Category Archives: 2020 Elections

The historical election that was outright stolen by the Democrat Party, the Mainstream Media and Globalists. Here is much of what was going on.

Stop The Attack On The Constitution! Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ Was Not Based on Racism

Source: Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ Was Not Based on Racism


A replica of the U.S. Constitution. (WikiImages/Pixabay)

Rob Natelson
March 21, 2021 Updated: March 21, 2021

Commentary

This is the second in a series of essays answering defamatory charges leveled against the U.S. Constitution. The first in the series addressed the allegation that the Constitution discriminated against women. In fact, as that essay showed, the framers took pains to ensure the document was gender-neutral.

Another false charge is that the Constitution stems from, and continues to reflect, “systemic racism.” Critics point to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3—the “three-fifths compromise” explained below—even though that provision was amended out of the document more than 150 years ago.

By way of illustration, a 2011 Time magazine cover story asserted, “The framers … gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being.” Last year, Time doubled down with a column stating that “the Constitution defined African-Americans as only three-fifths of a person.” Similarly, a Teen Vogue item misinformed its young readers with these words:

“White supremacy is systemic. … It thrives in politics with systems … like the electoral college, a process originally designed to protect the influence of white slave owners, which is still used today to determine presidential elections [because] … [e]nslaved black people … were declared three fifths of a person in order to strengthen the power of the white men who kept them in bondage.”

The Internet is littered with such drivel.

The truth is that the Constitution’s text was racially neutral. The framers employed the same word—“person”—to refer to humans of all races. They rejected the racial qualifications for voting and office-holding that marred some state constitutions. For all purposes, they treated Indians who paid taxes and the significant number of free African-Americans exactly as they treated white people.

So what was the three-fifths compromise? And what is the basis of the charge that it was racist?

The three-fifths compromise addressed two issues: (1) the size of each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives and (2) each state’s contribution of federal direct taxes. Direct taxes were levies imposed on individual persons (“capitations”) and on a wide range of items, such as property, income, wealth, and professions. Direct taxes were distinguished from “indirect taxes” or “duties,” which were primarily levies on consumption and on transportation of goods across political boundaries.

The Constitution provided that every state would have at least one representative in the House of Representatives. The three-fifths compromise added that both the additional representatives and direct taxes would be split among the states according to their population. But for these purposes only, each state’s population figure would be reduced (1) to exclude “Indians not taxed” and (2) to rate each slave as three-fifths of a free person.

If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation. They believed representation should follow ability to contribute federal tax revenue. This view was inherited from English history, and was reflected in the Revolutionary War slogan, “No taxation without representation!”

But when the framers tried to find a formula for calculating each state’s ability to contribute tax revenue, they ran into practical difficulties. After rejecting several proposed formulas as unworkable, they conceded that, at least over the long run, a state’s tax capacity would correlate with its population.

As James Wilson of Pennsylvania said, “[I]n districts as large as the States, the number of people was the best measure of their comparative wealth. Whether therefore wealth or numbers were to form the ratio it would be the same.”

There were two exceptions to the rule that tax capacity followed population. First, some states contained substantial numbers of Indians who were governed exclusively by their tribes. They did not pay state taxes and would not pay federal taxes. Second, the framers recognized that, on average, slaves produced far less than free people.

This recognition had nothing to do with race. It was because slaves—of any race—could not sell their labor and talents in the free market. They were stuck in a centralized system of command and control, rather like communism.

Thus, the framers had to find a way to reduce a state’s representation according to the proportion of its population held in bondage.

Fortunately, the Confederation Congress already had done the work for them. In 1783, Congress studied the relative productivity of slave and free workers. Among the factors it considered were

The differing incentives of enslaved and free people;
the value of their respective output, which was much less among slaves because of poor incentives;
the respective costs of feeding and clothing free and slave labor;
the ages at which young free people and slaves began working (found to be lower for free children than for slave children);
the differing climates in free and slave states;
the value of imports and exports in free and slave states; and
that slaves were disproportionately confined to agriculture as opposed to manufacturing and other activities.

Race wasn’t even on Congress’s list!

One is reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s quotation of the Greek poet Homer: “Jove fix’d it certain, that whatever day, Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.” As Jefferson knew, Homer was speaking of white slaves.

In other words, the three-fifths compromise was not a statement about race at all. It was a statement about the economic inefficiency of slavery.

Critics contend that the three-fifths compromise rewarded slave states. Actually, it punished them with reduced congressional representation. Here’s how it worked: Suppose a state had a population of 300,000. Suppose this population included 210,000 whites, 10,000 free blacks, 50,000 slaves, 20,000 citizen-Indians who paid taxes, and 10,000 tribal Indians who did not pay taxes. Only the tax-producing Indians would be counted, and the count of slaves would be reduced to reflect their relatively poor productivity. Thus, for purposes of allocating representatives and direct taxes, the state’s population would be credited as only 270,000 rather than 300,000. That is: 210,000 + 10,000 + [3/5 x 50,000] + 20,000 + 0 = 270,000.

It’s true that the compromise also reduced a slave state’s direct taxes. But that was not a particularly good deal for the slave states, because except in wartime Congress was expected to resort only to indirect taxes—a prediction that proved true for many years.

Nearly all the framers understood that slavery was evil. But as I shall explain in a later essay, they needed to come to terms with it if they hoped to hold the union together. Failure would have led to a fractured continent and European-style internecine warfare.

But let’s not make more of the framers’ concession than the facts dictate: The three-fifths compromise was not an endorsement of, or subsidy for, slavery. It was based on a finding that slavery was economically stupid as well as unjust.

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor, is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver. Supporting documentation for this essay can be found in his research paper, “What the Constitution Means by ‘Duties, Imposts, and Excises’—and Taxes (Direct or Otherwise),” 66 Case Western Res. L. Rev. 297 (2015). He is also the author of the book, “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.”

Newsom recall leaders say they have 1.95 million signatures | The Sacramento Bee

Source: Newsom recall leaders say they have 1.95 million signatures | The Sacramento Bee

Newsom recall leaders say they have enough signatures to trigger an election

By Sophia Bollag
March 07, 2021 04:02 PM

Leaders in effort to recall Gavin Newsom claim enough signatures for recall election

Leaders in the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom announce at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Sacramento on Sunday, March 7, 2021, that they have collected enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot. The signatures still have to be verified. By Daniel Kim

Leaders of the effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday they’ve collected 1.95 million signatures a little more than a week before the deadline, a number they believe will be more than enough to trigger a special recall election.

County and state elections officials still need to verify that nearly 1.5 million are valid signatures from registered California voters before the recall can qualify for the ballot. But recall supporters said Sunday that they’re confident they’ve collected enough.

The most recent signature verification numbers from the Secretary of State’s Office found that about 83% of the signatures counted by early February were valid. There’s no guarantee that validity rate will hold for the remaining signatures, but if it does, proponents would reach the threshold needed to trigger a special recall election.

Most of the movement’s signatures – about 1.6 million of them – have been collected by volunteers, recall proponent Mike Netter said during a press conference near the Capitol ahead of a recall rally scheduled that afternoon.

“I don’t think you’ve ever seen a volunteer movement like this,” Netter said. “It’s literally people from all walks of life, all parties, all religions. We have a diversity across the board collecting and united (on) one thing, and that’s the fact that California needs a new governor.”

Until recently, the signature gathering effort was done almost entirely by volunteers and through a mail campaign. In recent weeks, an influx of donations has allowed the effort to begin paying professional signature gatherers, a more traditional method of qualifying a measure for the ballot in California.

Opponents of the recall have argued Newsom does not deserve to be removed from office and have dismissed the effort as a Republican scheme to challenge Newsom in a special election, when lower voter turnout tends to favor more conservative causes and candidates.

But rally attendees and recall organizers argue their movement includes more than just Republicans, and say more and more people who voted for Newsom are becoming disenchanted with his actions as governor.

“Californians are becoming more disgruntled with how their state’s run,” said Randy Economy, a political adviser working for the recall effort.

Glenda Roybal said she traveled all the way from her home in Santa Clarita to Sacramento and has been volunteering in support of the recall effort for six months. She had set up a folding chair on the Capitol mall, and sat facing the Capitol building as she waited for the rally to begin that afternoon.

“I’m here because I am tired of schools not being in session,” she said. “I’m here because I’m tired of small businesses closing down, restaurants closing down.”

She said she was thrilled to hear how many signatures the movement has collected.

“It’s like being on a roller coaster at Magic Mountain, when you’re at the top and you’re just ready to go down that roller coaster. That’s the feeling you get,” she said, ”knowing that we’re so close to getting rid of someone that has destroyed this beautiful, beautiful state.”

The Bee Capitol Bureau’s Lara Korte contributed to this report.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article249768103.html#storylink=cpy

20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes

20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes By Elizabeth Stauffer Published March 6, 2021 at 2:06pm Share on Facebook Tweet Mewe Share P Share Email Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers of late have been undisguised power grabs. Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the results of the 2020 election, par

Source: 20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes

20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes
By Elizabeth Stauffer
Published March 6, 2021 at 2:06pm

Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers of late have been undisguised power grabs.

Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the results of the 2020 election, party leaders decided to make these changes permanent. The result was the passage of H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2021,” by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

Noting the gross overreach by the federal government in the bill, the attorneys general of 20 states penned a letter to Congressional leadership which can be viewed here.

This group of top law enforcement officers wrote that “it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.” They make the case that H.R. 1 strips the state legislatures of their constitutionally granted authority to determine how elections will be held in their states.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the leader of this group and the first signer of the letter, issued a statement to Fox News which read in part, “This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box. As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

The letter addressed to leaders in Congress began: “As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials.

“Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal — and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.”

It stated further, “the Act regulates ‘election for Federal office,’ defined to include ‘election for the office of President or Vice President.’ The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords ‘Each State’ the power to ‘appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,’ the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.’

