-
Unknown A
Is it your statement that the number of ballots exceeds the number of registered voters in Arizona? Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
In some places, I would imagine that might be the case.
-
Unknown A
Show me where in Arizona the number of ballots exceeds the number of registered voters. Now.
-
Unknown C
Can I. I'm gonna just barge in here.
-
Unknown A
Who are you? I didn't agree to have a talk.
-
Unknown C
I'm an Arizona voter, by the way.
-
Unknown A
Get the out. I'm talking to this guy.
-
Unknown B
It wouldn't surprise me.
-
Unknown A
Are you sure or are you not sure?
-
Unknown B
I would say I lean more towards.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, you are sure. Okay, then it should be no. You to produce the evidence of the number of registered voters being exceeded by the number of ballots cast.
-
Unknown B
No, it's called intuition, man.
-
Unknown A
You feel that you don't need to provide evidence, it's just your intuition.
-
Unknown B
Correct.
-
Unknown A
Hey, folks, please, like, comment and subscribe. And if you want to read what's going on from a pro republic, anti corruption and anti oligarch perspective, subscribe to the Weekly Patriot. The link is in the description.
-
Unknown B
So let's just start with. With like the insurrection stuff first. So you're of the opinion that there was an insurrection, is that correct?
-
Unknown A
Yes, I am of definitely of that opinion, but I think we need to start even earlier than that. You started by like a kind of a broader statement, which I think feeds into the. The question of insurrection and might ultimately determine the course of this conversation. And that is that elections in the United States are broadly illegitimate. Is that a fair characterization of your.
-
Unknown B
View as of 2020? Yes.
-
Unknown A
As of 2020, yes. So it is your opinion that there's evidence that shows that Donald Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election?
-
Unknown B
No, because the election departments were threatened to be sued by Mark Elias, the top legal mind of the Democratic Party. Nobody has seen these ballots. Nobody has seen the information. There has been no meaningful audit of this process whatsoever. Which is a rallying cry for the Democratic Party or the modern left. After the victory of Trump in 2016, one of the primary rallying calls from the left was, we need transparency in elections. We need electoral transparency, which I wholeheartedly agree with. There was no closure for the modern left and after the 2016 victory of Donald Trump.
-
Unknown A
So there was no closure. What do you mean by no closure?
-
Unknown B
Well, Madame Clinton has not conceded to her defeat. She has repeatedly disputed the. The victory of President Trump. She says he's an illegitimate leader. The. You know, the election was. I mean, I know I'm generalizing here, but she does not. She. She disagrees with the outcome of the election. She disputes the. The fact that President Trump rightfully won that election.
-
Unknown A
And you, of course, relate to her. A lot of American. You relate to her. And you think that she has a point because there was.
-
Unknown B
No, I don't. No, I do not. I, I cannot relate to her merely because, for those who don't know, Hillary Clinton used the Green Party, I believe it was Jill Stein, to do some sort of audit, I believe in Michigan, specifically Detroit.
-
Unknown A
How sure are you of that?
-
Unknown B
I'm almost certain.
-
Unknown A
Would it surprise you?
-
Unknown B
Because what they found was that, yeah.
-
Unknown A
Hillary Clinton opposed that lawsuit. Would that surprise you?
-
Unknown B
Well, she says that now because they were finding irregularities. They were finding irregularities in the process.
-
Unknown A
Would it surprise you if Hillary Clinton was at least formally against that lawsuit?
-
Unknown B
No, it doesn't surprise me because I'm aware of her public position. But there was. There was an attempt.
-
Unknown A
So how do you know that Jill Stein is connected to Hillary Clinton, that Hillary Clinton managed and promoted Jill Stein's election challenges?
-
Unknown B
Well, call it a hunch, call it intuition.
-
Unknown A
You have evidence.
-
Unknown B
I don't have concrete proof.
-
Unknown A
Okay. I don't have concrete proof. For me to eliminate things for which you do not have proof for. Is that fair of me to do?
-
Unknown B
That's fair, but I'm just letting the people know where I'm coming from.
-
Unknown A
Well, why are you coming from a place where you don't have proof of.
-
Unknown B
What do you mean?
-
Unknown A
Why would you start by speaking about Hillary Clinton's efforts with respect to Jill Stein's lawsuits in various states if you don't have evidence that she did that?
-
Unknown B
Well, it stands to reason that an individual like Hillary Clinton, who disputes and rejects the outcome of the 2016 election, I mean, this is her feelings. This is.
-
Unknown A
She didn't file any lawsuits.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, but that's besides the point. Now there's an opportunity conveniently coming from Jill Stein's camp to contest this election into. But you haven't covered her transpired.
-
Unknown A
How did, how did she Connected to it. She can't control Jill Stein.
-
Unknown B
I'm letting. I'm letting you know. It's just. It's intuition, you know, it doesn't stand to like. Does it make any sense that she's openly rejecting the outcome of the 2016 election, and now there's this other individual contesting the results of the election, trying to get to the bottom of what transpired in 2016, and conveniently, she just openly rejects that. So no one put them up to it.
-
Unknown A
There's nothing entailed by being publicly and avowedly against an election and signing on to a particular election. There could be different reasons why one might sign up to one challenge and not the other. Second, your premise is just fundamentally wrong this entire time, which is that Hillary Clinton, so far as the voting and the counting of votes is concerned, she did not reject the results of the election and conceded the next day.
-
Unknown B
She did, but after the fact, much like President Trump, he rejected the outcome in 2020 and he still continues to. Continues to, but he also conceded when appropriate.
-
Unknown A
So be clear, you do not have any evidence that Hillary Clinton promoted, agreed to, suggested, or in any way affected the decision for Jill Stein to file a lawsuit. But it's your intuition.
-
Unknown B
It's my intuition, yeah.
-
Unknown A
Okay. You think that that's like something I should be weighing heavily, that, oh, this guy's intuition, which he can't back up with evidence of any kind, should be influencing me and how I, I don't know, determine the closure or non closure of the 2016 election?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, that's fair. Again, we can agree to disagree. Again, your assertion about what transpired on G6. I don't even know your opinion on the 2016 election. I mean, we can agree to.
-
Unknown A
Well, don't you think Trump won the 2016 election?
-
Unknown B
I do. I believe he won it.
-
Unknown A
Why do you think Trump won it? You said all elections are run illegitimately in the country.
-
Unknown B
Well, I said as of 2020.
-
Unknown A
I'm sorry, every election that you know of prior to 2020 was run fairly.
-
Unknown B
No, I don't know that for a fact. You have no reason to assuming that.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so here we go. You have no reason to assume any election other than 2020 was run unfairly?
-
Unknown B
For now, yeah.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so why did you bring up the 2016 election as a anything?
-
Unknown B
Well, we, we need to. I'm going to tie this all together.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
There was. I'm, I'm a, I'm a registered Democrat for those who don't know. And I've been involved in politics for a long time and I've been interested in politics for a long time. And there is a long standing tradition among the Democratic Party to reject the outcomes of election. We saw this in the year 2000, I believe there was a little bit of grumbling in 2004 and certainly after 2016. And at that point in time, everybody, at least American, was really getting into, you know, the meat and potatoes of how these elections, you know, transpire, how they're conducted, etc. Etc. But prior to that, you know, everybody was kind of asleep at the wheel and they just assumed, you know, everything was hunky dory. But there's a lot of vulnerabilities in the process, as we saw in 2020.
-
Unknown A
You don't question any election prior to 2020. Is that a correct statement of your opinion?
-
Unknown B
No, there's certainly a few that, you know, that there's probably issues with.
-
Unknown A
Like, you know any others?
-
Unknown B
Yeah. Grover Cleveland, his. After his first run, you know, he is of the opinion that he won legitimately.
-
Unknown A
What is your evidence to suggest that you're talking about Grover Cleveland's second election or his first?
-
Unknown B
The second, because he won the first one, but he lost the second one.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so what evidence do you have to question the results of Grover or Cleveland's second election?
-
Unknown B
Well, I don't have the, the materials ahead of me. Like I said, there was no prep here. There was no prep here.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, but, but it sounds like, like, just to be clear, it's a little bit picking and choosing. Like you say, you don't question the 2016 election, but why should we have confidence in that one as opposed to any other election? You. But you do believe that Trump won 2016. So I just don't understand why you confidence.
-
Unknown B
A lot of people reject the outcome.
-
Unknown A
I'm asking about you. I'm asking really care. There could be crazy people who contest elections and it could even be the case that Hillary Clinton deep down thinks something or there's a quote somewhere that you surprise me on. I doubt it. But regardless, I'm asking solely about your beliefs. You trust the 2016 election. Why do you trust the 2016 election?
-
Unknown B
That's an excellent question. Well, it's, you know, his victory was a civilization changing event. I was able to witness the campaign that was conducted. I wasn't a part of it. And again, there was just no credible, credible evidence that was brought forth after the fact that the election was hacked by the Russians, which is a claim made by the modern left.
-
Unknown A
I like that.
-
Unknown B
The establishment party, they said that it was rigged for sure. Hacked, rigged, or that the Russian government somehow interfered in it on behalf of President Trump? Again, there's no.
-
Unknown A
That makes a lot of sense to me. That explanation makes a ton of sense. So what you basically said was this was a, like, civilization changing election, and of all the claims that were promoted by conspiracy theorists, none of them had substantial evidence behind them. Don't you think that's correct? I think that's a pretty good standard to decide whether or not we choose to believe an election is fair or not. If there is no significant Evidence that shows that there was any malfeasance, then we have no reason to believe it was flawed and we're going to accept it. Do you accept that framework?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, certainly. However, I can be sympathetic towards members of the modern left, members of the Democratic Party that reject the claim. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary. So if I'm led to believe that the Russians interfered in the election, where are the receipts? You know, this, you know, 2016 was a long time ago. We're in 2024. No tangible, concrete evidence has been produced to suggest otherwise.
-
Unknown A
I totally agree. I think that's actually really smart and it's a good point to make that if the Democrats had excellent evidence that like the Russians hacked election machines or some shit or whatever the crazy shit that they were saying on msnbc, we would expect to see proof of it. And they were totally empty handed.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. Throughout the entire way. And what we saw was lawfare launched against President Trump's administration, thwarting his ability to really govern effectively. You know, if you want to make the argument that he was robbed of his opportunity to govern effectively, you know, people can make that claim. And, you know, this stuff is important. And again, like, my personal philosophy about governments is one, I don't trust governments and my worldview suggests that the government is always guilty. So if the government is making a claim, they need to be able to prove that claim. So if the, the government, I'm just speaking broadly here, sure. Is claiming that President Trump won the 2016 election, well, they need to be able to prove it. I think that's really important. People need to be able to look at the ballots, People need to be able to look at the machines.
