Dr. Andrew Paquette - The Science of Election Rigging (Pt. 2 of 2) - PRE-RELEASE
03:29:08 Share

All of our files are free and will remain free. If you like to show, you can show support by donating $1 to help with expenses. Just use the pay link on our webpage. Thanks.

And welcome back to the second part of our election fraud program today. Andrew Parkett is elaborating on the details, weeding out the details for us. So to leave you with no doubt, well, to fill you in on how his story, how he experienced it, and I'm sure any sensible person will come to the same conclusion.

Now, we were in the middle of the story. So I think we just go straight back. I have a million ramification things to discuss after we've heard the details of how this is all done. But we'll first just go through the entire process before we even get to the bigger questions. So go on, Andrew. Okay. Well, one thing to sum up, when you commit election fraud, at least in the United States,

It's dependent on the prior commission of registration fraud because to vote, you have to be registered. And as a result, when people have been tried and convicted of voter fraud in the United States, they are frequently also charged with registration fraud, which is also a crime. And the reason is because a false registration to vote is illegal.

It gives you the ability to commit the crime known as voter fraud. Okay. So it's, it's like a burglary tools and you can be, you can actually be charged and thrown in jail for just owning burglary tools. So there are, there are certain types of things where if, if a policeman searches, searches the back of your car, uh,

And he finds that you have tools in the back that are designed to break into bank safes and things like that. They can arrest you on that basis alone. And voter registration fraud is like that. So what I've been talking about so far are indicators that registration fraud has been taking place at a fairly large systemic scale in the state of New York. Is that fair as a sum up for you? Yeah, yeah.

Okay. So I wanted to kind of go to a slightly different but related topic, and that is something I discovered in the voter rolls that I had posited might exist and probably had to exist if there was some kind of large-scale coordinated effort to commit voter fraud in New York.

And that was if the fraudulent registration records were literally fraudulent or fraudulently designed as opposed to erroneous. So that is...

They weren't an innocent mistake. They were they were made on purpose specifically to commit voter fraud. So if that was true, then it seemed to me there had to be a way to keep track of those records and it had to be clandestine. In other words, unlikely to be discovered by someone else like me, for instance. So they'd have to be well hidden. But or that method would have to be well hidden, but it would have to exist.

And so I had been keeping my eyes open for anything that would look like that. And eventually I found something that would allow this to happen. And that's something I found, you know, kind of accidentally as the result of, believe it or not, a lightning storm. So what happened was a there was a lightning storm near my house and.

And I don't know if this was the lightning storm that melted the wires in my pool pump, but something melted all the wires of this device I have outside my house and shut off all my power. And I happened to be working on the voter rolls at the time, so it also corrupted my voter roll file. As a result, I had to reload it. And it just so happened we had another lightning storm, and it knocked it out again. Wow.

And this happened several times. Now, the thing is, this might not sound like a really big deal, but it was a huge deal. And the reason is because it meant I had to rebuild the database every single time from scratch. You didn't take security copy? Well, here's the thing. It was such a big file and the rest of the group had their copies that

that I didn't feel the necessity, right? Surely you learned the first time. Well, no, I didn't learn the first time. I learned like the seventh or eighth time. You're just like me. But anyway... You learned the second time, yeah. Well, the thing is, I had not only a search protector, but I also had this very expensive device attached to my computer...

That was supposed to give me 15 minutes of battery time so that I could shut everything down. Right. And it just for whatever reason was being bypassed. And it wasn't until I think the fourth time it happened in the same month.

that I realized that I had a computer repairman out a few months before, and he had failed to plug the computer into that thing, right? Oh, my God. So that's why the surge protection wasn't working, and that's why the battery thing wasn't working either. What about the lightning protector? Don't you have that? Yeah, I do. But the thing is, it wasn't plugged into it. He plugged the computer directly into the wall, so it wasn't plugged into the surge device. Oh, okay.

So and I hadn't noticed because there's just a tangle of cables down there. And, you know, I didn't really pay attention to them. They become part of the landscape. Right. So anyway, it turned out the lightning blast that destroyed my my files was a very good thing. OK, because if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't have discovered this method. OK, so so.

So what the process entailed for me was we had a single text file that was given to us by the New York State Board of Elections, which had almost 21 million records in it. Now, that was too many records to process in Excel. And it was also too many records to load into my database program, which is FileMaker. But my FileMaker program didn't like loading the data type.

from the text file. Okay. It could do it, but it didn't do it very well because it added all sorts of special characters that, that made no sense. And it became very hard to use the database if I did that. So I had to process it through Excel, but Excel can only process a little over a million records at a time. So what I had to do is I had to divide the

the, uh, the 21 million record file into smaller groups. And I finally decided to do it in segments of 1 million. So it was 21 million files at 1 million each, which took days just to do that because I had to sit there scrolling through millions of names until I hit the, you know, the right row and then cut and paste that. And it just took ages, but, and I had to do this every single time the lightning hit.

So anyway, I finally did that. And then I saved those to our server. So I was able to retrieve them after I did that. And then I loaded them one by one.

knowing that if I lost the file again, I'd only lose what I'd uploaded up to that point. I wouldn't lose everything because I'd already saved it in these million record segments. But as a result of doing this, I, number one, found that I was able to load the whole database into my FileMaker program because previously I'd tried to load the database all together in one shot, and I was only able to load half of it. So now I was able to load all of it.

But the other thing is, when I was looking at the records, I saw something really weird that I hadn't seen before. And that was that I'd see a very, very long strand of numbers that were all attached to the same county. OK, and that I thought was really weird because it hadn't occurred to me until then that maybe the

the counties had a range of numbers that they were assigned to, right? And this is, by the way, before I was able to load the whole database, when I only had half the database. And that too turned out to be a lucky coincidence because I had the half of the database that showed me what I needed to see. If I'd had the rest, it would have been like so much flack. It would have made it impossible to see what I found. So anyway, so I decided to see if it was true that there were number ranges assigned to counties. And I discovered that

Out of the 100 million numbers that were possible,

that the range between approximately nine and a half million to 41 and a half million, the counties were all assigned a specific range of numbers. But if the numbers were higher than 41 and a half million or lower than nine and a half million, they were totally randomized. So, so, so all the counties were mixed together. You know, you could, you could have like 20 counties in a row and 20 different, 20 different sequential numbers, right? Or consecutive numbers. Yeah.

But in this one range, which I decided to call in range, the counties were all really distinct. So I went ahead and I made a spreadsheet that told me what all those ranges were. And I saw that they had a one number gap between each range. So the last number in one county would be two less than the next county's lowest number, right? So I'm saying, okay, so there's something, they're controlling the data here, but I didn't understand why

The one group of numbers were in range and the other numbers were out of range because the thing is, why would you...

Why would you carefully control one group of numbers so that the counties were distinct and then all the rest of the numbers, the counties are absolutely random. I didn't understand why you would differentiate the numbers this way in a database, because that's not the purpose of the database. This is a public database. There's, you know, there's nothing private in here and there's no reason to differentiate this one group of individuals from the other group of individuals. I just didn't understand that. Okay. So then I decided to extract one of the counties. Now I had,

I had also been looking at this with the idea in mind that I wanted to figure out this guy who had 11 registrations. And I wanted to understand why his registration dates went forwards and then backwards and then forwards again. So the registration dates were not assigned in numerical order. That bothered me. So what I did was I didn't have all the records for his county, which was Kings County. So that puzzled me why that was the case.

So I picked a smaller county that I had all the records for, which was Allegheny County. And I just hoped to find somebody like him that had a lot of excess registrations. So I took that in. And the way I did the search was I decided, well, I can't search by registration date. I have to search by the state ID number.

So I did that. So I sorted it by state ID number. And I was looking at it and I realized when I looked at the CID numbers that there was something kind of strange going on with the county IDs. Because it looked to me like I was looking at two different strings of interlaced numbers. OK, so if you picture it this way, let's say you have a thousand numbers. OK, so it's one through a thousand. Yeah.

And you're looking at the first 100 numbers. So within those first 100 numbers, every 11th number would be 1001, 1002, 1003. OK, so it would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, followed by 1001.

And then it would go to 11, 12, et cetera, through 22. And then it would be a thousand and two. It was something like that. You see what I'm saying? Yeah. And I thought, boy, that's weird. So then I thought, let's see what happens if I sort it by the county ID number.

So I did that and then I looked at the state ID number and this just blew my mind what I saw. All of a sudden, the gap, the distance between numbers were rep units. Do you know what a rep unit is? No. A rep unit is any number that is composed of

the number one so for instance one eleven a hundred and eleven one thousand one hundred eleven those are all rep units okay they would be easy to identify right if you have perpetrating you crack the code okay go on yeah so people people who like math love rep units and

Because rep units have very specific mathematical properties that make them kind of unique and unusual. One of the things they can do is nest, which is really good. You can set one inside the other in such a way that they never overlap. And that's really important for voter rolls because you can't ever have overlapping numbers. The numbers have to be unique at all times. So what rep units make possible in the voter rolls is assigning numbers to

so that they never repeat, and yet they have a structure that can be accessed if you know it's there. See what I'm saying? Yeah. Okay, so what they did, and I'm kind of cutting to the chase here, but what they did was, without changing any of the data, and this is really important, and this is why it works so well, why it's so well hidden, okay? They didn't change any of the numbers, any of the names, any of the addresses, nothing. What they did was they assigned

county IDs to state IDs using a method that was based on rep units. And that is what gave them a way to differentiate one set of records from another. Does that make sense? Yeah. And it's quite brilliant too by the perpetrators. Yeah. So if you don't know this code, you don't know what the order of these numbers should be.

But if you do know the code that they used or how they did it, then you could have a list of numbers, like say 1734 and 57, right? And then you just look for those numbers in the order created by the algorithm.

And you would know which records are your bad ones or the ones that you want to deal with. Okay. But somebody else looking at your list of those numbers would have no idea what they mean. You see what I mean? Yeah. Okay. It would look like a normal number just drowning in this, that in the haystack of all the others. Well, on top of which those numbers don't even exist in the database. It's an order. It's, it's,

So the thing is, it's a ranking that you would know about that you would have code that would allow you to glean meaning from it, but nobody else would see it. Normally it wouldn't show up because it was supposed to be there. Well, okay, look at it this way. You have an ID number on the state side and the county side, and the one number might be 21,500,000, okay? And the county ID might be...

300,622. But the rank of that number using the algorithm might be two. Okay. Okay. But that rank is totally invisible because there's no column that has that number in it. You only know that if you know the algorithm. Do you see what I mean? Hmm. Hmm.

Okay. You have to be behind the curtain then to access this. Yes. So anybody who is normally using the voter rolls could have absolutely no idea that the algorithm was there. And actually, I already know that this is the case for the few people I spoke to who are county commissioners who should know that it's there. And they had no idea. They were absolutely shocked when I told them about it. Actually, one guy was shocked.