“That exclusive division of power for setting the ‘manner’ and ‘time’ of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place, and manner’ of congressional elections.”

“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” the group maintained. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”

They cited a Supreme Court ruling in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) in which the court upheld “a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.” The court “observed that the Electors Clause ‘convey[s] the broadest power of determination’ and ‘leaves it to the [state] legislature exclusively to define the method’ of appointment of electors.”

“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors,” the attorneys general wrote, “means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.”

The group noted the Act’s “regulation of congressional elections” which includes “mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (‘ID’) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through un-elected commissions [gerrymandering], also faces severe constitutional hurdles.” Rather than “acting as a check,” the group argued, Congress is “seizing the role of principal election regulator.”

The letter excoriated the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate voter ID laws, which the group wrote is “perhaps” the “most egregious” feature of the bill. It also cited the Act’s attempt to put limitations on how states can purge voter rolls of those who have left the state.

“The Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to ‘attest [ ] to the individual’s identity and … that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.’ This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are.”

Identification is required for everything in modern life. I went to a Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles facility to renew my driver’s license. In Connecticut, a trip to the DMV requires several hours. Finally working my way to the front of the line, I presented my passport, social security card, even my birth certificate — complete with a raised seal.

I had forgotten, however, to bring two pieces of mail from my address of the last 27 years, so I would not be allowed to receive a “REAL ID,” one that could be used to board an airplane. Unless I wanted to do all of this over again, I would be issued a “standard” license that stated “Not for Federal Identification” on its face. Deciding that I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than repeat this exercise anytime soon, I opted for the standard license.

Voting is one of the most sacred privileges of a U.S. citizen. There is only one reason for waiving the voter ID requirement — and that is because it facilitates voter fraud. It’s that simple.

The attorneys general concluded with the following message: “Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust — problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

In their quest for absolute power, Democrats have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional federal republic. Our government “is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers.” (Emphasis added.)

Finally, “‘federal’ means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states.” Under the federal system of government, state legislatures are granted the power to determine election laws in the state.

Blinded by their lust for power, Democrats are ignoring the Constitution and showing complete disregard for the rule of law. The fact that 20 attorneys general have come forward to threaten “legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens,” if this bill becomes law, speaks volumes.

The National Constitution Center, a left-leaning think tank, provides a weak counter-argument to the belief that states have the right to set their own regulations concerning elections. The group claims that the Elections Clause “vests ultimate power in Congress.” They write that the framers “were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress.”

The NCC website states: “Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (‘preempt’) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed.

“[The constitutional framers] empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.”

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the opposite is true — that the framers were more concerned with endowing the states with sovereignty.

A final decision on this case may ultimately require an interpretation of the 10th and 11th Amendments by the Supreme Court.

So far, however — perhaps because they feel vulnerable over Democrats’ threats to pack the court — the justices have repeatedly rejected attempts to get pulled into political disputes. Rather than being mere “political disputes,” I see them as questions requiring constitutional interpretation. And isn’t that why we have a Supreme Court?

This bill may never need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will fail in the Senate. In March 2019, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked an earlier version of the “For the People Act.”

(Note: After the new version was introduced in January, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson addressed the features of this proposed legislation on his show. He concluded that if H.R. 1 were to become law, it would “enshrine fraud.” A video of Carlson’s excellent analysis can be viewed here.)

The Wound That Will Never Heal. The Bitter Taste of Betrayal.

I read an article the other day about how Mike Pence and Trump still spoke as if they were anything but curt. I did not post the article or the link because I don’t buy it. Some news agencies think that reporting “anything” about Mike Pence is a good idea. If they are looking for polling numbers, they are wasting their time. If they think they are informing the public, they’re wasting your time. Mike Pence needs to be: shunned in public; his name removed from any and all recognition of any committee or signage of any documents; his name as Vice President of the United States eliminated; and then strip him of his citizenship. Mike Pence stabbed America in the back on January 6, 2021 and handed our government over to a communist regime! That is TREASON!

WAKE UP AMERICA! The death of the Republic lies at the feet of the GOP, The Grand Ole Party! These “representatives” who call themselves “leaders”, don’t lead anything. They took an oath and broke it! They stand before you as an illegal regime, the elite who are above the law and changing the laws as they see fit, like a Monarchy. The Democrats, the RINO’s, the weaklings of the GOP, the courts and the judges, they have ALL broken our one Supreme Law in spades! The Republic is broken.

This is why MAGA, all 80 million of us, are taking over the Republican Party because we ARE the party. We are the America First Agenda and we are going to gut out every single little weakling who didn’t have the courage to do the right thing! They have ALL failed every single American for generations to come and should be remembered as such by name!

This is exactly WHY they are being exposed right now for ALL TO SEE! Heed these warnings America; do not doubt what you see before you. God works in His own time in mysterious ways and he is allowing this to be seen so that all will know. This is a spiritual battle but a battle that we must fight to preserve the freedom granted us by our Creator, not from imperfect men. It is the Almighty who gave us this life, to speak, to prosper, to find happiness. No one has the right to take that from you, no one.

So do yourself a favor. Get involved with your State Legislators in the Republican Party. Become a Precinct Chair, poll worker or get involved with supporting the best candidates, not just any. Here is a great breakdown of what, where, who and how you can make a difference cleaning up each states elections! It is imperative we have fair and honest elections or we truly are dead as a Republic and America will be no more. A thousand years will pass before our offspring will regain their righteous freedoms.

It is up to WE THE PEOPLE now. Not President Trump, not anybody but us. The buck truly stops HERE with US, the self-governed rulers of our own destiny as we journey through our days in the foretold Kingdom on Earth! Only WE can control our destiny. DO NOT LET THIS LEGACY DIE ON OUR WATCH!

We have and continue to be the last bastion of hope for humanity! But don’t think we are the only ones though, because what is happening to America has already happened to every other country in the world. To date they are suffering severe damages from this globalist elite rule that is already here. Humanity must unite for freedom and rid this poison from our once beautiful planet, once and for all.

Together We Are Victorious!

God Speed Patriots, now get to work!

~TiLT

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results

News, Entertainment, EnlightenmentPennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election ResultsPennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results — Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom are being sued for costs — claimed to be $19,224.56 — relating to their actions against the Delaware County (Pa.) Board of Elections for perceived irregularities stemming from the Nov. 3 election.Leah and Strenstrom –who were Delaware County Board of Elections certified poll watcher

Source: Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election

Bill Lawrence

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results — Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom are being sued for costs — claimed to be $19,224.56 — relating to their actions against the Delaware County (Pa.) Board of Elections for perceived irregularities stemming from the Nov. 3 election.

Leah and Strenstrom –who were Delaware County Board of Elections certified poll watchers and observers at the counting center — testified at the Nov. 25 hearing in Gettysburg before state senators that the chain of custody for ballots was shattered in Delaware County, and the USB drives containing records from voting machines disappeared.

Leah says when the Board of Elections ignored their concerns, they took the matter, on Dec. 22, to Delaware County Common Pleas Court.

Judge John Capuzzi did not allow them to present evidence or allow discovery to see ballots and envelopes, she says.
On Jan. 11, he dismissed the case with prejudice.

And now, the Democrat-controlled county, in which can only be considered an act of intimidation, is seeking attorney fees, despite the attorneys defending the board being county employees.

OK, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute that USB drives vanished and the chain of custody was violated.

Why aren’t the courts interested in investigating? Why hasn’t there been any resolution to the voter books that were given to unauthorized persons as we reported on Oct. 31?

Capuzzi is a Republican. So what? People are starting to realize that it is not about Democrat vs Republican but a battle between people who want to get rich off of government — i.e. have the people be the servants — and those who know that it is government that should serve the people.

Leah says the Delaware County Republican Party has abandoned them in their battle as has the state party. Leah says the GOP lawyer they had quit and their new one, Deborah Silver, has been threatened with disbarment.

“We are being denied our 1st Amendment rights plain and simple,” said Leah. “Who is protecting us? Where is law enforcement?”

Leah says she and Stenstrom are raising money to continue her legal battle and contributions can be made here: https://givesendgo.com/Protectingyourvote

“Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” Sidney Powell Forms SuperPAC, Addresses Recent Supreme Court Refusal To Address Lawsuit

Source: “Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” Sidney Powell Forms SuperPAC, Addresses Recent Supreme Court Refusal To Address Lawsuit

“Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” Sidney Powell Forms SuperPAC, Addresses Recent Supreme Court Refusal To Address Lawsuit
By Ulysses S. Tennyson | Feb 23, 2021

Sidney Powell
As we reported, the federal Supreme Court denied any review of pending Pennsylvania cases regarding 2020 election fraud on Monday, despite mountains of data. They claim that the case is “moot” since the election is already over. However, they slow-walked America to its demise since November and the Georgia Supreme court refused to hear cases prior to elections claiming they were “speculative,” despite 270 pages of evidence.
Attorney Sidney Powell

So, there is no way to win because you aren’t allowed to even play. Whether you file the case before or after a (allegedly) fraudulent election, rogue justices refuse to hear the cases, of which there were several dzen related to the presidential election.

In reality, there is no constitutional justification for this latest SCOTUS refusal. The only possible reasons for refusal are that Supreme Court justices–including two appointed by Trump, are complicit in the insurrection against President Trump and America, or they are too lazy or incompetent to want to take on such a contentious case whose rulings will resonate around the globe and completely alter the trajectory of America.

But, all is not lost. There are patriots who are taking action. One of those consistent voices has been attorney Sidney Powell who has formed a SuperPAC to “amplify the voice” of true constitutional patriots around the country.
In a Telegram Post, Sidney Powell sent the following hopeful message to American patriots:

Trending: BREAKING: Justices Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett and Roberts Join Liberal Supreme Court Justices Who REFUSED To Review PA Election Cases…Justice Thomas Asks: “One wonders what this Court waits for?”