-
Unknown B
People need to be, need to be able to be, you know, clued in on how this process works and transpires. Apparently a lot of people didn't and.
-
Unknown A
There were individuals who were talking about burdens. So you said something that I think makes sense is like, if you make a claim, you have to be able to prove it. Don't you think in 2016 that the burden of proof was on, like Jill Stein or a Democrat, and if you.
-
Unknown B
Want to, it was on Hillary Clinton.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. The burden of proof is on is on her. Right. It's not on, like us to disprove the existence of fraud in 2016. Right, sure. Okay, so you agree and tell me if you disagree with the standard. Like, standards are smart. Because if you have a standard, we can apply it, like, to the, to different situations and be consistent in our analysis. So as a general standard for assessing Whether an election was run fairly. Don't you think a good standard might be if a challenger is able to provide substantial evidence of voter fraud and. Or some other kind of defect in the election, then we can. Oh, I don't know if you're. I see myself twice. Oh, you're, you're.
-
Unknown C
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
Do you mind? No, I'll throw you on the mini display.
-
Unknown A
That's, that's sweet.
-
Unknown B
Cool.
-
Unknown A
So I'm going to repeat myself. So a standard might be like, if you're able to produce substantial and good evidence that there is a defect in the election, maybe then we can say that there's, there are in fact defects. But if you're unable to provide convincing and substantial proof of election integrity issues or defects, then our assumption maybe should be that the election was conducted fair. And that's a, like a good rule, a general rule. And the burden of proof is on the person claiming the impropriety who has to prove the claim.
-
Unknown B
Yes. However, elections are very, very unique because of the way that the process folds out throughout multiple states. And I mean, goodness, I don't even know where to begin because this issue is so complex and like, again, there were irregularities in virtually all of the swing states. And in 2020, I'm going to include Nevada. Yeah. In 2020. And I'm going to include Nevada and Arizona in that process. And one of the major, you know, turning point for President Trump because he was on track to win that election, was the introduction of mail in ballots. And when you introduce or if you change the process, it needs to go through appropriate channels. The state legislature is in charge of the way that elections are conducted throughout the states. The state legislature for the most part was not really involved in this process. You had justices and government clerks that were basically creating, you know, new rules out of whole cloth.
-
Unknown A
And that is a problem. Can we take that one claim? I think that's a really good claim to start on. Okay, so for example, in Arizona, you believe the introduction of mail in ballots in 2020 was a huge problem, that the majority of people in 2020 use mail in ballots?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, it's a major problem because that's fine.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, let's take that.
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
Are you aware that Arizona has been doing mostly mail in ballots for years now, before 2020?
-
Unknown B
What do you mean mostly mail in ballots?
-
Unknown A
That Arizona, like, spearheaded a major initiative years before 2020 to do the majority of votes by mail in ballots.
-
Unknown B
What year?
-
Unknown A
Sorry, are you aware of that or not?
-
Unknown B
I don't know if that may or may not be the Case. But the primary mode of voting throughout the country is in person.
-
Unknown A
We're talking about states. Right. You said they're different in how the states are set up. And so.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. And that would include Arizona.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, so it would include Arizona. And so in Arizona, you would agree, wouldn't you, that if the. One of the primary means of voting was mail in ballots for years, it wasn't.
-
Unknown B
It was in person.
-
Unknown A
How sure are you of that?
-
Unknown B
I'm almost certain.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so if I could show you that a majority of voters prior to 2020 use mail in voting, would that alleviate any of your concerns?
-
Unknown B
Not necessarily. Because Arizona was not the only state where this is a problem. And even then, even then, the underlying contention that I have with, hey, what's going on? Thank you for joining, but hang tight. But the underlying issue that I have is the lack of transparency, which is what everybody demands. There's zero transparency in this process. We don't know who's voting. We don't know if the ballots are valid to begin with. And the only state that was able to conduct a meaningful, A somewhat kind of meaningful audit of this process was in Arizona. Well, we saw ballots.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. Yeah. You're not concerned with Arizona because there were tons of audits in Arizona. There was one conducted by the.
-
Unknown B
Well, no, that's why Arizona is concerning.
-
Unknown A
Wait, why is Arizona concerning if. If they were. If there was separate multiple audits of the Arizona election results, including one.
-
Unknown B
Because they found regularities, because they. Because they found irregularities.
-
Unknown A
Can you say more about the. What irregularities did they find in Arizona?
-
Unknown B
Well, for example, there were a handful of these ballots, you know, to the tune of almost 20,000 that didn't have legitimate signatures. They did not have legitimate signatures on the ballots. They either had, like a stamp of approval or just a line through it. And in some cases, there was text printed on it, which is. None of those are legitimate signatures. A bank would not accept that on a check. You know, casinos don't accept those when, you know, you're cashing out a jackpot. Voucher and election departments, for the most part, at least out here in Nevada, they will be, because I vote in person and I signed my ballot. My, my signature isn't always exactly the same. And they were giving me a hard time about voting in person. I. Luckily I had my idea. I produced my ID and I was able to show them like, this is.
-
Unknown B
I am who I am. I know my signature doesn't match. And one of the polling site leaders had to okay me to go and proceed to vote, which Is new to me, but, yeah, the. The problem with a lot of these ballots is that the signatures were not valid and they have to be reviewed and they have to be open to the public so the public can scrutinize these documents. I believe it is our right to do that.
-
Unknown A
Are you aware who the county recorder of Maricopa county is in Arizona?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, Mr. Richter.
-
Unknown C
And he's voting for Biden.
-
Unknown A
Do you have any reason to disbelieve his answers? Your concerns that actually signatures were checked? I mean, what do you have as a reason to doubt his conclusions?
-
Unknown B
Well, the public does not have access to them.
-
Unknown A
Access.
-
Unknown B
And again, what we. To the ballots, to the information, like auditing is a very simple process. You know, it's kind of like accounting, because I do that on the side. When you have a bank statement and you have a ledger, the totals for both of these documents should match. And if they don't, you're. You're basically trying to determine why they're different. That's called reconciliation auditing. A ballot auditing, you know, a vote for a contest is really no different. So if you have, let's say, a thousand registered voters, but you have 2,000 ballots, why is there.
-
Unknown A
That isn't your statement that the number of ballots exceeds the number of registered voters in Arizona? Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
In some places, I would imagine that might be the case.
-
Unknown A
Show me where in Arizona the number of ballots exceeds the number of registered voters. Now can.
-
Unknown C
I'm going to just barge in here.
-
Unknown A
Who are you? I didn't agree to have a congress.
-
Unknown C
I'm an Arizona voter, by the way.
-
Unknown A
Get the out I'm talking. This guy. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
-
Unknown B
Everybody calm down. Spencer, can you hold on a minute?
-
Unknown C
Because we're.
-
Unknown B
We're having a discussion, man. Yeah, I appreciate it, buddy, but. No, I said it. I said probably. I don't.
-
Unknown A
Again, are you sure or are you not sure that voters exceeded the number of registrants in Arizona?
-
Unknown B
It wouldn't surprise.
-
Unknown A
Are you sure or are you not sure?
-
Unknown B
I would lean more towards sure. I'm a gambling man.
-
Unknown A
I'm either sure of something or I'm not sure of it. Are you sure?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I would say I lean more towards.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, you are sure. Okay, then it should be no problem for you to produce the evidence of the number of registered voters being exceeded by the number of ballots cast. That shouldn't be an issue.
-
Unknown B
If you're sure that does happen. And again, the. We have an issue of transparency here, because Mr. Richter is not really into the whole Transparency.
-
Unknown A
What evidence would it take to disprove the allegation that the number of voters exceeded the number of registrants?
-
Unknown B
I would need to look at the voter rolls and I would need to see the ballots. So if I produce on hand, if.
-
Unknown A
I produce you something from Maricopa county that says that what you're saying is wrong, would you take that as evidence that that is wrong?
-
Unknown B
Depends what you're going to produce.
-
Unknown A
If I were to show you the number of voter rolls and the number. The size of the number of residents.
-
Unknown B
You do realize those voter rolls are not accurate. Like you do realize.
-
Unknown A
Okay, we're. Whether they're accurate or not. You made a claim. Your claim was that the number of ballots exceeded the number of registered voters. Was that or was that not your Probably. Sorry. Was that or was that not your claim?
-
Unknown B
Said it was probably true.
-
Unknown A
Wait, was it your claim that the number of registered voters was exceeded by the number of actual votes cast? It's not what I said. Okay, so is it or is it not your belief that the number of voters exceeded the number of registered voters?
-
Unknown B
Said it's possible, man.
-
Unknown A
It's possible. Now, I thought you were very sure. Are you sure? Not sure. Possible. What is it?
-
Unknown B
I'm pretty positive. Like I said, I'm willing to bet on it. I'm willing to bet back. Catch that? That is the case, none of these election departments will. They'll all fold under legitimate scrutiny. Again, I don't have that information because I don't work for Maricopa County.
-
Unknown A
So you don't know, right? You don't. You don't actually know if. If it exceeded the number of registered.
-
Unknown B
Oh, no, it's called intuition, man.
-
Unknown A
Just. Just like with Jill Stein, intuition. Right.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, absolutely.
-
Unknown A
So you don't need to. You feel that you don't need to provide evidence of the number of registered voters being exceeded by the number of voters. It's just your intuition, Correct?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, because I am a concerned citizen who is upset at the. The way that these elections have been conducted since the year 2020.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, exactly. Not since the year 2016. Not since the year 2012. Correct.
-
Unknown B
Your intuition is that Arizona has had unique issues. Oh, specific speaking. Yes. Yes. They have issues such as the number of voters.
-
Unknown A
Issues such as the number of voters exceeding the number of registered voters.
-
Unknown B
That's that kind of definitive. It wasn't a definitive claim.
-
Unknown A
I don't want to get what kind of claim was it. Was it a Vibes claim? Was it an intuition claim? Sure.
-
Unknown B
Vibes claim for simplicity. Okay.
-
Unknown A
So let's move on to the next one because I don't really take seriously your Vibes claims. I think there are more bullshit claims than vibes claims.