He was a programmer and he understood these things. He was like, wait a minute, that would be very bad. Yeah. So you believe their honest reactions. Okay. But tell me this. This has to be a cross-county tactic. Have you tried this in other places too?

Yeah. Yeah. So, so let me continue. So, so first on it's based on rep units, but what they did is super complicated. Okay. What I, what I just described to you is like the easy version of this. Okay. Okay. Because they introduced variations all over the place so that even if you saw what I saw,

you wouldn't be able to derive any meaning from it. Okay. So they did all sorts of things to make this much more complicated than it had to be. Wow. That's a sign of a high scale operation. Yeah.

So, you know, because at first all I'm seeing is, wait a minute, I'm seeing all these rep units all of a sudden. But the rep units themselves, by the way, are also completely invisible because, you know, I had to create a column to calculate the distance between the numbers. Now, if you're working with the voter rolls on a day to day basis, you don't have a column that's going to do that. You know, I had to do that because I had an idea to look for something else. And it just happened to reveal this to me.

The other reason is that when you're working with the voter rolls, you're not looking for algorithms. You've got a voter standing in front of you who wants you to look up his record, and you're looking at that guy's record. You can't even see this unless you've filtered it the way I filtered it and sorted it the way I sorted it. And there are no normal reasons to do those things. And on top of that, what I later discovered is that the out-of-range numbers are thoroughly randomized.

So what that does is it basically hides the presence of the organized numbers in the middle, like a sandwich. So it's like on both sides of the sandwich, you have all these disorganized numbers. And then in the middle, you've got these highly organized numbers. So first off, they assigned it by using Refinance. But the way they did it was they had to run a number of calculations. And the way they did it was they start with...

the lowest ID number for a county. So the only way to know that is to first divide the county. So somebody had to take all 62 counties and decide what the numerical ranges were going to be for each county. So that was step one. So once you knew the numerical ranges, you knew the minimum and the maximum ID number for each county. So once you knew that, what you had to do is you had to figure out how many times

the largest rep unit that could fit in that county would fit. So if it fits four times with a remainder and the rep unit you're using is 111,111, then what you do is you subtract those four

add the remainder, and then you have to find out how many times the next highest rep unit fits, which might be, you know, 30. And then you keep on going until you don't have any numbers left. And you've decided that, okay, this group of numbers is going to be separated by 111,111. This group is going to be separated by 11,101, and et cetera, all the way down to the ones, right? So once you've decided how many fit in each of those groups,

Then you have to decide which ones fit in those groups. Right. So the way they do that then is they go ahead and they take each group of numbers sorted by state ID number.

And they assign the first four plus the remainder to the highest column. And then they add the next group to the next column and so on until they get to the one. So now you know which ones fit in each column. Once you've done that, then they offset the position of all the numbers. So then, for instance, in the thousands, which is the easiest column to observe just because of the number of units in there, what they'll do is they take three...

three quarters of a rep unit, which is in the thousands, it would be 833. And they shift all the numbers down by 833. So all the numbers at the bottom of the list get offset to the top of the list. Do you see what I'm saying? Okay. So once they do that, then what you have to do is calculate where the cut line is. So, so it, cause at a certain point now in the middle, you're,

You're going to have the highest and the lowest number are right next to each other. Right. So now you have to position that within the group. And the way they did that is they assigned a three quarter rep unit as the maximum number using the algorithmically derived ID number, which I had to figure out.

So, and that went in the opposite direction of the other set of numbers. So instead of starting with the highest rep unit and going to the lowest, now it starts from the lowest and goes to the highest. So that tells you what the, what that number is supposed to be. And then you have to count up a quarter of a rep unit. And at that point they cut it. Okay. And that's what allows them to decide which state ID gets attached to which county ID. Okay. So now what they do is they take the full list of county IDs, put those in order and

And then they just start assigning them. You know, number one, two, three, four are assigned based on the the modified positions of all the rep unit adjusted state ID numbers. You see what I'm saying? Mm hmm.

So those are a lot of mathematical operations being performed. Yeah. And the only purpose for this is to obfuscate. Okay? Yeah. Now, the thing that's really puzzling about this is why would you do it? Okay? Really? Yeah.

Yeah, the thing is that these are public, this is all public data. They are not changing the numbers themselves. Now, if you are a credit card company, you have good reasons to obfuscate your database, right? The way they do it in credit card companies is they either manipulate the numbers themselves, so they're actually changed. So their database says it's number five, but then they have to run an algorithm that translates it into the number 47, okay? Yeah.

So it's either something like that or they just leave off the first group of digits, right? And they only show the last four. That's what they do when they're asking, is this your credit card number? And they only ask you to verify the last four, right? Right, right, right. So it's either by masking, which is hiding some of the numbers, or it's by translating, which is changing the numbers.

But in this case, they're not doing either one of those things. And the reason... But I don't think they're at liberty to do that. They're not. And the reason they're not at liberty to do it is because they're public records. As public records, they can't change them and they can't mask them. But they're doing something else. So what is it that they're hiding? They're not hiding the number. They're not preventing me or you or anybody else who gets access to these records from seeing the real numbers. Therefore, they're not protecting private information.

Okay? What they're doing is they're creating a new piece of information that is meaning to them, but to nobody else. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. And it explains also, but we're going to get back to that, but it could explain why.

These cases get thrown out of court because here's the access to the numbers and the numbers adds up. Everything is correct. Yeah. If you don't have this key to the back door, there's no way you can see the crime has happened, right? Right. Yeah. So you use the word crime. I want to pull back on that a little bit. So let's just follow me for a little bit longer. Okay. Okay. So I'm looking at this and I'm seeing that it affects only people

You know, these these counties that I'm looking at in this certain range of numbers, but I know I've got other numbers and I know that, for instance, some of the most prolific offenders that, you know, these people that are literally fictitious, their numbers are outside of the range that I've solved the algorithm for. So I'm curious about those. So I send those to this program around the team, Daniel.

And I say, could you look at these and see what you can make of it? Okay. And he says, guess what? There are more algorithms. Yeah.

So at this point, now look, he left the team shortly after this, but he made a couple of very key discoveries. Okay, so he's the one who spotted the three-quarter rep units, which were absolutely integral to understanding why certain numbers were what they were. And I think he made another really important discovery along the way also. I forget what it was. But anyway, but the other algorithms he spotted. So it turns out there's a minimum of four.

So the one that I discovered first, we call the spiral because the nature of the rep units kind of creates like a mathematical spiral where it's spiraling from the large numbers to the small numbers. But the next one I call the metronome.

And this creates a really interesting plot. Now, the way he discovered these was he made scatterplots. Do you know what a scatterplot is? No. Okay, so... You're so good at picking up the words I don't know. That's very brilliant. Okay, well... Clarify them. Go on. Yeah, so a scatterplot, you've seen graphs like for stock markets, you know, where you see like a jagged mountainous line going across the chart. Okay, so that's a line plot.

A scatterplot is where you just put dots down for your data points, but they're not connected by a line. Okay? Okay. So what he did was he made a scatterplot of the state and the county ID numbers where the intersection of the two numbers was your data point, right? Mm-hmm. And a normal scatterplot should usually, for something like this, like sequentially assigned ID numbers,

It should look pretty much like an ascending line. It should start in the bottom left and go up to the upper right. There's no line, but the concentration of numbers should create a shape similar to that, right? And that's not what we had with the spiral algorithm at all, because that's not what was happening.

But the one for the metronome was really, really strange. It was the weirdest looking scatterplot I'd ever seen. It was a solid brick of blue. It flood filled the entire rectangle of the graph. And that is really strange because the only way you get that is if you do it on purpose. So somebody used the equivalent of a graphics program flood fill technique to

to make sure that every quadrant of space available in the, you know, in the number space that is being used was filled evenly. Okay. Yeah.

And that was really peculiar. We don't know exactly how that was done. There clearly is like some kind of random number generator was used or a seed value, which makes it computationally intensive to try to break that particular algorithm. But the fact that it is an algorithm and that it's there is really easy to see. And it's in only a couple of counties, but they happen to be some of the most suspicious counties, which is Nassau, Westchester, and Erie County.

So that's one. And then in the out of range territory, we've got the tartan and the shingle patterns. These are named by me based on what, you know, the visual pattern that they make. And the thing about the shingle and the tartan that's interesting is that the shingle is

pattern is superimposed on the tartan in such a way that it looks like it's part of the tartan. Okay. And it's really, really, really hard to discover that it's there. It's, it's kind of like a, uh, have you ever seen these, um, eye tests where you have a bunch of colored dots and it asks you to check to, to say what the number is that's hidden in the dots? Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Okay. So you might have a field that looks like it's all, you know, yellow and orange circles and,

And then you'll have a number in there that's made out of yellow and orange circles, but the numbers are so close. It's really hard to distinguish. Okay. So that's what the shingle pattern looks like in the middle of the Tartan pattern. Okay. That's like the number that's so hard to perceive. Yeah. Um, but the way you can perceive it is if you zoom in real close to all these numbers, um, they have a very distinct shape to them. So again, it looks like a graphics programmer designed it because he had a shape that he wanted the numbers to fill, um,

And then he left the space around it empty, but, but, but it was surrounded by so many other numbers using a different pattern. That would be really, really hard to detect unless you were looking at the numbers really closely. Daniel first saw that there were a lot of purged records in that territory, but then he left the, the project. And I'm afraid I gave him a bum steer on that because at the time I figured the, the purged records were of no consequence and,

because I didn't know yet how they might be used. I do know now, but at the time I didn't. So I said, let's focus our efforts on other types of records because those can't be used if they're purged. And so they're not meaningful. But after he left, I looked at it again and I realized that

almost, not quite, but almost 100% of the shingle pattern numbers are purged. Okay. So it's something like it was 99.34%. But when I looked at it more carefully, I saw that there were members of the tartan pattern that intersected the shingle and were very difficult to extract in any automatic process. It had to be done manually. So

I suspect that the actual number of purged records in the shingle pattern is 100%. But the only way to get there would be to manually pick out all the ones that don't belong. And I think that would take too long. So I never did that. So I decided to be satisfied with 99.34%. So the thing that's interesting about that is we're looking at being able to tell what a record status is based on the ID numbers.

This is like being able to look at your driver's license number and know that you have kidney disease. Okay. I just, it should be impossible to know that from an ID number, the ID number. And the other thing that's interesting is that the purpose of assigning an ID number is to make it possible to vote. Right. Yeah. But if you're purged, you can't vote. Right. So how is it that they knew you were going to be purged when they gave you the ID number? And if that was true, why did they give you the ID number? Right.