Thank you all! There are still important live cases. Irrefutable proof is coming soon. Keep educating everyone about the facts. Today’s Supreme Court orders were disappointing but we are NOT done, and we will not let this fraud stand. #WeThePeople are supposed to run this country. Our new SuperPAC should be up tomorrow.
Www.DefendingTheRepublicPAC.com
It’s to amplify the voice of #WeThePeople across the country. We intend to expose corruption in both parties and support people with the courage to protect our constitutional rights and the Rule of Law. Sign up for updates. Join for as little as $10 a year. Contributors of $200 a year total or less are confidential.

Consider supporting her PAC.

Or–better yet, be one of the patriots who is willing to take political action in your local communities. There are people like you all over the country who must unify and create pathways to success on local and state levels as Sidney Powell is doing on a national level.

‘Imperfect’: Gen. Flynn Says Raw ‘Authenticity’ Made Trump, Will Remake the Republican Party

By Andrew J. Sciascia
Published February 12, 2021 at 1:32pm

“Donald Trump was an authentic guy. I used to introduce him at rallies in the 2016 campaign as the most imperfect, and I’ll say that again, as the most imperfect candidate you’re ever going to vote for to be president of the United States,” Gen. Michael Flynn said.

It was a jarring statement. Not hostile, incorrect or in any way antagonistic, but something of a surprise note from a loyal, if short-lived, fixture in the early administration of former President Donald Trump. By all accounts, both left- and right-wing, unwillingness to hold the line had served as an unofficial grounds for excommunication from the Trump camp.

For a prominent ally to emphasize the former president’s flaws was hardly commonplace — but Flynn had a tune to play, and he intended to play it with the highs and the lows intact.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Donald Trump is not a perfect guy. He never said he was. What he is, is he’s tough. He’s not an establishment guy. He’s a Washington outsider,” Flynn went on.

“And that’s what the American people wanted then, that’s what they wanted in 2020 and I believe in 2024, if we are able to have a free, fair and transparent election.”

TRENDING: Lindsey Graham: ‘I Don’t Know How Kamala Harris Doesn’t Get Impeached’ if the GOP Takes Over the House

The remarks came at the close of an hour-long Western Journal feature interview that saw the general let loose on establishment Republicans for steering back into the status quo at the close of the Trump era.

With Democratic cannons trained on the GOP in light of a deadly Capitol Hill election fraud protest on Jan. 6, longstanding members of the congressional establishment unveiled their escape plan, more than ready to cut the Trump coalition anchors they had long ago deemed dead weight.

Among the escape artists was Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, whose rumored support for a second Trump impeachment left fellow Republicans whispering behind closed doors for several days, many waiting on the House Republican Conference Chair to make a move and provide cover for their own vote to charge the president. When the high-dollar fundraiser finally announced in favor of the proceedings, others waded in behind her.

The decision only served to exacerbate Republican infighting, setting the stage for a days-long quarrel between Cheney, freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and a number of other anti-establishment caucus members.

When the dust settled and the dirt had been flung, however, impeachment had passed the House with 10 Republicans voting in favor, and neither Greene nor Cheney was punished by the federal party.

Instead, Greene saw her committee assignments stripped by the Democratic House majority. Cheney, on the other hand, saw her position strengthened, as secret ballot saw the House GOP vote in favor of her continued leadership by a margin of 145-61.

“We should not be embracing the former president,” Cheney told Fox News in light of the vote. “That is a person who does not have a role as a leader of our party going forward.”

Flynn was quick to deride establishment figures for this type of behavior Tuesday, telling The Western Journal that “the establishment is not a good place to be” in the coming 2022 and 2024 Republican primaries.

“If you’re defined as an establishment candidate in the 2024 presidential election, I don’t believe that’s going to happen. I actually don’t believe it’s going to happen too much in the 2022 congressional elections. I mean, look at what they just did to Liz Cheney up in Wyoming, you know, for what she did,” Flynn said.

“I think that the American people, like I said, I think they’re just absolutely tired of everything that they’ve seen in our political establishment. And so if you’re defined in the establishment, woe betide you in this next set of elections.”

According to a Jan. 15-17 Morning Consult poll of 4,400 GOP voters with a margin of error of +/-1 percentage points, roughly 79 percent still supported President Trump in light of favorability dips resulting from the Jan. 6 incursion on the Capitol.

Another 69 percent were found “less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump” in a Feb. 5-7 poll of 1,213 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points from the left-wing Vox/Data for Progress, a reality that lends considerable support to Flynn’s suggestion the GOP establishment may be in for a reckoning.

“What I do know is what I’m hearing and what I’m listening to and what I’m watching from the American people is the American people are sick and tired of the political games and the political nonsense that we have faced,” he said.

Record Republican turnout in the 2020 presidential election had handed Trump more than 74 million votes, with thousands turning out for the incumbent’s famed campaign rallies, even in throws of a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Flynn went on to tell The Western Journal this loyal support was the result of one thing. It was not shrewd politicking or even policy success that expanded the Republican coalition, the general said. It was “authenticity.”

And if the Republican Party was to prevent a voter exodus, it would need to retain that authenticity, with or without Trump at the helm.

“Whether or not Trump will run in 2024, I have no idea,” Flynn said. “I will tell you that I’ve had many, many conversations in just the last couple of weeks — and certainly over the last couple of years, but certainly the last couple of weeks — about who’s next. You know, ‘Will he or she be viable to be the next president of the United States?’”

“I’m going to tell you what. One of the things that Donald Trump gave the United States of America was authenticity. Donald Trump was an authentic guy,” the general added.

“People want authentic leadership and leaders do matter. And I do believe that going forward, they’re going to look for that authenticity in the people that they vote for.”

Andrew J. Sciascia is an associate staff reporter with The Western Journal, having joined the outlet as a regular contributor of opinion in 2018. He regularly co-hosts the outlet’s video podcast, “WJ Live.”
@AndrewJSciascia

Source Here4x

Blue State Blues: Why The House Failed to Prove Its Case


House impeachment managers (Drew Angerer / Getty)

Joel B. Pollak11 Feb 2021

The House impeachment managers could not prove incitement — the central charge in the Article of Impeachment.

Then-President Donald Trump told supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” No court could convict him on the facts.

So Democrats created a new standard. Trump is guilty of “inciting” the Capitol riot, they said, because he rejected the election, and he used provocative rhetoric for years.

But by that standard, Democrats would be guilty of “incitement,” too.

Democrats never accepted the result of the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton “conceded” only in a formal sense. She and her deputies blamed “Russia collusion,” a conspiracy theory for which there was no real evidence.

The “Russia collusion” hoax undermined the peaceful transition of power, divided the nation, and led to violations of civil liberties. After it was debunked, neither the Democrats nor the media apologized for the hoax. Clinton, in fact, is still pushing it.

Moreover, Democrats have used provocative tactics — including violence — for years. In 2011, Democrats surrounded and occupied the Wisconsin state capitol to prevent Republicans from governing. That same year, they backed Occupy Wall Street, a lawless movement. In 2014, they embraced Black Lives Matter, which led to rioting and attacks on police. They did so again on a massive scale in 2020, as rioters burned cities, destroyed monuments, and attacked the White House.

For Democrats to judge Trump by their new standard of “incitement,” they would have had to admit that it was wrong to question the 2016 election, or to condone left-wing rioting.

But they could not. Just look at who is prosecuting Trump.

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) objected to the certification of the Electoral College vote in 2017, hoping to prevent Trump from being declared the winner. He also vowed to impeach Trump as soon as he took office.

Fellow impeachment manager Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), who lectured the Senate this week on the need to accept losing elections, pushed the “Russia collusion” hoax. He also “doxxed” Trump donors in his congressional district in 2019.

Their colleague, impeachment manager Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), claimed Trump was an “illegitimate” president in 2017. He also pushed “Russia collusion.” At one point, he had to apologize for mocking Trump for visiting tornado victims.

The problem with the Democrats’ “incitement” standard is that they have no credibility.

It took the Capitol riot for the Democrats to condemn political violence or to speak out on behalf of police or in defense of national monuments.

The new “incitement” standard is also too broad. It cannot be forbidden to raise questions about an election — especially in light of revelations in TIME about how a “secret” and “well-funded cabal” worked to change rules and suppress media.

The House impeachment managers told the Senators that if they did not vote to convict Trump by their new standard, there would be no accountability for the riot.

But if Democrats wanted accountability, they would not have put a trial before any investigation.

There would have been other ways to hold Trump accountable, such as a bipartisan inquiry to investigate what happened. The impeachment has poisoned future efforts to find out the truth and assign responsibility.

At one point, several Republican Senators walked out of the trial, after Raskin played clips from Trump rallies going back to 2015 to argue his supporters were violent, painting them as extremists.

They knew: if Trump is guilty of “incitement,” millions can be smeared as accomplices.

Democrats made clear that convicting Trump, and barring him from office, would blacklist a generation of conservatives.

Their case failed because they put Republicans on trial. Perhaps that was the point.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Source HERE.

“ABSOLUTE PROOF” A DOCUMENTARY PROVING MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD AND ACT OF WAR!!


Rumble: Absolute Proof – The Full Documentary can be seen right here .

This premiered on Mike Lindell’s website the morning of 2/5/2021 and before the entire video could be shown the enemies of truth and justice cut the feed so that we the people who want the truth and honest elections could be denied our Constitutional Liberties from a Fraudulent Administration.

Share this far and wide and don’t stop saying the two words that make Satan himself and all of his minions tremble. Those two words are ELECTION FRAUD. Don’t stop saying them, texting them and keeping them at the forefront of your conversations.

