid, something else, huh?
Just give me a Tesla, what is it, 30 to 60 grand?
Or $50,000 cash.
Let's break that down.
What he's saying?
He is saying, are you scared for your family, Elon?
Are you scared yet?
He cracked Elon's PIA, Elon's private ICAO number.
This means that Elon was desperately trying to keep his vehicle obfuscated so that he would not be subjected to these attacks on the street.
And this kid, oh, he thinks he's clever, right?
He exposed the information first.
Oh, that must not be extortion, I guess.
I don't think so.
I think this should be illegal.
Because kids basically like, look what I'm doing, Elon.
Every month, I will crack the code so that every single person who wants you dead will know it.
Unless you pay.
How is it not extortion?
Amazing.
Well, here we go.
This is just a Google search to California extortion.
Penal code section 518.
And they break it down.
In California, and I got two states to go through.
They say, Threaten or use force against someone or claim official right to.
So like if you claim to be a cop or something.
Intend to make the victim give you something valuable or perform an official act for you.
Oh, yes.
How about giving you 30 to 60 grand or $50,000 cash?
Now, what would be extortion in California?
They say.
Use of threat, fear, or force.
You threaten to harm the victim, a third party or property.
You threaten to accuse the victim.
You threaten to expose a crime of the victim.
Threaten to attribute something offensive to them.
Threatened to expose a secret or threatened to report the victim's immigration status.
And there it is right there.
I think exposing a secret hits the nail now with the hammer.
This is fear.
Elon Musk was attacked by a guy and the media is like, oh, it has nothing to do.
The dude probably knows where he and I'm sorry, Ian, where Elon needed the L in there.
where Elon was because of the jet tracker.
Or I'm sorry, I should put it this way.
He thought he knew where Elon was because of the jet tracker.
And they say, yeah, but the jet tracker didn't show where he was in the past 24 hours.
Elon travels between different locations.
What city is he in?
We don't know.
Where could he possibly be?
This dude attacked them 24 hours afterwards?
This is what I'm talking about how the media lies.
For all we know, this guy knew that the plane landed in LA.
Stalked it for a day, then attacked it.
Oh, but the mainstream, the corporate press, garbage.
I don't like saying mainstream anymore because we're taking over.
So, Florida, in fact, quite similar.
This is from leg.state.fl.us.
Threats and extortion.
Whoever either verbally or by a written or printed communication maliciously threatens to accuse another of a crime or offense or threatens injury to their property, reputation, threatens to expose disgrace or expose any secret.
Well, there you go.
There's more to it.
But that would be extortion.
However, I do believe you have to receive the goods in question for it to be extortion.
Otherwise, it's attempted extortion, which is kind of stupid because if someone comes to you and says, if you don't give me the money, I'm doing this thing, they're extorting you.
They have extorted you, right?
I mean, to me, this story is absolutely insane because here it is from the New York Post.
The masked man Elon Musk accused of being a crazy stalker has been identified as an Uber Eats driver who believes the multi-billionaire space pioneer is the one terrorizing him.
Brandon Collado first identified himself Saturday in a reply to Musk's tweet sharing a clip of the driver stopped by his security in LA late Tuesday, according to the Washington Post.
Quote, I am the guy in this video, he reportedly wrote in response to the clip.
He said Musk is a crazy stalker.
I'm sorry, Musk claimed this is a crazy stalker who climbed out of the hood of his car carrying Lil' X, his two-year-old son.
But Collado then told Musk, you have connections to me and have stalked me and my family for over a year.
That message did not appear to still be online Monday and attempts to reach Collado were not immediately successful.
So maybe that's not the real guy.
Maybe that name is fake.
Who knows?
It's being reported as someone identifying themselves.
However, he confirmed to the DC paper that he was the person in Musk's video, which had been seen nearly 18 million times by Monday, even sharing his own videos of the confrontation to prove it, the paper said.
Well, there you go.
In interviews, he made several bizarre and unsupported claims, the Washington Post said, including that Musk was monitoring his real-time location and controlling Uber Eats to block him from getting work.
Amazing.
He also claimed that Musk's ex, Grimes, the mother of two of his ten kids, including ex, was sending him coded messages through her Instagram posts.
The incident with Musk's security was near the LA home of the goth singer, real name Claire Boucher, and four years after she got a restraining order put out against a previous stalker, the paper noted.
The LA police unit that investigates high-profile stalking cases also confirmed it was looking into allegations of someone accused of stalking her.
Officers have investigated the video Musk tweeted to see if it's the same person, but have yet to reach a firm conclusion.
Collado, meanwhile, claimed he had innocently pulled over into the gas station while making Uber Eats deliveries Tuesday when Musk's security confronted him without reason, seemingly linking it to his conspiracy that the world's second richest man was monitoring his exact whereabouts.
Musk's video showed Collado wearing a mask, hood, and one glove.
Now, that's a normal thing for an Uber Eats driver who just happened to stumble upon Elon Musk.
Sorry, I don't believe it.
He said the South Pasadena cops arrived and questioned him, telling him they would file a report.
The force did not comment to the Washington Post.
The gas station surveillance footage caught the interaction and turned it over to the police.
Madero, the detective, said it appeared the driver had been trying to hide his identity by wearing gloves on the hand gripping the rental vehicle's steering wheel and by partially covering his face, clearly lying and stalking Elon and Grimes.