You see what I'm saying? I think so. Go on. Yeah. So these records are very, very suspicious. And then I looked at them again and I saw they also had the highest concentration of clones. About 30%. Not only were 30% of them clones approximately, but

But the clones were assigned in another pattern. And that pattern was really interesting. It was a perfect gradient. So if you've ever seen like Photoshop or Illustrator, these are graphics programs where you can make a gradient from like orange to white or black to white. And it's perfectly smooth, right? These cloned records...

were assigned in a gradient within the shingle pattern in a perfectly smooth pattern. So on one side, they are 100% clones, and on the other side, they're about 20% clones. And in between, the drop-off is absolutely perfect. It's a perfect fall-off. The steps are exactly the same all the way down the line.

There's no way you could go from 100% purge to 99% to 98 to 97, you know, in this way that just makes a perfectly smooth gradient unless it was controlled. It wouldn't happen naturally. That's what you're saying. No, you would have to know these are illegal records at the time you assigned the numbers. Okay. Okay.

in order to put them in this group and to put them where they put them. I don't see any way that the numbers in the shingle pattern could have been assigned unless the people who gave them, who used the algorithm to assign those numbers, knew that they were going to be purged and that they were going to be illegal at the time they gave the numbers. There's no, I don't see any other explanation for it.

And the thing is, now that I knew that they were changing voter histories to like erase votes. And I also saw, you know, thanks for talking to people. We also know that people didn't vote, but it showed that they did. So we knew that they're adding and subtracting votes.

which means there's no way to trust the voter history. And we also know that there... Oh, that was another thing the algorithm showed me, which is kind of fascinating, is I found that they deleted a lot of records, which the state's not allowed to do. In the law... That's what I would expect would be their go-to way, you know, delete evidence. Yeah, the thing is, is that because they randomized the numbers at the top and the bottom of the range,

It hides the fact that you've got these organized numbers in the middle, but the organized numbers in the middle, because of the organization, if they delete anything in there, you can see it, okay? Because you know it's supposed to be there, and if it's not there, it's gone, right?

But the thing is, the funny thing is you can't derive meaning from that unless you know the algorithm. What the algorithm allowed me to do was I was able to identify who those records originally belonged to before they deleted them. So I could actually attach a name and an address to numbers that weren't even in the voter rolls. And that was using the algorithm. And that's also something I shouldn't have been able to do. And you literally can't do that without the algorithm. It would be impossible.

So anyway, as far as the business with the tartan pattern and all this randomness going on, it looked to me like they had four sets of, well, four algorithms that they used to assign numbers. And the funny thing is when I looked at the dates of them, I also noticed a couple of other things that were related to the date approximately June 15th of 2007.

Based on details I don't want to go into right now because it's very complicated, I believe that all four algorithms were introduced on or around that date. Okay. Okay. So that brings up the question, if you had an algorithm that worked for your purposes, why would you not use one algorithm for everything? Why would you instead use four different algorithms with completely different properties? Isn't that just to make it more complicated to hide it better? Yeah.

Yeah, I would think so. Another reason would be to segregate the data. Right. So let's just say in 2007, you had a bunch of existing voters, but you also had to prepare for new voters who would come into the rolls later. Right. So let's say you're a database administrator right now. I'm looking at this from the oh, it's all perfectly normal. Don't worry about it. Point of view. OK, so let's say that's what you're doing.

So you go ahead and you say, well, these records that we have on the books are purged right now. As of today in 2007, they're already purged. And why don't we go ahead and segregate those from the rest? So you go ahead and assign them a group of numbers so that these are all segregated records. If you're doing that, you're not going to create this highly complicated shingle pattern algorithm that will blend them with all these non-purgers.

You see what I'm saying? Yeah, I think so. It's getting very complicated now, but I think I'm following. Go on. Yeah, if your legitimate purpose is to segregate records...

then what you do is you say, okay, numbers 1 through 300,000 are going to be for these records that are already purged as of the date we introduced this system. You don't give them numbers that look totally random to any normal observer unless they know the algorithm. They can only be found if you know the algorithm. That is a really bad way to segregate data, and that doesn't even count as segregating data. That counts as hiding data. Right, right, right. So that's what's going on. So there are a few things I can predict.

based on the algorithms. Now, I cannot say with certainty that they're cheating. I hate to say that. I just can't, okay, because there just isn't enough data. But what I can say with certainty is that the presence of these algorithms in the voter rolls

is illegal on its own. It actually doesn't matter what they're for. But wait a minute. Is the only reason you can't say it is because you can't know the intention of the error? No, it's because... Hang on. Well, actually, yes. Because you can see it's artificial. It's not natural. Yes, yes. That's the main reason. The other thing is the spiral algorithm can be used to identify records or to tag them. It absolutely can. Okay?

But unfortunately, what it actually seems to do, although it can do what I just said, what it really seems to be doing is assigning a third ID number. It's like a hidden ID number. And the thing is that that ID number would have to be operating or operational with another version of the database. And this is something Alex was talking about, and I actually think he's right about this. He thinks there's another version of the voter rolls that contains data.

all sorts of information about the voters, right? And the fake records. And it's accessible using the algorithm assigned ID number. And in that way, if somebody ever got, had access to this other computer,

They wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it because it wouldn't have the ID numbers that they have in the state system. It would be using this other ID number that nobody would understand. But what it would be able to do without any names, because it would strip all the records of names and addresses and everything else, it would be like, this vote's available for sale or this vote's been used.

So it can't be used again. Or, you know, this guy bought this vote or this is this demographic. So they would be able to keep track of all sorts of information about the record and

that would at the same time keep it completely off the books. Nobody else would be able to see it. But since I don't have access to this third database or the second database that Alex is talking about, and I do think exists. Hypothetical database, yeah. Yeah, I can't say for sure that that's what's going on. It does explain it quite well. Yeah, but if it was that innocent, first of all, they would have...

it like that themselves. That's number one. But number two, is there no way to see if all this manipulation of voter data is tied up to, like if, well, I'll stop saying 100% because of the rule, but if the vast, vast, vast majority show that they were voting in one special direction, then

then you know for sure, right? Because if it's accidents, it should be spread. No, the reason is because America has a secret ballot. So there's no way to know how anybody voted. Right, right. That's literally impossible to know. So even if you compare it with the results, right? Yeah. You have the results on one hand.

Okay, so they don't say, for example, I mean, they did say how many of the post mail ballots went where, right? So you have some kind of breakdown of the data. Yeah, yeah. But the thing is, is that as far as votes, like even party affiliation, the voter rolls do give the party affiliation. Okay. But for instance, this one guy said he had the 25 registrations.

And it's definitely the same fake guy. Yeah. They're in both parties. Okay. So, yeah.

I can't say that these are all going to go Democrat or Republican. And also, just because you're registered to be Democrat or Republican doesn't mean you have to vote that way. No, that's true. Yeah. So those don't really tell us anything at all. And if you wait a minute, if you want to control the outcome of an election, you need them as both Democrats and Republicans, depending on where you want to swing the vote at any given time. Right.

Well, the only place that that has value is for what's called a primary. Do you know what a primary election is? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or caucus, you call it too, right? Yeah. Yeah. So if you're the Republican Party and you want to decide whether it's Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, or somebody else that is on the ballot for your party, you have a primary election. But then the primary election tells you who it's going to be. So if it's Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis,

you don't have a choice anymore when you go to the proper election. So the thing is, if you're registered as a Democrat,

you're not allowed to vote in the Republican primary. Unless it's a caucus, right? No, you're not allowed at all. What about open primaries? There's no such thing. I learned all this stuff during the Bernie Sanders rigging back in 60. Okay, as far as I can tell, as far as I know, it is not possible for a Democrat to vote in the Republican primary and it's not possible for a Republican to vote in the Democrat primary. I really think it's depending on state.

Well, since I know for a fact that when my wife went to do it and she wasn't allowed… Yeah, in New York, I don't think it's allowed. You have to… I don't think even independents can do it in New York. No, an independent can't vote in the Republican or the Democrat primaries. You have to be registered to one of those parties. And my wife is registered as an independent, and that's why. Right.

So in any event, so the only real meaning to your party affiliation in the voter rolls is it determines which primary you're allowed to vote in. But as far as the presidential or, you know, the election itself, the proper election, you can vote for anybody you want. So it does make sense for the fraudsters to have a... Yeah, they've only controlled our options, right? It's kind of...

Yeah, so it makes sense to have both parties represented because just as

If they want you to vote Biden, they also probably don't want Trump to be on the ballot because he's a powerful candidate. They would rather it be someone else. But they would probably want Nikki Haley on the ballot on the other side. Oh, yeah. She would absolutely lose. No, not lose. They would want her to win on the Republican side. Well, they'd want her to win so that she's on the ballot, but no Republican is going to vote for her. No, I know. That's the problem. So then...

To muster something like that, they have to manipulate the poll data over time and they have to have like

A semblance of popular support, although I don't know if they need it because there was no popular support for Biden. Nobody showed up and they still pulled it off. Well, Biden, as far as I can tell, Bernie Sanders won the 2020 primary. He also won the 2016 primary, as far as I can tell. Yeah, but they have him. They got him by the balls and he has no backbone. So so he went along with them.

With being screwed twice in a row. I have to tell you that I used to teach anatomy. And you just said they have him by the balls. He has no spine and they screw him. And it just created this very interesting anatomical portion of my mind. Can you draw that? You're an artist. Yes, I could. But I don't think I could handle it.

Okay, go on.

That is a violation of those laws. Does that make sense to you? Yeah. Okay. The other thing is an argument can be made that it also violates privacy laws because private voter information is being manipulated in a way that the voters aren't aware of. Yeah. And identity theft, isn't that something too? Yes. And I believe that identity theft is one of the strongest cases that can be made because we have real voters whose data was illegally copied, which makes them look like they're in the wrong actually. Right.

And yet they had. Yeah, they can they can risk being punished for this. Yes. And actually, one case was kind of interesting. This is why I'm so I like to be so clear. I literally do not believe that the majority, I mean, more than 99 percent of voters have any idea that their identity has been used this way. OK, I really don't think they've got any notion of this.

But there was a case in New York where an immigrant from, I want to say, Jamaica or Haiti, someplace like that. He'd moved to New York and he got arrested because he had double voted, they said. Right. And he said, I've never voted. Right.

And I looked him up in the voter rolls and he had something like eight registrations, eight unique ID numbers. Right. And the fact is, I actually believe him. I think he didn't know he was registered. And he said this. He said, I didn't even know I was registered. But because of what I've seen with other people, I think he's probably telling the truth. I think he he got registered without his knowledge.

And somebody used his name to vote without his knowledge. So that's that. And it turned out he wasn't even qualified because he wasn't an American citizen. But you just said that they actually can now.

The immigrants. Well, yeah, but that wasn't true for the election with him in 2020. And there are limitations on that, too. You know, when you read the press, one thing that kind of annoys me is no matter which side you're on, and unfortunately in America there's only two sides, I wish there were more, but the media that you read is going to be tailored to the fact that you agree with them or disagree with them, right? Yeah, yeah.

On my end, I tend to read the conservative news primarily because the liberal stuff looks like it's absolutely jam-packed with lies. It looks all false to me. Mm-hmm.

