Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

01:57:45

Sidebar with Patrick Witt - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Marathon of Viva on the Street from Ottawa.
	That shirt was no longer clean and no longer smelled clean, so I had to change.
	I haven't had time to...
	I haven't had time to...
	I washed my hands, but I haven't had time to, you know, shower.
	But I'm going to be doing that after this.
	Luckily...
	My goodness, people.
	What a day.
	I can't actually believe that I made it back in time.
	Got the thumbnail in time from DSLR Dave, the thumbnail maestro who does all our thumbnails.
	And we're going to do this.
	And now I see Patrick Witt in the background in studio.
	I can't describe how much I love it when things work out perfectly in terms of timing, like pieces of a puzzle that fit together temporally.
	But I'm not going to bring Patrick in just yet.
	I'm going to give the standard warm-up, allow people to...
	Trickle into the stream because I only set this up very late in the afternoon because I was documenting the...
	I won't call it Woodstock because that might be...
	I'm sure if it were summer or spring or a warm winter day, it would be like Woodstock.
	And I have no doubt, last weekend it probably felt like Woodstock.
	And this weekend, from what the word on the street is, it's going to feel like a party of Woodstock.
	Just got back from Ottawa.
	I think we did four and a half hours, maybe five hours straight streaming on the street.
	And magic happens when you just walk around and bump into people and talk to them.
	Magic.
	I said it at the end of the stream, the things that stuck out to me, but that I will remember.
	Getting into the truck with the trucker from La Beauce, an area outside of Quebec, kissing...
	Grandma and Grandma.
	And I'm not saying that to be mean at all.
	The woman who identified as a grandmother.
	And it made me think of my grandmother and my grandma-in-law Edna.
	Talking to Big Bull at the Confederate Park.
	Talking to the other individual before Big Bull who I need to remember his name.
	It was beautiful.
	And Dr. Christian.
	Dr. Christian, it was sort of an impromptu on-the-street interview.
	I knew where he was, and we were messaging.
	And he said, you know, meet me here, and we can talk.
	And then, coolest thing on earth, for anybody who didn't see that moment of the stream, we're streaming.
	I get a call from Dr. Christian, effectively, and I go to take the call, but it cuts out of the stream because I'm streaming off my phone, and so people think the stream was cut dead again.
	Come back, Dr. Christian says, I'm at, I forget what the...
	The cafe was, but it gives me a name of a cafe.
	In real time, I ask the internet, guys, where's this cafe?
	And I get an address, 123 Slater Street.
	I was like, great.
	Now I need directions to Slater Street.
	And the directions come in the chat.
	It's like a real life, choose your own adventure, in real time, beautiful thing.
	So we've gone now from Canadian politics of what is turning out to be something of an international, worldwide revolution is being birthed in Ottawa and spreading across the world and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that and tonight we're going back we're going back to American politics and Patrick Witt who is running for Congress now I like to do my research in as much as I can before having a guest on Patrick Witt is going to explain
	everything about himself when we get into this but I'm googling it and I know what Patrick Witt looks like now and I know that he's running for Congress We're running for office.
	I actually forget if it was Congress.
	I think it's Congress.
	And I keep getting search results for a Patrick Witt quarterback at Yale.
	And it was a little while ago, and you'll see why I had trouble piecing this together until I listened to Patrick Witt's intro declaration that he's running for office.
	They're the same people.
	And it's not like there's no radical difference, except there's some radical superficial differences.
	But it's going to be beautiful.
	We're going to talk about...
	The American side of things now.
	And we're going to work the revolution that is going on in Canada into the American perspective and whether or not there is a trickle down, trickle over, cross the border effect to all of this.
	Standard disclaimers.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification undermining the incontrovertible legitimacy and sanctity of all elections throughout the history of the United States of the Americas.
	Superchats, I may bring them up less given the fact that it's a new guest.
	I don't want to distract too much, but I will get to them if I can.
	And if I can't and you're going to be miffed, if I don't, don't give the superchat.
	I don't want people feeling miffed, rooked, shilled, whatever you call it.
	We should be simultaneously streaming on Rumble.
	CEO going to Rumble.
	Where, by the way, today we had 10,000, 11,000 watching live on YouTube.
	Chris Pavlovsky, the CEO of Rumble, told me we had 7,000 watching live on Rumble.
	So, it's the place where freer discourse can be had these days.
	Your live stream in Ottawa was no less than epic.
	Thank you.
	It really felt nice, and it felt good.
	Hugging people and actually giving, we say it in French, les bises, like little kisses on the cheeks.
	Jeez, we used to live in a world where that happened.
	Will I be heading back to Ottawa?
	Yes.
	We have one hotel night booked on Friday.
	Got to figure out what to do with the dogs because nobody wants a paralyzed, incontinent dog in a hotel.
	We'll take Winnie.
	And then it's just a question of whether or not we can find a hotel for Saturday night.
	We're going because apparently party is going to be on on Friday night, Saturday.
	Viva la liberté, free truck, free truck, Trudeau.
	Nice to meet you in Miami.
	We loved your FaceTime.
	Tell everyone about Tiger's art.
	Thanks.
	The autistic tiger.
	Remember that avatar?
	I think there should be pictures.
	Google it.
	It's an amazing story.
	It was very nice to meet you as well.
	Okay, let's just do a few more, and then I'll bring in Patrick, and I think Barnes is coming.
	I'm packing my toque, my fuzzy socks, and getting my Jeep ready for the 16-hour drive to Ottawa on Friday.
	Chet, it's worth it.
	It's worth it.
	This is a moment in history.
	I just hope it ends the right way.
	If there's a protest in Quebec City, will you cover it?
	For sure.
	Personally, I intend to livestream there.
	Hope to see all ha-ha.
	Dude, I'd love to.
	That's my alma mater.
	Quebec City, I spent four years in Quebec City.
	I love that place.
	Seriously, most of the people at the rally know and love you.
	Viva la fry for PM.
	Ah, thank you.
	Okay, let's get a...
	Thank you.
	And thank you all for the kind words, the support, and share the links.
	The interview with Dr. Christian was amazing.
	Anyone who wants to clip it, clip it, repost it.
	And by the way, just so you know, I was very happy the stream didn't go down when we did the interview.
	It got demonetized, but I asked for a manual review because I did genuinely believe nothing we did in that stream contravened any of the terms of service, and it was re-monetized.
	The money per video is not the thing.
	It is the visibility, the viewability, and the promotion that YouTube will give to a video that it is monetizing versus the suppression it will give to one that it has demonetized.
	And I don't like YouTube telling me my stuff contained, stuff that's not advertiser-friendly when I go out of my way to make sure that it is while getting the message out there.
	We are from California.
	Thank you for doing this for all of us.
	Freedom is not free.
	It takes courage.
	Joy, joy.
	Thank you very much.
	And with that said...
	With the sacrifice that comes with making sure you can preserve freedom.
	I'm going to bring in the...
	Okay, let me just put the dog upstairs before I bring him in.
	One second.
	Go!
	Sorry.
	Better now than later.
	And now that I see Barnes in the house also.
	Trucker Convoy is the biggest white pill ever in my life.
	The widespread support, the mass civil disobedience.
	Shout out to the trucks telling authorities to truck off.
	And the obvious propaganda red-pilling a lot of normies.
	That's my white pill moment.
	I've turned three people, close people that I know, who were buying the media garbage.
	Okay, enough about that.
	We'll get back to the Ottawa stuff later.
	The man of the hour, Patrick Witt.
	How goes the battle, sir?
	It's going well.
	Great to be joining you.
	I'm a big fan of yours.
	Obviously a great friend of Robert Barnes and looking forward to chatting with you all tonight.
	Thank you so much.
	Amazing.
	I'm going to bring in Robert and you're going to have the lawyer sandwich, so to speak.
	Robert, how are you doing?
	Well, Patrick's a lawyer too, so we got all lawyers.
	Oh, I'm an idiot.
	I totally...
	Well, you're still a lawyer sandwich.
	Technically, you're just the middle lawyer.
	Exactly.
	It's a lawyer sandwich with a lawyer in the middle.
	Now, everyone in the chat, tell me if the audio levels are off.
	It sounds good to me.
	Okay, but now, Patrick, you're going to be speaking to a lot of people who might not know who you are, although I suspect a lot will know who you are.
	Before we delve into childhood upbringing that shaped you to be the man you are today, elevator pitch to explain to everyone watching who might not know who you are.
	Yeah, I'm a Georgia native.
	You know, grew up here, raised in a conservative household.
	You know, after law school, I had an opportunity to go serve in the Trump administration.
	You know, I was frustrated by everything that we saw.
	Donald Trump got elected in my second year of law school.
	I was at one of the most liberal law schools in America, in the country, in the world, really.
	And I saw these people melt down.
	These people who are the sons and daughters of that liberal elite that run our country and the globalists in other countries as well.
	And they were part of that machine that...
	Is in place to prevent things like Donald Trump from happening.
	And I saw them mobilize after Trump got elected to basically kneecap his administration and prevent him from getting reelected.
	And so I left my job in the private sector.
	I went to serve under President Trump, was deputy chief and then chief of staff of the Office of Personnel Management, leading the implementation of all the executive orders to drain the swamp.
	And then November 3rd happened.
	And I went down to Georgia.
	We can get into exactly how this happened, but I served on the president's post-election legal team.
	That's how I got to know Robert during that time.
	And that was my first encounter with the Georgia political establishment.
	I've always been a conservative.
	I've always been a Republican, but I've never been involved with the state apparatus.
	And that opened my eyes to the fact that the issues with the Republican Party, you think rhinos are a D.C. phenomenon.
	And as a Georgian from a red state, you know, to come home and to see that same inaction and cowardice in our political leaders here in Georgia disgusted me and was ultimately why I decided I couldn't stand on the sidelines again.
	I had to get involved, and that's why I'm running for Congress.
	Georgia needs new leadership in a lot of positions, and I look forward to providing that leadership in Congress.
	So what was the family upbringing?
	What did your parents do?
	Any siblings?
	So on and so forth.
	Yeah, so both my parents are airline pilots.
	My story has a lot of aviation and football are two common traits in my life.
	So my parents, both airline pilots.
	My dad's the chief pilot with Delta Airlines.
	My mom just retired after 30-plus years at American Airlines.
	She was a captain, a 777 captain there, and a Czech airman, very senior.
	One grandfather, my mom's dad, was an 06 in the Air Force.
	He flew spy plane aircraft in Vietnam.
	So he was a full bird colonel and a pilot himself.
	And then my other grandfather sold aircraft for Lockheed.
	And my older brother, Jeff, I just have the one sibling, he is currently in the Air Force.
	He is, I believe, a captain or a major now.
	He's going to get upset with me for forgetting.
	But he's an F-35 fighter pilot serving down at Eglin Air Force Base right now.
	My upbringing, as I mentioned, Christian, conservative household.
	Thank God for that.
	Two loving parents, an older brother that really made it easy for me just to follow in his footsteps.
	He was a standout in the classroom and on the football field.
	He was the quarterback in high school, and then I took over after him, and we both had an opportunity to go play football in college.
	And, you know, after that I played very briefly with the New Orleans Saints and then got into my career and back to law school and it kind of ties in with the rest of, you know, my elevator pitch.
	What was Georgia high school football like?
	Georgia high school football is good.
	I don't think it got the respect that it deserved back then.
	I think more and more so now, especially with Georgia winning the national championship.
	Go Dawgs!
	You know, an SEC football country down here.
	There's a ton of recruiting.
	But when I was coming out of high school, it was heavily focused on Texas, California, and Florida, which it still is to an extent.
	But Georgia high school football is very, very strong.
	And I was grateful to play quarterback here.
	Patrick, how many generations American is your family?
	It's a good question.
	I don't know if we've necessarily done the full genealogy.
	I'm not one of those folks that goes back to the Plymouth Rock or anything like that.
	I do have one great-grandfather that was born in England, Harry Adolphus William Spencer.