-
Unknown B
Fair enough.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown C
Hey, buddy, you should. I'm just going to jump in and just say you really need to look at the trial. I know you're a lawyer and all that. Or what? Is that what you find?
-
Unknown A
What do you mean? The trial. What's the trial?
-
Unknown C
The Kerry Lake trials where they've brought evidence to the courts about issues with the process that Maricopa county has and. And as an impacted voter in Maricopa county who had to wait two hours in line. Do you. Do you think that's good for our elections? Do you think that's good for our democracy?
-
Unknown A
I'm the one who's in favor of expanding voting methods. I'm the one who's in favor of mail in voting and making it longer. And so are the Democrats in favor of expanding the amount of voting that occurs, even if it incurs additional costs. And so I'm not really going to take seriously your concerns about the.
-
Unknown C
So why not go to a precinct. So why not go to a precinct model? Why did Maricopa county change to a vote center model where Anthem. This one. The locations that failed massively. All those people went to all the other voting centers and it had major like super long lines. We know about the 20 inch ballot which was printed 19 inches. So you're telling me that Maricopa's county's elections were perfect because it's Maricopa county and I forget the county that Tucson is that are like the main drivers for the state because they're the most populous.
-
Unknown A
Right.
-
Unknown C
Fair to say.
-
Unknown A
I'm not saying that the election was run perfectly, but the burden of proof, wouldn't you agree, sir, is on the person asserting fraud. Correct.
-
Unknown C
I'm pretty sure it's already.
-
Unknown A
Would you or do not agree with the burden of proof being on the person alleging fraud?
-
Unknown C
It's not the law. That's not the law. Sorry.
-
Unknown A
Sorry. Would you or would you not agree that the burden of proof is on the person alleging fraud?
-
Unknown C
The law states in Arizona. You can correct me. I'm answering you for Arizona. I'm answering for Arizona. The way, if I understand the statute correctly is if there is an impropriety or whatever the word is that makes it to where the election is in question, then it can be overturned and it has happened here in Arizona before. You should actually go and listen to my interview with Senator when he watched Rogers on that.
-
Unknown A
I don't give a. About your interview. What was your question? What was my question?
-
Unknown C
Sorry, I.
-
Unknown A
Do you remember my question? So my question was, who is the burden of proof to demonstrate fraud? Is the burden of proof on the person alleging it or on the state running the election?
-
Unknown C
What do you define as fraud?
-
Unknown B
I don't want to dogpile. I don't want to dog.
-
Unknown A
Dog pile. I'm outnumbered.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, that's why I don't want to do that. So, Spencer, like, I get it. You're from Arizona.
-
Unknown C
Okay.
-
Unknown B
He made it his mic. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. I'll answer that question. Yeah, yeah. The. The way that the. This server works is that I allow people who have the guest role to always come in. So you're always welcome, Pisco. You're always welcome to come in and disagree with my political worldview if you'd like. Again, guys, my friends who are watching, please do not interrupt. And let's not be disrespectful, because I'm. This is between me and him. We're. This is our discussion, and my bad. I'm not. I'm not okay with dog piling.
-
Unknown C
No, no, like. So a little backstory. Geo messaged me the other day asking if I wanted to join the show, so that's why I jumped in.
-
Unknown A
Cool.
-
Unknown C
So that's. That's why.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. But to answer your question, you know, whose burden is it in regards to government matters?
-
Unknown C
The.
-
Unknown B
The government is always guilty. They need to be able to ease people's fears and concerns regarding any process whatsoever. So when people have issues with transparency and people have issues with. With the way that the process unfolded or. Or they question the results, they need to be able to prove that the election was on the up and up, that protocol was followed. And again, we're not really getting that. And I would just like to say really quick, if what happened in. In Arizona occurred in Fulton county in Georgia, the FBI would be there immediately arresting people, taking names, and ensuring that, you know, the polls stay open for as long as they need so the voters are not disenfranchised. We saw disenfranchisement in Arizona, but how.
-
Unknown A
Did you see disenfranchisement?
-
Unknown B
There were people waiting in line for many, many hours.
-
Unknown A
That's dispatch.
-
Unknown B
Because Maricopa did something to the machines. Or the machines failed Gravely. Which doesn't make a lot of sense because Mr. Richter suggested that, you know, they tested them, that, you know, they were calibrated properly, that everything was supposed to work and how everything fell apart. Is a complete and total mystery to them.
-
Unknown A
So you think waiting in line extra because of technical difficulties is, quote, disenfranchisement?
-
Unknown B
Yes. If this were to happen in Fulton county, the outcome of that, that election would be.
-
Unknown A
Are you, are you aware there were lines are you aware there were lines in Fulton County?
-
Unknown B
Were people waiting for, you know, I.
-
Unknown A
Don'T know the number. I mean, I don't know what your cutoff is for disenfranchisement. If it's an two hours, I think.
-
Unknown B
How acceptable is it that someone should wait in line?
-
Unknown A
I think, I think that there's definitely a question if, like you're waiting 3, 4, 5 hours if you're remove and you're not giving an ability to cast provisional ballots. I think you may have a good point that, you know, there's an amount of inconvenience that you could impose upon a voter that would effectively disenfranchise them. That is not what we're seeing in the 2020 election at all. And furthermore, to the extent there is problems or you know, waits or delays or that thing, I'm totally against that. That's why I'm in favor of mail in voting. That's why I'm in favor of expanding the amount of voting centers and drop in mail in mail inboxes. That's why in Wisconsin I thought it was ridiculous for Trump and others to challenge the Wisconsin drop in system. So all of this is bullshit delays made by Republicans. Well, do you know, not by Democrats.
-
Unknown B
Do you know why those drops, those, those mail in drop boxes were contested?
-
Unknown A
I know exactly why they were contested. Yeah.
-
Unknown B
Tested.
-
Unknown A
Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Are you, are you, are you challenging me? You think I haven't kept on, kept up with the Wisconsin Supreme Court briefing on this issue specifically, as well as Democracy in the park and others. You think you're gonna out, I'm asking you, you think you know more, do you think you know more about the, how the election was run in Wisconsin than I do?
-
Unknown B
Probably. Let me, I want to ask you fairly, I want to ask you fairly in your own words, why do you think those specific melon, those mailboxes, those, those mail ballot drop boxes were kosher? And why were they contested in your own words?
-
Unknown A
They were contested because in Wisconsin the law refers to sending it to the clerk. And the way that the Trump people were advocating the interpretation of that, that law that allows for certain voting centers is that it would have to be given directly to the clerk as opposed to giving it to someone who gives it to the Clerk and so the issue was about. Is a statutory interpretation issue about whether or not those mailboxes qualified under the statute for the kind of allowable drop boxes. It was initially in favor of Trump after, like, I think the ruling came out, like 2022, but recently it's been reversed. And so that's where, yeah, it's very.
-
Unknown B
Unfortunate, but, like, there's a little bit more to it than that, though.
-
Unknown A
There are other issues. There was democracy in the park, that quote, unquote issue. These are all bullshit. They're all marginal. Doesn't affect the outcome of the election. And so that is not true.
-
Unknown B
That is not true. Even if there's a slight desperate impact on the outcome of the election, it's unfair. And it shouldn't be. And it shouldn't.
-
Unknown A
So you're saying if five votes, if five votes were cast in an improper way and the margin of victory is 20,000, you think the election should be thrown out?
-
Unknown B
If it's not fair, if people are disenfranchised, we got to do.
-
Unknown A
Can I get a yes or no to that question? I asked you a question.
-
Unknown B
I'm gonna say no.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
I'm pro fairness.
-
Unknown A
All right. And we agree.
-
Unknown B
Wait, wait. There's a big part of the, the drop boxes that you completely omitted. Mark Zuckerberg was funding a good bulk or maybe all of these drop boxes, and they were strategically placed in areas of Wisconsin that would be favorable to the Democratic Party in areas that were not. Were disenfranchised because they didn't have access to these. That's a fact, too. Are you familiar with Mark? The Zucker Bucks is what they call them. That's what they've heard of him say. Yeah, well, the. There was a. Oh, my goodness. Like I said, I should have prepared for this. There were. There's been a move, I believe, in Wisconsin and elsewhere to, To. They call it ban Zucker box because Mark Zuckerberg and a handful of other. The. Of a handful of these other billionaires, they were interfering in the process. They were actively, literally involved in the process, like I said, disenfranchising a handful of voters.
-
Unknown B
And, and I, I'm just going to. Philosophically, I disagree with expanding this process. I think voting should be done in person. The all contest.
-
Unknown A
Make up your mind, dude.
-
Unknown B
You're.
-
Unknown A
You're like complaining about long lines and in person voting centers, and then you're saying it should all be done that way, thereby increasing the number of lines. You can't decide on a theory of disenfranchisement. That you want to keep until you want to throw everything in the wall till it sticks even, you know, though they're counterintuitive and. And counteracting each other.
-
Unknown B
No, not necessarily. I mean, just because it's going to be done in person, or I believe it should be done in person, doesn't mean that the process needs to be onerous or burdensome on the voter. I mean, you know, you can still have machines and make the process streamlined and open up, you know, more voting centers. Allow more voting centers to exist in more.
-
Unknown A
That was true of 2016. That was true of 2016 as well. Everything you're saying was true of 2016.
-
Unknown B
What do you mean?
-
Unknown A
The thing about the voting centers, the thing about there being lines, delays in certain. That happens in almost every single election, including the 2016 election. Yeah, but you don't question the 2016 election. And there's a reason for that. Because you like the outcome.
-
Unknown B
No, not necessarily. That's not.
-
Unknown A
Then explain the difference in all the procedural issues you're talking about vis a vis 2020.
-
Unknown B
The. The delays that you speak of prior to 2020. Again, you have to be more specific. I mean, yes, sometimes machines are not calibrated properly, sometimes the power goes out, sometimes poll workers don't show up, and there are delays and there are issues, but all that can be easily remedied one way or another.
-
Unknown A
Easily.
-
Unknown B
Now we're at a point. Now we're at a point where, you know, voting access is expanded to the point of absurdity, where anybody can receive a ballot, anybody can sign these ballots, and nobody is verifying them. And there are very powerful forces at play here that are doing their best to prevent any sort of electoral transparency, which is what the Democrat Party initially called for, which I do agree with. But they say one thing, but they're doing another.
-
Unknown A
I have a question for you.
-
Unknown B
Massive problem.
-
Unknown A
Do you believe that the Jewish people are responsible for election problems in the 2020 election?
-
Unknown B
Dude, I have no idea.