I think it's not a good idea to ignore it completely. I don't think we should read either side, if you ask me. There is independent media out there. That's where you get objective information. Actually, from my point of view, the stuff I look at is independent. But in any event... Okay, independent conservative. Fair enough. Yeah, but... And I don't consider myself a Republican anymore. In fact, I'm really disgusted with both parties. I don't see any way...

for our political system to work when you've got two parties who effectively work together to do whatever they want. I always say China has a more honest system. Same system, just more honest. Well, I'll say something radical here. I used to think Russia was completely evil, but I think...

Vladimir Putin is making much more sensible statements publicly lately than anybody in America, which is kind of a surprise to me. If you're so lucky that you get access to what he says, I mean, they did crush RT. My point is that there might as well just be one party as in China. At least in China, there are individuals who have different agendas, and people are informed about that. Yeah.

People are much freer in China than they're aware of. In Russia, I wouldn't compare because Russia actually has a parliament with many parties. Well, when I was in China, I was in China in the year 2000. Yeah. Yeah, it was on business. I wasn't there for a long time. I was there for only six weeks, but it was very oppressive. Oh, yeah.

Apparently followed around by military police everywhere. I went oh really Wow Yeah, it was really bad night. You know they have us a reason for that. I mean they have tourists everything well They don't usually tell them I don't want to I don't want to get too sidetracked But I was I was working on a video game. You know and I at the time I lived in Hollywood and we had a contractor had cheated us he was supposed to send some some animation work to Japan and

But he decided to save money by sending it to China. And the people in China had really screwed up the job. The work they came back with was absolutely unusual. It was horrible. And the state was somehow involved since they had a motive to tell you? What did you say? So what was the state somehow involved so they had a motive to tell you?

No, no, this was just pure business. But anyway, so what happened was my boss sent me to China to fix it. OK, right. So I had to go with this other guy, our animation director.

I was the art director. And the idea was, let's fix it. So the first week we were there, maybe it was less than that. Maybe it was the first few days. They kept on showing me their corrections. And I was like, these look just as bad as the originals. And so I finally looked at them and compared what their changes were to what the originals were. And they had not made any corrections at all. They were lying to us. So I went to the guy who was in charge of the studio. I said, what's going on here? And he said, well, we haven't been paid yet.

And I said, we pay, you know, because we I know we had we had paid the money. This is what we never got the money. And it turned out our guy in the middle had taken the money for himself. Right. Of course. Of course. So I was like, all right, let me let me contact my boss and we're going to we'll see about getting you paid. So we got him his money and then they started really making changes. Right.

And, you know, they were not doing a horrible job at that point. But, you know, I had to supervise them. So I was there for six weeks. But I'll say this for China. First of all, they have a social credit system, which is, and CBCD, which is what our oligarchs are envious of them. They want to implement something like that in the West. But I'll say this for them.

They have, like, if you're an oligarch in China, you can actually be arrested. Corruption will actually be punished. In fact, there's a death penalty.

for the worst kinds of corruption. And they implement it. Yeah, okay, look, I've got too much personal knowledge of this to be able to talk about this in an unbiased way, but let's just put it simply. I know for a fact that they don't follow their law if they don't feel like it, okay? Their law, if you read their law, which I have read,

it, it makes sense. But then when you look at the way they implement it, they absolutely play favorites. So if you bribe the right guy, they are not going to charge you with any crime, no matter what you did. Right. But there was some oligarchs who was, got the death sentence not too long ago. Yeah. But that last year or something, because they're politically out of favor. Uh, okay. Okay. So it's a way to, to smack down the competition or something. I basically, it pretty much, they could, if they felt like it put anybody in jail at any time. Okay. Yeah. Uh,

And the same is true for the USA. No. Yeah. No. Yeah, I think so. Getting back to China. Yeah. So the way I didn't, the animation director told me we were being followed and I didn't believe him. Okay. And he kept telling me about how they bugged our room and all the rest of this, which I thought was absolutely baloney. Hmm.

Um, but then one day he showed me all these photos and he, cause he'd been taking photos the whole time we were there. I thought, Oh my gosh, this guy's just a typical American tourist, right? He's just taking pictures of everything. And it turned out that no matter where we were, the same two guys were in the pictures and they were guys I recognized in the hotel. We're always sitting there when we left for the morning to go to work. Right. And, but on the weekends, you know, we were free to do go wherever we wanted to. And, um,

And what the studio did was they had this lady who would put us in a chauffeur-driven car and drive us all over. And this one time we went really far away. It was hours of driving to go to this huge lake. And these same two guys are in every single photo. It's like, what the heck? Maybe your body was on the CIA take.

Well, you know, the other thing that was kind of funny is that, and I don't know if this is connected to us, but it sure was an interesting coincidence. But we had gone to this one restaurant this day.

And we were sitting down to eat when this man walked in with two women and he just hocked it. In America, we say hocked up a loogie, but it means he coughed something up and then spit it on the ground, right? Okay. And it was one of these big rubbery masses that come out now and then. And it was like just sitting there jiggling on this marble floor. And I was astonished because in America, you would never do something like that. In Holland, you would never do that. I mean, I can't picture it. Most places in the world, you wouldn't. But I know disgusting...

personal habits like that is not thrown upon in China. Yeah. Haven't you seen an idiot abroad? Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You're interrupting the story here. So let me finish. Sorry. There's a second. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, so I saw this guy, Haka Paluigi spit on the floor. And I said to, to the guy I was with, his name is Bob. I said, Bob, that is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen, which by the way, if I thought about it, I'd realize it wasn't true. Cause I have seen something more disgusting than that. But yeah,

In any event, I was like, how can they allow this here in China? And I had this whole conversation with Bob for like 30 minutes talking about this guy spitting on the floor, an open view of everybody who saw it happen and didn't seem to care. And the next day I was in the, you know, the studio had a car that drove us to the studio. Later on, we started walking. At first they were driving us. And I saw this huge red banner across a building on the way that I'd never seen before.

And I said to the lady who was from the studio, I said, what's that? Is that new? And she said, yeah, they just put it up last night. And I said, what does it say? And it says, please don't spit on the floor. It upsets the foreigners. Yes, that's why I heard about it before, because it is like a cultural difference, right?

Yeah, but the thing is, it was almost as if they put it up because of my conversation with Bob the night before. Yeah, this is very interesting. And I really hope you can get us back on track. But I have to, that you know where you were, but I have to comment this because this illustrates...

A very fascinating difference in thinking among people. And I'm not saying one of them is right and the other one is wrong. Maybe reality is a combination. Maybe it's a fluctuation. Who knows? But here's the two options, the dichotomy in thinking.

One temperament would immediately think this is a conspiracy, right? This is an organized, this is a logical result of, for example, in your case, we bugged you and now this came up. It's not a democratic country, right? So someone can just order it and it happens. Now, the other way of thinking would be this is synchronicity.

This is like, and I know you're familiar with that. This is like the invisible hand. This is like almost divine intervention. Now, in your case, it's not important, but there are cases where this, which one it is, is actually important to know. Yeah. Because it will influence your paradigm. It will influence consequences. Yeah.

And I think we live in a both and world, not an either or. Yeah. Now, let me I'm going to say something on that subject, because first off, you'll note if you if you listen to what we just said in the recording, you'll notice that I didn't say this was because.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I just seized the opportunity to illuminate that. Right, but to give you another example of the other kind, when I was in the Netherlands, I happened to have noticed that my copy of Autobiography of a Yogi by...

Yeah. Yogananda. Yeah. Yeah. Was was missing. Somehow it didn't come across to Europe from America. OK, so I didn't have a copy and I wanted another one. So it happened to be Carnival. And my daughter and I were walking through the centrum.

And I had told her that I'd ordered a copy of the book at a local bookstore that was able to get American books for us or English language books. And I said to her, you know, it's a shame, it's Carnival because I'd really like to pick it up. I don't even know if they've got it. They haven't told me they have it, but it would be really convenient if we could just go in and get that book right now. And I just placed the order and the guy who owned the store told me it takes several weeks, which means I still had like eight or ten days to go.

But it just so happened he was walking behind us and he heard what I said and he said, oh, it came in last night and it just so happened I was about to open the store because my daughter had to go to the bathroom. So since you're here and I'm here, let's just open it up and I'll sell you the book right now. So that happened. And I've had much better examples of that that I think... I have a crazy extreme example. But you know what? I'll save...

I've told it on air before, so I will save the listener for it. I may tell it to you after we're done with the recording. Unless we're so exhausted and it's so late, then I'll do it next time we speak. Well, let's stick to elections, actually, because I have many stories of that type that I think would be extremely distracting. So getting back to the algorithms, okay, so we know there's four. We know that they can be used to predict elections.

characteristics of the records they belong to, which should not be possible. We know it can be used to index or tag records. We don't know if it's been used that way because if it has been, I don't know what the tag is. I just know it can be used to tag it. What I can say is it does the equivalent of creating a third ID number and then that could be used to link to another database. Again, that's something that can be used, that it does do

But as far as the other database is concerned, I don't know if that exists. I don't have any way of finding that out. But it kind of makes sense that it exists because otherwise, why would you create that ID number? That doesn't make sense otherwise. So we know those things. We know that the phantoms exist. We know that the voters weren't aware of it. We know that they're altering the records. We know that they're deleting records of votes. And we also know that they're adding records of votes.

And we know the purging at suspicious times. Yeah, exactly. Like right before you ask for them. Yeah, well, we also know that they unpurge them sometimes. So we did a little research on that and we saw that they changed that. And also, we've also seen changes with...

where they've changed the ID numbers and we've also seen where they've changed the birth dates and we've also seen them change registration dates. So between different versions of the database, all of those fields will change, not for everybody, but for some people.

Wait a minute. All this is illegal. So per definition, it is election fraud. Even if you can't say, well, this was used to sway an election in favor of this candidate. It's still election fraud. It's election tampering. Yes, it is. It is. And this is one of the chief problems that we're encountering in the United States is.

is that we have a suspiciously high number of public officials who are unwilling to prosecute these cases, even though they're violations. I mean, serious violations. And the funny thing about... It's a district attorney's right to take that decision? Well, there's a few levels. The first level would be a sheriff, which is the same as, like...

not a police officer. He's like the guy who is in charge of the other police officers. Right. Yeah. So, so at the sheriff level, he decides whether they're going to investigate or not. Okay. So some sheriffs are unwilling to do it because they want to divert. They want to use their resources some other way.