	And that's actually the side of my family that's related to Winston Spencer Churchill, Diana Spencer, that side of the family.
	So we have some interesting routes back to Europe.
	But the other sides of the family, I think, are somewhat in the 1800s, most likely.
	And when you have two parents who are both airline, what did you say they were airline?
	Airline pilots.
	Airline pilots.
	Are they flying at the same time, or are you guys, as kids, left alone at home, or do they take turns, one stays at home, one flies, so that you have a parent in the house?
	Yeah, I think they did a good job of trading off their schedules.
	I mean, I obviously didn't know any different growing up, but I never felt like, you know, we didn't have a babysitter very often.
	There was always at least one parent home, and, you know, they made sacrifices in order to always have one of them at home, because that obviously meant that when one was home, the other was flying quite often.
	You know, again, my folks, my whole family were extremely close.
	And, you know, I'm very proud of both my mom and dad in their careers and then obviously my brother for his service right now.
	In terms of schooling, was it public schooling, private schooling, religious schooling growing up?
	I'm a public school kid.
	I don't know if y 'all saw just recently, there was a Gwinnett County, I guess the superintendent for Gwinnett.
	I'm not really sure what she does.
	She might be one of these diversity officers.
	I was recording some extremely embarrassing and outright anti-white racist videos.
	That's the Gwinnett County that I grew up in, where I went to public school.
	So it's a shame to see some of the issues going on.
	Did you experience any of that?
	Because it seems like this is a relatively recent radical transformation that accelerated fast.
	I don't remember it in the 90s, but maybe I just missed it.
	No, I think I'm the same way.
	I don't necessarily remember it.
	We certainly didn't have teachers lining people up according to their race and having the white people apologize to minorities.
	I do feel like it has been a rapid acceleration, and it's scary to see how quickly these things can change.
	But the folks out there that tell you that critical race theory is not being taught in American schools.
	They're lying to you, and it's obvious why they're pushing back so hard when Republican jurisdictions try and ban this.
	If it's not being taught, then why would they be upset about the fact that it's being banned?
	Well, this is the issue.
	It's the semantic debate which makes discussion with the intellectually dishonest impossible.
	As they say, critical race theory is not being taught because it has no formal definition.
	Therefore, you can never identify it as being taught in the first place.
	So when you say...
	We're not teaching critical race theory because we don't believe that any such thing exists by a formal name, so good luck identifying it.
	And then they go out there and ask people who object to what they think they understand as being critical race theory and say, well, what do you think it is?
	It's like, I don't know what it is.
	I just know it when I see it.
	But then they mock them for not even being able to define what it is to say that it doesn't exist.
	What do you understand by the term critical race theory to simplify discussion?
	Yeah, I think the best place to look at really the definition of the issue, you know, critical race theory, yes, it's one iteration of basically an ideology that says that, you know, based on the way you're born, whether it's gender, whether it's race, whatever the critical theory is that's being applied.
	That the world, you know, is set in these power structures, and if you're white, you're evil, and you, whether you know it or not, are a racist, and you act out of racist, you know, kind of DNA, if you will.
	It's a bizarre way to look at it.
	But if you look back at the executive order that President Trump passed in his term in office...
	I think that's the best way to really define this and go after it, because critical race theory is not mentioned by name.
	It's talking about any divisive concepts that teach that one group is superior to another or that one group is inherently discriminatory against another based on the way that they're born, the way that they look.
	And how do I know that executive order, the language?
	Well, when I served in the Trump administration, it was part of my job to lead the implementation of that executive order to ban those divisive concepts, including critical race theory from Yeah, the first time I was introduced to critical theory...
	For which critical race theory is just a derivative.
	Was at our mutual...
	Well, it's not my alma mater.
	I left a little early.
	But was at Yale?
	That was the first time I was ever introduced to it.
	And it was still a mostly secondary concept.
	It was there, but it wasn't pervasive.
	It wasn't all dominant.
	It was the first wave of political correctness in the 90s when I was at Yale that we witnessed.
	I got to witness it in person at the Liberal Party, the Yale Political Union, because that was the party I originally joined.
	They kicked me out.
	And that was the beginning of a long transition away.
	From that side of the aisle.
	But, I mean, they would pick people based on race and gender unless your politics was wrong, like an African-American friend of mine who was a member of the Liberal Party that they denied a ranked position to because he got too uppity, apparently, for the liberals to like, too independent.
	When was the first time you had heard just the theory in general of critical theory, but also of critical race theory in particular?
	Yeah, I didn't see it too much undergrad, to be quite honest, but I really got slapped in the face with it when I went to law school at Harvard.
	So, you know, pretty much every professor there on staff, every member of the faculty is a proud crit, as they call themselves, a critical race theorist.
	So the Charles Ogletrees of the world, my property professor Kenneth Mack, the list goes on.
	You know, these are all the people that were the mentors for Barack Obama.
	And it's no surprise where this really entered our political discourse.
	People think, you know, yes, it's a rapid acceleration now, and it really has come onto the scene, at least in terms of, you know, the mainstream in recent years.
	But there was an interesting study done.
	I'm not sure by which group, but they went to look back at a lot of these buzzwords, these concepts with critical race theory, systemic racism and systemic oppression, these various things that are associated with critical race theory.
	And what they saw was that it really entered our discourse in force.
	During the Obama administration, which makes perfect sense because his administration was staffed with all of these overly educated academics from the Harvards and Yales of the world that came in with this mindset straight out of the ivory tower and into our federal government.
	And you've just seen the acceleration of that in recent years.
	But the groundwork was laid during those Obama years.
	Were you surprised when you got to Yale or Harvard Law or both in terms of how the politics was so one-sided, so one-way?
	I came from Southeast Tennessee, got up to Yale.
	We were part of a group of people.
	The admissions dean led in a bunch of poor kids just as his last hurrah before he exited the university.
	That was a heck of a culture shock when I got there.
	I was like, whoa, this is not what I expected.
	And the politics was just so obsessive and so sort of unilateral.
	Were you surprised by that at all?
	How much of it was a culture shock for you?
	So I wouldn't say I was surprised.
	I certainly expected it to be a liberal place.
	What really did stand out to me is just the assumption on the part of all the kids there that if you're here, obviously they assume a smart person, and all smart people think this way.
	So when you find...
	The smart person who's also, you know, a staunch conservative, it doesn't make sense to them because in their minds, you know, intelligence is associated directly with, therefore you must ascribe to the liberal progressive worldview.
	What you described, I think, is very similar to what I hear from Ron DeSantis when he talks about his experience at Yale and then Harvard Law School.
	You come from the South, in my case, public school, and you go up there and you're introduced to these kids that went to the top prep schools in America.
	They've never wanted anything for anything in their lives.
	They grew up in penthouse apartments on Fifth Avenue with armed guards defending the entrance, and yet they're telling you about...
	The need to take guns off of streets and to encroach upon Second Amendment rights.
	These are the kids that tell you that the Green New Deal is needed to save the world from impending climate catastrophe, and yet they'll hop in a private jet with their family on a weekend and zip down to some exotic island.
	The hypocrisy is so jarring, and you realize when you go up there and you're not from that world that pretty quickly...
	You say to yourself, I'm not one of you.
	There's something very different about the way that I grew up and the way that I view the world and the way that you grew up and the way that you view the world.
	And in my case, if you're a strong conservative, it only reinforces your views and it forces you to defend them, which I think is a valuable experience that really hardens you in your positions.
	And it's also one of the reasons why I think myself, J.D. Vance, Blake Master, some of these different candidates running in this cycle.
	It's so important that we are elected because we recognize the threat that these people pose.
	And when they talk about fundamentally changing America, they mean it.
	I can see it firsthand.
	The Ruth Bader Ginsburgs of the world, the Merrick Garlands of the world, these liberal elite folks, they're not nameless and faceless to me.
	Ruth Bader Ginsburg's granddaughter was a classmate of mine.
	Merrick Garland's daughter was a classmate of mine.
	You know, the CCP that's stealing our intellectual property and our jobs, the top members of the CCP were classmates.
	I'm sorry, the sons and daughters of some of the top members were classmates of mine.
	And when you see those people up close and personal, you recognize that the threat is very real and these people are out for blood.
	You know, I sent everyone your stump speech to announce that you're running for office and you had mentioned this in your speech.
	I just want to think, in the university, How do you identify the individual as a CCP daughter of someone higher up?
	How do you know that?
	Is it public knowledge?
	Is it something that people joke about?
	Or is it something that this individual took pride in?
	How did you know?
	No, the folks that come over from China...
	You can never quite pin them down.
	I remember asking some questions to some of these folks.
	So what do people think of the government over there?
	And they're always noncommittal.
	They'll always give you an answer that says, well, some people are critical, but others really like it.
	And they kind of dance around the issue.
	And I think they're quite well coached on this.
	It's not something they brag about, but it's something that is just kind of known.
	And at the end of the day, China is not allowing people who are not fully in alignment.
	With the CCP out of the country.
	And certainly, these are the kind of folks that they want to go to the top universities in America so that they can then place them in prominent positions throughout our country.
	So it's not something that's outright discussed.
	It's known.
	And any time you try and not confront them, but at least have a discussion about China and what their government does, they'll always dance around the issue.
	They'll never give you a straight answer.
	Were you involved at all in the Yale Political Union?
	I wasn't.
	I was playing football.
	I was in a fraternity there.
	Actually, I mentioned Ron DeSantis earlier.
	We were in the same fraternity.
	Obviously, different years, a number of years apart.
	Robert, you would probably know a deke.
	So I wasn't involved in the YPU.
	I went to some meetings.
	It's something that is probably a regret of mine.
	I wish I had gone to more.
	Yeah, it was an interesting experience.
	Good, bad, and otherwise.
	Educational for sure.
	Now, I had a buddy of mine who also played quarterback at Yale.
	He ended up transferring because the culture shock was too much for him.
	He went back home to Wisconsin.
	But what was your experience playing football at Yale?
	It was great.
	You know, so the other interesting chapter in my story is out of high school, I had a number of scholarship offers.
	And so I actually went initially to the University of Nebraska, played there for a couple of years, got to play big time, Big 12 football back then.
	They're now in the Big Ten, which is still weird for me to see.
	Nebraska play in Michigan and Ohio State.
	I was used to then playing Texas and OU when I was there.
	And after two years, our coach ended up getting fired, so I transferred over.
	So I kind of knew what I was getting into.
	I scratched the itch of playing big-time football.
	I didn't have any illusions about the stands being packed or playing on Sundays.
	But it was a great time.
	I started for three years.
	I broke a number of school records.
	I got to still achieve that.
	Patrick, just what we need to Contextualize everything here.
	I am probably the smallest of the bunch of us, but I look the biggest in the screen.
	What's your frame?
	You're a quarterback.
	What are your dimensions?
	Just so people can put it into perspective.
	Oh, wow.
	Okay.
	You're getting real personal.
	No, I think I played around 6 '4", 225.
	I'm probably closer up to like, you know, 6 '4", 235 now.
	So I've stopped growing vertically and I've started growing horizontally.
	So we'll need to keep that in check on the campaign trail.
	You're 6 '4".
	I don't know what is going on in America.
	I'll tell you something.
	Everyone I've come in contact with is like over 6 feet.
	First of all, in our family, over 5 '7", you're a giant.
	Amazing.
	So everyone, appreciate that.
	I'm 5 '5", 5 '6", with socks on.
	So Barnes is 6 '3", 6 '4", for Patrick.
	Amazing.
	Just remind me, where were you born?
	What's the town?
	What was the population like?
	Because I want to ask what perception you got or what impressions you got or what judgment you got going to Yale and Harvard with your accent and whether or not that came with some preconceived notions as to other stuff.
	Size of the town where you grew up?
	Yeah, so grew up in the suburbs of Atlanta.
	As I mentioned, Gwinnett County, Lilburn.
	It's a probably medium-sized suburb in the outskirts of Atlanta, 30-45 minutes outside of town.