So far, he said there was no direct evidence the man had used the Elon jet page to track the moguls' flights.
Perhaps that's true.
I got no issue if that is true.
It doesn't matter if it's the case.
It does not matter if this guy was using Elon.
What matters is Elon knows there are crazy people attacking his family.
He needs to secure everything.
As I often say, I am not concerned about Antifa showing up and attacking me.
It could happen, right?
I mean, there's a small modicum of fear that some crackpot political individual might target me, my friends, my family, etc.
We recently had an incident where two guys broke into my house.
What I would say is the biggest concern when it comes to security is a crazy person, who as I often say, believes that I've stolen all his spoons and placed them on the moon and the only way to get them back is to come and do harm to me.
Because Antifa, they're maybe wrong and crazy in a certain way, but it may be delusional.
But what I'm concerned about is the person you cannot reason with.
The person who doesn't do anything for any rhyme or reason and just snaps.
Because these people have nothing to lose at all.
I understand Antifa may have nothing to lose, but they still have something.
You know, they're fighting for a cause, despite the fact the cause may be insane or wrong.
They're concerned that, okay, if we do something bad, it could hurt the cause.
A crazy person's gonna be like, I need my spoons.
He's got my spoons.
This guy's like Grimes sending me messages, so he comes after her.
So this kid, when he comes out and says, give me $50,000, how is that not extortion?
Man, so I have to wonder, you know, Elon Musk is very brave.
I'll put it that way.
The fact that he is enduring these things, I mean, and to the best of his ability, maybe he's not.
This kid should be in jail.
I'm not saying to lock him up for 30 years.
I'm saying the cops should arrest him.
They should take away his computer privilege and say, you cannot write a code to To crack the private information of an individual and then tell him you will publish it unless he gives you $50,000.
But there is no law enforcement anymore.
That's it right there.
How is this possible?
How is it possible that even someone like Elon Musk has to deal with someone demanding 50 grand or a brand new Tesla in exchange for him to not publish the whereabouts of his family?
Isn't that extortion?
I don't know what to tell you, man.
And then, you know, I'm not surprised Elon is putting up this poll saying he's going to step down.
So I'll show you a couple more things.
Tesla stock jumps at the results of Elon Musk's Twitter poll saying he should step away from the platform.
A lot of people say to me, you know, oh you're brave or whatever.
Not everybody says that, but some people say it.
Because of the threats we face, because of the swattings, because of the bomb threats, security issues, people breaking into my house.
It's true.
But I can handle it.
But this?
I don't know how Elon handles it.
I'll be completely honest.
The fact that some dude is extorting you openly in the public on CNN, there is nothing to be done about it.
The law enforcement won't do anything about it.
Maybe some lawyer will come out and say it's not extortion, and I'm wrong.
But to me, I read that, looks like extortion.
Law won't do anything about it, huh?
What's Elon supposed to do about it?
Ban the guy on Twitter, I guess.
And that's what he did.
Is it perfect?
Is it a solution to his problems?
No.
But I can understand why he's finally just pissed off.
These are crazy times right now.
The pressure on this man must be immense.
Tesla stock has dropped.
People are desperately trying to claim it's because of Twitter.
And that may be the case.
I'm not gonna play stupid games.
May or may not.
I don't know.
It's not like I'm trying to be on the fence on this when I'm saying there are factors that contribute to the idea that with Elon, the CEO of these companies, publicly involved in other nonsense, people are going to lose confidence in Tesla.
Maybe they don't understand that Elon doesn't run day-to-day operations?
Don't know.
I think it's fair that would have an impact.
It's also possible that they're just lying because they're desperately trying to get Elon to quit Twitter.
And it may be working.
So Elon's tweeted about macroeconomic factors and a bunch of the biggest Tesla supporters have said macroeconomic factors and maybe that's the case.
Maybe it is the greater Federal Reserve printing, inflation and all that stuff.
But I'm looking at a guy who's getting smacked across the face every which way.
And he has been for a while.
So I have to wonder, are there two other reasons why Elon may have bought Twitter?
The Babylon Bee?
No.
He said he didn't buy Twitter so that he could unsuspend a satire account.
It was to save humanity, or something to that effect.
I wonder if it was also that, whenever Elon tweets, or periodically, scam fake Elon accounts pop up offering people crypto.
That's gotta be annoying that Twitter won't do anything about it.
Surprise, surprise.
Elon then says he wants to get all the bots out.
Maybe he finally just got annoyed by the fact that... Yeah.
People keep saying, I got a crypto scam of your face.
The other issue is Elon Jett.
Perhaps Elon Musk was just tired.
He offered the kid $5,000.
It's crazy.
The kid said no.
Maybe that's one way the kid gets away with the actual extortion charge.
He said he wouldn't take $5,000.
He wanted $50,000.
And then Elon maybe was just like, you know what?
I'm buying this platform.
I am shutting these people down.
He is pissed off.
I think a Twitter run by a pissed off Elon Musk is way better than a Twitter run by Vijay or Jack Dorsey.
I like Jack.
I think there's a kind of duplicitousness to him.
So we'll see.
They're acting like he didn't know what was going on.
He didn't know.
Let me tell you about Jack Dorsey, okay?
I don't know about this guy.
I got reasons to believe he's a deeply evil dude.
I got some reasons to believe he's probably just not and maybe a little too doofy.
He's making contributions to a bunch of other platforms like Noster, for instance, that are like decentralized versions of Twitter and stuff like that.