Maybe they're complicit and they don't want to expose anything that could expose them. Or they're afraid of ramifications from the powers that be. Yeah, there's a lot of reasons. So, like, I talked to one sheriff and he said, well, yeah, sure, this looks like election fraud to me. But he said, I don't think I can prosecute or investigate this because, meanwhile, I have, like, this guy who...

committed two murders and he's a drug dealer and we've got him dead to rights and i can't get a district attorney who's interested in prosecuting him i'm like and if i can't prosecute him for two murders and drug dealing and violating all how do i think i'm going to get anybody to prosecute election fraud which seems much less simple uh or uh and i i said to him i said you know the reason you've got to deal with that guy is because he was let out of prison early

Because if whoever was in office allowed that to happen, without election fraud, you wouldn't have the murder to deal with. That's too much of a big picture for someone who's stuck in there. He said it's true. But he said, nevertheless, I still have to deal with the murder first. And I've also spoken with district attorneys who have both been interested and not been interested in pursuing this. I spoke with one guy, and I'm not going to name him because what I'm going to say is...

kind of sensitive, but let's just say I spoke with one official who seemed like he was perfectly honest and I have no reason to believe he's not perfectly honest, but it turns out he's married to somebody who is connected to a lot of these well-known fraud mechanisms. Okay. As a result, even if he is a completely honest guy, I don't think he should be in his position in, in connection to any election related investigation because

because of his wife. His wife... Conflict of interest. He would try to protect her, even if she's not complicit. Yeah. Maybe it's incompetence, whatever, on her part. Yeah, they could both be totally innocent, but it still creates the appearance of bias. And actually, I think it would create a real bias because he would still want to protect her. Yep. So we ran into that kind of thing. But the issue is not whether it's fraud, and it's not whether we have data to back it up. We absolutely do.

The issue is finding people who are willing to prosecute. And what they seem what they are saying, what they like to say is unless this is connected to a bad vote, we can't prosecute it. OK, what's a bad vote?

Like a ballot that's fraudulent. So we'd have to be able to connect it to bad votes, which we can do in some cases, but we can't do in every case. But wait a minute. How can you do that? Can you get the... First of all, it's machines, right? It's not hand ballots, so they can't even verify. I'll tell you how. I'm not talking ballots. I'm talking votes. Okay. So I have my fictitious guy with 25 records, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay.

I have evidence from the counties, some counties, not all of counties that he voted. Okay. Since the man doesn't exist, those are bad votes. Okay. Okay. And the state police, I showed that to as well as a district attorney in another county, both agreed that's something they could prosecute. And there are other cases where either there is no person connected to the name and

And therefore, any vote attached to the record is fraudulent. But there are also cases where there are multiple votes attached to the same person where it's a real person, but it's not three people, it's one person. So there's three votes in the same election for one person.

That's problematic. And another thing, I've actually found double votes within the same record. So even without going to the extent of having cloned records, we've got a very substantial number of records show more than one vote in the same election. And that is something that could probably be prosecuted as well. So the thing is that

The way people react to this is you're talking about registration problems, which number in the very low millions, but we can only deal with voter problems or vote problems, which deal, which really number more in the tens of thousands. But the thing is, they're not doing that either. They're really not dealing with anything. They're like saying, well, we can't deal with the million and a half or two million registration problems. We can only deal with the

with the vote problems as if we don't have vote problems also. And we're like, okay, here's the, you know, 50,000 vote problems. And they're like, yeah, yeah, we're not going to get anybody interested in this because the election's over. Okay. And without evidence, they can't assume that this is used for vote fraud, but it exposes a weakness in the system that. Well, actually, hang on just a second. We do have evidence. So, so the evidence is there.

And we've got some people in law enforcement say, yeah, that's something we could work with. But our evidence is limited to what we can get publicly. So we're only working with publicly available information. A sheriff or a district attorney could actually go much deeper. They could ask a lot of other types of questions. They could

They could subpoena records from the voter roll, sorry, the New York State Board of Elections, and they would be forced to hand over data that we couldn't get. So they could go farther, but...

And we're starting to get traction. Oh, actually, I say we as if I'm still part of the group. I resigned from the group a little while ago, a few months ago, because I have to focus on making a living. I can't keep doing that stuff. Besides, it was really bad for my health, actually. I had all sorts of stress issues.

posture-related industries from sitting at my desk 18 hours a day doing nothing else but working on the computer. Okay, so that is kind of a good, I think, picture of the story. So now is the time for you to ask questions if you like. Yeah, I have tons. But just to pick up on the last thing we discussed here. So someone has to be responsible for the system. So if...

You go to the sheriff or whoever, and you expose that, first of all, here's illegalities. Second of all, it also shows potential for even more serious, that these registration illegalities, not just errors, but illegalities, can also be exploited for voting, even if you can't prove that it's used for voting illegally. Well, yeah, and the thing is, we have...

We have laws on that subject where, like, for instance, there is a case...

from 1888. So this is a long time ago, but the case is still considered valid today. We have what's called, I don't know if you have this in Norway, but we have what's called case law. So if you have a question of law that goes to the Supreme Court and they make a decision on your case, that decision until it's overturned, overruled or modified. Precedence. Yeah, it creates the precedent. So the precedent for this comes from a case called Ex Parte Coy in 1888, which

And in it, this is at the Supreme Court. So this is the highest court in the United States. And it concerned election fraud. So what it was is that there were, I think it was an election for a coroner. And I think the other one was for a mayor. They make the most insane things. Okay, go on. Yeah. But anyway, so this group of people enticed some people who worked for the Department of Elections to

to not do their job so that they could cheat in those two elections. Okay. And, uh, they were discovered and, um, tried for election fraud and convicted to, uh, and so they were sent to jail and they were told they had to pay a fine. Now the law that they used to convict them, uh, was a state law.

And so what they did when they went to the Supreme Court was they said the verdict against us was unfair because we were only trying to corrupt a local election, not a state election. We definitely did cheat in the local election, but we weren't cheating in the state election. Technicality argument. OK. Yeah. So the judge said, if you shoot into a crowd of people hoping to hit one guy, but you hit somebody else, you're still guilty of murder. Good point.

And then when it came to the county officials who cooperated, what he had to say was this. He said, we have certain things that.

that are dangerous. We call these controlled substances like dynamite and nitroglycerin. And the people who are allowed to handle those things have a license to manage them because they can, even with no ill intent, cause serious injury or property damage, right? And if they handle them improperly and do cause serious injury or property damage, they are responsible for it as if they did it on purpose.

because they have what's called an extra duty of care yeah and he said that in elections the voter rolls meet the same standard if used improperly they are incredibly dangerous because they could allow for instance a crazy person to become president and start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people for that reason the people who are called monday nowadays but go on

Yeah. So for that reason, the custodians of those public records, specifically the voter rolls, have this extra duty of care and they are responsible for them no matter what. It can be error. It can be on purpose. They are responsible as if they did it on purpose in every case. And that was a very important ruling and it still holds today. And it makes sense today as well. Absolutely.

So the thing is that we have, I would say, an extra legal, that is to say not illegal, justice system right now. I don't believe that our system of justice is following the law at all. I think that our judges, our prosecutors are even sometimes our policemen are.

are certainly not our intelligence agencies. All of these groups seem to be doing very large numbers of illegal acts on a day-to-day basis. Yeah, and the recipe to get that result is when you fire and prosecute whistleblowers, you fire competent persons, you reward incompetence, you fail upwards in the system, and all powerful people who do criminalities, there's no

consequences. There's no ramifications if you're in the system and you do that. The only time you get punished if you go against the system, like, let's say, an Alex Jones or Julian Assange, etc., Edward Snowden. So, given that situation, the result will be a system with huge dangerous incompetence and a system that

also, in addition to that, has dangerous criminality and corruption. Yeah. Which may be intelligent, actually. So you have both going on. And that's enough to bring down a nation. Now, America has some very, very, very good, solid...

ground securities laid down from the old days. Even though the constitution is violated on a daily basis, there's still some checks and balances that in the law at least, in theory at least applies, which is why they need all these extra national security rules that they pile on top of agencies, on top, on top, on top, in the hope to

let's say, neuter the Constitution, right? But it's still there. So there's still hope, is my point. Yeah, they're working on chipping away at that as fast as they can. But there's another law that comes into play here. And that is, actually, this isn't a law, this is an opinion,

on a case, but it holds as if it's law because it's just a summation of what the case says. It's a very famous case. It's Marbury versus Madison, and it's from, I think it was 1804, but it's, "That which is void does not become legitimate over time." Okay?

In other words, if you commit a fraud, your fraud doesn't become legitimate just because it's been 20 or 30 years since you committed the fraud. Meaning, if it's discovered later... So there's no expiration date. Right, right, exactly. And there's another case that's related to that that happened, I think, in the 1830s that had to do with a Mexican land grant. And what happened was...

that it turned out that the Mexican land grant was fictitious, that somebody had made it up in order to grab a bunch of land back in the early 1800s. And then during, I think it was like an inheritance squabble or something among his descendants, they discovered that they never owned the land in the first place, that it actually belonged to the government of Mexico.

And so they lost the land. And the court said it doesn't matter that he farmed that land or ranched that land for 75 years. It never belonged to you. So you lose the whole thing. That's actually an occasion I would disagree with. But OK. Yeah. I get the point. Yeah. That's what the law is here. So the idea is that fraud vitiates everything.

And do you know the word vitiate? What was that? Vitiate? Yeah, V-I-T-I-A-T-E. Sounds like it's a Latin root word to me, but what it means is it nullifies everything. Nullifier, okay. But let's get to the real questions, Andrew. Yeah. First of all, did you remember that thing you forgot?

No. Sorry. I did remember that it had something to do with purged records, but I'm not sure what I had meant to say about that. Anyway, go on. Yeah. So the laws are broken here and it can be documented. It's not an opinion. It's not a maybe. It's a certainty. Is that correct? Yeah. Well, okay. Let me put it this way. We have laws and I have read those laws.

And when I compare the laws with what I see in the voter rolls, I see violations all over the place. I have mentioned this to people who are in law enforcement and a district attorney. Yeah, you said so. And they agree with me. These are violated laws. However, in the American system, me saying this doesn't mean that they're illegal. No. Because you have to go to the court and the court has to agree with you. Anyway, go on. Yeah. So my point then is, and that's the formality explanation. Now, the real...

explanation is you have to ally with people with money or power. That's how you get things done in America. So my question is, have you tried to approach, because you obviously have seen, there's been a million court cases and battle between these campaigns in the aftermath for four years now. And the natural thing to do when this volunteer group uncovers something like that is to go to someone who actually has a stake in the matter.

Have you tried to do that? Yeah, not me personally, because that wasn't my end of it. But I am aware of the group itself has dealt with many candidates. Actually, now that I think of it, I've talked to a couple of them myself. And the response varies. You know, sometimes, you know, they're very interested in helping. But in general, I'll tell you one thing, just as an anecdote, there's

This one guy I was talking to, I forget what he was a candidate for, but he was down in the New York area, the city area. And he had his lawyer on the line, and he was very intrigued by everything. And then I told him about the algorithm. And as I was talking about it, the attorney, I think it was the attorney, realized that this could actually impact both sides, the Democrat and Republican.

So he asked me, is it possible this could be used for either party? And I said, yeah.