-
Unknown A
Do you believe that?
-
Unknown B
No idea.
-
Unknown A
Do you believe there's a good chance that Jews were responsible for the problems in the 2020 election?
-
Unknown B
Why? I. Why would I think that? Why?
-
Unknown A
I'm asking you. You can reject it. You can reject it or you can accept it. Do you believe that?
-
Unknown B
They don't know.
-
Unknown A
I don't know.
-
Unknown B
I don't know who was responsible for the. The process changing as dramatically as it did. There were a lot of people involved. I don't know the religion, I don't know. The gender. Dude, do you think that there's a decent.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, because I think that you're running in some of these conspiracies that have no basis other than your vibes, and you're kind of using certain phrases that indicate to me that there may be a inclination, or let's call it an intuition, as you stated, that Jews may be responsible. And I don't hear you denying that. That is a belief of yours.
-
Unknown B
Dude, I don't know. You want me to make a definitive claim about something that I do not know? And this is the underlying problem with the elections is that there's zero transparency. This isn't a conspiracy to suggest that, dude. Like when, when we have elections that are not called, that are called within, you know, weeks after the contest is concluded. That's a problem.
-
Unknown A
Weeks. That's a major problem. You said weeks. How, how. How long did it take for the election to be called in 2020? Was it actually. Was it even a week?
-
Unknown B
A long time. It took a long time to count ballots. It took a long time to count these ballots, these mail in ballots. And it. What? People were not entirely sure. I know the. The regime media said one thing, but the reality was, you know, no one really knew.
-
Unknown A
No one really knew. So isn't this lack of transparency also an issue in 2016?
-
Unknown B
Not necessarily. There was no effort, no meaningful effort to prevent people from discussing what they wanted to in 2016. There was no meaningful roadblock for anybody who wanted to contest the election of 2016. That happened after the fact through lawfare, through illegitimate spying on the President, and through.
-
Unknown A
When was the illegitimate spine of the president really. You're talking about 2016 and 17 and the FISA warrants.
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so you're not.
-
Unknown B
No reason.
-
Unknown A
That was all in the way. That was all in the wake of 2020 16, right?
-
Unknown B
Correct.
-
Unknown A
But that was also prior to 2016. You're aware of that, right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
So you're aware. So I just want to. I just want to be clear. When do you think the first FISA warrant was issued on Carter Page?
-
Unknown B
It was probably prior.
-
Unknown A
Prior to the 2016 election. Is that right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah. So?
-
Unknown A
So it's not. So it's your agreement. Legitimately, it's your agreement. It's your agreement, therefore, that everything related to the illegal spine that you characterize as a new issue in the 2020 election. That was also true before 2016, isn't that correct? Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
Wait, repeat that one more time.
-
Unknown A
If it's true that prior to the 2016 election, FISA warrants were issued against Carter Page just Like after it. Isn't it the case that is not a basis to distinguish results in the 2016 election to the 2020 election?
-
Unknown B
Well, I'll just make an underlying.
-
Unknown A
Is that a yes or no? I don't hear you answering the question.
-
Unknown B
I'll say, yeah, okay.
-
Unknown A
It's not a proper way to distinguish 2016 and 2020. Fair.
-
Unknown B
Sure. I'll give you that.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so then let's put that aside. How are you going to distinguish 2016 and 2020 in terms of the lack of transparency and especially considering the fact that there were more audits in 2020, the fact that there are more lawsuits?
-
Unknown B
There were not more.
-
Unknown A
Of course there was.
-
Unknown B
Besides Arizona? Name one.
-
Unknown A
So there were. There were audits in Georgia as well.
-
Unknown B
Are you sure?
-
Unknown A
100%.
-
Unknown B
So they, they verified the signatures. They. They scrutinize the voter rules.
-
Unknown A
So you understand. You understand that where they accept mail in ballots in most of these swing states, at the very least, you have to check the signature. Signature verification is required.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. Just because you have to do it doesn't mean that they did.
-
Unknown A
Okay. Do you have evidence they didn't? Is it just your intuition or do.
-
Unknown B
You have evidence they did not prove adequately that.
-
Unknown A
Do you have evidence that they did not check signatures? Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
The burden of proof is not on me.
-
Unknown A
So the burden of the government is.
-
Unknown B
Making a claim that, that, that Joe Biden ended up winning that contest, but they are not producing the evidence that he did. So.
-
Unknown A
So it's. That is a problem to the government to prove that everyone who purported to check signatures did check signatures. That's the government's burden.
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
Okay. Yeah. Why do you think that that's just.
-
Unknown B
How it's supposed to.
-
Unknown A
Okay, if that's the case, then why don't you doubt the 2016 election when the government didn't make its case?
-
Unknown B
It's affirmative because there wasn't a consorted effort to deny people of their lawful speech regarding the results of the 2016 election. In 2020, you were not allowed to say that the election was rigged, even though there's a history of Democratic operatives like Stacey Abrams, Karine Jean Pierre, even the House Minority Leader, literally rejecting the results of multiple elections prior to 2020.
-
Unknown A
Is the government allowed to stop.
-
Unknown B
But myself was?
-
Unknown A
Yeah. Is the government allowed to stop Facebook or Twitter from censoring a person for spreading misinformation? What they consider to be misinformation. Can the government stop? The government stop.
-
Unknown B
They pushed. Well, they seemingly did because they petitioned YouTube or Google and other giant media platforms. To censor lawful speech.
-
Unknown A
So I asked a question.
-
Unknown B
Yes, they did.
-
Unknown A
Does the government have the authority to regulate speech on these platforms?
-
Unknown B
I would say yeah.
-
Unknown A
Why do you think that?
-
Unknown B
Okay, you know what? Let me rephrase that. Whether they have the authority or not doesn't really matter because they're still. Because they do it. They did it. So why does that matter when you say that? Your main to what we're talking.
-
Unknown A
When you say today.
-
Unknown B
Were people censored? Yes or no. Was lawful speech censored? Yes or no.
-
Unknown A
Under the First Amendment doctrines? No, it was not.
-
Unknown B
Oh, Jesus Christ, dude.
-
Unknown A
Okay, do you agree with that or no?
-
Unknown B
No, I don't agree with that.
-
Unknown A
You don't agree that the First Amendment was not violated?
-
Unknown B
I believe it was violated. People's constitutional rights were violated.
-
Unknown A
Do you believe you have a constitutional right?
-
Unknown B
Speech. Petitioning corporations to censor people's lawful speech is. And yes, I do believe it is a violation of our rights.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so do you think that you have a constitutional right to post whatever you want on Facebook?
-
Unknown B
I never said that.
-
Unknown A
Okay, do you? Do you not? Because if you don't have a violent constitutional right, then how could your constitutional rights be violated if they censor you?
-
Unknown B
Well, saying that the election is rigged should be permissible.
-
Unknown A
Or whether you think it should be permissible or not. The question is. The question is, do you have a constitutional right? Wait. Do you agree that pornography is constitutionally protected under current first amendment doctrine?
-
Unknown B
It depends on what context.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, I mean, it can't be obscenity, but most pornography is not obscenity under the first amendment doctrine that currently exists.
-
Unknown B
You sure about that?
-
Unknown A
Yes, I'm sure about that. All right. Do you disagree with that? There's just. There's a case called Miller. Okay, so do you agree that at least some pornography is protected by the First Amendment?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, perhaps some.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so do you or do you not agree that you have a constitutional right to post whatever you want on Facebook?
-
Unknown B
Well, when we put it that way, perhaps not, however.
-
Unknown A
So then how was Facebook violating your constitutional rights? By taking stuff it doesn't want on there, Taking down that stuff?
-
Unknown B
That's. I mean, look, this is a. An interesting philosophical.
-
Unknown A
Philosophical. It's a contradiction in what you're saying. It's a legal contradiction. You're saying that the First Amendment was violated.
-
Unknown B
There was an uneval application of all these.
-
Unknown C
Uneval.
-
Unknown B
Unequal.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
Unequal. That is certainly true. Democrats were allowed to reject the results of any election that they wanted, and they faced zero repercussions. But People who also engaged in this sim. In similar lawful speech at the behest of the government, they were censored. What's your citation from these platforms?
-
Unknown A
How do you know? Again, so the government, you think because they, in your words, pressured social media companies to take down certain content, the Twitter files.
-
Unknown B
Dude, that makes you.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, I mean that because.
-
Unknown B
Convenient, isn't it?
-
Unknown A
It's not inconvenient at all. It disproves your case, in fact.
-
Unknown B
No, not necessarily.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, it does, because.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, the government intervened in people's lawful speech.
-
Unknown A
How did the government. I totally disagree with that. Yeah, yeah.
-
Unknown B
By censoring their speech.
-
Unknown A
The government didn't make that decision. The social media.
-
Unknown B
I'm a free speech absolutist. So again, we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree on this.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so you're a free speech absolutist. Do you think you have a right to post whatever you want on Twitter or not?
-
Unknown B
No.
-
Unknown A
No. Okay, so then a decision by Twitter to take down your content, absent coercion from the government, how could that implicate some first amendment interest?
-
Unknown B
It's a town square, dude. It's a public town square.
-
Unknown A
If it's a traditional public forum utility. Okay.
-
Unknown B
The only reason why the majority of these companies exist is because of the public's paying into taxes. Right. The Internet is, in my estimation, a public utility, and it should be treated as such. And lawful speech was never, ever, under any of these circumstances, censored the way that we saw after 2020 and during 2020.
-
Unknown A
If it's a public utility, if it's a. Or if it's a traditional public forum, or if it's, I don't know, a designated public forum, then why don't you have a right to say whatever you want on those platforms?
-
Unknown B
Well, because there are laws. For example, I'm not allowed to make credible threats of violence. I am against such things.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, but we're talking about lawful speech. Why are you assuming that the speech is by itself lawful? I don't doubt that questioning the results election is lawful speech and under the First Amendment, 100%. But if it's the case that it's your belief that these are town squares. Town squares, another word for that is a traditional public forum. A traditional public forum is a place where you cannot restrict on the basis of content your speech, that is almost by definition unconstitutional. So why isn't it then your position that on Twitter, on Facebook, you have a right to post whatever you want up to the constitutional limit?
-
Unknown B
Well, there are still meaningful rules that, you know, that are afforded to. Or let me. Let me back up. There are still liberties that are afforded to these platforms to censor certain speech that most of us will find reprehensible. Like, beautiful.