Contact your elected officials, email them a link to this video and demand that they watch it and educate themselves about ELECTION FRAUD then DEMAND that if they expect your vote in the upcoming elections they will fight ELECTION FRAUD with the same type of passion that George Washington had when he crossed the icy waters of the Delaware River.

Mike Lindell has done his part by spending his time and money to make this Documentary.

Now it is up to WE THE PEOPLE to do the rest!

Do not allow yourself to be discouraged and depressed, there is an information war that calls for you to enlist and do your part in preserving the freedoms that generations of veterans and our founding fathers fought for.

BE A DIGITAL WARRIOR WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
IF THEY TAKE DOWN YOU FB, TWITTER, YOUTUBE AND OTHER PLATFORMS DON’T QUIT. OPEN A NEW ACCOUNT AND KEEP FIGHTING. KEEP FIRING THE TRUTH AT THE LIES!
IF THEY TAKE YOUR 2ND DOWN OPEN A THIRD AND A 4TH AND A 99TH IF YOU HAVE TO

The Real Story Behind Georgia’s Ill Fated, State Run “STOLEN” Election -While POTUS Gets In The Weeds Attempting To Fix It

This is all you need to read to understand what President Trump was up against in just ONE state! Brad Raffensperger is a Traitor to America! He refused to deliver an honest election and the people in Georgia are furious!

No matter WHAT you think of President Trump, if we do not have fair and honest elections than the integrity of the voting process is lost and the Republic is truly dead. We are not a nation of elites and peasants, nor kings and serfs! We are the self governed and if you find yourself siding with the Raffensperger’s of the world you do not deserve this Republic. We need free thinkers, not people waiting for a savior or some outspoken politician telling us how they’re going to save us from ourselves! If you’re an American start acting like one!

We are in a Constitutional Crisis. America is the last bastion of hope to keep the subjugation of humanity for a thousand years from taking complete hold. If you are for that, you are the enemy. If you are so misinformed you believe the lies of the Raffensperger’s of the world, you are the enemy, even if out of sheer stupidity.

Every single one of US need to FIND GOD and UNITE purely through love! If God is not present in your life fully, you have failed to fulfill the reason and challenge of your entire existence. We have until our last breath to rectify our souls. Humanity must be set free! Our covenant with God must NEVER be broken.

First posted below is one video proving voter fraud (and there are more). Then we have the complete transcript of the call to Mr. Raffensperger, the Secretary of State of Georgia. After that you will find the link to the article of assumptions and “excerpts” from Raffensperger on his rendition of said call.

Read the transcript again and again. You will see President Trumps attempts at uncovering the blatant fraud AND giving Mr. Raffensberger a chance to come clean. There is not just one video of fraud, there are dozens. There are not just a few people testifying, there are thousands of affidavits signed by folks who were willing to swear under oath what they witnessed. A decision that comes with a Federal penalty of perjury if proven, which as of today, has not been addressed, hopefully until now.

First, why? Because it wasn’t until after the installation of this cabal regime on January 20, 2021, that courts were even willing to look at the evidence. We never had a free and honest election, because there was no transparency at all! Just lies.

If not for the efforts of Sidney Powell, General Michael Flynn, Lin Wood, Rudy Guliani, Mike Lindell, Joe Flynn and others, there would be no cases being heard right now, and there are!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx
This one below is just one of 14 on the docket. There’s probably that much more waiting to be heard.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-883/168521/20210209115416022_Trump%20Supplemental%20Brief.1.pdf

The 2020 election was stolen by the dark cabal as admitted in their Time Rag Sheet article where they blatantly, in your face, tell you how they did it and how they “fortified” the election to win- at any cost, including cheating, intimidation and violence! Here Stolen by the globalists, the communists, and the marxists who now think the world is their oyster. What will YOU do about it! GO LOCAL!! Start there.
~ Just more opining… TiLT

Georgia Video Footage Shows Poll Workers Staying Behind, Producing Boxes of Ballots

Trump Call Actually Reveals a President Deep into Detail, with Establishment Republicans Dismissive, Unwilling, and Rejecting Transparency

January 3, 2021Raheem Kassam

“I don’t know about that… I don’t have it in front of me… we’re looking into that…”

These weren’t the vague, non-committal words of the President of the United States on the phone call leaked by the Washington Post newspaper – which has recently taken millions of dollars from the Chinese Communist Party – this Sunday. They were the statements of the establishment Republicans on the call: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Ryan Germany, and Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs on the January 2nd call.

Despite the partisan framing from the Washington Post – that the call somehow reflected Trump making demands for votes from his Republican colleagues – the President actually does no such thing. Throughout the call, the President makes clear that his calls are for election transparency, full and transparent audits, and public access. At no point does the President imply he wants votes invented or confected, as the establishment media is portraying. He even offers to recuse himself from parts of the conversation and ends by asking for “the truth… it’s just that simple.”

You can read the entire transcript and listen to the entire call below this article.

In fact the President begins the call by ripping through specifics that are never addressed by their opponents on the call: the establishment Republicans. Trump states:

“We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn’t been checked. We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County — you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged.”
He continues: “We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll, which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.”
And the President went on: “You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia, but they were from out of state, of 4,925. You had absentee ballots sent to vacant, they were absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses. They had nothing on them about addresses, that’s 2,326.”

The level of granularity was actually remarkable, especially for a President that the media continues to allege is not concerned with details.

And the pushback from Raffensberger’s team wasn’t even particularly punchy, which is presumably why they leaked the call instead of pressing ahead with the details discussed and requested. There are several key points in the call that reflect the bad faith of Georgia’s Republican establishment leaders:

1. Fulton County

The President and his team repeatedly raise alleged violations in Fulton County, specifically charging Raffensberger and team with pivoting to Cobb County without addressing the more densely populated Fulton.

President Trump says here: “You sent us into Cobb County, which we didn’t want to go into. And you said it would be open to the public. So we had our experts there, they weren’t allowed into the room. But we didn’t want Cobb County. We wanted Fulton County. And you wouldn’t give it to us. Now, why aren’t we doing signature — and why can’t it be open to the public?”

In response, lawyer Ryan Germany simply replies: “We chose Cobb County because that was the only county where there’s been any evidence submitted that the signature verification was not properly done.”

Not just an admission of wrongdoing in the state, but also an admission of selectively apply rigorous standards and refusing to allow the President’s team into the most populated county in the state.

2. The ‘Consent Decree’

This has to do with the agreement signed by Republicans and Democrats in advance of the election, and why President Trump said far-left Georgia activist Stacey Abrams had “outplayed” Republicans by getting them to sign an unconstitutional agreement. The agreement itself is a word salad (read it for yourself) about what constitutes signature matching on ballots. If no side intended to defraud the election, one might argue no such “agreement” would have been required.

Instead of addressing this directly, Raffensberger and Germany set out to nitpick over the term “consent decree” which has been used repeatedly across national, state, and local media to describe the agreement. Even lawyers in opposition to Trump have used the term.

Raffensberger simply states, during the whole exchange: “It’s a settlement agreement.” His colleague Ryan Germany skirts the crux of the matter, too: “I don’t. I don’t. I don’t believe [it’s a consent decree], but I don’t have it in front of me.”

3. GA Lawyers Refusing Further Transparency.

Toward the end of the call Chief of Staff Mark Meadows is heard to say: “It sounds like we’ve got two different sides agreeing that we can look at those areas, and I assume that we can do that within the next 24 to 48 hours, to go ahead and get that reconciled so that we can look at the two claims and making sure that we get the access to the secretary of state’s data to either validate or invalidate the claims that have been made. Is that correct?”

Germany quips back immediately: “No, that’s not what I said,” and attempts to shut down the idea of further enquiries into the Georgia vote totals.

When a lawyer for the President, Kurt Hilbert, suggests, “the secretary of state could deputize the lawyers for the president so that we could access that information and private information without you having any kind of violation?” the President rightly excuses himself from knowing more, stating: “I don’t want to know who it is. You guys can do it very confidentially. You can sign a confidentiality agreement. That’s okay. I don’t need to know names.”

4. Ruby Freeman.

Not a fault of the Raffensberger team, perhaps, but the Washington Post audio originally left in references to Georgia voter counter and left-wing activist Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss. While The National Pulse makes no claims of the pair, it is bemusing that the Washington Post would redact the names, especially given how well known they have become on the internet.

The names were redacted a total of 18 times by the Washington Post.

5. ‘We Just Want The Truth.’

At the end of the call President Trump remarks, repeatedly: “we just want the truth.”

Far from being a “pressure”-filled call as the Washington Post reports it, the President went out of his way over 62 mins to go through details, obstruction, and continuously be sure that he was looking for accuracy, transparency, and public access.

Attorney Cleta Mitchell probably states it best during the call where she says: “…you can keep telling us and making public statement that you investigated this and nothing to see here. But we don’t know about that. All we know is what you tell us. What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to try to get to the bottom, compare the numbers, you know, if you say, because… to try to be able to get to the truth because we don’t have any way of confirming what you’re telling us. You tell us that you had an investigation at the State Farm Arena. I don’t have any report. I’ve never seen a report of investigation. I don’t know that is. I’ve been pretty involved in this, and I don’t know. And that’s just one of 25 categories.”

For Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to be calling for another impeachment effort over this call is both predictable and disgusting. The likelihood is “AOC” hadn’t even heard the call before responding to media requests for comment.

But that’s where politics and media is today – in a consistent frenzy to diminish constitutional norms while pointing the fingers in the other direction.

Anyone who actually listens to the call will hear President Trump being detailed and forthright. Understandably frustrated, Trump of course employs some of his characteristic New York businessman bluster. But more importantly: he speaks in a manner of someone who wants openness and transparency. And the other side simply does not.

That tells us all we need to know.