And at that point, they lost interest. Of course, the partisan thing kicked in. Damn. Yeah. And something similar happened with another one. This lady was, I think she was a candidate for state Senate. By the way, state Senate is different from the federal Senate. So it's like you have a miniature version of the federal Senate in Washington, D.C. in every single state, right? Right. So...

She actually became a member of the group. She was very interested in pursuing this. Great. And actually, I know a few other candidates who became members of the group, too. But in any event, there came a time.

When I made a presentation to a law enforcement official in a county that neighboring the county she was in. OK. And that county actually had an influence on the vote for her race because they were part of the same district. Right. And.

And this guy I thought was a good guy. But then he went to their their county board of elections to ask them what they had to say about what we told him. And they gave him a bunch of vague answers that didn't really deal with our data very well and frankly were false answers. I because I got a copy of the email from from this county commissioner that was sent to this sheriff.

And I looked at it, it was like, it was all false. So I wrote a reply that enumerated all the examples that I found in the voter rolls that showed that her answers were false and that he should not stop investigating on the basis of her answers because they were

they're too superficial and or wrong right but when i sent this up the flagpole which is an american expression it just means when i showed it to the people above me in the group that particular political candidate and the lead of the group said no you can't say that because it's too argumentative and i'm like how do you say everything you said is false and not be argumentative i mean

That's the message, right? But what it came down to was the candidate didn't like the idea of rocking the boat with somebody that could be helpful to her campaign because she looked at that sheriff as a friendly and

And she didn't want to make him mad by sending a reaction that basically said that his friend, the county commissioner, was lying to him. Now, I didn't actually say that because as far as I'm concerned, saying something that is false is not the same thing as lying. Because you know it's false to be lying. And it's possible that she didn't. Lying implies intentions and awareness. Exactly.

Yeah. So so the information was either false, misleading or only partly true or applied only to a small part of the data. But in any event, she thought it was too confrontational. So that's kind of what I'm used to seeing. I'm seeing candidates who back off when they realize this cuts both ways, that it can be used in their favor and in their opponent's favor.

They like it when it makes it look like Democrats are universally guilty of everything. They don't like it when it can be thrown back in their faces. Yeah, I will venture another variation of that motive. It's not necessarily that they think they can use it to rig. It's more that they realize, oh, my God, I'm not all powerful. I'm just a I'm just a minion.

If I do this, if I get behind this, I'm going to get smacked because the power above me are involved and my ass is on the line. That's what you get when people are more concerned with their own, you know, their own little hill power, right? Rather than, you know, save democracy, so to speak.

Yeah. And, you know, from my point of view, and I'm going to just kind of repeat something that I said at the beginning of this, our election systems in America are so corrupt that I believe they're beyond repair.

I think this is the kind of thing where, you know, your house needs to be raised to the ground and a new one erected. I think that the Constitution remains an excellent source document. And I think everything should be based on the Constitution because it's really, really good. But and that would mean, for instance, that in our legal system,

Any law that violates the Constitution needs to be expunged, and there's a lot of them right now. And yet they're being treated as if they have force of law. Like, for instance...

In New York, they had these things that really didn't have the force of law. They called them mandates that had to do with COVID requirements, that people had to mask, they had to stay six feet apart, they had to get the vaccines, this kind of thing. Oh, yeah. That was global. Yeah. Yeah. All of that stuff is illegal under the Constitution. None of those things are legal at all in any way. And so all that kind of stuff has to be really clearly...

removed from the existing system on the basis that it's unconstitutional. But as far as the elections are concerned, the way they're run is

has to be absolutely dismantled. I don't see the voter rolls being fixed. They have to be thrown away and repaired. I mean, I would archive them so that, you know, later generations can study the problems that existed here, but they cannot be used. I don't know if that would mean going to a non-electronic version of the voter rolls in addition to the elections, but I think the elections themselves

cannot have any electronic components because it introduces too many vectors of fraud. So that's a way to fix it without overthrowing the entire thing. Elections work wonders if you have

hand-written ballots and hand-picked ballots and counted manually. And then reported. And here's the important thing. Because in your system, they are shipped centrally or just go straight into the computer and then reported further. No, that's a recipe for disaster. All centralization, it has to be decentralized. Like in this country, what you do, the precinct or the local area, whatever you call it,

They have, of course, all parties are represented. All parties on the ballot are represented, not just the two big ones. So they keep each other in check. Then they hand count it at this school that covers, let's say, 3,000 people or something. That number, by the way, is published. All the local numbers are published in the media. Yeah.

So I can verify that if I voted for a very rare party, a rare party in Norway would for some be the libertarians. I have to see that that number actually is there. So that number is counted and declared on a local level. Then that goes further up in the system. And, you know, like a pyramid like that, everything goes from bottom and up. And eventually you have the complete survey on top.

This works. It's very hard to rig this. I can't see how it can be rigged. But we know they are not interested in a real democratic system. You know, Tulsi Gabbard, the last thing she did as an act, it wasn't senator, I think she was congressperson. So the last thing she did before she retired as representative of Hawaii...

was that she had this perfect system worked out. There was bipartisan, by the way, where they would fix all these things they were complaining about. Of course, she knew all the time that the complaints were bullshit. It was just for show.

But here she wanted them to document it on the here. Now it's not just your word. Now it's on the line. Your action is on the line. And of course it was voted down. It didn't get enough support. So for all the party speeches, it's just bullshit. They're not interested in it. Yeah. I would say that the lack of transparency all by itself is a real red flag. And, you know, one thing that's kind of fascinating to me is that, um,

At this point, I don't believe that America has what we call a representative government because I don't believe the people who are elected as representatives were actually elected. And even if they were elected, actually, I think some of them definitely were elected by a majority of the legitimate votes. But there's so much fraud, it's kind of hard to know for sure. But regardless...

However they got into office, they don't seem to be representing the American people because the things they do when they're in Washington don't appear to benefit the people of the country. And they certainly don't seem to reflect the values of the people in the country either or the wishes. No, there's a university study. It's even old now. You can check it out. That has proved this scientifically that per definition, America is today an oligarchy.

And they show that I think it's like only 3% of everything decided follows the people's will since, and I think it's for the last 30 years or something.

Don't arrest me on the number I may be off. But 97% is like in the will of the oligarchs. And there's no secret why. It's because of stuff like Citizens United. You've legalized bribes. You don't even need lobbyists anymore. You can just pay directly. So that's, of course, an other element in addition to what I said has to be removed. A third thing is to clean up the polls. You know, candidates have internal polls.

Like Robert Kennedy Jr., for example. Why do they even bother? Because they know the polls are bullshit. Even if the polls are not rigged, and I've worked as a pollster, so I know how easy it is. But even if they are completely genuine...

They fail on the simple facts that, first of all, they are not calling mobile phones. They're calling landlines and stuff like that. So you know you get a certain sample. It's not a true sample of the population, if you see what I mean. It's skewed already there. And there's other factors like that. So they are just calling professional Republicans, professional Democrats, older people. So you get skewed numbers only from that.

And these things have to be cleaned up because otherwise... And you have to have this... You have a certain type of election poll on the day of the election where you stop a lot of people coming out of the election place and ask them what they voted. Now, I think they were called off or something, but that's a very good check and ballot because if 70% of those asked, say, I voted...

let's say Bernie Sanders and the election shows not 70% actually voted Clinton. This is happened back in 16. Then, you know, so that's one way to do it. But there's many, many other ways to do it. Are you aware of people like, let's say, Tim Canova in Florida? No, I just so you know, I'm going to kind of want to

Respond to something you said earlier. By the way, I'm standing right now because my legs are falling asleep from sitting. Good idea. Or going numb. Do reply now and I'll go on. Yeah. Okay. So first off, I've just been talking to you about what I find in New York's voter rolls that show that they've been compromised. And they appear to be compromised on a systemic basis. It appears to be intentional and it also appears to be nefarious.

Yeah.

is because we have primarily two parties working in concert, which is one of the reasons why I think a two-party system is a very bad idea. But it is also just because of the people who are there and what their priorities are, and that those priorities have nothing to do with what the people's priorities are. So to me, that's the bigger issue. So when I look at the problem of election fraud, I'm not thinking of it as something –

I don't know if it's even possible to solve it at the level of judicial contests of specific incidents of election fraud. I think it is more likely it's going to be solved by making people more aware of what's going on so that they can see the evidence, which is really hard to do because

Depending on which party you're with, you maybe if you're a Democrat, it's highly unlikely you're ever going to encounter evidence of fraud because your preferred media sources are doing their best to censor it. Exactly. Yeah, that was one of my questions. Have you tried to go to the media with this?

Well, I mean, it's been in the media, but the thing is that it tends to take the perspective of the Democrats. So they're like, well, all these guys are crazy. Okay, so they're only interested if it somehow can make the Republicans seem like the guilty part. That's when they're interested? Okay. Yeah. And, I mean, I did a journal article, which was actually, I think, a very important thing because...

A journal article is really hard to deal with for these guys, unlike a standard news article, which could have any old source and could mean... What's the difference? Well, a journal, it's a scientific journal, right? So... Oh, okay. It has to go through peer review. Right, right, right. And it becomes a part of the permanent literature in that subject category. So...

So I published an article about the algorithm. But wait a minute. It's not a perfect system. Don't you know about that guy who got some gibberish through?

I know it's not perfect, but it's certainly a lot better than the media. And the other thing is that in America anyway, if it's in a peer-reviewed journal article, it's really hard to defeat it. Because essentially, the journal article is almost meeting a perfect standard of truth or veracity. It used to be like that. That's true.

Yeah. But the thing is, you could put on an expert that says, no, what this guy's saying is baloney or this is gibberish. But they'd have to be able to prove that. Okay. So, you know, the gibberish example you just gave is obvious gibberish. Yeah. And it's something that the guy...

Made to be obvious gibberish. Yeah, so that he could out the journal But the thing is that only works with certain journals and it also only works with certain types of subjects In my experience, I know for big pharma Is now that they own?

Like all their people are represented in these journals. They won't even take in stuff that goes against. Yeah, well, I saw a report about that. That makes sense, especially in the context of trying to remember the name of the guy who founded Pfizer. But I read a biography of him. And, you know, he was a psychiatrist and he worked at New York's Bellevue Hospital. But he also said.

had a sideline working in the advertising industry, right? And what he did was he combined his talents in medicine and in advertising, and he started buying medical journals. And by buying them, I mean he actually either bought them outright or he influenced them with gifts, right?

And so he created Pfizer, and then he would use advertising techniques to advertise drugs without regard to the truth of the advertising. Leave it to Madison Avenue to corrupt medicine. That makes sense. Yeah, but he did this in the medical journals that he owned or controlled, right? Right, right, right.