	You know, it's interesting you mentioned my accent.
	You know, I'm sure it's jarring to you, but, you know, to a lot of folks around here, they're like, you know, I thought you would have a stronger Southern accent.
	So, you know, Atlanta has a lot of folks that have moved there from other places.
	Obviously, with Delta Airlines being a major hub, there's a lot of corporations, a good amount of folks, you know, from internationally.
	So it's a rather cosmopolitan city in the South.
	But, you know, going up to Yale, I think...
	All the folks that grew up in the Northeast that went to these top prep schools, they all think that everyone from the South is going to be missing teeth and not have many brain cells in their head.
	Everyone from down South assumes that the North is just a bunch of smokestacks and factories rusted out.
	Neither one is accurate, but it is interesting to see those regional differences clash when you bring people together from different parts of the country.
	Yeah, the way I once described Yale is they think the movie Deliverance is a documentary of the South.
	Very true.
	Extraordinary.
	Now, what was life like in Lincoln?
	I mean, it's, in my view, second to the University of Tennessee, the greatest fan base in the country.
	Just hardcore, loyal fans, deeply invested, deeply involved.
	They stayed connected.
	I mean, they were selling out.
	Even if they had a losing season.
	What was that life like?
	Yeah, there's nothing like the Cornhusker fans.
	You know, it's interesting.
	Whenever it comes to bowl season, you know, the committees have an opportunity to choose who they want to come play in their games.
	And one of the nice things about Nebraska is the committees all want Nebraska because they know that no matter what the bowl is or where it is, they're going to be able to pack out the stadium because Nebraska fans travel in such force.
	It was a privilege to play for them for a couple years.
	You know, we had a rough year my freshman year and then sophomore year we, you know, kind of overachieved and won the Gator Bowl.
	So, you know, fantastic experience.
	Wouldn't trade it for anything and was grateful for it.
	And just so everybody's clear, I was not, I don't find your accent enjoying at all.
	I find it to be, if I have a stereotype, I love it.
	I find it relaxing.
	I find it comforting and I find it warming.
	So I just imagine that if you go to Harvard.
	That your accent might get picked up on and then people might have all sorts of preconceived notions in the same way you might have of them.
	Yeah.
	What did you do?
	So you graduate in law.
	My goodness.
	You're playing football.
	You then go into law.
	When do you abandon or when does the professional football cease being on the horizon?
	And then what did you do afterwards?
	Yeah, so after football ended, I...
	I went to work in finance for a bit.
	I was a trader at a hedge fund, traded equities for a while.
	And then I was planning to go back to law school.
	So I took the LSAT and applied.
	And then, you know, with American school systems, how it works is basically applying the fall to matriculate the following year.
	I wanted to take a year off.
	You know, as I mentioned, I played football and baseball all throughout my childhood.
	I'd never had a chance to go abroad.
	And so when I applied to law school, I was looking for opportunities to basically take a gap year beforehand and go internationally.
	So I actually had an opportunity to go play American football in France.
	So I lived about 30, 45 minutes outside of Paris in a small town called Sergi-Pontoise and played football over there.
	Fun fact, I hold the single season record for passing yards and touchdowns.
	And French football history.
	So it was another just very interesting chapter in my life.
	And then when I came back, I started law school immediately thereafter.
	So I know that, I believe you're a Quebecois.
	But anyway, it was a fun little chapter in my life.
	Well, I was trying to Google to make sure I didn't make a mistake.
	I think Sergi Pantois is on the metro system.
	It's what we call the banlieue.
	I lived in Paris for one year, 99 to 2000.
	And I think it was on the Bonlieu, but you could get to it by metro very easily.
	Exactly.
	Yeah.
	A lot of Parisians you'll talk to, the only reason they know that town is because it's on all the signs when you're on the RER going on the sea line or one of the other ones.
	It's basically the end of the line.
	So, of course, the Parisians would never go out to the Bonlieu, but they at least know it exists.
	Now, do you speak French?
	And what was life like there for a year?
	Yeah, I do speak French.
	Obviously, I'm a little bit less fluent than I was once upon a time.
	It's been, gosh, seven years since I moved back.
	But life was great.
	You know, I was playing on the football team, so I had a built-in group of friends right away.
	It's not like I had to go out and search for people my age.
	So, you know, it was a great cultural experience.
	I was able to coach the team and also play on the team, which was really interesting from the standpoint of, you know, all the things that have been taken care of for me.
	By my coaches in terms of scripting practices and then, you know, calling plays in the game, I got to then, you know, take on those responsibilities in addition to playing, which was really a novel experience.
	But in my time off when I wasn't playing or coaching, you know, practice, I went in, you know, to Paris.
	I went throughout the country.
	And it's an eye-opener whenever you spend time outside of the country.
	I think more Americans should because you come home and you have a unique perspective on the things that are great about America.
	And you're so grateful to be an American.
	No offense, Viva.
	But it certainly makes you appreciate home and the things about your own country.
	And then it also just, you know, opens your eyes to different perspectives.
	So I loved it.
	I think it was a definitely formative experience for me.
	I was going to say, I don't take offense.
	I recognize there are some things that Americans get more right than Canadians.
	There are some things that Canadians get more right than Americans, but I've got to tell you, Americans, you defend the First and Second Amendment.
	Canadians, maybe not so much, but the revolution, remember it, people, it started in Ottawa.
	So you come back, you go to law school.
	Three years, four years, do you practice law at any point afterwards or do you go into non-law with your law degree experience?
	Yeah, so law school here in the U.S. is three years.
	I interned with some law firms, also interned with a bank, investment banking, and ultimately decided that I did not want to practice law.
	And so I went back into the business world.
	I joined a large consulting firm called McKinsey& Company.
	And with them, you know, we talked about aviation early on.
	I did a lot of work with aerospace and defense companies, you know, OEMs, original equipment manufacturers.
	So the people that actually build aircraft and different systems for things that fly.
	And then I also did a lot of work with airline companies.
	Great experience, great exposure to top levels of management in the business world.
	And I think it gives me a good perspective on some of the issues that are going on right now with the globalism, the supply chain issues.
	I've seen it from the standpoint of a CEO of a top company in America.
	And now, why did you decide you did not want to practice law?
	It's a good question.
	I was certainly open to it.
	I think within law, there's obviously two tracks to go down.
	You can either litigate or you can be a corporate lawyer.
	In my mind, I thought...
	If I wanted to go be a lawyer, I wanted to go be a litigator, actually in the courtroom, drafting the arguments.
	Corporate law felt like it was just going to be basically going into business, but being at the lower part of the totem pole.
	No offense to the corporate lawyers out there, but stuff rolls downhill.
	And I think whoever the principal is, whether that's the CEO, they bring in the investment banker, and then the investment banker brings in the corporate lawyer, and so on and so forth.
	So for me, if it wasn't going to be litigation, which I ultimately decided.
	That's not what I wanted to pursue.
	Then I thought it made more sense to go back into the business world to ultimately be potentially an operator of a company as opposed to inclined service to one of those people.
	Call me old school.
	I think there's only one type of law.
	It's litigation, and otherwise, you're just a business person.
	I want to bring this up just because it's funny.
	Viva, you need not translate this, but ask your guests if he agrees with, it's an accurate description of our times, a bunch of emojis, the French part, Patrick, how good is your French?
	Do you know what that means?
	I don't know what the expression means.
	I just know what it means literally.
	Wait, say it again.
	I'm sorry to cut out.
	There's a ball with a testicle in the soup, people.
	That's what it means.
	I've not heard that phrase before, but I assume that's what it meant.
	I don't know what it means as a metaphoric translation.
	Literally, that's what it means.
	So you go into private enterprise, but not as a lawyer.
	You have that experience.
	How long do you work there?
	And then how do you make the decision to make what might be the worst decision of your life if you win?
	Well, there's a couple steps in between.
	So I worked for several years for McKinsey and was working hard.
	Obviously, anyone that knows that management consultant life, it's a grind.
	You're traveling quite a bit and working around the clock, very similar to going to work for one of the big corporate law firms in New York City, for example.
	And during that time...
	It was the Trump administration.
	It was good years to be in the private sector.
	The economy was growing at a robust clip.
	But I saw everything that was going on with the administration.
	The Russia collusion hoax, a lot of the backstabbing, a lot of the leaks that were coming out of the administration from people that weren't fully aligned with the America First agenda.
	I was frustrated by what I was seeing.
	You know, like a lot of people, I was angry and I decided, you know, I'm in a position where I think maybe I can actually help.
	Maybe I can get involved.
	I don't just want to be on the sidelines and frustrated by what's going on.
	I want to get involved.
	And so I reached out to some people that I knew that were working in the administration and had an opportunity to go serve.
	So I was deputy chief and then chief of staff of the Office of Personnel Management under President Trump.
	And it's one of these three-letter agencies with a $2.3 billion budget and 2,500 employees.
	But really what we were doing under President Trump was draining the swamp.
	So it was where the rhetoric meets the road is how I describe it.
	When President Trump would get up there and talk about that administrative state, that deep state, a lot of these bureaucrats, we were actually the agency tasked with implementing his executive orders to go after this administrative state and these unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
	And then, as I mentioned, after November 3rd, I had an opportunity to go serve on President Trump's post-election legal team here in Georgia.
	I ran all the data analysis for the president's lawsuit in the state of Georgia.
	And that was the wake-up call for me, that my state is run by some folks that I don't think have the strength of resolve and the leadership capabilities to properly represent us in Congress or Senate, for that matter.
	And so that's why I stepped forward and decided that, again, similar to the decision that I made to leave the private sector and go serve President Trump, I don't just want to be on the sidelines.
	I want to be actively involved in this fight for freedom.
	And that's why I'm stepping forward now.
	Any concern when you decided to go work for the Trump administration of the consequences that could have within the business world?
	Absolutely.
	And it's not just me.
	It's anyone you talk to that went to serve in the Trump administration.
	You knew this was a different kind of administration.
	No president really came along.
	I know some of them before talk about being an outsider.
	They weren't really any outsiders like Donald Trump.
	He really went straight after that uniparty that exists, the Democrats and the Rhino Republicans in D.C. And he wasn't making a lot of friends there in Washington, whereas...
	If you went to serve in a George Bush administration, for example, you came out of the executive branch to a cushy job on K Street.
	President Trump, the people that went to serve him, it was not going to be that way.
	And so I went in with my eyes wide open, knowing full well that I was dramatically changing the trajectory of my life.
	Again, I think it's too important, you know, these things that we talk about, fighting for freedom, for individual liberty, and fighting against this unelected class of elites that runs our country, and increasingly that fusion between big government and big business that is choking our constitutional rights.
	And so that's why it was ultimately the calculus made sense for me to make a personal sacrifice, to take a pay cut, a significant one to go serve in the Trump administration.
	And I wouldn't trade it for anything.
	I think it was the right decision.
	And I'm proud of it.
	May I ask, did you serve for the entire four years in various functions, or did you come in towards the end?
	Yeah, I joined in the last year of the administration, so I would have loved to have, you know, served all four years, but, you know, I joined at a time when a lot of people were jumping ship.
	And I think that's a point of pride for me is the fact that I didn't go when it was comfortable and people were measuring the drapes in their new offices.
	I joined at a time when the administration was in serious trouble.
	And that was when I think my impact was as large as it could be.
	And so I was grateful to serve for the time that I did and then also to serve on the president's post-election legal team here in Georgia.
	Now, how much of D.C. and politics in D.C. was its own form of culture shock?
	Ha!
	It's a town full of climbers, and it's a town full of a lot of people that I don't know if they ever really had any deep-seated convictions before they got there, but maybe they were interested in politics, thought it was cool, watched a TV show like House of Cards, and was like, ooh, that seems exciting.
	But I was disappointed by how few true believers there really are.
	And maybe there were some that arrive and it just kind of gets beaten out of them over time.
	They hop from congressional office to congressional office and eventually it just becomes a job.
	But my purpose for stepping forward and running for office is to be one of those people that has that fire and wants to actually deliver results.