-
Unknown A
I couldn't have said it better myself. Let's move on.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, so like, like using racial slurs, for example. Oh, like. Like that's not something that isn't racially.
-
Unknown A
Aren't racial slurs protected speech under the First Amendment?
-
Unknown B
Sure, but you can also make the argument that sometimes engaging in that speech would silence somebody else's speech for one reason or another, not another way.
-
Unknown A
You think. You think that the government, if it wanted to, could make it illegal to say a racial slur if it wanted to?
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
That sounds pretty SJW of you, bro. You think the government can tell? You can't say.
-
Unknown B
Well, I'm just saying, I don't agree that that's what the government should do, but I'm just saying if they think.
-
Unknown A
They'Re legally allowed to do that, that if they want to be like, no more.
-
Unknown B
It doesn't matter what they're legally allowed.
-
Unknown A
It actually does matter what they're legally allowed.
-
Unknown B
They get. They engage in activity that runs antithetical to the.
-
Unknown A
I don't even know who you're talking about. They is. I mean, you're saying that you.
-
Unknown B
The regime, dude, the government.
-
Unknown A
The regime. Okay.
-
Unknown B
The permanent government.
-
Unknown A
Who was in charge of the government in 2020?
-
Unknown B
President Trump, presumably. Okay, but that didn't really seem to be the case. You know, there were elements.
-
Unknown A
Seem to be the case.
-
Unknown B
No, not necessarily. You know, he. He made decisions that were actively ignored by, you know, members of. Of his military and of his administration.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so bringing us. Re. Centering us, I guess, on. On the fundamental claim. So you point to the Twitter files and this relationship between government, I don't know, agents and censorship regimes on these social media platforms, and that's the basis in your mind to doubt the 2020 election results without any additional proof of malfeasance in the actual conduction of the election?
-
Unknown B
Well, that's certainly one point of contention, you know, if you don't allow the citizenry to speak openly on the primary modes of communication. That's a huge problem to me.
-
Unknown A
Are you aware of.
-
Unknown B
Really big problem.
-
Unknown A
So how did you get access to a lot of these claims about election fraud if not through social media?
-
Unknown B
Well, there are some. Some claims are able to go through. However, there was still a concerted effort to censor the majority of the speech.
-
Unknown A
Do you believe that this was the election with the most oversight and the most eyes. Looking at what was being done, the number of voters, the amount of ballots, don't you think that this election had the most independent eyes on them? We're talking about Republican governors, we're talking about Trump attorneys themselves. We're talking about Trump, Trump poll watchers. Isn't it the case that this election had the most independent oversight of any election in recent history?
-
Unknown B
No.
-
Unknown A
Which election can you point to that had more oversight than this election?
-
Unknown B
I don't know any of them, but any of them. To suggest that this was like the most, you know, the most on the level election is just categorically.
-
Unknown A
That's not what I asked. I asked, is this the election with the most scrutiny on both the conduct of the election and the people administering it?
-
Unknown B
Scrutiny, yeah. Okay, people administering it, maybe.
-
Unknown A
But why was it the case that Trump has been unable, and you, by the way, to produce actual evidence of fraud? You can poke at the margins if you want and say, hey, you had to wait in line a little long, and I didn't like that Zuckerberg censored my speech. But let's get to the hard brass tax. Why has Trump, his attorneys, and you been unable to produce hard evidence of voter fraud or irregularities?
-
Unknown B
There are plenty of people who have been able to produce irregularities and, you know, fraudulent behavior enough to.
-
Unknown A
To swing the election.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, certainly.
-
Unknown A
What is that?
-
Unknown B
Proof Wasn't. Even if it wasn't enough to sway the election, the fact that there are so many irregularities on the swing states and there's zero transparency. Again, this is the heart of the issue, is that there's zero transparency in this process and there were zero meaningful audits conducted. Except for Arizona, which did find many, many problems. I mean, for goodness sakes, I mean, there's videos of people harvesting ballots and one individual is signing multiple ballots and then dropping it off in a Dropbox, and there's, again, no criminal investigation.
-
Unknown A
Okay, are you.
-
Unknown B
No meaningful audit.
-
Unknown A
Where do you allege that this took place? The one person on video signing multiple ballots. Where do you allege this took place?
-
Unknown B
Georgia? Wisconsin, Pa. Doesn't matter, man.
-
Unknown A
It doesn't matter where this took place.
-
Unknown B
The fact of the matter is, is that there is zero transparency. You're the one that made the claim that there were audits everywhere. That is not.
-
Unknown A
I didn't say. I didn't say. I didn't say everywhere in the swing states that. That were most contestants under.
-
Unknown B
First of all, besides Arizona, where. Besides Arizona.
-
Unknown A
So in Georgia, there were audits. You disagree do you deny that?
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so that's a fact we can determine, can't we?
-
Unknown B
Sure.
-
Unknown A
So if I come with evidence that there were audits in Georgia, would you. What would you say in response to that?
-
Unknown B
Well, let me see the evidence.
-
Unknown A
Okay. This is from Georgia. The Georgia Secretary of State you might know as Brad Raff.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, Brad Raffensperger. Yeah. Untrustworthy individual, for sure.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so if he says that there was a risk audit, a risk limiting audit of all counties, what would that make you?
-
Unknown B
The risk limiting, limiting audit? What does that even mean? So did they compare and contrast the voter rolls with the ballots on hand?
-
Unknown A
They compared and examined 41,881 batches, hand sorted and counted each ballot as part of the process, which was the largest hand count of ballots in United States history.
-
Unknown B
Hand counts aren't audits.
-
Unknown A
Can you say more about that? So you're looking. You want to look at the signatures?
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
I mean, do you. Do you dispute the fact that there were quite a few ballots that had addresses, that were the ups, that were FedEx, that were vacant lots?
-
Unknown A
Because you're. The burden of proof is on you to A, show those ballots and B, show that there's anything wrong about them.
-
Unknown B
I didn't have time to prepare.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so you're just saying things that you have no awareness.
-
Unknown B
No, I. I am aware of it. And for those listening, you can do your own independent research yourself, and you will find that to be the case. There were quite a few ballots that had information that would disqualify it from being counted. And again, if that wasn't the case, why were there not meaningful, transparent audits conducted in all these states, say, for Arizona?
-
Unknown A
So would you agree in Arizona the election was conducted fairly?
-
Unknown B
No.
-
Unknown A
Why not? But there was. There was a audit that met your specifications.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, they did. And there was no remedy.
-
Unknown A
Remedy for what? You said that the audit was conducted correctly. Yeah, the audit found that Biden won the election.
-
Unknown B
It was conducted by an independent group. And is it the case.
-
Unknown A
Wait, wait, wait.
-
Unknown B
The government did nothing.
-
Unknown A
Is the. Is it the case. Is it the case that the audit in Arizona found that Biden won the election?
-
Unknown B
No.
-
Unknown A
You don't believe that the Cyber Ninjas audit found that Biden won the most amount of votes?
-
Unknown B
No, not really.
-
Unknown A
Are you sure. Are you not sure that the audit from Cyber Ninjas confirmed Biden's victory?
-
Unknown B
I don't think that's what it confirmed.
-
Unknown A
Are you sure, or are you not sure about what the audit results were? If you're sure about it? Say you're sure. If you're not sure, it's fine. You can say you're not sure. There's nothing wrong with that. Other than you. Okay, that's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking whether you think it's. I'm asking are you aware or are you not aware of the results of the audit?
-
Unknown B
I am aware of the results.
-
Unknown A
What are the results of the Cyber Ninjas audit?
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
That.
-
Unknown B
There were a lot of regulations.
-
Unknown A
I'm sorry, who was the victor under the Cyber Ninjas audit?
-
Unknown B
If you were to take what was provided by the state because it was highly limited in scale.
-
Unknown A
I asked you a question.
-
Unknown B
I asked you a question, Arizona.
-
Unknown A
What did I ask you? Are you aware of what I just asked you?
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
What did I ask you?
-
Unknown B
I was answering it. You interrupted me.
-
Unknown A
You weren't answering it. I asked you who was the victor under the Cyber Ninjas audit.
-
Unknown B
Well, unfortunately, it would be Biden, but again, that doesn't dispute the claim that there were massive irregularities and that the government should have acted to conduct a meaningful audit themselves.
-
Unknown A
And offer said it was a meaningful audit. You can't say, therefore they should have audited. Again, you said it was.
-
Unknown B
The Cyber Ninjas do not yield any power whatsoever in the state of Arizona. They were granted access to Cyber Ninjas.
-
Unknown A
Found, as you just said, that Biden.
-
Unknown B
Won the election with what they were provided. Sure, but there were still.
-
Unknown A
You yourself said it was a meaningful audit. You said it was.
-
Unknown B
Why are you disputing this? Why are you disputing this?
-
Unknown A
I'm sorry? You're the one disputing the Arizona results, aren't you?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, but you're. You're completely rejecting the claim that there were a handful of ballots that had severe irregularities. When you have so many ballots with incorrect invalid signatures and the state does nothing. We're talking about thousands of ballots here with invalid signatures. That is a problem. The state should act to remedy that situation immediately because that isn't in the spirit of. Of. Of. Of open inquiry and transparency.
-
Unknown A
So the Cyber Ninjas found that the victor of the election was Joe Biden. You're saying now that they found that a bunch of signatures on ballots.
-
Unknown B
That is true.
-
Unknown A
Invalid. Is that right?
-
Unknown B
Correct. Yes.
-
Unknown A
Citation needed.
-
Unknown B
I didn't have time to prepare. You wanted to jump into this. And again, I'm just making the case that there was zero transparency.
-
Unknown A
They didn't find that those thousands were invalid ballots. That's just not true.
-
Unknown C
I don't know who still is, actually. True. It's in politics. In discord.
-
Unknown A
Quote it. I thought these dipshits weren't going to come in, but I guess when you're on the ropes, they're allowed to come in.
-
Unknown C
I'm just. I'm just. I'm just listening in. But I'm going to drop off. I'm just going to say, as an Arizona resident, do your research.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, you don't know should either. I mean, if you want, we can. If you want, we can. You being in that state isn't a source of information for you. You're not. You're not like, smarter because you live in the state. If you're repeating these bullshit conspiracy theories.
-
Unknown C
Let me just ask you one question that I'll drop off.
-
Unknown B
What is the. What's the conspiracy here?
-
Unknown A
The conspiracy is that Zuckerberg and others orchestrated the defeat of Donald Trump. Yes, they did. Yeah.