I think that's good.
But is he also sabotaging Twitter by propping up the opposition?
Did Jack Dorsey really not know what was going on?
Sorry.
I don't know if I'm gonna believe that Jack Dorsey is just some bumbling fool who had no idea what was happening around him.
Alright?
But for this Elon Musk guy, I'm not surprised he's doing what he's doing.
Take a look at this one from the New York Post.
Elon Musk briefly suspends Taylor Lorenz's Twitter account for doxing.
And oh, were they so mad.
Oh, cry, cry, cry.
They're all screaming free speech now.
Y'all never cared about free speech.
And I'm not going to fall for your lies.
But Elon Musk suspended Taylor Lorenz for like 24 hours because of previous doxing activity.
And I think, good, do it.
Look, Taylor Lorenz has become increasingly unhinged.
Because I used to follow her a long time ago, and it's gotten crazier and crazier.
She's just unwell, in my opinion.
And she doxed a handful of people, including libsoftiktok.
They directly linked to an address of libsoftiktok.
And then they claim, no he didn't, no he didn't, dude.
They're arguing that because the address was not currently in use, and they think, I have sources to say otherwise, it's not really doxing if it is one of their addresses, but they're not currently there.
Yeah, get out of here.
Posting their address is doxing.
And so you know what Elon Musk is like, you're getting a timeout.
And maybe it was impulsive.
Maybe it was irrational.
They're claiming that it's because Taylor Lorenz emailed Elon and tweeted at him saying, you know, we have a request for comment as to some, you know, nonsense.
And he was like, nope!
Banned.
And I think it was funny.
I do.
Look, I believe in free speech, but I've said this a while ago.
I am not a free speech absolutist, and I am not a libertarian or anarchist.
I lean libertarian on the libertarian spectrum, leaning left.
And what that means is, You need hard moral standards.
I will not extend to communists, Marxists, authoritarians, fascists.
I will not extend to them something they seek to take away from me.
Now, if they actively fight for the right of free speech and they have bad opinions, okay, fine.
If they actively seek to suppress the speech of others, then no, sorry.
I'm not here to defend you.
I will not advocate for them to be silenced.
I will not advocate for censorship against them.
I said this before, and I will say it now.
Do not expect me to sit back as you beat me in the face, demanding my censorship, and then when you get banned, don't think I'm gonna get up and go, wait, wait, wait.
I know they were beating me across the face, but I'm gonna defend them now.
No, I'm gonna be like, look.
They shouldn't be banned, but I'm not getting involved in that.
You make your own bed.
I believe in free speech, but I'm not going to actively fight for someone who is trying to shut it down.
I will not fight for my opposition who is trying to destroy me.
You see the point?
I will advocate for free speech for those who actively advocate for free speech.
And then I'm told by the left, yes, but they're lying to you, Tim.
They believe in free speech.
Once they get it, they're going to take it away.
And then we say, oh no, right?
That's how it works.
Imagine someone came out and said, I think people should have guns.
And I'm like, I agree.
And then they're like, haha, now I have guns and I can use them against you.
And I'll be like, and so can I. That's the point.
My speech will beat your speech.
Don't come bringing weapons around because everyone else will be armed too.
But if you're actively trying to take my guns away, and then someone comes and takes yours away, I'll say, well, that's what you wanted.
You got what you wanted.
Don't you think I'm gonna get mad about it?
Taylor Lorenz got suspended because she wanted these rules.
She got what she wanted.
She comes out now and cries about it.
Nah, she got what she wanted.
Anyway, look, I digress.
I can't imagine the pressure this dude must be under.
I'm a big fan.
I got my criticisms.
But there's a lot of news today.
I saw that video where the kid was like, I want $50,000.
And I'm like, someone needs to arrest that kid for this stuff.
But there's no law enforcement.
Welcome to the precursor to the Second Civil War, whatever you want to call it.
Everyone's like, ah, Tim's talking about civil war.
And I'm like, dude, the FBI, federal law enforcement, state law enforcement are not doing anything.
The FBI is going to Twitter and being like, don't, don't let any bad information come out about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden.
And you think we're not in some kind of conflict?
Call it whatever you want.
But if you think war never changes, you've been playing Fallout too much.
Cause war changes.
And it may be a battle for your mind.
Like Alex Jones would say.
And I think he's probably right.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I'll see you all.
That'll be at 4pm.
I'll see you all then.
Last night speaking at Turning Point USA's AmericaFest, Carrie Lake had some choice words for Maricopa County election officials calling for them to be locked up.
This is really fascinating.
Carrie Lake's battle right now over what happened with the election in Arizona, I believe, is one of the most important battles in this country because the midterm is not yet over.
The midterm election, although it happened over a month ago, we have the certification in the election in which Carrie Lake was running for the governorship, but there is an election-related lawsuit still underway with questions that need to be answered.
Now while the shocking story may be that Carey Lake has called for imprisoning Maricopa County election officials, the one thing that I find very fascinating here is a story from AZ Family.
Judge takes motion to dismiss lawsuit filed by Carey Lake under advisement.
Interesting story filed just a moment ago, and I'm reading this, and they don't really lay out the position of the Kerry-Lake campaign, in which there are many very important questions.
And I don't know what to say.
Now, I can tell you they've certified the election for Hobbs, for the Democrat, and so it's supposed to be a done deal.