Listen in full:

Read the Transcript:

Meadows: Okay. Alright. Mr. President, everyone is on the line. This is Mark Meadows, the chief of staff. Just so we all are aware. On the line is secretary of state and two other individuals. Jordan and Mr. Germany with him. You also have the attorneys that represent the president, Kurt and Alex and Cleta Mitchell — who is not the attorney of record but has been involved — myself and then the president. So Mr. President, I’ll turn it over to you.

Trump: Okay, thank you very much. Hello Brad and Ryan and everybody. We appreciate the time and the call. So we’ve spent a lot of time on this, and if we could just go over some of the numbers, I think it’s pretty clear that we won. We won very substantially in Georgia. You even see it by rally size, frankly. We’d be getting 25-30,000 people a rally, and the competition would get less than 100 people. And it never made sense.

But we have a number of things. We have at least 2 or 3 — anywhere from 250 to 300,000 ballots were dropped mysteriously into the rolls. Much of that had to do with Fulton County, which hasn’t been checked. We think that if you check the signatures — a real check of the signatures going back in Fulton County — you’ll find at least a couple of hundred thousand of forged signatures of people who have been forged. And we are quite sure that’s going to happen.

Another tremendous number. We’re going to have an accurate number over the next two days with certified accountants. But an accurate number will be given, but it’s in the 50s of thousands — and that’s people that went to vote and they were told they can’t vote because they’ve already been voted for. And it’s a very sad thing. They walked out complaining. But the number’s large. We’ll have it for you. But it’s much more than the number of 11,779 that’s — the current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That’s something I think everyone — at least that’s a number that everyone agrees on.

But that’s the difference in the votes. But we’ve had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we’re able to actually — we’ll get you a pretty accurate number. You don’t need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779. But you also have a substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands, who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name. And you know that’s very, very, very, very sad.

We had, I believe it’s about 4,502 voters who voted but who weren’t on the voter registration list, so it’s 4,502 who voted, but they weren’t on the voter registration roll, which they had to be. You had 18,325 vacant address voters. The address was vacant, and they’re not allowed to be counted. That’s 18,325.

Smaller number — you had 904 who only voted where they had just a P.O. — a post office box number — and they had a post office box number, and that’s not allowed. We had at least 18,000 — that’s on tape, we had them counted very painstakingly — 18,000 voters having to do with [name]. She’s a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler [name]. That was the tape that’s been shown all over the world that makes everybody look bad, you, me and everybody else.

Where they got — number one they said very clearly and it’s been reported that they said there was a major water main break. Everybody fled the area. And then they came back, [name] and her daughter and a few people. There were no Republican poll watchers. Actually, there were no Democrat poll watchers, I guess they were them. But there were no Democrats, either, and there was no law enforcement. Late in the morning, early in the morning, they went to the table with the black robe and the black shield, and they pulled out the votes. Those votes were put there a number of hours before — the table was put there — I think it was, Brad, you would know, it was probably eight hours or seven hours before, and then it was stuffed with votes.

They weren’t in an official voter box; they were in what looked to be suitcases or trunks, suitcases, but they weren’t in voter boxes. The minimum number it could be because we watched it, and they watched it certified in slow motion instant replay if you can believe it, but slow motion, and it was magnified many times over, and the minimum it was 18,000 ballots, all for Biden.

You had out-of-state voters. They voted in Georgia, but they were from out of state, of 4,925. You had absentee ballots sent to vacant, they were absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses. They had nothing on them about addresses, that’s 2,326.

And you had dropboxes, which is very bad. You had dropboxes that were picked up. We have photographs, and we have affidavits from many people.

I don’t know if you saw the hearings, but you have dropboxes where the box was picked up but not delivered for three days. So all sorts of things could have happened to that box, including, you know, putting in the votes that you wanted. So there were many infractions, and the bottom line is, many, many times the 11,779 margin that they said we lost by — we had vast, I mean the state is in turmoil over this.

And I know you would like to get to the bottom of it, although I saw you on television today, and you said that you found nothing wrong. I mean, you know, and I didn’t lose the state, Brad. People have been saying that it was the highest vote ever. There was no way. A lot of the political people said that there’s no way they beat me. And they beat me. They beat me in the . . . As you know, every single state, we won every state. We won every statehouse in the country. We held the Senate, which is shocking to people, although we’ll see what happens tomorrow or in a few days.

And we won the House, but we won every single statehouse, and we won Congress, which was supposed to lose 15 seats, and they gained, I think 16 or 17 or something. I think there’s a now difference of five. There was supposed to be a difference substantially more. But politicians in every state, but politicians in Georgia have given affidavits and are going to that, that there was no way that they beat me in the election, that the people came out, in fact, they were expecting to lose, and then they ended up winning by a lot because of the coattails. And they said there’s no way, that they’ve done many polls prior to the election, that there was no way that they won.

Ballots were dropped in massive numbers. And we’re trying to get to those numbers and we will have them.

They’ll take a period of time. Certified. But but they’re massive numbers. And far greater than the 11,779.

The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number, and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.

The bottom line is, when you add it all up and then you start adding, you know, 300,000 fake ballots. Then the other thing they said is in Fulton County and other areas. And this may or may not be true . . . this just came up this morning, that they are burning their ballots, that they are shredding, shredding ballots and removing equipment. They’re changing the equipment on the Dominion machines and, you know, that’s not legal.

And they supposedly shredded I think they said 300 pounds of, 3,000 pounds of ballots. And that just came to us as a report today. And it is a very sad situation.
But Brad, if you took the minimum numbers where many, many times above the 11,779, and many of those numbers are certified, or they will be certified, but they are certified. And those are numbers that are there, that exist. And that beat the margin of loss, they beat it, I mean, by a lot, and people should be happy to have an accurate count instead of an election where there’s turmoil.

I mean there’s turmoil in Georgia and other places. You’re not the only one, I mean, we have other states that I believe will be flipping to us very shortly. And this is something that — you know, as an example, I think it in Detroit, I think there’s a section, a good section of your state actually, which we’re not sure so we’re not going to report it yet. But in Detroit, we had, I think it was, 139 percent of the people voted. That’s not too good.

In Pennsylvania, they had well over 200,000 more votes than they had people voting. And that doesn’t play too well, and the legislature there is, which is Republican, is extremely activist and angry. I mean, there were other things also that were almost as bad as that. But they had as an example, in Michigan, a tremendous number of dead people that voted. I think it was, I think, Mark, it was 18,000. Some unbelievably high number, much higher than yours, you were in the 4-5,000 category.
And that was checked out laboriously by going through, by going through the obituary columns in the newspapers.

So I guess with all of it being said, Brad, the bottom line, and provisional ballots, again, you know, you’ll have to tell me about the provisional ballots, but we have a lot of people that were complaining that they weren’t able to vote because they were already voted for. These are great people.

And, you know, they were shellshocked. I don’t know if you call that provisional ballots. In some states, we had a lot of provisional ballot situations where people were given a provisional ballot because when they walked in on November 3 and they were already voted for.

So that’s it. I mean, we have many, many times the number of votes necessary to win the state. And we won the state, and we won it very substantially and easily, and we’re getting, we have, much of this is a very certified, far more certified than we need. But we’re getting additional numbers certified, too. And we’re getting pictures of dropboxes being delivered and delivered late. Delivered three days later, in some cases, plus we have many affidavits to that effect.

Meadows: So, Mr. President, if I might be able to jump in, and I’ll give Brad a chance. Mr. Secretary, obviously there is, there are allegations where we believe that not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted, and that’s at odds with the representation from the secretary of state’s office.

What I’m hopeful for is there some way that we can, we can find some kind of agreement to look at this a little bit more fully? You know the president mentioned Fulton County.

But in some of these areas where there seems to be a difference of where the facts seem to lead, and so Mr. Secretary, I was hopeful that, you know, in the spirit of cooperation and compromise, is there something that we can at least have a discussion to look at some of these allegations to find a path forward that’s less litigious?

Raffensperger: Well, I listened to what the president has just said. President Trump, we’ve had several lawsuits, and we’ve had to respond in court to the lawsuits and the contentions. We don’t agree that you have won. And we don’t — I didn’t agree about the 200,000 number that you’d mentioned. I’ll go through that point by point.

What we have done is we gave our state Senate about one and a half hours of our time going through the election issue by issue and then on the state House, the government affairs committee, we gave them about two and a half hours of our time, going back point by point on all the issues of contention. And then just a few days ago, we met with our U.S. congressmen, Republican congressmen, and we gave them about two hours of our time talking about this past election. Going back, primarily what you’ve talked about here focused in on primarily, I believe, is the absentee ballot process. I don’t believe that you’re really questioning the Dominion machines. Because we did a hand re-tally, a 100 percent re-tally of all the ballots, and compared them to what the machines said and came up with virtually the same result. Then we did the recount, and we got virtually the same result. So I guess we can probably take that off the table.

I don’t think there’s an issue about that.

Trump: Well, Brad. Not that there’s not an issue, because we have a big issue with Dominion in other states and perhaps in yours. But we haven’t felt we needed to go there. And just to, you know, maybe put a little different spin on what Mark is saying, Mark Meadows, yeah we’d like to go further, but we don’t really need to. We have all the votes we need.

You know, we won the state. If you took, these are the most minimal numbers, the numbers that I gave you, those are numbers that are certified, your absentee ballots sent to vacant addresses, your out-of-state voters, 4,925. You know when you add them up, it’s many more times, it’s many times the 11,779 number. So we could go through, we have not gone through your Dominion. So we can’t give them blessing. I mean, in other states, we think we found tremendous corruption with Dominion machines, but we’ll have to see.

But we only lost the state by that number, 11,000 votes, and 779. So with that being said, with just what we have, with just what we have, we’re giving you minimal, minimal numbers. We’re doing the most conservative numbers possible; we’re many times, many, many times above the margin. And so we don’t really have to, Mark, I don’t think we have to go through . . .