So he was influencing that stuff pretty strongly. And, you know, the same thing goes for, like, the USDA, which is the United States Dairy Association, and whoever it was that came up with the food pyramid way back in 1910 or so that said you have to eat –

You know, a huge amount of meat and a huge amount of milk and eggs and all this stuff. And they had vegetables and grain as like the smallest part of your diet. When modern nutritionists would say that's like absolutely backwards. Yeah, everything is on its head now. But are you saying even the food pyramid was corruption and fraud? Yeah. Wow. Yeah.

I know about the sugar. You know why in the 60s, I think it was, or 50s, people got hysterical about fat? It has been with us almost up to modern times. I guess it started to yield in the 90s and 2000s.

But people were gobbling sugar like it was manna from heaven. And they were terrified of fat. And that was a pure corruption of data. They put fraudulent studies through the system. It was paid by the sugar industry. They needed a scapegoat. And they used fat as the scapegoat. So that for all these years, a whole generation, if not two generations...

Boomers and Axis has been suffering from an opposite paradigm than reality. So they have been gobbling carbs, thinking that's the way to go. And they've been avoiding fat, thinking that is the culprit of what actually happens.

The carbs is what has made. So we know that this system is rotten. But my point was, I asked you if you've gone to the media and you said you've gone a little to the media and also to peer-reviewed journals. Has any of that panned out to something? Has it brought? Oh, yeah. Keep in mind, though, that I'm not an official spokesman for the audit group and I'm no longer. When I say you, I mean the whole group or whoever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So I'm just going to answer you based on what I know, but it's not something that I was personally involved with. Okay. So apart from my presentations at town hall meetings, which I have done, I've done quite a few public presentations, and I've also done a number of private presentations to law enforcement, as well as people, like I also made a presentation to the state legislature almost a year ago now. But apart from that,

The person who's the state lead, Marlee Hornick, has done a lot of publicity. She's been on TV numerous times. She's been on the radio even more numerous times. I've seen her mentioned in the newspaper quite a lot. And

also on alternative media sites. Now, the majority of this press she gets is what you'd call alternative media. Oh, now that I think of it, let's stick to the independent media. I prefer that. Okay, fine. Independent media then. And now that I think of it, I was interviewed about the algorithm for, for one that got on Frank speech, which is Mike Lindell's platform. Um, and that was a pretty long interview. That's like 45 minutes.

We're beating that today. Yeah.

So anyway, you know, certainly there's been outreach in that direction. But as far as I'm concerned, this message really needs to get into the media that is watched by the Democrats. Yeah. OK. National media. I don't know how helpful it is to get it to people who already assume that there was fraud. And, you know, the thing that also I think is really important is that fraud, you know,

In my research on election fraud, I've found a lot of it. I found it in both parties. I found it in a lot of different elections. And one thing that Democrats don't like to talk about now is that they contested the 2016 election with Donald Trump. They also don't like to talk about the fact that Stacey Abrams contested the Georgia's governor election in that year. And they don't like to talk about... What about Al Gore? That was the next thing I was about to say. So...

They also don't like to talk about Al Gore. Now, when I look at the data on Al Gore or that particular election, I'm just going to tell you right now, I am not convinced that Bush won that honestly. OK. Of course he didn't. I mean, it's been a command. I'm not willing to go that far. OK. And you have looked deeply into it? I would say my guess there was fraud on both sides.

And whoever had the most successful fraud might have been the winner, which would be Bush. But it may be that he overcame the fraud, which I think is what Donald Trump did. But as far as I'm concerned, it is entirely possible that Bush lost that election. Okay? I mean, was it Bush's brother who was in charge of the Florida ballots? Yes. I mean, but this is the point, right? That, yes, Democrats have...

been screaming about this. I mean, the 16th election. Oh, hang on, hang on. Just a second. I'm sorry. I didn't get to finish the point. So the setup is that fraud happens all over the place. And I think that Democrats need to be reminded not only of that, but they also need to be reminded or they need to be told that Republicans who want fairness in elections are

are aware that their side has also committed the same kind of sin. Okay. So that's the difference that Republicans know that their side also has done it, but Democrats are in denial about it. Yes. I don't think any Democrat's going to be willing to listen to a Republican that says it's all your fault. Okay. And this isn't just a matter of the way you present the information. I happen to think it's not all their fault.

OK, I think it does happen on both sides. I do think that Trump legitimately won 2016 and I think he also won 2020. But that doesn't change the fact that they still have fraud on both sides. And as long as Democrats look at Republicans as people who are antagonistic to them at all levels and think they are completely innocent, I don't think they're going to have reason to trust them because that means they're not being straight with them. And if you're not being straight with them on one thing, I don't see why you'd expect them to be straight with you on another.

So, you know, the thing in the Bible where it says, go forth and sin no more. Right. And also it says, repent. Right. Repent and sin no more. So it seems to me that without repentance, you don't get the benefit of being trusted. And right now, it's like in this particular case, I think that.

The group that won the 2020 election is not the Republicans and it's not the Democrats. The Democrats might think they won, but who really won was whoever caused that outcome to occur. And I don't think those people, whoever they are, are Democrats or Republicans. I don't know if they're foreign or if they're domestic. I don't know if they're like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and people like that, George Soros.

or the government of China, or if it's all the CIA. Yeah, or the CIA, or if they're all working together. I have no idea what it is, but what I can say is that they weren't exclusively representing one party or the other. They were representing their own interests, which were independent, and that the Democrats have the appearance of a victory, but they are the slaves of whoever put them there. And in that sense... Yeah, I totally agree. I don't think the Republican Party is organizing

an election fraud or the Democrat. We have seen some rare cases where some fool of, let's say, it's a governor election or something like that, where there has been election fraud by that campaign.

But it's very risky because if the powers that be turns against you, you're done. They can use it to control you and everything. So that's probably why these things are being revealed. If someone who isn't endorsed by the powers that be

properly enough tries to outdo them in their own tricks it's like you behave like the mafia when there already is a mafia around you understand they're not going to let you go on their turf you know I've

I've wondered often whether we'd be any better off if the mafia controlled everything. It would be more honest, wouldn't it? You know, sometimes I think so, but then I've read histories of the mafia and then I think, well, maybe it'd be the same. Well, at least when they squeeze you for protection money, you get protection, right? Well, yeah, that's actually an interesting point there. You know, I was always confused about foreign aid. And by the way, before I go into this, I should tell you,

I consider myself in many respects to be very naive because when I'm interested in a subject, I can become an expert at it pretty quickly by really focusing my attention on it. But if I've never focused my attention on it, I more likely know nothing about it than I know a little bit. Okay?

And when it comes to foreign aid, I knew nothing about it until recently when I looked into it. So I just thought it was strange that our country was giving so much money to other countries when we needed the money ourselves. But now I look at it as part of a bribery scheme. And more importantly, I look at this... Wait a minute. Money laundering is the road. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the way I look at it now, it's kind of like if our guy in Washington wants a $5 million bribe,

the way he gets it is he gives another country $200 million of the taxpayer's money, and then they give him $5 million to some family member. So what that effectively means is that the American people are paying $195 million to hide the fact that this guy was given $5 million. So on that basis...

I think it would be cheaper just to directly bribe the guy ourselves. Exactly. Exactly. Here's $5 million. At least now you're not going to be compromised by this other country. Okay. Exactly. And an additional argument, we, before we went on here, we discussed taxes, right? And how high taxes are in Europe. But a point I didn't make to you then, which begs itself now is that, well, at least we then get something back for our taxes. Right.

we get the free at service point healthcare. We get free at service point schools. What you get, you just get more wars and more homelessness and more, you know, prisoners, et cetera. So, well, okay. And I'm not talking about capitalism. I'm talking about corporatism because that's what has taken over. Yeah. Let me, let me kind of re-describe this to you because you're, you're looking at it from your point of view and you're, you're reading newspapers that are,

that are telling you kind of a global picture of what's going on here. But from a local point of view, it doesn't look like what you just said at all. Okay, so... Doesn't it depend on where you live, though? To an extent. Like, if I lived in San Francisco, I'd definitely see it. Exactly.

I had that in mind. But in fact, I had to go to San Francisco for a convention a while back. And some friends came up to see me there while I was at the con because I was living in Europe at the time. And they hadn't seen me for a few years. And when I walked outside the hotel, I was horrified because of all the homeless people and drug addicts were openly using drugs right there on the street and the beggars and so on. And when my friends met me at the hotel, they were like, how could you invite us to a place like this? This is disgusting.

And I haven't seen them since. They were really upset about that just because of the entire city of San Francisco being as horrible as it was. And that was long before it got to be as horrible as it is today. I can only imagine how bad it is because that was back in 2007 or so. Oh, wow. And so beautiful it was back in the 60s. Oh, I lived near San Francisco when I was a kid in the 70s and we used to go there all the time. It was fine as far as I was concerned. But

from my point of view the tax money i pay in america what it buys is police who enforce the law traffic lights that work and highways that don't have potholes okay so so that's kind of what i see the government doing for me and not much beyond that okay everything else but i thought even the infrastructure is dissolving in terms of potholes and all that

Yes. It depends on where you live, though. I mean, in Utah, that's less true than in New York. Okay. Just as like, for instance, when I was riding my bicycle all over the place in the Netherlands, the roads in the Netherlands that I was on anyway were beautiful. But as soon as I hit the boundary to Belgium, it was horrible. Hmm.

It was like I was in New York all of a sudden. So obviously there is a difference in the way they maintain their roads between those two countries. But that's what I see. But when I go to the Netherlands, what looks different to me as far as the taxes, the tax value I get in the Netherlands is much more obvious to me.

Okay, much more obvious. Because the thing about the Netherlands is a lot of the things I was worried about, because I thought of it as a socialist country when I left to go there, I found that many of the things I was concerned about were not true, that the Netherlands was actually a really nice place to be. They did have a couple things that surprised me. For instance, what they call a town hall, what they translate to a town hall in the Netherlands, a gemeentehuis,

is nothing like a town hall here. And to me, it was the equivalent of the Stasi, okay? Because they're town halls. Where was this, by the way? Netherlands has transformed. I just wonder what time. Oh, from 2006 through 2018. Oh, okay. So you're pretty up to date. So what the Gemeta House did was they kept track of every single person in the entire country. So you had to...

You had to register where you lived, you had to register where you worked, and if you moved, you had to get their permission to move. Also, same thing for a job. If you wanted to change your job, you had to get permission for that, and you had to tell them where you were going and all the rest of it. In this way, they could keep track of everybody. That, I thought, was really weird. In America, they don't keep track of anybody that way. You don't have to ask anyone's permission. Have you heard about NSA? No.