However, Arizona law does allow for an election contest.
So this is where it gets really interesting because YouTube has their weird rules about how you can't question certified elections.
So I don't have to tell you YouTube, there is an election contest under the law underway.
I am not here to tell anybody, definitively one way or another, what happened or anything like that.
But I will point out the arguments being made by Kerry Lake's team, and I think some of the arguments have merit.
I mean, first and foremost, the ballot tabulator errors.
This is confirmed fact-based news.
It's not speculation.
It happened.
Now, what they're saying officially, anyone who tried to vote and the machine kicked it back was still able to vote.
I say fantastic.
I'm glad to hear it.
Now, we should probably get a random sampling of those ballots that were kicked back, and test to make sure that they were accurately counted, right?
There's a viral video of a man, and he says, if you went to the bank to count your life savings, and they said, sorry, the counter's not working.
Just put it in box number three, and then we'll let you know later how much money you've actually got.
You'd say, no way.
And he asks, now what's more important, your vote or your money?
Excellent point.
Just ask Mark Zuckerberg, among other individuals who spent large sums of money to have an impact on this election.
Carrie Lake is asking questions about that.
Asking questions about 25,000 ballots they say came in after the deadline and about there being no chain of custody on some universal mail-in ballots.
Again, I am not ascribing any veracity to those arguments.
I'm simply pointing out those are the arguments.
Now why is it that AZ Family writes about this story, hey, hey, I'll give them that much, but they're not breaking down the actual position from the Carey Lake team?
Could be wrong.
Could be totally wrong.
I don't know.
I want to see what the judge has to say.
I want to see the court actually go through the evidence and make a definitive statement.
The challenge, I suppose, is will these judges be partisan?
I really don't know.
And if they are, then so be it.
And maybe we'll never really know.
But there are some really shocking questions if what Carrie Lake's team alleges are true turn out to be true, that there's no chain of custody for ballots, that 17,000 people were had issues with ballot tabulators.
And they say, no, no, no, we got all those votes in.
I hear you saying that.
But for me, as an individual, as a layman, you're telling me to either trust Carrie Lake or trust Katie Hobbs.
Why is it that YouTube tells me we are forced to just trust Katie Hobbs?
No, sorry, I'm not playing that game.
I'm not going to trust one or the other.
I'm a fan of Carrie Lake, but she's got to prove it, and I want to see a third party go through this.
She says she'll take it to the Supreme Court?
I'd like to see it.
But the fact remains, if Hobbs comes out and says, no, I certified it personally, everything's fine, I say, that's great, but we've not gone through any of the documentation.
If Carrie Lake says, here's some issues with chain of custody, I say, that's great, we need to go through the documentation.
In this world of censorship, with everything we're learning from Elon Musk and the Twitter files and new revelations coming out, I'm being told by Big Tech that I have to choose only one side.
Get out of here.
If a corrupt individual, and I'm saying this hypothetically, certifies their own election, we're supposed to just agree that it happened?
No, no, no.
We go to the courts if it's a challenge, and I want the courts to tell me.
Okay?
I don't know.
You know, look, I really do think, in all likelihood, Carrie Lake's not going to win this one.
And I'm not trying to be mean.
I just saw Carrie Lake the other day.
We chatted for a couple minutes.
I said, you know, great speech.
Good luck.
I'm a fan.
I hope she finds great success.
And if she is right, I hope she's proven right.
But I don't know.
I've not seen what they've seen.
I've only heard the arguments.
I now defer to the judge.
And I hope the judge is principled and does the right thing.
But let me read through some of what happened in court today so you can get an understanding of the arguments made by Carey Lake's team and the arguments made by Katie Hobbs' team.
I think the corporate press has Katie Hobbs' team, their argument, fairly simply put.
And then we have a Twitter thread from Tracy Beans breaking down basically the whole thing, which does give Katie Hobbs her fair shake, to a certain degree, and Carey Lake's as well.
So let's read this.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member in order to support our work directly.
Click that Join Us button and you will be supporting our work directly.
Our journalists, our writers, and our endeavors here.
You may have realized I'm in a different building.
The audio is probably really bad.
We tried our best.
Um, I am here in Arizona for Turning Point USA's AmFest.
This is the last week of the year.
We're taking the last week off, so this week we're here until Thursday.
But tonight, special event, you don't want to miss it.
At, I believe it's going to be 7.30 p.m.
Eastern Time, at TimCastIRL, YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, we will be live streaming the show on stage.
With James Lindsay, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and I believe we may have another guest.
It's a little bit up in the air, excuse me, but Harmeet Dhillon may be joining in the later half of the show as well.
So I'm very much excited for this.
I suppose guests subject to change.
I normally don't like to announce guests, but that may be the case.
So with your support, we're able to pull off things like this.
So I really do appreciate it.
And of course, being here in Arizona, we get to see it all firsthand.
At this event last night, we heard Carrie Lake call for imprisoning Maricopa County election officials.
Speaking to a crowd of young conservatives at Turning Point USA's AmericaFest, Lake discussed her election contest at length, repeating unproven allegations about both the 2020 presidential election and Governor-elect Katie Hobbs' victory last month, saying, These people are crooks.
They need to be locked up.
Lake said of Maricopa County election officials after listing off a series of largely disproven claims about election fraud.
I think that ballot harvesting is horrifyingly nightmarish, but I know that it's legal in 39 states and I know that even here people are complaining about how it's legal.