Meadows: Right.

Trump: Because what’s the difference between winning the election by two votes and winning it by half a million votes. I think I probably did win it by half a million. You know, one of the things that happened, Brad, is we have other people coming in now from Alabama and from South Carolina and from other states, and they’re saying it’s impossible for you to have lost Georgia. We won. You know in Alabama, we set a record, got the highest vote ever. In Georgia, we set a record with a massive amount of votes. And they say it’s not possible to have lost Georgia.

And I could tell you by our rallies. I could tell you by the rally I’m having on Monday night, the place, they already have lines of people standing out front waiting. It’s just not possible to have lost Georgia. It’s not possible. When I heard it was close, I said there’s no way. But they dropped a lot of votes in there late at night. You know that, Brad. And that’s what we are working on very, very stringently. But regardless of those votes, with all of it being said, we lost by essentially 11,000 votes, and we have many more votes already calculated and certified, too.

And so I just don’t know, you know, Mark, I don’t know what’s the purpose. I won’t give Dominion a pass because we found too many bad things. But we don’t need Dominion or anything else. We have won this election in Georgia based on all of this. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, Brad. You know, I mean, having the correct — the people of Georgia are angry. And these numbers are going to be repeated on Monday night. Along with others that we’re going to have by that time, which are much more substantial even. And the people of Georgia are angry, the people of the country are angry. And there’s nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you’ve recalculated. Because the 2,236 in absentee ballots. I mean, they’re all exact numbers that were done by accounting firms, law firms, etc. And even if you cut ’em in half, cut ’em in half and cut ’em in half again, it’s more votes than we need.

Raffensperger: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. We talked to the congressmen, and they were surprised.

But they — I guess there was a person named Mr. Braynard who came to these meetings and presented data, and he said that there was dead people, I believe it was upward of 5,000. The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that’s wrong.

Trump: Well, Cleta, how do you respond to that? Maybe you tell me?

Mitchell: Well, I would say, Mr. Secretary, one of the things that we have requested and what we said was, if you look, if you read our petition, it said that we took the names and birth years, and we had certain information available to us. We have asked from your office for records that only you have, and so we said there is a universe of people who have the same name and same birth year and died.

But we don’t have the records that you have. And one of the things that we have been suggesting formally and informally for weeks now is for you to make available to us the records that would be necessary —

Trump: But, Cleta, even before you do that, and not even including that, that’s why I hardly even included that number, although in one state, we have a tremendous amount of dead people. So I don’t know — I’m sure we do in Georgia, too. I’m sure we do in Georgia, too.

But we’re so far ahead. We’re so far ahead of these numbers, even the phony ballots of [name] , known scammer. You know the Internet? You know what was trending on the Internet? “Where’s [name]?” Because they thought she’d be in jail. “Where’s [name]?” It’s crazy, it’s crazy. That was. The minimum number is 18,000 for [name] , but they think it’s probably about 56,000, but the minimum number is 18,000 on the [name] night where she ran back in there when everybody was gone and stuffed, she stuffed the ballot boxes. Let’s face it, Brad, I mean. They did it in slow motion replay magnified, right? She stuffed the ballot boxes. They were stuffed like nobody has ever seen them stuffed before.

So there’s a term for it when it’s a machine instead of a ballot box, but she stuffed the machine. She stuffed the ballot. Each ballot went three times, they were showing: Here’s ballot No 1. Here it is a second time, third time, next ballot.

I mean, look. Brad. We have a new tape that we’re going to release. It’s devastating. And by the way, that one event, that one event is much more than the 11,000 votes that we’re talking about. It’s, you know, that one event was a disaster. And it’s just, you know, but it was, it was something, it can’t be disputed. And again, we have a version that you haven’t seen, but it’s magnified. It’s magnified, and you can see everything. For some reason, they put it in three times, each ballot, and I don’t know why. I don’t know why three times. Why not five times, right? Go ahead.

Raffensperger: You’re talking about the State Farm video. And I think it’s extremely unfortunate that Rudy Giuliani or his people, they sliced and diced that video and took it out of context. The next day, we brought in WSB-TV, and we let them show, see the full run of tape, and what you’ll see, the events that transpired are nowhere near what was projected by, you know —

Trump: But where were the poll watchers, Brad? There were no poll watchers there. There were no Democrats or Republicans. There was no security there.

It was late in the evening, late in the, early in the morning, and there was nobody else in the room. Where were the poll watchers, and why did they say a water main broke, which they did and which was reported in the newspapers? They said they left. They ran out because of a water main break, and there was no water main. There was nothing. There was no break. There was no water main break. But we’re, if you take out everything, where were the Republican poll watchers, even where were the Democrat pollwatchers, because there were none.

And then you say, well, they left their station, you know, if you look at the tape, and this was, this was reviewed by professional police and detectives and other people, when they left in a rush, everybody left in a rush because of the water main, but everybody left in a rush. These people left their station.

When they came back, they didn’t go to their station. They went to the apron, wrapped around the table, under which were thousands and thousands of ballots in a box that was not an official or a sealed box. And then they took those. They went back to a different station. So if they would have come back, they would have walked to their station, and they would have continued to work. But they couldn’t do even that because that’s illegal, because they had no Republican pollwatchers. And remember, her reputation is — she’s known all over the Internet, Brad. She’s known all over.

I’m telling you, “Where’s [name] ” was one of the hot items . . . [name] They knew her. “Where’s [name]?” So Brad, there can be no justification for that. And I, you know, I give everybody the benefit of the doubt. But that was — and Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? You know, they put ’em in three times.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, they did not put that. We did an audit of that, and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times.

Trump: Where was everybody else at that late time in the morning? Where was everybody? Where were the Republicans? Where were the security guards? Were the people that were there just a little while before when everyone ran out of the room. How come we had no security in the room. Why did they run to the bottom of the table? Why do they run there and just open the skirt and rip out the votes. I mean, Brad. And they were sitting there, I think for five hours or something like that, the votes.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, we’ll send you the link from WSB.

Trump: I don’t care about the link. I don’t need it. Brad, I have a much better —

Mitchell: I will tell you. I’ve seen the tape. The full tape. So has Alex. We’ve watched it. And what we saw and what we’ve confirmed in the timing is that they made everybody leave — we have sworn affidavits saying that. And then they began to process ballots. And our estimate is that there were roughly 18,000 ballots. We don’t know that. If you know that . . .

Trump: It was 18,000 ballots, but they used each one three times.

Mitchell: Well, I don’t know about that.

Trump: I do think we had ours magnified out.

Mitchell: I’ve watched the entire tape.

Trump: Nobody can make a case for that, Brad. Nobody. I mean, look, you’d have to be a child to think anything other than that. Just a child.

Mitchell: How many ballots, Mr. Secretary, are you saying were processed then?

Raffensperger: We had GBI . . . investigate that.

Germany: We had our — this is Ryan Germany. We had our law enforcement officers talk to everyone who was, who was there after that event came to light. GBI was with them as well as FBI agents.

Trump: Well, there’s no way they could — then they’re incompetent. They’re either dishonest or incompetent, okay?

Mitchell: Well, what did they find?

Trump: There’s only two answers, dishonesty or incompetence. There’s just no way. Look. There’s no way. And on the other thing, I said too, there is no way. I mean, there’s no way that these things could have been, you know, you have all these different people that voted, but they don’t live in Georgia anymore. What was that number, Cleta? That was a pretty good number, too.

Mitchell: The number who have registered out of state after they moved from Georgia. And so they had a date when they moved from Georgia, they registered to vote out of state, and then it’s like 4,500, I don’t have that number right in front of me.

Trump: And then they came back in, and they voted.

Mitchell: And voted. Yeah.

Trump: I thought that was a large number, though. It was in the 20s.

Germany: We’ve been going through each of those as well, and those numbers that we got, that Ms. Mitchell was just saying, they’re not accurate. Every one we’ve been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately. And in many cases —

Trump: How may people do that? They moved out, and then they said, “Ah, to hell with it, I’ll move back.” You know, it doesn’t sound like a very normal . . . you mean, they moved out, and what, they missed it so much that they wanted to move back in? It’s crazy.

Germany: They moved back in years ago. This was not like something just before the election. So there’s something about that data that, it’s just not accurate.

Trump: Well, I don’t know, all I know is that it is certified. And they moved out of Georgia, and they voted. It didn’t say they moved back in, Cleta, did it?

Mitchell: No, but I mean, we’re looking at the voter registration. Again, if you have additional records, we’ve been asking for that, but you haven’t shared any of that with us. You just keep saying you investigated the allegations.

Trump: Cleta, a lot of it you don’t need to be shared. I mean, to be honest, they should share it. They should share it because you want to get to an honest election.

I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes. I’m just going by small numbers, when you add them up, they’re many times the 11,000. But I won that state by hundreds of thousands of votes.

Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? Because that’s what the rumor is. And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery.

Do you know anything about that? Because that’s illegal, right?

Germany: This is Ryan Germany. No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.

Trump: But have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?

Germany: No.

Trump: Are you sure, Ryan?

Germany: I’m sure. I’m sure, Mr. President.

Trump: What about, what about the ballots. The shredding of the ballots. Have they been shredding ballots?

Germany: The only investigation that we have into that — they have not been shredding any ballots. There was an issue in Cobb County where they were doing normal office shredding, getting rid of old stuff, and we investigated that. But this stuff from, you know, from you know past elections.

Trump: It doesn’t pass the smell test because we hear they’re shredding thousands and thousands of ballots, and now what they’re saying, “Oh, we’re just cleaning up the office.” You know.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything.