-
Unknown C
Okay.
-
Unknown A
You have no proof of that. Right.
-
Unknown C
So let me just ask the question really quick, because you've been asking a lot of questions. Should. Is it okay that cyber ninjas, which they were, they were subpoenaed. They had all the records given in front of the court. That's okay. But when you try to get information from Runbeck, who runs our elections out here in Maricopa county, but the judge rules. Oh, no, they're not subject to oversight. Do you think that's rules for me and not for thee? Especially when Runbeck is the one that's printing the ballots, that it's a chain of custody where all that's going through is runback? It goes to Runbeck from USPS and then it goes to the county at MC Tech. Do you think there's an issue if there is no accountability? There is no oversight of run back.
-
Unknown A
Not. Not unless that you can show that the issues in runback were substantiated.
-
Unknown C
But. But they're a government. They're working for the government. You're telling me that someone working for the government should not have any oversight?
-
Unknown A
I don't think that it's a yes or no.
-
Unknown C
It's a yes or no. As you say, it's a yes or no.
-
Unknown A
Hang on a second. Hang on. So an organization that works for the government, of course, is subject to oversight by the government. Who else?
-
Unknown C
Okay, so why didn't that happen?
-
Unknown A
It's your allegation that there was no sufficient oversight.
-
Unknown C
It's not an allegation. It's literally in the court documents.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so go, go. Subpoena was issued by whom?
-
Unknown C
To whom If. And this has been A minute.
-
Unknown A
So by whom? To whom.
-
Unknown C
Subpoena for the records?
-
Unknown A
Yeah. What records are you saying were improperly withheld?
-
Unknown C
They were trying to get information on Runbeck that I'll have to put. The party's suing, so I want to say it was Carrie Lake or.
-
Unknown A
Okay, now we have an issue, don't we? Now we have an issue, don't we? If it's Carrie Lake. Do you think that every individual in the United States should have the ability to get a government to produce anything they want all the time?
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
Yes. Okay. That's your standard. That's your new FOIA standard. Anyone who claims an injury can get anything they want all the time.
-
Unknown C
Well, technically, the. I mean, the people of Arizona were injured if the election was proven fraudulent or there is election maladministration, which was alleged by Kerry's team on Maricopa County.
-
Unknown A
I forget exactly what information specifically was Cyber Ninjas denied. Is that your allegation that they were denied information?
-
Unknown C
We're talking that. We're talking two different things.
-
Unknown A
Okay. Cyber Ninjas denied information.
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown C
No, cyber. So Cyber Ninjas was subpoenaed for information. I want to say phone records. There's a lawsuit. I. I can't remember the exact lawsuit.
-
Unknown A
You're asking me, so just be clear. You're asking me to compare the standards for subpoenas, and you cannot even identify the people requesting subpoenas for either Cyber Ninjas or Terry Lake lawsuit.
-
Unknown C
I. I will look it up here. So American Oversight has finalized a settlement agreement with Arizona Cyber. The Arizona Senate in seven public records in a public records lawsuit that spanned nearly two years and extracted thousands of pages of public records related to Senate's audit of the 2020 election results. So I. All I'm trying to make the point here, man, is, you know, it's. It's. Everyone plays by the same book or.
-
Unknown A
No, that sounds like a settlement.
-
Unknown C
We have issues.
-
Unknown A
That sounds like a settlement, doesn't it? Doesn't it sound like a settlement?
-
Unknown C
Well, so here, I guess.
-
Unknown A
Sorry. Or does it not sound like a settlement? What you just described.
-
Unknown C
There was a lawsuit. Yes, but what did I start telling you?
-
Unknown A
What did I just ask you?
-
Unknown C
There is a settlement between the two parties? Yes.
-
Unknown A
What is a settlement?
-
Unknown C
You can look it up. It's on American Oversight.
-
Unknown A
Sorry. What is a settlement generally? What is a settlement?
-
Unknown C
Financial or other means, I'm assuming.
-
Unknown A
Financial. What are you talking about? Are you an idiot? A settlement is a contract. A contract.
-
Unknown B
What happened to being a gentleman?
-
Unknown A
Because you guys. Hang on a second. You Guys are morons. And you're just like repeating articles without having the slightest comprehension of what's in them or what the process. I'm going to explain to you. I'm going to explain to you. So a settlement is a contract, right? You understand a contract? A contract is a, an agreement, a meeting of the minds between two parties where they agree on the underlying terms of what to produce, what not to produce. It's a freely entered into agreement. And you're trying to say that that agreement should be compared to a compulsory process that is like a subpoena.
-
Unknown C
Well, was it Like I said, it's been a minute since the lawsuit.
-
Unknown A
If you don't know shit, you don't know shit. That's cool. But then don't come at me with your, you know, half baked ideas before you're ready to come to play. I'm.
-
Unknown C
Dude, I'm all, I'm all. I'm trying to tell you.
-
Unknown B
Can you read really quick? Yeah. All right, so. Okay, let's rub this back in. I asked what other meaningful audit was conducted outside of Arizona.
-
Unknown A
No, we're focused. I'm not gonna consider that. I'm not gonna concede Arizona. Sorry, I'm not gonna move past Arizona. If in Arizona there was, by all accounts, by your account, an audit that matched your requirement for being sufficiently thorough.
-
Unknown B
Yes.
-
Unknown A
Then. Hang on.
-
Unknown B
Nothing came about it.
-
Unknown A
Then when there was fraud discovered because the result was. Hang on. Nothing came about.
-
Unknown B
You're getting upset and you're. Nothing.
-
Unknown A
Nothing came about it. Nothing came about it.
-
Unknown B
You'd be a gentleman.
-
Unknown A
Nothing came about it because the Arizona audit found that Biden won. Why would, why would anything allegedly. Okay, okay.
-
Unknown C
Once you separate the ballots from the envelopes, then it is.
-
Unknown A
I don't, I don't even know. You know what that means once you separate the ballots.
-
Unknown C
Yeah. Okay. So I can actually explain the signature verification process because I have actually some friends that reported on this. So here we go. And again, you can look at, in, in the, in the Watch. Frogs, Discord. You can look in politics. There's a link to a Gateway Pundit article from my buddy Jordan Condren. Found that as they did their news gathering on this to do their story, which is completely legal under state law for them to produce this stuff. They showed point.
-
Unknown A
Stop yapping. I don't care.
-
Unknown C
Well, they showed the mismatch on signatures on the ballot envelope. So when you remove the ballot from the ballot envelope, if that signature was unlawfully approved by the signature, guys that were just going like this, like they were playing slots. Just pressing the button. Do you think that is a problem?
-
Unknown A
Do you believe ballots and signatures should be separated?
-
Unknown C
They are separated from the envelope.
-
Unknown A
You believe they should be.
-
Unknown C
Yes, they are separated. Once. Once the signature is verified.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so once the signature is verified.
-
Unknown C
And they're separated and I say verified as in air quotes, because we clearly showed through this reporting that there were votes that went through that shouldn't have been. So they were unlawfully counted votes because of mismatching signatures.
-
Unknown B
So.
-
Unknown A
So just to be 100% clear, you have produced a pundit article that claims that these signatures are mismatching are somehow.
-
Unknown C
And they were unlawfully approved.
-
Unknown A
Yeah.
-
Unknown B
Is valid. According to News Guard. Man. Don't disregard the Super.
-
Unknown A
Super valid. Your people with a stake in the race. Yeah, No, I don't.
-
Unknown C
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. What's my stake?
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So just to be 1,000% clear, please.
-
Unknown C
You're. You're, you're telling me about. You're telling me and you about making claims. What's my stake?
-
Unknown A
Just to be. Your stake is you wanted Trump to win, right?
-
Unknown C
I mean, you. It sounds like you want to Biden to win.
-
Unknown A
I wanted the right result to be counted.
-
Unknown C
Oh, same.
-
Unknown B
Same here.
-
Unknown A
Why.
-
Unknown C
Why can't we all agree on election integrity? Why don't we want election integrity?
-
Unknown A
You guys. You guys believe.
-
Unknown C
So why not have the same rules for everyone?
-
Unknown A
So let's be clear. The rules are the same for everyone in the state fair.
-
Unknown C
Not between Runbeck and Cyber Ninjas. No, they're treated differently by the judge. By the judge.
-
Unknown A
In that case, didn't you just get owned on that point? And you admitted.
-
Unknown C
I did not.
-
Unknown A
That you have no idea about what I'm telling processes in those cases. Didn't you just admit that there was a lawsuit?
-
Unknown C
I'm not gonna get it. I'm not a lawyer.
-
Unknown A
Right. So how can you make.
-
Unknown C
You know, I took a semester of law and all I need to know is constitutional rights and how to get out of speeding tickets. All right. That's all I learned about that.
-
Unknown A
What's the constitutional issue at stake and the difference in how the cyber ninjas and run back were treated vis a vis.
-
Unknown C
I'm saying it. I'm saying it as just a general statement here. Yeah.
-
Unknown B
Because I'm not gonna dive in.
-
Unknown C
I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna dive into the weeds.
-
Unknown A
With you because you actually, it's a general statement because you're.
-
Unknown C
Oh, I'm a dumbass. Okay, so the guy that actually witnessed people getting out of Line in Arizona because the line was too long ago and voters were disenfranchised.
-
Unknown A
More cry, more.
-
Unknown B
Spencer, stop. There's enough. Okay, now you're. You're being dismissive of legitimate claims of voter disenfranchisement. And again, this is the heart of the issue here because you're dismissing the grievances that these people have and you're completely content with the way that the election transpired. I'm not that.
-
Unknown A
Again. I thought we were going to shut down the idiot. I mean, he's still piping up.
-
Unknown B
Please.
-
Unknown C
Yeah, yeah, I'll. I'll jump back.
-
Unknown A
Unmutes the next second later. Shut the up. You've been owned. You can move on.
-
Unknown C
All right, you know what, Pisco? I. I wish you the best, man. And you seem like a shield assistant to me.
-
Unknown B
Why are you so hostile, man? My. The.
-
Unknown A
He's a dumbass. He's a dumbass and he's interrupting us. We're. We're having a conversation. And I thought he wasn't going to pipe up. You asked him to. He's being disrespectful to you.
-
Unknown B
Fair enough. He. He means no harm to be this stupid, the both of you. No, I'm not stupid and neither is Spencer. Again, there are, like I said, there's grave issues with the way that these elections are conducted. And there is an issue of transparency which you have not adequately, you know, addressed. And you were. You've been dismissive of people's grievances regarding the.