	And the second I don't feel like I'm fired up and ready to fight every morning is the second I will step away.
	I think we need more younger people in office, fresh blood, people who are sick and tired of the same old, same old, and are ready to go up there and actually deliver results and are tired of the same old excuses that we get fed by our politicians.
	I'm going to bring this up because, Mike Bruno, I know that we might disagree on certain things, but you ask a legit question.
	Oh, does that apply to Republicans in terms of the climbers?
	And Patrick, if I may make it a little more crude, when you say climbers...
	Are you referring to political prostitutes in the gender-neutral sense?
	Yes.
	Transvestite political climbers.
	No, I'm kidding.
	Climbers are political whores.
	They'll do whatever they need to do in order to climb the ladder.
	And I presume, if I may presume, that that applies equally to Republicans as to Democrats.
	And that is a bipartisan statement that you're making right there.
	Or am I incorrect?
	No, I think it's probably even more so true of Republicans.
	I think a lot of the Democrats that are there, these are people that are truly activists from a very early age, and they show up and they are part of the vanguard in their minds.
	They're fighting for what's right, and they're on the right side of history.
	You hear that trotted out oftentimes by the left.
	I think a lot of the Republicans are there.
	And they don't necessarily have that same edge to them and that same desire to deliver results.
	So I think that description is probably more apt when it comes to the right than it is to the left.
	Speaking of, I mean, both of the super tech question and some other items, OPM was one of the few true Trump loyalist parts, frankly, of his own administration.
	I mean, and you guys were doing Yeoman's work.
	The Super Chat was asking, you know, what about Fauci and what about other people?
	Unfortunately, OPM doesn't have that degree of reach.
	What's OPM, Robert?
	OPM, for those who don't know?
	Oh, OPM is Office of Personnel and Management.
	But what was interesting was, if Trump had won, the work you guys were doing at OPM was going to spread, and it was going to spread in terms of personnel going to other parts of the government as well, and could have really started to purge a lot of the deep state that truly handicapped Trump, sometimes by his own hand, in the sense that...
	He appointed some of these people, unfortunately.
	But I think he was a little naive and idealistic when he first went in.
	Really thought he could work within the system rather than had to just keep being the bull in the China shop that he ran as.
	Did you witness that personally in the sense of the shock that a whole bunch of people that are purportedly Trump appointees were actually undermining the Trump agenda?
	I did, you know, probably to a lesser degree than some other certain agencies.
	You know, in the administration, there were pockets of really strong, true believers, fighters that were fully committed to the America First agenda.
	And then there were certain agencies that were riddled with, you know, folks that really weren't aligned with the president and were happy to take a job in the executive branch because it was a great gold star on their resume.
	And they were looking for the exit whenever a convenient one came along.
	You know, talk to anyone that was there at the end of the administration, and they will tell you that we were extremely disappointed that we didn't get an opportunity to have a second term.
	Because I think, you know, again, Trump came into it truly from the outside.
	There was a learning curve involved, and especially when it comes to trying to hire the right personnel into the administration.
	All the folks that show up that know the right people to call are going to be those people that have worked in D.C. and lived in D.C. and they kind of know the game.
	But the people that President Trump really wanted in the administration were those folks that were not aware of who to call or where to send a resume to get hired in.
	We really had things in place to deliver dramatic results in a second term, and that's why it was so disappointing that we didn't get one.
	But if he runs again in 2024, I will be very excited to support him, and I think there's a lot of lessons learned that will be applied to a second term if he does get one.
	Patrick, two-part question.
	How old are you?
	32. Three-part question.
	Any kids?
	No kids.
	Not yet.
	I have not found the one.
	Lord willing, I'll find her soon.
	I look forward to having a family.
	Well, you're very young, and this is the part three.
	Someone says, why are you not a rhino?
	First of all, for those who may not know what a rhino means, could you explain what a rhino is and then assure people why you are not that thing?
	Yeah.
	So rhino is a term that refers to someone who is a Republican in name only, and it basically describes...
	George W. Bush, Mitt Romney types that go up there and pretty much they view their role in office, if they're an elected official, as just kind of slowing down the left.
	They're not really there to present strong opposition and pull the rope in the other direction.
	They're there just kind of to say no.
	Or at least lose more slowly.
	I am part of that new generation, the new right, if you will, that's rising up.
	We tend to trend a little bit younger than previous politicians that run for office.
	And we're sick of that.
	I'm sick and tired of watching Republicans basically just get up there and offer some mealy-mouth excuses for, hey, we can't do anything about...
	Big tech, for example, because that violates our principle of limited government.
	So it's actually a good thing that First Amendment rights are being trampled on and that our country is being burned to the ground by these people as long as we're not violating some principle that I think they've perverted and applied incorrectly.
	We're part of that new right that understands that, no, there is a vision of the good society.
	We are presenting that alternative direction for America.
	And we are not willing to accept second best or compromise on certain issues.
	So we're fired up.
	We're stronger than any Republicans that have come before.
	And if elected, I think we're going to form up a coalition that actually starts delivering results for our voters.
	Robert, before you get your question, I know you have one.
	I got to get this one in.
	First of all, I thought rhino was about rhinoceros being a big, useless animal.
	That's what I thought it meant.
	I had no idea it was Republican name only.
	Dirk Diggler, the only one I have to...
	I'm bringing this up for two reasons.
	Prove you're not a rhino, name them.
	Also, Dirk Diggler is the main character from Boogie Nights.
	For anybody who doesn't know, first movie reference.
	Sorry, Robert, it was your question, but prove you're not a rhino, name them.
	I think you've named a few.
	So you, Sir Dirk Diggler, have not done your homework.
	You're not shy to name them, are you, Patrick?
	No, a perfect example is Lindsey Graham right now.
	I mean, what is the point of Lindsey Graham being in the Senate, aside from being a rubber stamp for every crazy liberal judge that Joe Biden wants to put on the bench?
	These people get out there, you know, and they show up on Sean Hannity's show and they tell you, you know, oh yeah, we're fighting, we're doing this and that.
	And it's complete crap.
	They're not doing anything.
	Behind the scenes, they're actually quite close with the Chuck Schumers and the Nancy Pelosi's, and they're part of that uniparty.
	These are the people that we need to get out of office primarily.
	I think, you know, when I think about where we focus our energies, I always use a football analogy, if you'll indulge me.
	It's if I knew that half of my team was worthless and they were awful.
	I wouldn't get on the field against a very quality opponent in the Democrats.
	Say what you will about the Democrats.
	I think they're completely insane.
	They're totally unmoored from any sort of rationality.
	But they're very good at politics.
	And there are no deficiencies on that team, or very few.
	So we need to spend time.
	Getting the people on our team, on the Republican side, getting our best fighters into office before we ever get on the field against the Democrats.
	So the Lindsey Grahams, the Adam Kensingers, the Dan Crenshaws, the list goes on and on.
	Those are the people that we need to spend time primarying and getting out of office so that we can actually fight the Democrats and not have these rhinos roll over when the push comes to shove.
	Now, what led to you volunteering and taking time off to be part of the Georgia election effort?
	Sure.
	Yeah, so we're up there in D.C. and news reports swirling around.
	Georgia hadn't been called yet.
	Obviously, it was a major shock.
	Georgia wasn't really considered to be a battleground state.
	There wasn't too much attention focused on it.
	I know Joe Biden went down there somewhat before the election, but a lot of folks thought that that was just maybe a head fake.
	But it was a surprise.
	And Georgia hadn't been called.
	You know, obviously, we weren't going to be too active up there in D.C. until we knew whether or not we were going to have a second term or not.
	And so I went to the director of my agency and I said, Mike, I'm going to be most useful to the administration if I go back home, take an unpaid leave of absence and just volunteer.
	This is where I can have the most impact right now.
	And he said, I think you're right.
	You know, my folks are getting the text messages, the emails.
	I'm getting the text messages and the emails asking for money.
	Send in 50 bucks, send in $20 to support the election integrity fight.
	And yet I'm behind closed doors with the leaders of this election integrity fight, the top members of our Georgia political class, and they had no interest in doing anything about the election.
	They were funneling all of that money to the Senate runoffs to run TV ads for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, and they were taking a cut of that money themselves.
	It's disgusting.
	What happened?
	They defrauded the American people.
	They deceived them into thinking that they were fighting for something that they were not and had no interest in fighting for.
	And I was pissed off.
	And so we formed up the Trump legal team, me, Cleta Mitchell, a number of others that were down there and were there to fight for the president, there to actually fight for the president, not just get up on TV and say that we were.
	We split off.
	We formed the Trump legal team.
	I ran all of the data analysis for the effort.
	We launched what was called by Andrew McCarthy, a legal commentator, the best legal challenge mustered by the Trump campaign.
	Unfortunately, because of our corrupt Georgia judicial system, we didn't get a judge appointed in our case for over a month.
	We filed our lawsuit in the first week of December.
	We did not get a judge appointed until the first week of January.
	And obviously, with the counting of ballots that was going to take place on January 6th, we needed to get in court ASAP.
	They gave us a hearing date on January 8th, two days after that lawsuit would have become moot.
	I personally briefed senators and House members saying...
	Look, President Trump, contrary to what you might hear in the mainstream media, has not received his day in court here in the state of Georgia.
	And we need you to object to these electors for no other reason than to give President Trump his day in court.
	We had the support lined up.
	Those people started objecting.
	January 6th happened with the events of that day.
	And all of those same members who had agreed to object.
	Their support evaporated, and we ultimately had to withdraw our lawsuit, which was the most unsatisfying and anticlimactic end to that fight.
	I remember I think we first met at the Buckhead headquarters, where almost everybody was gone, all these people that are supposedly working on the election challenge.
	I mean, there was hundreds of staffers between the RNC and the Trump campaign.
	It probably made, they now recognize, the tactical mistake of just delegating everything.
	To the RNC, effectively, for the campaign, and we saw how that worked in Georgia firsthand, both leading up to the election and afterwards.
	But I think it was, we were there, like, it was, I don't know, 8 p.m., 9 p.m., you came in, and it's me, Cleet and Mitchell, the congressman from Texas.
	You know, I don't know how public he's been about it, so I won't go into further detail.
	And you walked in, and I think we were there for a couple of hours, drafting statements.
	And what was amazing is, you know, we draft a statement.
	And the statement's not that controversial, but we have a smart focus on certain things.
	It was clear that the lawyers for the Trump campaign purportedly turned out to be the lawyers for the Republican Secretary of State.
	So that was the first problem.
	And they were really wanting us to focus effectively on Dominion because of the way they were approaching it.
	And what we wanted to focus on, primarily amongst other items, and there were a range of issues, but we wanted a signature match check.
	Very simple.
	Now, the first thing, of course, was that they were giving false advice to the president about the ability to do a recount prior to the certification of the vote in Georgia.
	And so my first thing was, oh, they're lying about that.
	And what I didn't know until later, it came out in a book.
	Rudy stole my idea and pretended it was his.
	That's how he got to run off with half of the campaign activities.
	God bless Rudy.
	Rudy's scotch in the morning, scotch at noon, scotch at 4 o 'clock, scotch at 7, scotch at 10. He was not exactly well equipped to handle this stuff.
	Kalita, of course, was fantastic.
	Still fantastic.
	Knew how to work the channels and knew how to work the game.
	The other thing was, You know, we were called in there because of, but I mean, how shocked were you at how many people were undermining the effort from right inside the RNC and the Trump campaign headquarters there in Georgia?
	Because even I, all the crazy things I've seen in life, was still shocked by the scale of it.
	Yeah, it was disgusting.
	There were a number of factors, you know, a lot of...
	The Georgia folks, and then there's the RNC people.
	It was unclear who reported to who.
	I remember asking the question multiple times, like, who is in charge?
	Can you at least answer that?
	No one could really tell me.
	And, you know, you realize that the RNC was really pulling the strings and telling people, no, no, you know, the recount, the election's over.