I think they're saying you can take 9 ballots plus a family member, like yours plus 9 ballots, so people are ballot harvesting.
That's a problem.
But I don't think there's like Chinese ballots being, you know, flooded into the system.
I do think that there are dirty politics afoot.
Don't get me wrong.
But I don't think the question is breaking the procedure.
I think it's manipulating the procedure.
Like that article from Time Magazine, the shadow campaign to save the, or fortify, I'm sorry, I said fortify the election.
What they did, on the surface, everything we know about, it's illegal.
Ballot harvesting, it's illegal.
They were changing the rules.
You want to argue that violated legislative process, well then we're talking about a process violation outside the election.
Yes, should be fixed.
Let's read, let's read.
I don't want to, I don't want to just keep going on about my opinions on the election.
I want to give you the information so you can decide.
AZFamily reports, a judge is taking a motion to dismiss an election-related lawsuit filed by former GOP gubernatorial candidate Carrie Lake under advisement following a hearing Monday morning in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Lake filed a lawsuit earlier this month against current Secretary of State and Governor-elect
Katie Hobbs, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, recorder Stephen Richer,
and elections director Scott Jarrett. The 70-page suit says evidence gathered from witnesses shows,
quote, hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots infected the election in Maricopa County,
and that problems with equipment along with long lines disenfranchised Republican voters.
The lawsuit calls for Lake to be declared winner of the 2022 gubernatorial race,
or at the very least to vacate the results and hold a new election.
It's an interesting request, but I'll point this out.
Illegal ballots does not mean fraud.
The Lake team has explicitly said not fraud.
That's important.
What they're talking about is whether or not there was proper chain of custody and whether or not signature verification was done properly.
I don't know how you answer these questions.
I really don't.
The judge may say you bring up some good points, but ultimately, you can't prove any of this.
And if you can't... Now, there's a bigger question.
If you can prove there's no chain of custody for ballots, what would a judge say?
Well, I know there's no chain of custody for hundreds of thousands of ballots, but I'm gonna approve them anyway!
I mean, that's Banana Republic stuff.
And if he comes out, The only thing I think they could do is actually just prove there was chain of custody and the claim was wrong.
But then what?
Have a new election?
That would also be very, very crazy in my opinion.
Now they say, the Secretary of State's office responded to the initial filing of the lawsuit, calling it baseless, saying Carrie Lake needs attention like a fish needs water.
Last week, Hobbs and the others named in the lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss, which is being taken up in Monday morning's hearing.
And we have a very long Twitter thread for you from Tracy Beans.
Excellent work, Tracy.
She broke this down, and going very quickly trying to, so some of it we'll have to parse through properly, but I want to make sure you understand what's happening.
And I want to tell you why.
This may be long-winded.
It may be esoteric.
But it's extremely important for the strength and for the health of our democracy.
That's what they like to say, right?
Our democracy.
Well, we're a constitutional republic, and our constitutional republic needs protecting from those who want to know, who need to know, and are willing to know what's going on to defend the constitutional republic.
Here we go.
Tracy Beans with a live thread on what's happening in the motion to dismiss.
Now the judge, in the end, said, okay, I'm gonna take this and then we'll go, you'll get my ruling soon.
Tracy says it may be by the end of the day, she thinks, maybe tomorrow.
Here we go.
Defendants claim the expedited nature of this suit is a problem.
They say the court shouldn't entertain Carrie Lake's claims.
They're outside of bounds.
To declare someone else a winner, the complainant must establish fraud or enough votes to change the outcome.
Defense saying Cavalier use of term fraud.
She doesn't allege fraud in her lawsuit.
Her response brief asserts a loophole.
She doesn't need to prove fraud, just intentional conduct.
Unless a claim falls into fraud or a significant number of votes to change outcome if fails.
So, to put it simply, the late campaign is not saying fraud.
They're saying that there was intentional conduct which resulted in problems in this election.
Again, that's hard to prove.
It is hard to prove intent.
I hope you have some communications.
If all it turns out to be is that machines broke, I don't tell you.
Machines broke.
I mean, it could suck.
It could mean that this election doesn't reflect the will of the people, but it doesn't mean anyone did it on purpose.
Unless you can prove it.
Tracy Bean says Lake asking court to draw inferences that there was a coordinated effort, a bet.
Signature reviewers run back and this was on election day because more Republicans vote that day, pointing out that everyone on the board in Maricopa County are Republicans saying no documents or emails.
It's hard to parse through, but the general idea here is she's alleging that there was a coordinated effort, that they did all of this, all these problems happen on election day intentionally because they knew Democrats were voting early.
Colin Carey Lake claims, absurd generally, says she can't prove fraud and her lawsuit doesn't have evidence of fraud.
Now addressing actual election results, must have small margin, 10, 20, 50 votes, she needs to overcome 17,000 votes.
She points to two things to overcome.
The court, uh, the court still sift through pages, will sift through pages, to find any evidence that anyone was turned away or votes were effective.
Barrister declaration flaws are many.
And his sheer speculation isn't valid.
At the end of the day, speculation about what might have been have no place in an election contest.
Lake doesn't come close to meeting the right standards.
Quote, if there is anything rotten, it is what this represents.
Candidates can't accept the fact that they lost.
Judicial system has served as a bulwark to stop this.
Okay, good sir.
And it currently is.
Why not review evidence?