-
Unknown A
How have I not adequately addressed the issues of transparency?
-
Unknown B
Where has there been a meaningful audit conducted? The fact.
-
Unknown A
Do you understand why I'm staying? Do you understand. Do you understand why I'm staying in Arizona? Why do you think?
-
Unknown B
Because it's convenient for you?
-
Unknown A
No, because it's convenient for you. It's the case.
-
Unknown B
And when there is information that runs contrary to your ethos, like the Gateway pundit being a legitimate source, which it is, according to News Guard, you get dismissive and huff and puff.
-
Unknown A
So, I mean, the reason. I'm saying. The reason I'm staying in Arizona is because this is the. The state which had the most extensive audits. And the point of staying here is if even the most extensive audits did not satisfy you, then every other response on the other states is going to be over determined. Do you understand that you're omitting the.
-
Unknown B
Part where I said, yes, there were audits. Not good ones, but there were audits and they found irregularities. Very grave, serious problems with the election that in my opinion, Puts it in doubt.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
And it needs to be remedied and it hasn't.
-
Unknown A
How would you remedy the grave problems in Arizona?
-
Unknown B
Get the ballots. Publish them. So people publish the ballots. People have people be able to compare and contrast with the voter rolls. And there's no desire to do that on the modern left. The modern left's response to people claiming the election is. Is to censor their lawful speech.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, I'm not interested in that. Don't worry about that. Yeah, I don't care.
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I don't.
-
Unknown A
I really don't care about your First.
-
Unknown B
Amendment move to audit.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. You're just talking to no one. No one here cares about your First Amendment claims or focusing on the election. So if you want to bring your claims about unfairness and your grievances. Yeah. How you feeling people feel? You feel like the victim. I understand. You feel like the victim and you are victims. Yeah, you are victims. You feel very bad that you're the victims and you've had grievances. Is. We're not focused on your First Amendment shit. It's all. Anyway. But we're not getting into that. It is bullshit. I mean, it's a fundamental right to post on Twitter.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. Elon Musk seems to share that opinion.
-
Unknown A
Apparently not because he's banning people who, like, talk shit about him.
-
Unknown B
I don't know about all that.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, of course you don't. Yeah. You don't know anything that absolutely destroys and undermines your point. You don't know anything about that.
-
Unknown B
You don't. Likewise, because you were crying about the Gateway pundit. I mean, come on. Now you're being silly.
-
Unknown A
You're being so. So you think that I'm. Unw. To deal with, like, facts, quote, unquote. Facts that go counter to my narrative. That's what this whole thing has been about. We're examining a specific state that you've said where there's been a sufficient audit. Is this a sufficient audit for Arizona? Sufficient or not?
-
Unknown B
I don't believe so.
-
Unknown A
Why was this audit insufficient?
-
Unknown B
It was insufficient because of the scope. It was insufficient because there were irregularities found which you don't even admit to. Wait, you can't even admit that there were problems?
-
Unknown A
No, I did not.
-
Unknown B
Problems with single.
-
Unknown A
I denied. Do you agree.
-
Unknown B
Agree that there were problems with signatures on some of the ballots?
-
Unknown A
I deny that that's been proven. I deny it. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is the nature.
-
Unknown B
Of what to tell you, man.
-
Unknown A
Wait, wait. I do not. I Deny. I deny that you have proven that there were problems with the ballots. I deny that. I think that has not at all been established. But to be clear, I'm not talking about. I'm not talking about the. I'm not talking about, like, the ultimate disposition. I'm saying that the nature of the audit was the. Nate, was the audit itself a process that you trusted? That you trust?
-
Unknown B
Not entirely, but it highlighted and showed enough problems, enough, you know, issues with the way that the election unfolded to warrant concern, to warrant calls for the state of Arizona to get off its ass and to appease the voters and to address their legitimate grievances, which you've been huffing and puffing about, scoffing.
-
Unknown A
Don't trust the results of the Cyber Ninjas audit.
-
Unknown B
It's not what I said, man.
-
Unknown A
Do you or do you not trust it? Do you or do you not trust it?
-
Unknown B
That's not what I said.
-
Unknown A
Do you trust it or do you not trust it?
-
Unknown B
I trust what the Cyber Ninjas produced.
-
Unknown A
Okay. And so is it your claim that the Cyber Ninjas produced evidence of fraud?
-
Unknown B
Yes, they did.
-
Unknown A
What? Evidence of fraud.
-
Unknown B
And I told you, which you disagree with, so, I mean, we're just butting heads here.
-
Unknown A
Wait.
-
Unknown B
Yes, there were issues. There were. There's images of man. Dr. Shiva, what is the issue?
-
Unknown A
Explain the issue, dude.
-
Unknown B
Okay, this is like the fifth time.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, explain this.
-
Unknown B
Okay, so there were ballots where an individual voter was supposed to sign, and there was no signature there. There were stamps that said approved or there was one line through it. That is not a legitimate sign.
-
Unknown A
How many ballots was printed? Are you alleging where there were or. Or. I don't know, mail?
-
Unknown B
I do not have literature in front of me. I don't have the materials in front of me. Again, I was not able to pre. For this, but it did happen. There were irregular irregularities, and there were issues with the ballots, and again, the state doesn't.
-
Unknown A
Are you able to describe. So. So the issues you've identified, so far as I can recount them, are some ballots did not have any signatures or some envelopes did not have signatures. Fair.
-
Unknown B
Plenty of them, yes.
-
Unknown A
You don't. You don't have any idea of how many?
-
Unknown B
That is not at the top of my head, no.
-
Unknown A
Is it enough to change the outcome of the election in your mind?
-
Unknown B
It's possible, yes.
-
Unknown A
Are you sure or not you were.
-
Unknown B
To expand the scope of a genuine audit? I don't believe that Joe Biden would have won that contest.
-
Unknown A
No, I don't care about your beliefs right now. I care about the evidence that you're able to produce, and you're unable at this moment to give any kind of approximation of the number of envelopes or signatures that were absent. Fair. You don't know how many of those are.
-
Unknown B
No, not, not, like I said, not at the top of my head, no.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so then why do you think that that is evidence of sufficient evidence to question the results if you don't have any idea of the magnitude?
-
Unknown B
Well, because nobody does. How regularities are found, issues are found with the. With the votes, and the government is saying, enough. We're not going to examine this any further. We're going to block the process, and we're going to deny people of their legitimate grievances.
-
Unknown A
Okay, that's.
-
Unknown B
Again, dude, this is. Me and you just ideologically fundamentally disagree on this matter. So we. We need a let's. We're not going to agree, dude.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, so. So you're.
-
Unknown B
You're.
-
Unknown A
You're coming into this one state, you're.
-
Unknown B
Honed in on one state, and you don't want to address the fact that there were no other meaningful audits conducted anywhere else.
-
Unknown A
So the reason why. The reason why I'm focused on Arizona is because even here, you have a clear case where there's been extensive audits done, where the state legislature has contracted a organization that's incredibly pro Trump, and in their final result, they absolutely confirmed the Biden victory. And what you're able to point to is a kind of vague notion that some signatures were invalid, but without any specifics.
-
Unknown B
Again, dude, I wasn't allowed to prepare for this. I wasn't allowed to prepare for this. And you're asking for very, very specific details that I didn't have time to get. I mean, dude, we're talking about multiple swing states, and again, I don't have the literature in front of me. You're an expert, and I said formerly, dude, you're not currently elections anymore.
-
Unknown A
Are you currently an expert in how elections are conducted?
-
Unknown B
I don't think anybody is an expert in the way the elections are conducted. As of 2020, there are no election experts. Has been overhauled and changed dramatically to introduce.
-
Unknown A
If no one is an election expert, you would concede you're not an election expert? Fair.
-
Unknown B
I never said that I was.
-
Unknown A
You. Is it your position. Is it your position that you never said that you were an election expert?
-
Unknown B
Yeah, I didn't say that.
-
Unknown A
Okay. You understand there's a tweet to that effect, right?
-
Unknown B
Yeah. Pull it up.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, sure.
-
Unknown B
Read it verbatim. If you will.
-
Unknown A
100%.
-
Unknown B
Let me see Koshi Ku. No, I'm not. No. First off, he's not even addressing the core complaints. Complaints that I'm making.
-
Unknown A
What's the core complaint you're making?
-
Unknown B
That there's zero transparency. No. Meaningful.
-
Unknown A
Isn't an audit a transparency? Do you believe in Arizona there was transparency fair?
-
Unknown B
Yes and no. It's more. How was there a simple yes?
-
Unknown A
How was there no trans. Was there sufficient transparency in Arizona?
-
Unknown B
I already explained. The scope of these audits were incredibly limited. And even when there were irregularities discovered, the state did absolutely nothing to remedy the problem.
-
Unknown A
I'm sorry, I'm only focused on transparency fair. I'm only asking about transparency.
-
Unknown B
Okay.
-
Unknown A
It. Was there sufficient transparency in Arizona. Okay, so then what was. Where. Was there any place that had sufficient transparency in the 2020 election regarding the.
-
Unknown B
Swing states that we mentioned earlier? No.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
I do not believe.
-
Unknown A
So this is a quote of your tweet. Quote. I'm a former expert on election matters.
-
Unknown B
Current expert, which is what you were suggesting.
-
Unknown A
Okay, so when you say former when worry.
-
Unknown B
I do not do.
-
Unknown A
When did you stop being an expert on election matters?
-
Unknown B
I would say probably around 2015.
-
Unknown A
So how old are you?
-
Unknown B
33.
-
Unknown A
33. So 2015 would have been what, eight or nine years ago?
-
Unknown B
I don't know, bro.
-
Unknown A
You stopped being an election expert in 2015, before the 2016 election. You lost your expertise.
-
Unknown B
I. I changed career paths, and again, the entire process has been overhauled. Can we agree that the way voting is conducted in America dramatically changed in 2020? Yes or no?
-
Unknown A
In some ways, yeah.
-
Unknown B
In some ways, yeah. Okay. All right.
-
Unknown A
I mean, so. So some states, such as Pennsylvania, and this is to go back to your initial point, where you're like, the governors did things unilaterally, whatever. You had an expansion of mail in ballots. But just to be clear, in Pennsylvania specifically, that was a bipartisan piece of legislature passed prior to Covid in 2019, overwhelmingly approved by the legislature, signed by the Democratic governor. And so a lot of these cases aren't what you say.