Trump: Oh this isn’t social media. This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not; it’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less. Social media is Big Tech. Big Tech is on your side, you know. I don’t even know why you have a side because you should want to have an accurate election. And you’re a Republican.

Raffensperger: We believe that we do have an accurate election.

Trump: No, no you don’t. No, no you don’t. You don’t have. Not even close. You’re off by hundreds of thousands of votes. And just on the small numbers, you’re off on these numbers, and these numbers can’t be just — well, why wont? — Okay. So you sent us into Cobb County for signature verification, right? You sent us into Cobb County, which we didn’t want to go into. And you said it would be open to the public. So we had our experts there, they weren’t allowed into the room. But we didn’t want Cobb County. We wanted Fulton County. And you wouldn’t give it to us. Now, why aren’t we doing signature — and why can’t it be open to the public?

And why can’t we have professionals do it instead of rank amateurs who will never find anything and don’t want to find anything? They don’t want to find, you know they don’t want to find anything. Someday you’ll tell me the reason why, because I don’t understand your reasoning, but someday you’ll tell me the reason why. But why don’t you want to find?

Germany: Mr. President, we chose Cobb County —

Trump: Why don’t you want to find . . . What?

Germany: Sorry, go ahead.

Trump: So why did you do Cobb County? We didn’t even request — we requested Fulton County, not Cobb County. Go ahead, please. Go ahead.

Germany: We chose Cobb County because that was the only county where there’s been any evidence submitted that the signature verification was not properly done.

Trump: No, but I told you. We’re not, we’re not saying that.

Mitchell: We did say that.

Trump: Fulton County. Look. Stacey, in my opinion, Stacey is as dishonest as they come. She has outplayed you . . . at everything. She got you to sign a totally unconstitutional agreement, which is a disastrous agreement. You can’t check signatures. I can’t imagine you’re allowed to do harvesting, I guess, in that agreement. That agreement is a disaster for this country. But she got you somehow to sign that thing, and she has outsmarted you at every step.

And I hate to imagine what’s going to happen on Monday or Tuesday, but it’s very scary to people. You know, when the ballots flow in out of nowhere. It’s very scary to people. That consent decree is a disaster. It’s a disaster. A very good lawyer who examined it said they’ve never seen anything like it.

Raffensperger: Harvesting is still illegal in the state of Georgia. And that settlement agreement did not change that one iota.

Trump: It’s not a settlement agreement, it’s a consent decree. It even says consent decree on it, doesn’t it? It uses the term consent decree. It doesn’t say settlement agreement. It’s a consent decree. It’s a disaster.

Raffensperger: It’s a settlement agreement.

Trump: What’s written on top of it?

Raffensperger: Ryan?

Germany: I don’t have it in front of me, but it was not entered by the court, it’s not a court order.

Trump: But Ryan, it’s called a consent decree, is that right? On the paper. Is that right?

Germany: I don’t. I don’t. I don’t believe so, but I don’t have it in front of me.

Trump: Okay, whatever, it’s a disaster. It’s a disaster. Look. Here’s the problem. We can go through signature verification, and we’ll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn’t do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you’ll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren’t even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

Okay, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes because Fulton County is totally corrupt, and so is she totally corrupt.

And they’re going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they’re laughing at you. And you’ve taken a state that’s a Republican state, and you’ve made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody’s ever cheated before. And I don’t care how long it takes me, you know, we’re going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won’t . . . this is never . . . this is . . . We have some incredible talent said they’ve never seen anything . . . Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they’re very substantial numbers. But I think you’re going to fine that they — by the way, a little information — I think you’re going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they’re brand new, and they don’t have seals, and there’s a whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen, and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

And flipping the state is a great testament to our country because, you know, this is — it’s a testament that they can admit to a mistake or whatever you want to call it. If it was a mistake, I don’t know. A lot of people think it wasn’t a mistake. It was much more criminal than that. But it’s a big problem in Georgia, and it’s not a problem that’s going away. I mean, you know, it’s not a problem that’s going away.

Germany: This is Ryan. We’re looking into every one of those things that you mentioned.

Trump: Good. But if you find it, you’ve got to say it, Ryan.

Germany: . . . Let me tell you what we are seeing. What we’re seeing is not at all what you’re describing. These are investigators from our office, these are investigators from GBI, and they’re looking, and they’re good. And that’s not what they’re seeing. And we’ll keep looking, at all these things.

Trump: Well, you better check on the ballots because they are shredding ballots, Ryan. I’m just telling you, Ryan. They’re shredding ballots. And you should look at that very carefully. Because that’s so illegal. You know, you may not even believe it because it’s so bad. But they’re shredding ballots because they think we’re going to eventually get there . . . because we’ll eventually get into Fulton. In my opinion, it’s never too late. . . . So, that’s the story. Look, we need only 11,000 votes. We have are far more than that as it stands now. We’ll have more and more. And . . . do you have provisional ballots at all, Brad? Provisional ballots?

Raffensperger: Provisional ballots are allowed by state law.

Trump: Sure, but I mean, are they counted, or did you just hold them back because they, you know, in other words, how many provisional ballots do you have in the state?

Raffensperger: We’ll get you that number.

Trump: Because most of them are made out to the name Trump. Because these are people that were scammed when they came in. And we have thousands of people that have testified or that want to testify. When they came in, they were proudly going to vote on November 3. And they were told, “I’m sorry, you’ve already been voted for, you’ve already voted.” The women, men started screaming, “No. I proudly voted till November 3.” They said, “I’m sorry, but you’ve already been voted for, and you have a ballot.” And these people are beside themselves. So they went out, and they filled in a provisional ballot, putting the name Trump on it.

And what about that batch of military ballots that came in. And even though I won the military by a lot, it was 100 percent Trump. I mean 100 percent Biden. Do you know about that? A large group of ballots came in, I think it was to Fulton County, and they just happened to be 100 percent for Trump — for Biden — even though Trump won the military by a lot, you know, a tremendous amount. But these ballots were 100 percent for Biden. And do you know about that? A very substantial number came in, all for Biden. Does anybody know about it?

Mitchell: I know about it, but —

Trump: Okay, Cleta, I’m not asking you, Cleta, honestly. I’m asking Brad. Do you know about the military ballots that we have confirmed now. Do you know about the military ballots that came in that were 100 percent, I mean 100 percent, for Biden. Do you know about that?

Germany: I don’t know about that. I do know that we have, when military ballots come in, it’s not just military, it’s also military and overseas citizens. The military part of that does generally go Republican. The overseas citizen part of it generally goes very Democrat. This was a mix of ’em.

Trump: No, but this was. That’s okay. But I got like 78 percent of the military. These ballots were all for . . . They didn’t tell me overseas. Could be overseas, too, but I get votes overseas, too, Ryan, in all fairness. No they came in, a large batch came in, and it was, quote, 100 percent for Biden. And that is criminal. You know, that’s criminal. Okay. That’s another criminal, that’s another of the many criminal events, many criminal events here.

I don’t know, look, Brad. I got to get . . . I have to find 12,000 votes, and I have them times a lot. And therefore, I won the state. That’s before we go to the next step, which is in the process of right now. You know, and I watched you this morning, and you said, well, there was no criminality.

But I mean all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that.

I just, I just don’t know why you don’t want to have the votes counted as they are. Like even you when you went and did that check. And I was surprised because, you know . . . And we found a few thousand votes that were against me. I was actually surprised because the way that check was done, all you’re doing, you know, recertifying existing votes and, you know, and you were given votes and you just counted them up, and you still found 3,000 that were bad. So that was sort of surprising that it came down to three or five, I don’t know. Still a lot of votes. But you have to go back to check from past years with respect to signatures. And if you check with Fulton County, you’ll have hundreds of thousands because they dumped ballots into Fulton County and the other county next to it.

So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. You know, we have that in spades already. Or we can keep it going, but that’s not fair to the voters of Georgia because they’re going to see what happened, and they’re going to see what happened. I mean, I’ll, I’ll take on anybody you want with regard to [name] and her lovely daughter, a very lovely young lady, I’m sure. But, but [name] . . . I will take on anybody you want. And the minimum, there were 18,000 ballots, but they used them three times. So that’s, you know, a lot of votes. And they were all to Biden, by the way, that’s the other thing we didn’t say. You know, [name] , the one thing I forgot to say, which was the most important. You know that every single ballot she did went to Biden. You know that, right? Do you know that, by the way, Brad?

Every single ballot that she did through the machines at early, early in the morning went to Biden. Did you know that, Ryan?

Germany: That’s not accurate, Mr. President.

Trump: Huh. What is accurate?

Germany: The numbers that we are showing are accurate.

Trump: No, about [name] . About early in the morning, Ryan. Where the woman took, you know, when the whole gang took the stuff from under the table, right? Do you know, do you know who those ballots, do you know who they were made out to, do you know who they were voting for?

Germany: No, not specifically.

Trump: Did you ever check?

Germany: We did what I described to you earlier —

Trump: No no no — did you ever check the ballots that were scanned by [name] , a known political operative, balloteer? Did ever check who those votes were for?

Germany: We looked into that situation that you described.

Trump: No, they were 100 percent for Biden. 100 percent. There wasn’t a Trump vote in the whole group. Why don’t you want to find this, Ryan? What’s wrong with you? I heard your lawyer is very difficult, actually, but I’m sure you’re a good lawyer. You have a nice last name.

But, but I’m just curious, why wouldn’t, why do you keep fighting this thing? It just doesn’t make sense. We’re way over the 17,779, right? We’re way over that number, and just if you took just [name] , we’re over that number by five, five or six times when you multiply that times three.