Why motion to dismiss?
Okay, I get it.
Why not motion to dismiss?
Anyone defending these claims would immediately make that move because it's a move to win.
Now look, the Lake campaign is gonna come out, they did, and said, here's your chance to prove us wrong.
But that's not a winning legal strategy and I wouldn't expect anyone to take that.
I wouldn't expect Kerry Lake's team to take that.
They're gonna file a motion to dismiss.
They're gonna say, it's Liddy for Maricopa.
A claim by the plaintiff that there are Republican voters that didn't get a chance to vote.
That issue has already been presented to the Superior Court when RNC sued.
Judge found no evidence that people couldn't vote.
That was an Election Day ruling.
Lake has been able to get affidavits.
Nothing has changed.
All of them but two voted.
That's fascinating.
Good point.
When it came to these voting machines failing, of the people they claim were impacted by it, only two didn't vote.
So where's anybody else?
I still think because of the margin of failure, you need to then review those votes, verify the votes, went to the right person and all that stuff, but that should be a no-brainer.
It's no issue, right?
No issue?
Yeah, well apparently it is.
Tracy Beans says, a challenge to signature process should be brought before election, not after.
Known, and she should have brought.
Latches.
If the court disagrees, the evidence brought to the court is evidence from 2020.
That isn't true, she says.
Okay, trying to break this one down.
They're basically saying, you should have sued earlier.
You can't wait until after the fact and then sue.
And it's Kerry Lake tried to sue over the tabulators.
And they said, there's been no election, so you can't.
Now that there's something that's happened, she's suing, and they're trying to argue, it's too late, you can't sue.
That, to me, is patently absurd.
Here's the best part.
In this part, we can see that Katie Hobbs' team is making an interesting claim.
Katie Hobbs, Democrats' lawyers, claimed that 59% of the tabulators going down in historically red districts was not voter suppression.
And that the term is reserved for the lynching and hanging of black people.
They used past racial injustice as a shield for their crimes.
Disgusting, says Kerry Lake War Room.
Well, I don't agree with that, you know, just yet.
I want to see adjudication, but that's the argument they made.
An argument I find quite silly.
Look, if you want to argue the machine's going down, is voter suppression.
It is.
If you want to argue it was intentionally done, I'm going to ask you to prove it.
What I mean to say is, voters were suppressed by the machines going down.
Here's the challenge.
They say, prove it, right?
How many people who voted didn't have come out and said, hey, I wasn't able to vote?
Only two?
Well, the problem is if someone wasn't able to vote or their vote wasn't counted or some error happened, how would they even know to come forward?
That is a big problem.
It doesn't mean Carrie Lake can just walk through this one and be granted whatever she wants.
The Republican Party was founded.
Blah, blah, blah.
Suffragettes.
Oh, heavens me.
Hobbs in official capacity.
The plaintiff has disclaimed any claim of fraud.
Did so in consolidated response.
The burden on an election contestant to show outcome different is high and unsatisfied.
This is about the stability of our election system.
Let's go to Carrie Lake and see what she has to say.
say.
Kerry Lake's attorney.
This case is not about ballot on demand printers not being certified, not the Fincham case.
We aren't here to talk about printers.
Largely elections go off without a hitch.
We normally don't have chaos as Gates said.
Now this is interesting.
This is not routine tech issues.
By their own admission, they had 70 centers down.
We found two-thirds of vote centers rejecting ballots.
It isn't a case about flawed signature procedures.
They created that out of whole cloth for latches.
Basically trying to say, you're too late.
But they're saying that's BS.
That's not what we're talking about.
It's also not just about breaking chain-of-custody rules.
What the case is about is Maricopa and Secretary of State ignoring detailed procedures, like testing ballots before election to determine tabulator function, about a systemic failure of tabulators which are critical to processing votes, which occurred at a third to two-thirds of centers, causing massive disruption on Election Day.
Maricopa County employees coming forward to expose signature verifications.
Thousands of examples of this which we will talk about.
It's about a massive chain of custody failure, not just now, but in Bromwich.
Okay, here's an interesting claim.
Chain of custody.
Where do the belts go?
Where did they come from?
You have no record?
That's a problem.
I mean, in order for the system to be secure, we need to say, these ballots came from this place, traveled with this person to this center, and then were counted.
If you don't know that, how are we supposed to trust these ballots?
That's a problem for those who, that would disenfranchise the people who voted if they did not do this properly.
Tracy Bean says, It's a criminal violation to not maintain chain of custody, not some minor thing.
Now, if that's true, Carrie Lake's got something big.
If they did not maintain chain of custody, and that's criminal, let's see what the judge has to say.
Well, defendants ignored in our complaint.
On November 8th, if procedures followed, they should have had an exact count.
On 11-10, 25,000 ballots appeared.
Defendants have ignored and could have changed the outcome.
Also, secret censorship portal for state and local officials to flag and take down posts and affront to the First Amendment.
My opinion on that is, yeah, it's bad, but I don't know how that's going to impact a case about ballots in chain of custody.
The judge may say, yeah, you're probably right, influence campaigns happen, but who knows who was involved in that?
We know that there were officials sending emails, for sure, violating the First Amendment, for sure.
Being able to legally draw that connection into the election?
I don't know how you do that.
Being able to penalize someone or make a criminal referral or some kind of action because of suppression of speech, yeah, but that won't impact the election results.