	You know, we're going to put out some statements to throw some red meat to the base and make them think that we're actually fighting for this.
	But in reality, this is a great windfall for us.
	We're just going to fundraise off of this and we're going to put it behind the two Senate candidates, which, you know, obviously was a futile effort because what we told them was, look.
	I want to win the Senate seats, too.
	But there is no victory in the Senate runoff unless you fight this fight.
	And that's exactly what we saw happen, is people thought to themselves, I certainly felt that emotion, what's the point of sending two more useless Republicans to Washington?
	If this is your behavior that you're demonstrating for the world to see right now...
	That you're actually not serious about fighting for these issues, and yet you're willing to deceive people and tell them that you are, and take their money, then what good is it going to do to get us two more Republicans in the Senate?
	And I think that's why a lot of people stayed home.
	A lot of folks talk about, well, people stayed home because they thought that the machines were flipping their votes.
	Sure, maybe that's a percentage of people, but I think by and large it was that...
	That feeling that they had been lied to and they were just demoralized and they thought to themselves, what's the point of two more squishy Republicans in the Senate?
	You mentioned some of those different things, the signature match, the fact that the lawyers that are telling President Trump that they're fighting for him and that they're going to sue the Secretary of State and the governor and then, oh, you find out these same lawyers were just defending the Secretary of State and the governor.
	Against Stacey Abrams in these lawsuits and were the same lawyers that signed the consent decree that changed the law in Georgia that made the signature match such a fiasco.
	Like, there's so many chapters in it and so much wrong that occurred.
	You're giving me a little bit of PTSD reliving that, Robert.
	It's an amazing thing.
	First of all, I had one question which I forgot.
	I want to get to it in a second.
	Oh, no, sorry.
	The lawsuit in which...
	I have to stop to that.
	In which you did not get a judge for 30 days.
	What was the nature of that lawsuit?
	Was it an injunction?
	It was an election contest.
	Election contest under Georgia law.
	Because that was the proper protocol to deal with it.
	No election contest ever got filed in Pennsylvania.
	It almost did, but that was because Patrick's friends and me and a few others were trying to put it together on, you know, six hours notice because Giuliani had missed it, God bless him, in between drink number eight and nine.
	So, you know, it was...
	Yeah, but yeah, so it's an election contest.
	It's supposed to be heard within seven days under the process.
	In fact, you're put under an accelerated process as the person initiating it.
	The court can order you to a hearing within three days if it wants to.
	And yet they just couldn't find a judge there in Fulton County.
	You know, that kind of thing happens on Ford.
	Just like they, you know, had the pipe burst, you know, that caused some change.
	I mean, we were the ones doing all of the work.
	Patrick, us, and the legal team.
	And, you know, Cleta and several others, we were doing everything.
	I mean, Patrick had to become a data expert overnight.
	You know, about everything election-related.
	Now, you know, we had Richard Barris on the phone.
	We're ringing up Richard a lot, saying, yo, we need this, we need that, we need this other thing.
	Matt Brainerd, you know, we were, Cleta was begging the campaign to bring in Matt Brainerd's data to help us.
	Basically, it was Patrick working, you know, 22-hour days trying to put all of this together.
	We were running down investigators.
	I mean, we became investigators overnight.
	We were the only ones doing any of it.
	We're getting tons of whistleblower reports.
	It's not a coincidence that the videotape about Fulton County ultimately came out.
	That all came about because of a sequence of whistleblowers, investigative work, Open Records Act requests, and investigative demands.
	That's how people saw, oh look, certain election people leave and the other election people take the ballots from underneath the desk and say, hey, now it's time to count.
	It was brilliant the way they centralized it, by centrally managing certain things.
	Well, I'll give an example.
	Patrick and I were sitting there talking, and I was like, why don't we look up whether or not the overvote that appears to have occurred here, in other words, mysterious ballots, shall we say, whether it overlaps with some of the places where Stacey Abrams got an overvote.
	Because one of the little giveaways was in 2018, the Democratic lieutenant governor who lost, candidate who lost, Said there's a weird overvote between the governor's race and the lieutenant governor's race.
	Of course, the irony was where that overvote really came from was Stacey Abrams' magical ballots.
	And so we decided, so Patrick started doing all the digging in.
	Was there a connection between where Stacey Abrams got convenient votes and where Joe Biden got?
	Convenient votes.
	More votes than would seem to naturally be the case.
	And of course, Patrick's one of the first people to document that exactly was the case.
	We were raising the issues about nursing home turnout disparities.
	Apartment building turnout disparities.
	Public housing areas turnout disparities.
	Though the worst was in the Georgia suburbs.
	The worst wasn't in the inner cities of Atlanta.
	The worst was in the suburbs in Georgia.
	And it's because that's where a lot of nursing homes are located.
	And there's any place that you have a bunch of mail-in ballots that arrive.
	That a creative entrepreneurial personality, shall we say, could just make sure those ballots get sent in, even if the voter didn't know it got sent in.
	But we were the lead of everything.
	And the best effort by the Trump campaign, even by people who were skeptics, as he mentioned, Andrew McCarthy was a skeptic of a lot of the election challenges.
	Will Chamberlain was originally a skeptic.
	Both of them said that by far the best factual and legal work of any election challenge was the work in Georgia.
	And the lead person on putting all that together, factually in investigation and a lot of the law, Patrick was doing a lot of work, was Patrick.
	And I firsthand witnessed it.
	Now, when I saw certain things were going a certain direction, I was like, I'm heading home to Vegas.
	I can only handle so much insanity.
	You know, when Sidney Powell's coming in and I was like, this is not going to...
	Lin Wood, God bless his soul.
	Everybody knew he was crazy, but we had to deal with him running around.
	So, I mean, you had...
	Crazy people who had wild theories that were derailing the investigation and the legal work.
	Corrupt insiders who were trying to undermine it from the very inception.
	And you had about four of us initially being the sole and whole effort of the Trump legal effort in Georgia.
	And what it developed in, thanks to Patrick's work, was the best legal challenge that ever took place.
	And you know that because the Democratic political machine had to make sure that no judge ever heard it.
	I want to say this now.
	First of all, I know when Barnes is pissed, and Barnes is pissed now.
	He's smiling.
	And now I know what God bless his soul means in Southern talk.
	I know what that means as well.
	But the thing is this.
	People have gotten derailed, and Barnes, we've talked about this at length, about Dominion voting machines.
	But by and large, what you're describing between the two of you for the YouTube overlords is not that conspiracy theory.
	It's the legal side of the way it actually worked, in that...
	They played with the rules.
	They issued rules based on interpretations of recently passed legislation or settlement orders.
	And a lot of people are asking this particular question.
	Why did Trump not anticipate the fortification coming from that Time article prior to the election?
	He didn't listen to Cleta Mitchell.
	People like Cleta Mitchell were telling him.
	And I think he was just kind of naive.
	He understood the mail-in voting was a problem.
	That's why he was being critical of it.
	But he, well, here's the other main reason.
	His top legal counsel to the RNC were compromised.
	They were often, like in Georgia, Georgia was the perfect example of it.
	In Georgia, the lead counsel for Trump were a part of this, as Patrick just detailed, the Secretary of State's team.
	And the governors, that was tied to all of it.
	And so that's why it was deeply, that's why they weren't going to warn them of something they were part of compromising for.
	Now, maybe they thought it wouldn't impact the election.
	You know, you can have different excuses that they can offer.
	But we dealt with them, and they lied to us repeatedly.
	They led us to believe, for example, that they were going to deputize several of us and allow us to do a meaningful signature match sample check in Georgia.
	And they just played out the string.
	And they just waited for, you know, Lin Wood and Sidney Powell to show up and some other things to happen so that they could politically run away from their obligations.
	The Secretary of State's office routinely lied to us all the way through the process.
	I mean, when I first showed up, well, I mean, all of us, Patrick, me, several others that were part of this core team were under attack.
	Not only were we isolated, we were under constant, continuous attack.
	You know, my first meeting was us being attacked for our press release, which was just basic.
	You know, Doug Collins was even wussing out.
	God bless his soul.
	He was worried about what was going to be on there.
	And, you know, it's like, you guys are on the wrong focus.
	Sonny Perdue came down from his agriculture secretary position to sit there.
	And let's just say Sonny is boss hog without the IQ.
	That's Sonny.
	So, you know, not to put you sideways with the Perdue political machine in Georgia, Patrick.
	That's okay.
	It was a mess during that time.
	I was grateful to have Robert there.
	Cleta Mitchell was a complete warrior.
	Kurt Hilbert, who took over as lead counsel, that finally got the litigation part of it really straightened out.
	As Robert described, part of the issue was the fact that you had some lawyers out there saying some pretty fantastical things.
	You know, the media jumped all over that and painted them with the same brush that they painted us and just lumped us in the same category.
	I think, you know, it's really a shame, the fact that a solid lawsuit, I mean, I haven't been involved in as much litigation as y 'all have, but if you go back and look at our lawsuit, which is all public, I mean, it had more evidence behind it in terms of the...
	Data analysis that I did, but then also I think we had over 100 affidavits.
	You know, it was thorough.
	It was detailed.
	And that's why no judge wanted to hear that, because they knew that they would have to grapple with some pretty inconvenient, you know, claims in there that were backed up by solid evidence.
	So, you know, as I mentioned, it gives me PTSD reliving that time, but it really revealed to me the issues.
	Here in the state of Georgia, I do not have confidence in our elected leaders here in Georgia.
	And it's not just Georgia, it's across the country.
	This is the same kind of, you know, inaction, indecision, unwillingness to really put themselves out there.
	But at the end of the day, we elect our leaders.
	For the rainy days, for the stormy days, not for the sunny ones.
	And that was a stormy day and they were nowhere to be found.
	They were running and hiding underneath their desk.
	And we need people that are willing to step up and put themselves out there as leaders when it's not convenient.
	And I didn't see that after November 3rd in Georgia.
	I think one of the things that was useful is it highlighted all of the weak links.
	I mean, credit to Mark Elias and his crew.
	He had learned how to sue people selectively to get selective enforcement.
	So that on the secret consent order that they had agreed to, basically gutted the election officers' meaningful ability to do signature matches themselves.
	And that's how all of a sudden the signature match rate check went.
	All of a sudden there was no signature match checking occurring.
	Where ballots were getting rejected at a 6% clip in some counties, all of a sudden it was less than 1%.
	You know, one-tenth of one percent, two-tenths of one percent, three-tenths of one percent, while there's been this massive explosion of mail-in balloting, which just doesn't.
	That rate should have gone up.
	Yeah, Robert, to add specifics to that.
	So Georgia had averaged around 200,000, 250,000 mail-in ballots in previous elections with a rejection rate that was over 3%.
	And then in the 2020 election, suddenly the number of absentee mail-in ballots goes through the roof.
	It goes up to, I believe, 1.3 million.
	So you're talking about a six-fold increase in the number of absentee mail-in ballots.
	And oh, by the way, These are a lot of people that are sending in mail-in ballots for the first time ever, apparently, and yet the rejection rate goes from over 3% on average, historically, to 0.3%.
	It drops off a cliff.
	There was no rejection rate.
	Where can anyone fact-check that particular fact?
	I want people to check that on their own.
	Where can they fact-check that?
	Then go to the Georgia Secretary of State's website.
	That's the thing.
	People accused us of, oh, you're getting data from different places.
	It's like, no, this is the data that you relied upon to certify the election here in Georgia.
	This is your data.
	Do you know what's in your own data?
	And the answer is they didn't because we brought forward these claims and they had no answers.
	They would just go out there and they would say, hey, they allege that there's 1,000 illegal votes because of this or that reason.
	The answer is zero.
	Thank you very much.
	Case closed.
	And of course, the media was all too happy to just say, oh, point by point refutation of what Trump alleged in his lawsuit.
	But there's only one side of this that actually showed their work, and that was us.
	Everything is in there documented.
	And at the end of the day, if they have some super secret data, number one, that's illegal because they're legally required to post all of this data publicly.