And every single ballot went to Biden, and you didn’t know that, but now you know it. So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election, and it’s not fair to take it away from us like this. And it’s going to be very costly in many ways. And I think you have to say that you’re going to reexamine it, and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people that don’t want to find answers. For instance, I’m hearing Ryan that he’s probably, I’m sure a great lawyer and everything, but he’s making statements about those ballots that he doesn’t know. But he’s making them with such — he did make them with surety. But now I think he’s less sure because the answer is, they all went to Biden, and that alone wins us the election by a lot. You know, so.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, you have people that submit information, and we have our people that submit information. And then it comes before the court, and the court then has to make a determination. We have to stand by our numbers. We believe our numbers are right.

Trump: Why do you say that, though? I don’t know. I mean, sure, we can play this game with the courts, but why do you say that? First of all, they don’t even assign us a judge. They don’t even assign us a judge. But why wouldn’t you . . . Hey Brad, why wouldn’t you want to check out [name] ? And why wouldn’t you want to say, hey, if in fact, President Trump is right about that, then he wins the state of Georgia, just that one incident alone without going through hundreds of thousands of dropped ballots. You just say, you stick by, I mean I’ve been watching you, you know, you don’t care about anything. “Your numbers are right.” But your numbers aren’t right. They’re really wrong, and they’re really wrong, Brad. And I know this phone call is going nowhere other than, other than ultimately, you know — Look, ultimately, I win, okay? Because you guys are so wrong. And you treated this. You treated the population of Georgia so badly. You, between you and your governor, who is down at 21, he was down 21 points. And like a schmuck, I endorsed him, and he got elected, but I will tell you, he is a disaster.

The people are so angry in Georgia, I can’t imagine he’s ever getting elected again, I’ll tell you that much right now. But why wouldn’t you want to find the right answer, Brad, instead of keep saying that the numbers are right? ’Cause those numbers are so wrong?

Mitchell: Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, one of the things that we have been, Alex can talk about this, we talked about it, and I don’t know whether the information has been conveyed to your office, but I think what the president is saying, and what we’ve been trying to do is to say, look, the court is not acting on our petition. They haven’t even assigned a judge. But the people of Georgia and the people of America have a right to know the answers. And you have data and records that we don’t have access to.

And you can keep telling us and making public statement that you investigated this and nothing to see here. But we don’t know about that. All we know is what you tell us. What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest to try to get to the bottom, compare the numbers, you know, if you say, because . . . to try to be able to get to the truth because we don’t have any way of confirming what you’re telling us. You tell us that you had an investigation at the State Farm Arena. I don’t have any report. I’ve never seen a report of investigation. I don’t know that is. I’ve been pretty involved in this, and I don’t know. And that’s just one of 25 categories. And it doesn’t even. And as I, as the president said, we haven’t even gotten into the Dominion issue. That’s not part of our case. It’s not part of, we just didn’t feel as though we had any to be able to develop —

Trump: No, we do have a way, but I don’t want to get into it. We found a way . . . excuse me, but we don’t need it because we’re only down 11,000 votes, so we don’t even need it. I personally think they’re corrupt as hell. But we don’t need that. All we have to do, Cleta, is find 11,000-plus votes. So we don’t need that. I’m not looking to shake up the whole world. We won Georgia easily. We won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But if you go by basic, simple numbers, we won it easily, easily. So we’re not giving Dominion a pass on the record. We don’t need Dominion because we have so many other votes that we don’t need to prove it any more than we already have.

Hilbert: Mr. President and Cleta, this is Kurt Hilbert, if I might interject for a moment. Ryan, I would like to suggest that just four categories that have already been mentioned by the president that have actually hard numbers of 24,149 votes that were counted illegally. That in and of itself is sufficient to change the results or place the outcome in doubt. We would like to sit down with your office, and we can do it through purposes of compromise and just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes. And if you are able to establish that our numbers are not accurate, then fine. However, we believe that they are accurate. We’ve had now three to four separate experts looking at these numbers.

Trump: Certified accountants looked at them.

Hilbert: Correct. And this is just based on USPS data and your own secretary of state data. So that’s what we would entreat and ask you to do, to sit down with us in a compromise and settlements proceeding and actually go through the registered voter IDs and the registrations. And if you can convince us that 24,149 is inaccurate, then fine. But we tend to believe that is, you know, obviously more than 11,779. That’s sufficient to change the results entirely in and of itself. So what would you say to that, Mr. Germany?

Germany: I’m happy to get with our lawyers, and we’ll set that up. That number is not accurate. And I think we can show you, for all the ones we’ve looked at, why it’s not. And so if that would be helpful, I’m happy to get with our lawyers and set that up with you guys.

Trump: Well, let me ask you, Kurt, you think that is an accurate number. That was based on the information given to you by the secretary of state’s department, right?

Hilbert: That is correct. That information is the minimum, most conservative data based upon the USPS data and the secretary of state’s office data that has been made publicly available. We do not have the internal numbers from the secretary of state. Yet we have asked for it six times. I sent a letter over to . . . several times requesting this information, and it’s been rebuffed every single time. So it stands to reason that if the information is not forthcoming, there’s something to hide. That’s the problem that we have.

Germany: Well, that’s not the case, sir. There are things that you guys are entitled to get. And there’s things that under law, we are not allowed to give out.

Trump: Well, you have to. Well, under law, you’re not allowed to give faulty election results, okay? You’re not allowed to do that. And that’s what you done. This is a faulty election result. And honestly, this should go very fast. You should meet tomorrow because you have a big election coming up, and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam — and because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote. And a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected. Really respected, if this thing could be straightened out before the election. You have a big election coming up on Tuesday. And I think that it is really is important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers. Because I know, Brad, that if you think we’re right, I think you’re going to say, and I’m not looking to blame anybody, I’m just saying, you know, and, you know, under new counts, and under new views, of the election results, we won the election. You know? It’s very simple. We won the election. As the governors of major states and the surrounding states said, there is no way you lost Georgia. As the Georgia politicians say, there is no way you lost Georgia. Nobody. Everyone knows I won it by hundreds of thousands of votes. But I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast.

Meadows: Mr. President, this is Mark. It sounds like we’ve got two different sides agreeing that we can look at those areas, and I assume that we can do that within the next 24 to 48 hours, to go ahead and get that reconciled so that we can look at the two claims and making sure that we get the access to the secretary of state’s data to either validate or invalidate the claims that have been made. Is that correct?

Germany: No, that’s not what I said. I’m happy to have our lawyers sit down with Kurt and the lawyers on that side and explain to him, hey, here’s, based on what we’ve looked at so far, here’s how we know this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.

Meadows: So what you’re saying, Ryan, let me let me make sure . . . so what you’re saying is you really don’t want to give access to the data. You just want to make another case on why the lawsuit is wrong?

Germany: I don’t think we can give access to data that’s protected by law. But we can sit down with them and say —

Trump: But you’re allowed to have a phony election? You’re allowed to have a phony election, right?

Germany: No, sir.

Trump: When are you going to do signature counts, when are you going to do signature verification on Fulton County, which you said you were going to do, and now all of a sudden, you’re not doing it. When are you doing that?

Germany: We are going to do that. We’ve announced —

Hilbert: To get to this issue of the personal information and privacy issue, is it possible that the secretary of state could deputize the lawyers for the president so that we could access that information and private information without you having any kind of violation?

Trump: Well, I don’t want to know who it is. You guys can do it very confidentially. You can sign a confidentiality agreement. That’s okay. I don’t need to know names. But on this stuff that we’re talking about, we got all that information from the secretary of state.

Meadows: Yeah. So let me let me recommend, Ryan, if you and Kurt will get together, you know, when we get off of this phone call, if you could get together and work out a plan to address some of what we’ve got with your attorneys where we can we can actually look at the data. For example, Mr. Secretary, I can you say they were only two dead people who would vote. I can promise you there are more than that. And that may be what your investigation shows, but I can promise you there are more than that. But at the same time, I think it’s important that we go ahead and move expeditiously to try to do this and resolve it as quickly as we possibly can. And if that’s the good next step. Hopefully we can, we can finish this phone call and go ahead and agree that the two of you will get together immediately.

Trump: Well, why don’t my lawyers show you where you got the information. It will show the secretary of state, and you don’t even have to look at any names. We don’t want names. We don’t care. But we got that information from you. And Stacey Abrams is laughing about you. She’s going around saying these guys are dumber than a rock. What she’s done to this party is unbelievable, I tell you. And I only ran against her once. And that was with a guy named Brian Kemp, and I beat her. And if I didn’t run, Brian wouldn’t have had even a shot, either in the general or in the primary. He was dead, dead as a doornail. He never thought he had a shot at either one of them. What a schmuck I was. But that’s the way it is. That’s the way it is. I would like you . . . for the attorneys . . . I’d like you to perhaps meet with Ryan, ideally tomorrow, because I think we should come to a resolution of this before the election. Otherwise you’re going to have people just not voting. They don’t want to vote. They hate the state, they hate the governor, and they hate the secretary of state. I will tell you that right now. The only people that like you are people that will never vote for you. You know that, Brad, right? They like you, you know, they like you. They can’t believe what they found. They want more people like you. So, look, can you get together tomorrow? And, Brad, we just want the truth. It’s simple.

And everyone’s going to look very good if the truth comes out. It’s okay. It takes a little while, but let the truth come out. And the real truth is, I won by 400,000 votes. At least. That’s the real truth. But we don’t need 400,000 votes. We need less than 2,000 votes. And are you guys able to meet tomorrow, Ryan?

Germany: I’ll get with Chris, the lawyer who’s representing us in the case, and see when he can get together with Kurt.

Raffensperger: Ryan will be in touch with the other attorney on this call, Mr. Meadows. Thank you, President Trump, for your time.

Trump: Okay, thank you, Brad. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you very much. Bye.

*****

GA Secretary Of States Testimony of Lies
This is the UnAmerican Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s treasonous claims of the infamous phone call that President Trump had with him and how Brad refused the President of the United States, the State of Georgia and America a fair and honest election!