Like, it may have, but I mean, like, I don't know how a judge can rule on that.
So here we go.
Whistleblowers who came forward.
This is interesting.
First she says, I'm not interested in that.
I get it.
I know it's a problem.
But maybe moving an election is not a definitive number.
You need a number.
Plaintiffs say 17 million votes are insurmountable, but it's a tenth of a point of recount.
The idea this is insurmountable doesn't add up.
Whistleblowers who came forward once said they were reviewing signatures.
The math doesn't add up with this experience in ballot curing.
As much as they want to say the standard is different in an election, as opposed to another case, not true.
Talking about chaos and intentionality introduced Clay Parikh.
When retained for eight years by testing lab that certified the machines for Maricopa and others, he is a top cyber expert.
He knows rules and what is required.
He swore about how Maricopa violated procedure.
Very, very interesting claims from Kerry Lake.
Again, I am not saying these are true.
It's one expert.
I want to see a judge issue a ruling on this, which we may see soon.
Defendants don't challenge his qualifications.
It's a point in motion to dismiss.
They do challenge Barris, recognized pollster.
We put forward a 10-page analysis based on history and questions he asked during exit polls.
What did they experience in terms of chaos?
Survey data is appropriate in litigation.
His findings of between 15k and 25k is something based in science and for purposes of motion to dismiss, should accept as true and is outcome determinative.
Basically, there's enough here to show the election could have been swung.
I don't want to just sit here and go through all of the nitty-gritty of the entire trial.
I want you to understand just a few very important points.
They say this.
Maricopa whispers, should we object?
There were 3 who submitted signed declarations.
24 people were reviewing signatures.
At level 2, there were at most 3 managers.
After level 1 looked at signature, they would take rejected and review.
30-40% were rejected at 1.
That is massive.
percent were rejected at one. That is massive. 30 to 40 percent at the other center, the
same 30 to 34 to 40 percent rejected.
At Curing Center, testimony was, quote, always told they would be in for heck because they were processing 60k a day and rejecting 12-15,000.
He was told next day would be bad because they would come back next day and only one-tenth would come back.
Math tells us that 10,800 bouts approved by level two managers.
That's 3,600 bouts per manager in a day.
Two managers have additional signatures to match and tools.
If you assume they spent one minute reviewing each, that would be 3,600 minutes.
That would be 60 hours within 24 hours.
That's 25 seconds of ballot.
The math does not add up.
Tens of thousands of ballots pushed in that shouldn't have been counted.
This is shown by examples we gave.
That is compelling.
We put forward 5,000 ballots, extrapolated it to 130,000 ballots.
Again, not saying any of it's true.
It's the argument being made.
I'm curious to see how the judge determines this.
Now, I think in terms of chain of custody, it was something in the field of like 200 and some odd thousand ballots.
That would be interesting.
That would be interesting.
But I want to come down, because it's a very, very long thread, and I want to talk about important issues surrounding this.
So let's see if we can get the final statement from the judges here.
They say, uh, let's see.
The defense says, honest mistakes absent allegations of fraud are not enough to sustain this challenge.
Counsel provided no response about legal standard for contest.
Alleged fraud, speculative allegations don't meet the bar.
Perique now, counsel suggested we didn't challenge his qualifications, we didn't have enough pages, but let's assume his conclusions are true.
They're literally discounting their own Level 1 employees.
The defense is basically saying, these people doing signature verification, no, no, no, they don't know what they're doing.
The attorney is downplaying how many votes were being rejected by the tabulators.
They're also looking for sanctions against Kerry Lake for filing the lawsuit.
Now, I gotta say right there, are you nuts?
This is part of the process.
We need confidence.
If Kerry Lake is wrong, then prove it!
Filing a sanction is trying to scare people.
Don't you dare ever ask questions.
Elections should be questioned.
And then when it's proven right or wrong, whatever, we the people.
The judge ended in an interesting way, saying, all right, I will take this under advisement and render my decision as quickly as possible.
I understand the time constraints.
It could mean two things.
He knows they will appeal if dismissed, or he isn't dismissing.
I want to say, I think there's some compelling arguments.
I don't think it's very strong for Carey Lake.
I'm not saying it's very weak either.
I'm not saying I look at this and go, whoa, slam dunk.
I say, I'm seeing this and okay, you know, we should look at the evidence that they're presenting.
I think that's a fair shake.
I don't know how this will end up.
But I think it's not just about the arguments made by Carrie Lake.
I think it's also about maintaining confidence among the people.
We are in trying times.
Things are really, really bad.
Okay?
People are fighting.
There's violence.
People are threatening my life.
I think we need to have a calm, reasoned approach to this.
And ain't nobody gonna open themselves up to a weakness.
For good nature or whatever.
I think what we need is for Katie Hobbs to say, I want to give Carrie Lake anything and everything to prove to her that she lost.
That would be the appropriate outcome.
No one would ever do that.
Personally, I want to see what Carrie Lake has to show us in an evidentiary hearing.
I want to see her team sample these ballots and test them.
I want to see if the numbers about signatures match up.
And then if the reality is, and I gotta be honest, I'll tell you what the reality is, I think.
I think Carrie Lake's probably not wrong about some of this stuff, but I think it's all just ballot harvesting.
How is it that Lauren Boebert nearly lost?
Ballot harvesting.
They know it.
This is what bothered me so much about 2020.
This inability to understand that Biden got the votes.