	But even if they had a separate data set that was actually the real source of truth, All I want was an investigation, and I want these questions answered, and that's what the American people want, too, and we never got answers to those questions.
	We got stonewalling and excuses, and they just ran out the clock on us.
	That's exactly right.
	I mean, when I first talked to the president, it was the, I said, you'll know whether this election, whether they believe the election is on the up and up by whether they'll allow a simple signature match check.
	Because for those that don't know, signature match checks are done all the time.
	They're done on the absentee balloting process.
	They're done on petitions.
	And because I had been through that process for third parties and independent candidates and underdog candidates who frequently get challenged based on the signatures on their petitions, I knew what those standards were.
	I knew what those protocols were.
	I knew what those procedures were.
	And I knew how high the rejection rate typically is.
	And like in the petition context, it can be 30% or more.
	Is the rejection rate.
	Sometimes it's because people screw up.
	I mean, it's not necessarily fraud.
	Sometimes people screw up.
	But my point was always, Democrats decided to do this mass mail-in election.
	If their voters screwed up, that's on them.
	But I told Trump, I was like, you will know if they believe, they have confidence in this accuracy of the election results by whether or not they'll allow a signature match audit.
	No county, no city, no state in a contested area ever did.
	And nobody in Georgia ever did.
	Not meaningfully.
	And so what we were able to document was just the inferential evidence from the available data.
	And we double-checked, triple-checked, quadruple-checked everything.
	It was all part of the court filing.
	I think it was 400-plus pages, just the court filing, with, as Patrick mentions, hundreds, over 100 affidavits.
	These are people putting, you know, they can be prosecuted for perjury if they're making a misrepresentation of fact of any kind.
	And that's why people who looked at it, the media almost never talked about that Georgia suit.
	They never had to contest it.
	The court never got assigned to it magically, miraculously.
	Even though by law they were supposed to, because they knew how strong the facts were, because they couldn't refute them and dispute them.
	And that's why we ran everything down.
	We didn't pursue anything that didn't have factual basis for it, that didn't have somebody's sworn testimony behind it, that somebody's professional reputation and personal criminal liability wasn't attached to it.
	And that's why the Georgia, if you want to go through and just read that whole Georgia complaint, all the information is documented, detailed, demonstrated under penalty of perjury.
	And Lord knows, by the way, just to throw this out there, if anyone had perjured themselves on an affidavit in support of a lawsuit, Lord knows everyone on Earth from the other political side of the alley would pounce on them like hyenas on a wounded lion.
	Well, they get a grand jury in Fulton County over Trump's phone call concerning the election.
	Why can't they open up a grand jury and a lot of other things that happen in terms of the election officials and other things that have been demonstrated and we're able to document.
	Yeah, I mean, it was Robert's referring to that January 2nd phone call, and they're continuing to keep this ball on the air because, you know, for Democrats, if you're looking at the 2022 midterm election, you've got COVID and you've got January 6th.
	And COVID is starting to fade very fast in people's minds as an issue that they care about, and it's actually turning into a liability for Democrats.
	So what are they left with?
	January 6th.
	So they have to create this narrative and sustain it that this was all part of some big cabal to overturn the election, that a bunch of grandmas with American flags left all their guns at home and went to overthrow the U.S. government.
	You know, we're in MAGA cap.
	So it's ridiculous.
	But that January 2nd phone call, I was on that phone call.
	President Trump, if you go back and look at the transcript, is reading from a memo that I drafted for him, you know, right before the call.
	And all we were asking Brad Raffensperger to do was to do his job, you know, to actually go through and investigate all of the claims that we brought because we were not given a judge.
	We weren't given a hearing date.
	So, you know, President Trump's exasperated because, hey, everyone's entitled to their day in court.
	Well, President Trump didn't get his.
	And the fact that Democrats are continuing that fake narrative about the January 2nd phone call is just, it's laughable if it weren't so serious.
	And I'll say one thing.
	Patrick, I'll correct you.
	There was one dude who showed up with a weapon.
	It was a spear with an American flag on it.
	And he got...
	How much did he get in jail?
	I forget now.
	41 months.
	41 months is what the guy with the cap got.
	Can you imagine stealing three and a half years of someone's life?
	Setting that aside, that January 2nd call is the one in which Trump says, find me 15,000 votes or something.
	Find me enough votes.
	It's that call, right?
	It is that call.
	Yeah, that's how they're interpreting what he said.
	What he was saying is that there's all these illegal votes.
	All I need is this percentage and it's decertification.
	So look at whether any of these illegal votes exist.
	And the media misconstrued it as him saying, go out there and just find me more votes out of thin air.
	They completely decontextualized his statement because they couldn't address the substance of it.
	I mean, they're still pretending that there's nothing.
	Weird about election officials waiting for other monitors to leave, and then they take out a bunch of ballots that they had left under the table and started counting en masse.
	I mean, like that, oh, that's totally normal.
	Nothing to see here.
	I mean, it's ludicrous.
	Now, what are some of the election reforms?
	One of the top issues you're running on is the key need for election law reforms.
	What are some of those that are important to you in this campaign?
	Yeah, so obviously, you know, states need to lead on this.
	You know, it is still the state's, you know, lane to lead on these issues.
	So we oppose the Democratic bill to federalize congressional elections.
	Yeah.
	Step one, make sure that that does not pass, because that would corrupt our elections permanently.
	Everything they got through emergency measures through the backdoor in the lead-up to the 2020 election, they're trying to enshrine that into law and basically permanently corrupt our elections.
	With the mass absentee mail-in voting, no excuse, no voter ID, you name it.
	But states need to lead on this.
	There's a bill that was passed here in Georgia, SB202, which cost us the all-star game and all these woke corporations came out and claimed was going to prevent a bunch of people from voting, which is ludicrous.
	It will do no such thing.
	But I think it was a step in the right direction.
	Georgia and other states need a giant leap on election integrity.
	Obviously, I'm running for federal office.
	There are measures that need to be taken at the federal level.
	First and foremost, we need to reform the Voting Rights Act to make it not hard for secretaries of state to clean their voter rolls, which it is right now, and instead make it mandatory that they do so.
	We also need to make it mandatory that states share data.
	One of the big...
	Categories of illegal votes were all of these people that moved out of the state of Georgia and yet still voted in our election.
	So these people are casting ballots, you know, in the battleground state and potentially also casting ballots in whatever new state that they live in.
	If data was properly shared between the states, that would be prevented.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, no, I was going to say it may be my own Canadian ignorance.
	Explain what you mean.
	I'll get the dog in a second.
	Explain what you mean by cleaning the voter roll, because some of us might not know what that means and what the implication of it could possibly entail.
	Yeah, so if I'm a person here in Georgia, I'm very old and I pass away this year, I obviously should not be voting in an election if I'm dead.
	Or if I've moved out of state, you only have the right to vote in the state in which you live.
	The United States has the Electoral College.
	It is not a national popular vote, and so it matters which state you vote in.
	So any person that is currently on a voter roll who no longer has the right to vote, either because they're dead or they no longer live in the state or any number of other reasons.
	They should be removed from that voter list.
	Currently, under the Voting Rights Act, it is extremely difficult to get anyone removed from a voter list.
	And some people might roll their eyes and say, well, that's not a big deal.
	Well, it is a big deal when these elections come down to a knife's edge and every vote matters.
	And every legal vote is canceled out and diluted, stolen, really, by any one of these illegal votes.
	And so every single one of these matters.
	And the voter list is the first place that you have to start in order to correct this problem.
	If you have a bunch of junk on your voter rolls, which, by the way, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger here in the state of Georgia readily admits, then you will naturally get a bunch of numbers that don't add up and a bunch of votes that are illegal under the state election code because those people should not have been on the voter list to begin with.
	That's my damn forum.
	One of his key aides had people illegally vote from his home and didn't figure it out in time.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	And that was a guy that was yipping about a lot of stuff on Twitter.
	Then you dig in and you find out he's basically a Trump-hating Romneyite.
	And that's what you had a lot of.
	You had the old Atlanta Republican Country Club establishment that was part of the problem.
	The incompetence more of the old Purdue political machine.
	You added those two things together and you got the result that we got.
	And then you add crazy outsiders like Lin Wood.
	You're distracting everybody to places they were never going to prove, and it did damage to the places where you could prove.
	Now, other than election issues, what are some of the top issues that you're campaigning on in the district?
	Yeah, so it's really three.
	Number one is election integrity.
	We have to make sure that Democrats don't get those bills passed and that we take measures to ensure...
	That our elections are safe, secure and transparent.
	Beyond that, the second one has to be border security and restoring law and order in America.
	Democrats view everything through an electoral lens.
	Can't rig the system by passing an election bill.
	Well, then they'll just import a new electorate across our poorest southern border.
	Every month in America under Joe Biden, 200,000 plus illegal immigrants pour into our country across the southern border.
	Over the course of a year, that's 2.4 million people.
	That's more people than exist in some states in the United States.
	And that's exactly what Democrats are hoping to achieve by allowing...
	Our southern border to remain open and to release these people with free airplane tickets into cities and towns across America.
	We have to stop that right now.
	Otherwise, Democrats will continue to exploit these people.
	When they have all the levers of power, they will make these people citizens.
	Really, it's a cynical view.
	Because they believe that these people will vote Democratic, and the few polls that have been done on illegal immigrants indicates that that is the case.
	I guarantee if these people coming across our southern border, these illegal immigrants, were going to vote Republican, Nancy Pelosi would be down at the southern border with a shovel in hand ready to finish the wall.
	Patrick, I think we did witness something along those lines with immigration from Cuba.
	Robert, I might be mixing things up.
	Where did we see a governor taking a hard stand on immigration that came from a Southern American country that was typically more conservative than Democrat?
	That's exactly right.
	It was Alejandro Mayorkas, I think, is the DHS secretary when the Cubans were fleeing for Florida.
	Suddenly, no, no, our borders are closed and these people are not allowed in because there is evidence that a lot of Cubans vote Republican.
	So that's exactly what's happening here.
	And it's disgusting the fact that they continue to exploit.
	You know, the American people spitting in their face, basically degrading and debasing the value of American citizenship by allowing people to pour into this country.
	The second part of this is restoring law and order.
	And that goes, first and foremost, fighting these district attorneys here in America that are blatantly disregarding and not enforcing our laws and administering justice based on political persuasion.
	During the summer of 2020, cities in America burned.
	From East Coast to West Coast, they burned because there were rioting mobs out there protesting against racial injustice.
	And these people were bailed out the next day in no small part because of celebrities and politicians like Kamala Harris who raised money.
	For their bail funds.
	It's amazing.
	Can you imagine Mike Pence raising money to bail the January 6th protesters out of jail?
	Number one, it would never happen.
	Number two, it can't happen because those January 6th protesters are being held without bail in solitary confinement in the D.C. Gulag.
	It's ridiculous.
	And when you start to administer justice based on political views...
	You will destroy a country.
	That is the fastest way to encourage anarchy and to encourage people to lawlessness, because what's the point of following the rules when other people will be held to a different standard?
	We have to go after those DAs, and it's especially important right now because George Soros just stroked a $125 million check by himself to the DNC.
	And a not insignificant portion of that will go to electing these kinds of DAs because he sees the return on investment of those dollars.
	And one of the most powerful ways that he is changing America is by electing these radical DAs.
	I have one here in my area in Georgia, if you can believe it.
	Third beyond that is we have to fight back against the indoctrination and the censorship in America.
	Our First Amendment is sacred.
	We need to defend it.
	You know, in schools, people are being taught, their kids are being taught from an early age that based on the way that they're born, whether their skin color or their gender, that they are a certain way, that it's not about the individual, that you're a part of a group and that one group is automatically discriminatory and racist and all the other epithets that they throw at people.
	And it poisons people's minds and it creates a victim class and it creates these just awful outcomes where kids are being taught that they're a certain way.
	Based on the way that they were born.
	We graduated from that.
	In America, it's not color of your skin.