-
Unknown B
What do you mean? What do you mean?
-
Unknown A
So, for example, you alleged that there was problems in terms of the separation of powers with respect to who was making changes to how the election was conducted. But I gave you an example in Pennsylvania, where the expansion, the broad expansion in mail in ballots was a bipartisan piece of legislation called Act 77. Are you aware of that?
-
Unknown B
One more time. Okay, One more time.
-
Unknown A
Are you trolling me?
-
Unknown B
No.
-
Unknown A
You. Did you or did you not say at the start that it had to be the legislatures to approve massive changes to how the election was conducted.
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
What I am providing you is, is one example in Pennsylvania where the massive change that is expanding mail in ballots to everybody in Pennsylvania was a bipartisan piece of legislature called Act 77 that was put into law on a bipartisan fashion in 2019.
-
Unknown B
Prior to yes or no, did that run contrary to the state's constitution according.
-
Unknown A
To the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? No.
-
Unknown B
Oh, okay.
-
Unknown A
Wait. Do you agree with that or not?
-
Unknown B
No. You disagree Is a partisan.
-
Unknown A
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is partisan.
-
Unknown B
Yeah.
-
Unknown A
So you think that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is the ultimate say on what Pennsylvania law means, you don't accept their holding?
-
Unknown B
No, it's okay. Don't agree. Conducted in person.
-
Unknown A
Wait, you understand that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court undertakes a legal analysis. It's not about your policy preference. So on what, on what basis do you think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court came to the wrong decision?
-
Unknown B
Because the decision appears to have run contrary to the state's constitution.
-
Unknown A
Can you explain how.
-
Unknown B
Oh man. Dude, do you really want me to go fishing for the state's constitution regarding how.
-
Unknown A
I'm asking you why you disagree with it.
-
Unknown B
I'm telling you why I explained why. And you're, you know, you explained that.
-
Unknown A
The result is something you don't agree with. That's conclusory. It's the conclusion. I want to know the reasoning.
-
Unknown B
Well, as I mentioned many times earlier, there was no transparency in this process and nobody is able to independently verify.
-
Unknown A
Okay, you understand we moved on to the constitutional issue in Pennsylvania and so it's not about transparency, it's about a law and its facial compliance with the the state constitution.
-
Unknown B
We're saying that they passed this law legislation, the legislature passed this law and I made the claim accurately that it ran contrary to the constitution. And how many Supreme Court how. Because it wasn't supposed to be mass mail in ballots. Dude, those mass mail in ballots are not secure. They're not safe. There's no, there's no oversight. There's no way to verify the validity of these ballots. And in many such cases, there wasn't even, you know, anybody verifying the signatures of these, of these documents in Pennsylvania in all of the swing states. Yes.
-
Unknown A
Okay. You understand you're full of right?
-
Unknown B
No, I'm not.
-
Unknown A
You understand that you're one of the dumbest people I've ever spoken with on this entire platform.
-
Unknown B
I sincerely doubt it. I sincerely why asserting it. And it's believe that if you want to believe the regime approved narrative regarding Mail in ballots and you want complete and total access to it. Again, this is a fundamental disagreement about our beliefs and our ethos regarding how voting is conducted.
-
Unknown A
You can keep using words like ethos and fundamental and like all these filler words that make you think that you're smart. You're one of the dumber persons I've ever spoken with, dude.
-
Unknown B
I mean, again, you're, you're upset and you're getting animated and huffing and puffing and engaging in at home attacks because your ideology really runs contrary to, you know, core principles regarding transparency.
-
Unknown A
Core principles, man. And it's not transparent and it violates it because it does. And no one audited and no one looked at it. You sound like a idiot. You haven't done your homework. You haven't done your research. You don't know the first thing about how the election was conducted. You have no ability to distinguish it from the 2016 election other than your vibes. You started this conversation by saying, I assert that, that the Jill Stein litigation was pressed by Hillary Clinton. Said, I know I don't have proof on it, but I believe it anyway. And then. And you're on it. And you said the Jews may have controlled all this, but you're not sure.
-
Unknown B
I never said that. No, no, you brought up the j.
-
Unknown A
Sorry, you said that you're not sure.
-
Unknown B
You wanted to wait.
-
Unknown A
Are you sure?
-
Unknown B
Because you're asking me to answer a question that I absolutely, I don't know anything about. Did you have a reason why you would. First, I don't know why you would say that. Like, from my understanding, you're a leftist, so you're probably, you probably have a world view that's antithetical to Israel given everything that's happening in the Middle east right now. And that's probably.
-
Unknown A
I love Israel.
-
Unknown B
I don't know if you're anti Semitic. Again, I don't know why you're bringing.
-
Unknown A
No, no, because I didn't bring them up.
-
Unknown B
You did.
-
Unknown A
Listen, I, I think you're, I think you're kind of, I think you're kind of sketchy here about who you think is responsible. You think someone is responsible for stealing the election for Donald Trump? That's correct, isn't it?
-
Unknown B
Someone or something. Sure.
-
Unknown A
So who, who do you believe is responsible for stealing the election from Donald Trump?
-
Unknown B
Well, you know, given the fact that the states are, you know, relatively. These elections are independently conducted.
-
Unknown A
Are.
-
Unknown B
There's probably a whole slew of different people that are involved.
-
Unknown A
So the Republicans in Georgia stole elections from.
-
Unknown B
Okay, yes, Governor Kemp is likely involved. Brad Raffensperger these, these individuals are adamantly anti Trump, they're anti transparency. They've been blocking people trying to get access to the ballots and meaningfully audit them. That is not in dispute dude. That is 100% fact. Stacey Abrams, far leftist, somebody you would probably agree with. Even she rejects outcomes of the election.
-
Unknown A
Prior to do you agree with her?
-
Unknown B
I don't know.
-
Unknown A
Do you think that the election was stolen from states? Do you believe in 2018 the election was stolen from Stacey Abrams? Yes or no?
-
Unknown B
I have no idea. Given the fact that there's transparency problems ongoing right now, maybe she has a point. I personally not a big fan of.
-
Unknown A
Her but yeah, you're going off vibes. If you like the person, you believe them. If you don't, you don't.
-
Unknown B
Voters or disenfranchised. I believe that they have a right to have a meaningful audit conducted. If you want to conduct one right now and, and then and find some meaningful remedy for Stacy Abrams, I am all for it. But Stacey Abrams, Karine Jean Pierre, Hillary Clinton and a whole slew of other individuals, they are allowed to reject the outcome of any election that they want. But people like myself, when we say hey something is wrong, we get censored because the government is pressuring these tech companies to do it.
-
Unknown A
You're a cry baby. No one's censoring you right now. You're spewing your filth on Twitter.
-
Unknown B
You're seeing me right now.
-
Unknown A
You're spewing your filth on Twitter. There was plenty of filth that was spewed by people like you believing from the Gateway pund and other sources.
-
Unknown B
That's not bullshit.
-
Unknown A
That's what you did. And it was all it was all over social media and you're crying and whining about election you lost. And even in the places where the audits and the transparency was the most, the most open to the public, you're crying on election issues you cannot even specify and elaborate on. It is pathetic. You have failed as an American citizen to make any articulable case for fraud. It's. And you're spreading bullshit to all of your fans, however many.
-
Unknown B
So I should just throw my hands up and agree with the regime approved narrative?
-
Unknown A
No one's saying that. But, but the burden of proof is on you.
-
Unknown B
The, the, the government should not be given the benefit of the doubt. Given everything that's transpired in the last, let's say 30 years, I believe it is the most American thing to do which is Dispute claims made by the government until they produce evidence otherwise and to demand transparency where none exists. So again, we just fundamentally agree on this?
-
Unknown A
We fundamentally agree or disagree?
-
Unknown B
Disagree.
-
Unknown A
Yeah. So I agree that there should be transparency. But I also believe. But I also believe. But I also believe that those who are alleging voter fraud have a burden of proof to prove it.
-
Unknown B
The government does.
-
Unknown A
No, the government does. So I'll bring you back to the start of our conversation, sir. Do you recall when we were talking about the 2016 election and we were talking. And we were talking and you said, wait, well, why don't you question the 2016 election? I offered you a standard, and that standard was, isn't the burden of proof on the person alleging fraud in the case of the 2016 election to prove it? And you said, yes, of course. And in fact, the reason you gave one that I agreed with for why you trust the 2016 election was because there was not a sufficient meeting of the burden by those alleging fraud in 2016. However, in 2020, the burden has shifted. And you've now said that there's an affirmative obligation of the government to disprove voter fraud as opposed to the other way around. How is that not the definition of a double standard?
-
Unknown B
Well, because when individual private citizens bring forth claims and they state that they have grievances, the government should address those grievances.
-
Unknown A
They have.
-
Unknown B
You appear to be antithetical to that.
-
Unknown A
Wait, they have. You don't accept it? When I try to bring up. Sorry. When I try to bring up Raffensperger response, you say you can't trust them. When I try to bring up Richter's response, you say, I don't trust what.
-
Unknown B
He says because there hasn't been meaningful audits conducted.
-
Unknown A
Those are. Those are the context. Those are in the context of two states that had audits and. Okay, put aside. Put aside. Put aside the Georgia one. I totally disagree with the characterization of it not being sufficient. Put aside the Georgia. Put aside the Georgia one. Just Arizona. You're not going to buy anything Steven Richter says in response to every single one of your claims.
-
Unknown B
Has a response already addressed that? I never already addressed that.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, you don't believe him. You don't. Wait, you just don't believe Steven Richter. Fair.
-
Unknown B
No, absolutely not.
-
Unknown A
Okay.
-
Unknown B
He's not a trustworthy individual.
-
Unknown A
So then the government has responded to those claims. The truth is, you don't believe the response.
-
Unknown B
Fair. They responded to it by telling the voters, people with legitimate grievances, to off in legalese, of course, shut the up.
-
Unknown A
They told them they had. Do you want to know how many hearings Richter had and how. How often these grievances were heard and responded to? How? That there were investigations from state investigatory bodies, which I'm sure are into it. Right? The. The Georgia investigation, the state police officer that investigated the election. They're all in on it. I'm sure you believe the FBI is in on it, too, Correct? Because they investigated it.
-
Unknown B
Wouldn't surprise me.
-
Unknown A
Oh, yeah. It wouldn't surprise you. Wouldn't surprise you. So, like, your claim that somehow these were not aired is complete and utter horseshit. They were absolutely aired and responded to. You don't believe the response. That's the truth.