And people are saying, no, no, it was fraud, it was fraud.
Look, when they, in a year in advance, legalized universal mail-in voting, And then in 39 states where it's overtly legal to ballot harvest, they do!
And then you say, how did he get the votes?
Because they knocked on the door and said, you know who Biden is?
No.
Fill it out anyway.
Whatever.
Free vote.
It's that simple.
And there's evidence, my friends.
That's why I beg people, like, please.
Carrie Lake may lose this one.
You may be upset.
Again, I would be.
I'm a fan.
I think she's fantastic.
She's not perfect.
I got some criticisms of her.
But she's one of the best.
When we have her on the show, she's like, ask anything.
Talk about whatever you want.
There's no BS politaking of, these are off limits, that's off limits.
She sits down and she's like, what's up?
And I'm like, I like it.
She is really, really good at being a politician.
Now, she's not really a politician in the traditional sense, but this is why I want to see her win, and she may not.
She may not win for one simple reason.
Ballot harvesting is powerful, and Republicans didn't see it.
One thing we can say definitively from this lawsuit is that Republicans know, and Democrats know, Republicans vote on the day of, and Democrats vote by mail.
Now, why is it that Democrats vote by mail?
Is it because deep down in their heart of hearts, they're like, well, I just think voting by mail is the right thing to do.
No, it's because it's ballot harvesting, and it's been ballot harvesting.
Yes, because they're going door to door and saying, please fill this out, please vote.
With COVID, it was tremendously expanded.
You could request an absentee ballot, and people would.
But after COVID, they normalized it.
And now, in many states, if you request it at one time, they just send it out every time.
Democrats need only knock on the door and say, did you fill the vote out?
And they go, no.
It's right there, fill it out.
And you know what?
If 9 out of 10 say no, that's still one more that Republicans ain't gonna get.
So yes, we all know this.
Just the news.
Top Maricopa election offices couldn't reconcile 15,000 disparity in outstanding votes, internal email.
Quote, unable to currently reconcile Secretary of State listing with our estimates from yesterday.
Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer wrote in a November 10th email.
Okay.
Maybe this was ultimately reconciled.
Maybe this communication is out of date.
It must be answered for.
Otherwise, there's no confidence in the system and everybody's going to lose their mind.
So, as I stated in 2020, We need this.
We need a judge to hammer it out, to lay it down, and go through everything.
We need a judge.
We need the judge right now to say, we're gonna go to evidence.
For the sake of confidence in this country, in our state, of our people, we will hear what Carey Lake has to say.
You know what?
Maybe he calls her bluff.
Or maybe there's actually something there.
Either way, I think the strongest position, and I said this to Carey Lake, I don't like the fraud narrative.
At all.
For two reasons.
I think it's less likely.
I think ballot harvesting is it.
And the second, it's off-putting and confusing.
Now maybe it's right.
I don't know.
I lean towards it's not.
But you go to a regular person and say, the only reason I lost is because they cheated, and people are going to be like, oh, get out of here, man.
Can't you just accept you lost?
But if you go to the average person and say, did you hear about how the machines were backed up and people were having trouble voting?
Look, I got a problem with that, and I think we should have an evidentiary hearing on what happened.
Then people are going to be like, Well, that's a good point.
A fair person.
We may never win over cult members.
They're gonna be like, No!
No!
Dismiss!
You get away!
I want to win!
But there are many people who are, maybe if it's just in the middle, a little bit, that little bit you need to win over, who are gonna say, Okay, fine.
I agree.
I think you lost, but prove it.
I want to call your bluff.
That's the opportunity right there.
I see a lot of people who want to go out and just yell fraud, and I'm like, guys, I talk to a lot of regular people, and if you say they cheated, they cheated, they laugh, they laugh, they go, oh, this is ridiculous.
But if you say something like, well, there's questions about chain of custody, I mean, you think that's wrong, right?
Like, if we don't know where the ballots came from?
You'll hear from a lot of people, I do, they say things like, yeah, but that doesn't mean they're fraudulent.
I'm like, you're right.
Maybe if it's a crime, though, we should investigate.
Yeah.
I'm like, you wouldn't want someone else doing that.
I mean, if they come out right now and it was legit and there was a chain of custody issue, what if Trump?
What if Trump then does it?
That's right.
I don't mean it like literally like that, but I've talked to people and I've said outright, like, look, man, I don't know what happened, but let's just prove them wrong.
Unsurprisingly, many leftists don't want to even try.
You wonder why?
You wonder why?
I'm neutral.
My attitude is, have the hearing, prove it, let's not just keep shoving everything under the rug.
When someone comes out and says, I object, I say, okay, why?
So we'll see what happens.
Look, there's a lot of stories right now.
And I kept looking at this one, and there's the FBI, there's the Twitter files that are dropping right now, and I'm like...
This Carrie Lake thing is very important.
If her claims turn out to be true, it's an opportunity to actually adjudicate this stuff, to pull up the evidence, and figure out what's going on, and maybe repair some confidence.
Maybe most people don't care about it as much as I do, but I do.
So I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up.
8 p.m.
tonight.
On stage at Turning Point USA.
I hope we can pull this off.
So you don't want to miss it.
Not 8 p.m.
It's gonna be 7.30 p.m.
Eastern Time.
I think we're planning to do it early.
It may go late.
Hopefully not.
But I think it'll be fun.
So thanks for hanging out, and smash the like button.