	It's content of your character.
	And suddenly we're going, we're regressing into the past.
	So we have to fight back against the indoctrination in schools, especially in universities.
	And then beyond that, with the censorship, these social media apps are the public town square.
	This is not just a public company that sells cookies, you know, and hey.
	This company is not allowing you to buy their cookies.
	Just go right down the street to a different bakery and get them there.
	No.
	This is how people communicate.
	This is especially how young people get their political information, all of their pop culture.
	Everything comes through these social media apps.
	And they are warping people's views of the world, especially young people, by censoring and silencing conservative voices and showing only those liberal views.
	That's why we're losing this country.
	And if you're not willing to take action against these big tech companies...
	If you have companies that are completely warping young people's minds then you're fighting a losing game and we're just running out the clock until America will completely go the way of communism and socialism.
	And what are some of your thoughts on substantive legislative policies?
	Because I know we discussed some with J.D. Vance and Blake Masters and Josh Hawley and some others.
	My proposal to Hawley several years ago, Trump, well, particularly the Republicans in Congress were asleep at the wheel on this risk.
	In terms of big tech collusion, we saw the impact of it and their suppression of the Hunter Biden.
	Stories that implicated his father in substantial corruption.
	We've seen it in terms of political weaponization of the FBI going after Project Veritas merely because they were in the possession of embarrassing information concerning this president, President Biden.
	But one of the proposals that has been discussed is Section 230 should be a carrot-stick approach, that if you want immunity from suit, you have to protect First Amendment values if you are the effective public square.
	If you have a de facto monopoly, which we have antitrust laws that establish this, basically more than 65-70% of the market share, which all of these big tech giants do, that they...
	can get immunity from suit for what's published on their platforms, as long as they are providing and protecting and conforming.
	their conduct to the First Amendment.
	What are your ideas on some of the legislative reforms that could happen to help discipline big tech's effort currently at manipulating elections, manipulating people's belief systems, suppressing independent information, and so forth?
	It's interesting the history of Section 230.
	Section 230 was put in there in order to promote free speech, basically providing safe harbor for these companies so that if there's stuff on their platforms, they can't be held responsible for it.
	So obviously they would be less inclined to censor things because they know they're protected.
	Obviously now that's not being used as a shield, it's being used as a sword and they're hiding behind it.
	I think that's a complete perversion of the purpose of Section 230.
	You know, either dramatic reform of that or outright repeal.
	I mean, I'm definitely more inclined in the direction of someone like a Blake Masters, who is making the case for regulating these companies as common carriers, as basically utilities.
	A phone company cannot deny you service and not hook up a phone line for you based on your political views, based on your race or any other characteristic.
	I think this has basically reached the point where an access to a social media account is kind of like that, and therefore you can't deny people the opportunity to exercise their free speech rights on these platforms.
	So I think that would be one approach to it.
	There's obviously the platforms, the Twitters and the Facebooks and the TikToks of the world, I guess.
	But then there's also the portals.
	And those are the Amazons and the Googles.
	And that requires a different type of solution.
	And that's where real monopoly is terrifying.
	I mean, Google controls, I think, 90 plus percent of search ad revenue.
	If you don't exist on Google, you don't exist.
	And in the case of Amazon, which is continuing to gobble up commerce, the same is true there.
	If you're not selling your products on Amazon, you might as well not exist on the internet.
	They can choke people out of the market.
	You've seen that happen also with Apple, with the App Store, which is not quite to the extent of monopoly that an Amazon or a Google is.
	But I think you have to regulate those companies in a different way.
	And you might be inclined to use existing antitrust laws against them.
	That's part of the issue with the DOJ right now, is they're so in the pocket of these companies.
	That they're not actually enforcing the laws that are already on the books because I think there are gross violations of antitrust laws happening through these giant portals, the Googles, the Amazons, and then also the App Store.
	I think getting an attorney general in there who would actively go against these people, a Josh Hawley, for example, might be a great pick for a next attorney general under a Republican president.
	I think we have to take action against them.
	It's mission critical.
	These companies control more power than any company in American history or world history, for that matter.
	This far exceeds a U.S. steel or a standard oil, and people need to wake up to what's happening in this country and what these companies are doing.
	Patrick, people are saying in the chat, repeal Section 230, which once upon a time in my more ignorant days, I would have said, yeah, go ahead and repeal it.
	Except that puts an onerous burden on smaller platforms, which can't handle any such consequences of repealing, and therefore just plays right into the Google, YouTube, whom are the same entity, and other social media giants.
	Practically speaking, how do you go about making them utilities and not private companies?
	Um...
	Yeah, I mean, I think the legislation would need to be rather complex because at the end of the day, this is a complex problem.
	These are new platforms.
	The technology is still relatively new.
	I mean, they haven't been around for that long.
	So we need to dig into it.
	I think step one is starting to actually meaningfully bring these companies in front of Congress, subpoena their records.
	I think the problem is probably much more...
	Rotten and nefarious than we even know.
	Because every time they bring a Mark Zuckerberg or a Jeff Bezos in front of Congress, they ask stupid questions that reveal the fact that they have no idea.
	You know, you got Chuck Grassley up there who probably can't even operate a basic cell phone.
	God bless him.
	You know, I like Chuck Grassley, but, you know, he doesn't understand how these companies operate.
	I think you need some of these younger folks to get in office and to meaningfully investigate these companies to understand their trade practices.
	I think it's...
	It's choking out the little guys.
	You know, the question you bring up around, oh, repeal of Section 230 exposes the little guy, that's straight from the Chamber of Commerce.
	Anytime I post about...
	Going after big tech, I get that same response and I guarantee it's not a mom and pop down the street that's like, oh gosh, please protect Section 230.
	No, that's directly from the lobbyists out there that are actively monitoring any politicians that come along who are going to take a strong stance against these companies.
	If we can't carve out something that protects the mom and pop shops and really targets this for the people who are actually violating people's First Amendment rights, then we're fools and we're kidding ourselves.
	But I think we can do that in a way that targets the bad actors and protects those who are not the bad actors.
	Yeah, exactly.
	I mean, I think when I talked to Holly about this several years ago, it was that you could focus Section 230 protections in that context in terms of conditioning it on free speech on just those that have monopoly power.
	I mean, Florida, Texas, other places that have been passing legislation on this subject.
	That currently are battling it out because of the problem of Section 230.
	You made that clear, that you had to be at a certain scale.
	You had to have a certain amount of gross revenues.
	You had to have a certain percentage of public market share, or it didn't apply to you.
	So it wouldn't apply to the bit shoots and the odysseys and the rest.
	It only applies to those that are basically controlling and monopolizing this space.
	And this space is public Squarespace.
	Now, you have actually experienced some of the discriminatory effects of big tech in your campaign.
	Can you tell people about the Facebook ad experience?
	I've never run for office before, but we're trying to get the message out to people.
	That's number one.
	You can run TV ads.
	You can run stuff on digital.
	You can mail out pieces.
	And one of the big ways to communicate with people, primary voters, is through Facebook.
	That's, again, where people are.
	This is where they get their news in many cases.
	And so we recorded.
	Our launch video describing my work in the Trump administration on the post-election legal team, my background basically introducing me to voters.
	And in there, we feature prominently my work after November 3rd to try and get to the bottom of what happened in the November 2020 election.
	We submitted this for approval to launch the ad and were immediately rejected and not allowed to run our ad.
	And in there, they say it's just basically it violates our policy on elections and social issues, you know, just kind of a blanket statement.
	We were never given a reason for why that was censored and rejected.
	But, you know, I think it's pretty clear why.
	And it was my talk about the election.
	We did resubmit.
	We were able to marshal a number of voices.
	You know, I'm someone who's running for office who, you know, has...
	Not a huge megaphone, but access to others that do.
	And we were able to exert that pressure to get our ad up.
	But how many other people out there who might have smaller voices or smaller platforms are censored and have no means of recourse?
	That's the issue is, is these companies, you know, in the political realm, they prop up Democrats in general elections.
	I think what you're seeing now, which is a very, very alarming development, is now these companies are willing to get involved in Republican primaries to basically hinder and hamper the ability of strong, you know, America first Republican candidates like myself.
	In order to basically elect a controlled opposition that's not going to stand up to these companies.
	So, you know, I will keep speaking.
	I will keep speaking out.
	And if we continue to get censored or if we get censored again, hopefully we are able to leverage the support that we have to get our message out.
	But it's incredibly concerning how much election interference these companies actually do.
	I'm going to bring this up.
	Britt Cormier, Robert, this is for all of us, I guess.
	Barnes, what about focusing on Section 230 to only give immunity when they censor, quote, illegal materials?
	If they censor anything that is not illegal, they assume the role of a publisher.
	But that was baked into the drafting as it was.
	It was not about illegal only, but rather...
	Yeah, it was supposed to be, but the language ended up too vague.
	But that's basically the pitch that I made to Josh Hawley that Patrick's talking about.
	So they're really very functional ways.
	Very straightforward ways to amend the laws to require them to operate like public utilities functionally.
	It can be simplified if they are just legally relabeled as such, but another way is just to modify Section 230.
	If you want the carrot of Section 230 immunity, then you have to conform to First Amendment standards when you are a monopoly on the public square.
	That's it.
	And this wouldn't apply to the small places.
	It only applies to those that have monopoly power.
	And in fact, the Supreme Court back in the 1940s recognized this.
	They said a company town can't use its control over the public square to discriminate against political speech it doesn't like.
	And then the Supreme Court backed off a little bit when it was applied to a private mall, which it shouldn't have been.
	But that same principle...
	It can be just legislatively imposed rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to wake up to the problem, whereas Republicans have been a little slow to it.
	Speaking of some of the aspects of where big tech policy interfaces, interacts with foreign policy, I mean, I didn't know until Peter Schweitzer's book, Red Handed, the scale to which big tech is in bed with China.
	Like, I mean, Mark Zuckerberg went up to President Xi and asked him to name his child.
	Name his child.
	That's a disturbing...
	And this is the same guy that spent, what, $400 million secretly helping election fortification, as Time magazine put it, 2020.
	What are your thoughts on China?
	And then also, given that in the news, the one border that apparently Biden is interested in protecting is the one between Ukraine and Russia.
	Yeah, I'll answer the second question first.
	I mean, anyone that wants to send our sons and daughters over to die defending Ukraine's border while our southern border is wide open, it's disgusting.
	It's such a perversion.
	No American soldier should be sent to defend any other country's borders until our own are secure.
	And, you know, full stop.
	Period.
	That's it.
	That's where I stand on the issue.
	So, no, I do not support intervention in Ukraine.
	I think the Democrats and the neocons in D.C. that are beating the war drums are potentially inflaming tensions unnecessarily.
	And it's ultimately a distraction from your first question, which is...
	China is our greatest geopolitical rival, threat, enemy, use whatever word you want, competitor, and any things that we're doing that further drive Russia into the arms of China.
	It's completely wrong.
	Strategically, it's foolish to do so.
	We need to evaluate everything through the lens of what is actually best for the American people.
	Ultimately, our elected leaders do not represent the globe.
	They represent the American people.
	And they need to evaluate interventions abroad or decisions to refrain from intervening abroad through that lens.
	And as we just mentioned, China is clearly our top geopolitical rival.
	Russia, yeah, they like to be important in their neck of the woods.
	But China has global aspirations.
	They want to displace the U.S. dollar.
	They want to expand in places like Africa, the rest of Southeast Asia, and flex their muscles.
	They're not content to remain a regional player.
	And anything with Russia is a distraction.
	I'm not saying we roll over and let Russia do whatever they want.
	But we need to seriously Someone said they had a previous question and it was Ponton.
	I'm going to wait for that chat to come back up.
	I don't want you to super chat it again.
	If I missed the question, please bring it back up.
	But I screenshotted, took pictures of a few questions.
	Viva, ask him his stance on Second Amendment from the photo viper.
	Patrick, at the risk of asking the obvious, what's your position on Second Amendment and how do you intend on protecting or undermining it, if I ask the open-ended question?
	Yeah, I'm 100% pro-Second Amendment.
	I think the language in the Second Amendment is rather clear.
	Shall not be infringed is about as abundantly clear as you can get in the U.S. Constitution.
	So I am in favor of repealing the onerous burdens that they place on lawful.
	There's an interesting study done not too long ago.
	People in America who own guns are literally the most law-abiding people in the country.
	And so these are not the people that need to be regulated.
	These are also laws that are passed by the same folks that want to let out people from prison with no cash.
	No cash bail, you know, basically let them back on the streets the next day.
	So if it were really about going after gun violence, they would be treating these criminals quite differently than they are right now.
	This is...
	A proxy to continue to wage a political war.
	You know, people that own guns lawfully in America overwhelmingly are Republican.
	And so that's a way for them to attack their political opponents is to continue to target them, to collect data on them.
	J.D. Vance was speaking out about this the other day.
	The ATF is collecting data on all these gun owners and creating basically a database for them to potentially go and do a big gun grab.
	Just about every country throughout history that has had some kind of violent revolution and takeover, one of the first things they do is take away guns from the people.
	That's ultimately a check on tyranny.
	The Second Amendment in our Constitution is not written for hunting and fishing.
	It is a check on tyranny and a check on foreign invasion.
	And so I support the Second Amendment and will continue to advocate for people's rights to possess firearms.
	Speaking of intrusion on people's core liberties and rights, the judge that Lindsey Graham has publicly announced already he's going to support to go on to the U.S. Supreme Court, giving Biden his needed vote, especially with the New Mexico senator having...
	Well, let's just say it's an injury that might correlate to the topic I'm about to discuss, though they're not going to say that publicly.
	It might be stuck, you know, had a stroke recently, apparently.
	So Lindsey Graham support.
	But this particular judge, one of the main decisions she made was supporting employer vaccine mandates.
	And now at the federal level, there's been a lot of, I mean, there's federal legislation that, in my view, governs this subject in terms of Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, that protect religious accommodations, protect the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating based on medical status unless it's truly necessary.
	And then, of course, we have all the different Biden vaccine mandates.
	What is your thoughts on the vaccine mandate?
	Yeah, I stand firmly against vaccine mandates.
	I think it's increasingly obvious that this is a vaccine that doesn't do a great job of actually protecting you from much of anything.
	These are people that want to just add booster after booster after booster.
	There's certainly a conflict of interest here with big pharma that would love to continue passing out these shots for the rest of your lives.
	It's a cash cow.
	You know, and people that work at, you know, a factory or some other business, they've been there 20, 30 years, suddenly they're going to be told, you know, you can't work here anymore unless you take a vaccine against a virus that poses a minuscule threat to your health, and we're not going to at least entrust you to make your own decision.
	People that are vaccinated can still spread.
	COVID, all the breakout cases that you hear about.
	So this is not about actual public health policy.
	Again, this is a proxy war for a political issue right here.
	So I stand firmly against vaccine mandates, and I would be in favor of legislation, whether at the state level or the federal level, that protects people and reinforces their right to object to having to take these vaccines, I think.
	No person should have to choose between the jab and their job.
	I don't think that's America.
	And I'm going to say this right now for posterity.
	We have been green-lighted this entire stream, so we'll see if that changes right now.
	But Patrick, I don't want to let you off a hook of a question that I know bothers a lot of people in the United States, and that is the relationship between America and Israel.
	And I don't want to look like I'm avoiding it for any reasons that people might attribute to my own Politics or upbringing.
	This is from TKUA.
	He says, if we shouldn't help the Ukraine, can we have the same fervor in not sending aid to Israel?
	So for people who might say there's hypocrisy, I mean, how do you feel that people are going to say there's hypocrisy?
	We want to, you know, pull out aid from the Ukraine, but still offer billions in aid to Israel in terms of however that translates back into buying weapons from the U.S. I guess, bottom line?
	Aid to Israel.
	How do you view it?
	Do you have an answer on it?
	I think I view it through the same lens that I would Ukraine.
	I don't think Israel right now is being threatened with invasion.
	But obviously, if that were the case, then we would evaluate it through the lens of, does this advance American interest?
	Are the American people better served, safer, and ultimately in favor of defending another country or not?
	I don't think there are any sacred cows.
	You know, out there.
	And so it's a hypothetical, but I would apply the same logic and the same worldview to Israel, to Ukraine, to any country out there.
	You know, if elected to Congress, I ultimately answer to and I'm responsible for the American people.
	And that's it.
	And so, again, no sacred cows.
	But to the extent that it does advance American interest, I am in favor of it.
	And to the extent that it does not and endangers American people to involve ourselves in a foreign conflict or by propping up another country, then I would be against it.
	In terms of another question on the vaccine question, do you think that the federal legislation should change?
	Like right now, Big Pharma, if they're on certain lists, emergency use authorization list, PrEP Act list, kids vaccine list.
	That they are completely immune from suit, even if they are completely negligent, even if they're reckless, grossly reckless, even if it's intentional.
	You have to show criminal willfulness and the Justice Department has to sign on.
	Would you be amenable to changing that law so that Big Pharma is responsible legally for any bad acts they commit for those drugs as any other drug?
	Absolutely.
	I think it creates a major moral hazard.
	The fact that Big Pharma can push these, again, with a profit motive behind it and not be liable for any side effects or any issues with these vaccines.
	I think that's creating very perverse incentives for them.
	And so if we're going to be paying them massive sums of money for these vaccines, then they should also be on the hook if those vaccines have issues with them.
	I don't see any reason to make this any different.
	Patrick?
	I knocked my computer.
	Let me ask you one question.
	It was from Ponton, and I apparently missed it earlier.
	It says, Viva Fright, I'm in Stone Mountain.
	I don't know where that is, but I think it's in the United States.
	It's in Georgia.
	Yeah.
	It's very, very close to where I went to high school, where I grew up.
	It says, I know Lilburn well.
	I'd like to know how confident he is in DeKalb and Gwinnett counties to conduct honest and corruption-free elections in the upcoming election.
	I'm sorry I missed the chat.
	Thank you for reminding me, and thank you for the question.
	Yeah, no, so DeKalb and Gwinnett counties, I grew up in Gwinnett County.
	Those counties have changed significantly.
	You know, Gwinnett County is very different.
	It has a massive influx of immigrants, legal and illegal.
	It has changed significantly, and obviously its leaders have changed with it.
	So I would say my confidence level.
	To the extent that any Democrat elected leader is going to act like a lot of national figures in the Democrat Party, my confidence level in them administering a fair and free election is very low.
	Now, your thoughts on, sort of as an exit question, why do you still have, I mean, you saw the craziness and the insanity of the opposition to President Trump from the inside.
	You saw the...
	Total insanity of the 2020 election and what happened therein and some of the most egregious examples thereof.
	Yet, you're running for office.
	You're out there trying to make a fundamental difference.
	Why do you still believe that we should have faith and confidence that we can take action?
	The way I tend to put it is, you know, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing people he didn't exist.
	And the greatest trick the system ever pulled is convincing people that they cannot resist.
	And that resistance is always the answer, no matter any perception of futility.
	But why do you continue to march on despite the obstacles and difficulties and seeing some of the worst aspects of our system up close?
	Yeah, a couple things.
	I mean, obviously, you see with some of the truckers rising up in Canada right now.
	We can take action.
	I don't think we do as good of a job of it on the right, taking collective action and really rising up and letting our leaders know that we're out here in force and we can affect change.
	One of the greatest things, and this basically dovetails with what you just said, one of the greatest things that Democrats do in America is they make you feel...
	Like you're all alone in your views as a conservative.
	No one else thinks that way.
	No one else views the world that way or holds that position.
	They make you feel very isolated and alone and powerless.
	But as we see with what's going on right now in Canada, I think when we actually take power in our own hands and rise up, we can affect change.
	And then the second thing I would say is if people don't step up and take this risk, And fight to take our country back.
	We will lose.
	Rapidly, we will lose this country.
	And so I can't stand aside and let that happen.
	And I can't guarantee that we're going to win.
	But I'm sure I'm going to go down fighting and trying.
	Two last questions.
	They're part and parcel of the same.
	I think I know the answer.
	What does a congressional-run budget look like in Georgia?
	What do you need?
	What are you at?
	And how can people help you?
	Yeah, so it depends on the race, obviously, where you live, and that's largely driven by media markets.
	Obviously, a lot of this fundraising goes to get up on television, run radio ads.
	We are in the Atlanta media market, the DMA here, so it is a somewhat expensive race, not quite as expensive as if we were running in New York City, for example.
	I'd imagine those are quite expensive.
	You know, we have raised over half a million dollars in this race.
	I'm incredibly grateful to the people who have chipped in and sent in, you know, $20, $25, $50, you know, and people that have opened up their pocketbooks and invested in me.
	You know, we are targeting a million dollars in this race budget-wise, so obviously we're a little over halfway there, but still a long way to go.
	But what I would say to people, you know, whether they're...
	You know, watching here in Georgia or anywhere else across the country.
	Now is when the battle is won or lost.
	By the time we get to a general election, if you just have a Republican up there, another rhino type.
	They're going to let you down.
	They're not really going up there to fight.
	People need to get much more involved in primaries earlier on, seeking out those people that are going to be those strong fighters.
	And now is the moment when you can actually make a difference.
	I'm not one of those people that comes from the establishment, raising money from the corporate PACs.
	I wouldn't even know who to call at those places.
	So I'm relying on just moms and dads and people that are concerned about the future of the country.
	And when we move collectively, as we see with the folks up in Canada, a lot of $20 donations add up when people actually pile in and support folks.
	So I'd be grateful for any donations that they would make.
	They can go to my website, patrickwitt.com, patrickwitt.com, and chip in there.
	I'd be very grateful for their support.
	I'm going to put all of your links in the pinned comment as soon as this is ready to go, because I can't add the pinned comment until it's fully published.
	The question that I just had, oh, Patrick, social media, where can people find you?
	Yeah, so on Twitter, it's Patrick J. Witt.
	On Facebook, it's Patrick Witt for Congress.
	We're on Getter, I think Rod Rumble, YouTube, all of them.
	It's hard to keep track.
	There's so many.
	But yeah, the main ones with, if you go to the website, you can find all of them there.
	And now I remember what I was going to say.
	Everyone out there, no copyright asserted on this stream sidebar.
	Cut what you want.
	Do what you want with it.
	Get it out there.
	Patrick, that goes for you too.
	But cut, splice, send highlights out there and use it freely on social media.
	Copyright has been abandoned for the greater good.
	Godspeed, Patrick.
	Stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Robert, do you have a final word for Patrick before we go?
	Oh, Patrick's campaign is reflective of what the truckers said yesterday, which is the honking will persist until freedom returns.
	I love it.
	I love it.
	Patrick, I still can't get over the fact that you're six foot four.
	It's shocking to me, but we'll get past there.
	So patrickwitt.com with a C-K-W-I-T-T dot com.
	That's your campaign site.
	Social media, they can find you.
	Donations, I will put all of the links in the pinned comment as soon as it's ready to go on YouTube.
	Thank you very much.
	Godspeed.
	And, you know, be careful what you wish for, Patrick.
	You might win your way into the machine of government.
	And then good luck.
	I'm cynical.
	It might not be as easy to make a difference as you think, even once you get what you think you want right now.
	Someone's got to try.
	Someone's got to try.
	And I'm grateful to join you all.
	You guys are thought leaders.
	I appreciate the discussion.
	And thank you so much for having me.
	I hope to join you all again soon during this campaign and continue talking through these issues.
	We have to take action.
	We need smart people thinking through these things.
	And so I'm grateful for you all with all that you do, weighing in on these and leading the discussion.
	Thank you very much.
	Patrick, Robert, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, you know what to do.
	Spread the word.
	And we will see you Sunday night.
	Although I'll be in Ottawa Friday, so stay tuned.

▲