The fact is, the citizen doesn't have to go somewhere and say, this is where I'm going. This is the new job I've got. You don't have to tell them that. The NSA is doing it against the law, by the way, and without their knowledge. Anyway, apart from the Hemente house, the Netherlands, I thought, actually was a really good place to be in a lot of ways. I was really happy with it. The only reason I left, though, was because, well, there were a couple of things. One,

their school system, because I was employed as a university lecturer and I helped co-found a school there, they were going to a more, I don't want to say communistic, but a more...

liberal way of teaching that I felt basically nullified. Evoke stuff? Pardon me? Yeah. But it nullified the ability to teach. Right. Because the priority was less on education than on sensitivity to the feelings of the students. Right, right, right. And to me, that's a really bad way to teach, especially when you look at the specific way they tried to implement it.

So as far as I was concerned, for that reason alone, I wanted to leave. But in combination with it, tax advantages I got as an American were taken away after 10 years being there, which meant I was actually losing money on my salary every year after that. So I was at that point spending my savings. I think the way to save money here, I think the reason people actually we are more wealthy in terms of opportunity is

And that's because everything is paid for, right? Like collective transport, schools, free at the point of service, kindergartens, all that stuff. So,

I think that's why the total budget, it's like, you know, the taxing is just like what you in America, social security, I think you call it. It's like an insurance company, but it's not for profit, right? Yeah. Everybody pays into it and everybody takes their share. But it's not privately by a corporation. That's the difference. And that's how we do it too. Well, one thing they had that strangely actually saved a lot of money, and I don't know if this was the purpose of it. I don't think it is.

But where I lived, actually the entire country, all of the Netherlands, is designed around what they call centrums, right? Or town centers, right? - Same here, yep.

And the Centrums were like a place where all the people of the town gathered on the weekends and evenings and whenever they had a free moment. And the thing is, all by itself, that removed the necessity of spending money for other types of entertainment that would be more expensive because they involved traveling outside the Centrum that you lived in. So I found that the Centrum concept all by itself

saved me tons of money because I Found that what I wanted to do on my weekends is with my free time was I wanted to go to the centrum and I wanted to do things with other people there Which I wouldn't have been inclined to do here in America because we have no such thing So from my point of view the most valuable thing that they had as far as I can tell were these town centrums Those were fantastic

They had a community where the people knew each other. And that, by the way, is a fantastic way to stop crime all by itself. If everybody knows everyone, you're much less likely to be committing crimes. And when you have a Jementa house that knows where everybody lives, if you do commit a crime, you're much more likely to be caught. So I think that was really brilliant because it made the

The town I lived in, which is actually a big city by Dutch standards, is a small city by our standards here in America. But I lived in Breda, which is where they used to have the, you know, that's where the king used to live when it was William of Orange. But anyway, it made the people more accountable and in a way that is not true in America. That was awesome. Yeah. The next thing that they had that was really wonderful is they had this network of bike paths. I mean, they covered, you can basically bicycle anywhere you want.

Yeah, they're big on bikes there. That's true. Yeah. And they don't have that here. Now, there's a couple of logistical reasons for it in America. America has a lot of really mountainous terrain. And also, they have very, very bad weather in certain parts of America. It would be extremely difficult to maintain. That's an excuse. We have bike paths everywhere and we have horrible weather and tons of mountains everywhere.

So it's doable if you really want it. I didn't know that, but it's definitely easier in the Netherlands. It's totally flat and the weather is pretty mild. Absolutely. And Denmark too. But folks, the lesson from what he says here is...

If you want a harmonious earth, actually, but at least a community or a country or a neighborhood, always go for decentralization and autonomy. Autonomy, autonomy, autonomy, because nobody... Look, if someone is going to decide, should we build a bridge here? You should consult the locals because they are the ones who's going to be affected by it. Centralism, it's some suit far away.

who haven't even been here, who theoretically makes a decision. So centralism is the recipe for disaster. Centralism is what fell the Soviet Union. And centralism is also what has taken over the USA. But listen, Andrew, I have more questions about elections before we philosophize completely. That's fine. Can we return to it? Yeah, yeah.

So I wonder, have you contacted the Trump campaign? They certainly ought to be interested in this. They lost court case after court case. And because they lost those court cases, many people now think, oh, it's an exaggeration. It wasn't. Okay. Well, first of all, I want to correct you. There is a popular conception that of all these court cases, Trump lost them all. That's not true. As I recall, there was something like

93 of them, and of them, a certain number never got to court, so they were never decided. They were thrown out before they could be heard. Okay. Right. And of the ones who did go to court, Trump actually won about 30% of those, if I recall correctly. Wow. I'm going to try to find it while I'm right here. Here we go. Election lawsuits. So...

I've got this web page that lists them all. And there's a couple of different categories. But the one category I'm looking at right now, they've got 62 cases where Trump wasn't the plaintiff, meaning he wasn't the person filing it, but it was on his behalf. Yeah. And of those, 20 went to trial.

And of those, the Trump side won 15 out of 18. So they won a very large majority of those cases. And then the ones where he was the principal, there were four filed, three decided on the merits.

And they prevailed on all of them. Okay. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. First of all, please state that website so people can verify your claim. Yeah, it's election. Actually, I can send it to you in an email, but it's electionintegrity.info slash 2020 electioncases.htm. Good. But I'll send it to you. Yeah, I'll

I don't need it verified. I don't need it. But, but people who listen will need that because it goes against what they've heard. Right. That's number one. Number two, if they want so many of them, didn't it bring any consequences? Um, well, it had usually has to do with like rule changes. Let me just look at what the cases were about. One had to do with a vote by mail. So they granted an injunction against it. One had to do with recount procedures in New York. Oh, that's a surprise. I didn't know that. Um,

Another had to do with one of them is being appealed. So that must mean it went the other way. What is the issue? Oh, they're saying that Trump was disenfranchising minorities. So this would have been filed against Trump. And then a county objecting to a Senate investigation. And he won that. So basically, these are objecting to the investigation. Yeah.

Yeah. So what this is, these are procedural issues that aren't necessarily going to make big news. But

overall what's going on here is that the um you have trump supporters who filed cases without his knowledge necessarily and um those are the vast majority of the cases and it looks like almost two-thirds of those weren't even heard in court because of defects in the way they were filed so that this was amateurs yeah i didn't know what they were doing yeah exactly and then of the remainder of

you know, the plaintiff that is the Trump supporting person won most of them. But what's going on is in the media, they're talking about the ones that didn't even get to court usually. And then they are just cherry picking out the couple that went the other way. Yeah, I heard a lot of blabber about this Sidney Powell or something. I don't know the details there. Yeah, Sidney Powell, she's an issue. What happened in America, and this is actually one of the more frightening things. I'm kind of glad you mentioned her.

because they have something that, I don't like this term, but they're using the term lawfare to describe what's going on. And it's very scary because what's going on is there's serious intimidation of lawyers and judges where they're being literally physically threatened if they take a Trump case,

But on top of that, they're being seriously threatened with ramifications to their career by having their license to practice law pulled if they represent Trump or anybody related to Trump. Wait a minute. Who can pull that license? The State Bar Association. I thought judges were their own law, was their own institution separated from Senate and White House. Well, that particular...

statement, it applies to lawyers, not judges. So what that means is the State Bar Association, which is the organization that grants the license, can revoke it. And they can also revoke it on the basis of a judge's decision. So a judge can say that the law license is now sacrificed, so the bar is forced to take it. I've seen enough law series on television to have registered that point. Yeah.

Okay, so the thing is is that they have suspended the law license of several very prominent lawyers like Rudy Giuliani And I know they're trying to paint him as an over-the-hill Senile clown who doesn't know what he's doing that's right, but I have to tell you he seems every bit as sharp as he ever did that the problems the defects really and what he did in his cases is

had to do more with a compressed timeline than defects as a lawyer or anything nefarious on his part. Because with the way election law works, you have a really limited time frame within which to gather data. And if you've followed law shows, you should have some idea how long it takes to prosecute a lawsuit. I mean, a typical slip and fall case where somebody slips on a patch of ice outside of a McDonald's and sues them for a million dollars for their injuries. A case like that can take two years to get through court.

But in this situation, Rudy Giuliani made presentations to all the swing state legislatures. So that's five states. And he had to prove election fraud. And he had to gather thousands of witnesses. He had to get testimony from them on the record. He had to take depositions. He had to organize all this. He had to understand what it meant. And he had to present it all within about a month. He had somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 days to make this case.

That is not enough time to do even the most, the tiniest case properly. Was he completely alone? Didn't he have a huge team and resources behind him? He had a team, but it was still way beyond the ability of this team to do it. So he definitely made mistakes. There's no question about it, and he admits it. But the thing is, he didn't make those mistakes intentionally. He wasn't intending to.

to give anyone the wrong impression. In fact, all he wanted to do with these presentations was to say to the legislatures, you have the legal authority to not certify your election until you investigate this more thoroughly. So he wasn't saying you should punish people, okay, which is where you require a higher standard of evidence. He was saying this is enough evidence to warrant not certifying the election until you investigate this further. That's all he was asking.

And isn't that the same as what you're asking for your points? Yeah. So what he did, though, as far as I can tell, my reading of the law, he is totally doing exactly what he's supposed to do as a lawyer. But he lost his law license for that on the basis that he got some of his numbers wrong, which he definitely did. He said there's like so many hundreds of thousands of problematic votes in this place and so many tens of thousands in that place. And it turned out the real numbers were in some cases substantially different.

And the reason that he made those mistakes is he wasn't able to properly vet them. But that was the whole point, that the legislature themselves can't properly vet them either in the time they had. And so they needed to make that time by delaying the certification so that they could look into this stuff.

Um, so in the end, Giuliani's premise was borne out. There was fraud and it was substantial and it was in numbers that either were near to or over the numbers he gave. But the thing is, is that at the time that wasn't known and in, you know, this, the details, it was linked to certain pieces of evidence that turned out to be incorrect at the time. But, um,

But his overall argument was borne out later. But nevertheless, he was punished for it. He lost his career and he's losing all his money. And it's all sorts of bad things are happening to him. And judges are also threatened by this as well, because they see that judges can lose their judgeships pretty easily. Who takes away the judgeship? Well, if the elections are controlled, they can make sure you don't win the next time.

And oftentimes the way judges work is supposedly they're elected, but oftentimes they run unopposed. So it's like you can choose. Wait a minute. Are you talking about by the people like you as a citizen can vote for a judge? Yeah. Yes. Yes. All judges are. No, not all judges. Some judges are appointed by higher level politicians and others are voted for.

So the ones who are appointed can easily be removed. And the ones who are voted for, oftentimes those are in elections where they don't run an opponent. So that's how they get the judge they want. So all they have to do to get rid of a sitting judge is in the next election, they run an opponent and then they make sure that the opponent wins. So they can actually do things to hurt judges as well. And it's been made abundantly clear that representing any conservative interest is punished.

you know, they've got SWAT teams for crying out loud who are taking down grandmothers and their teenage daughters for walking around in Washington to see it. That kind of thing is ridiculous. I always assume the easiest way to control judges is, uh,

the intel way and as i have absolutely everything on everyone and just blackmailing like an like you don't even need an upstand level blackmailing you just need like yeah i've read a lot about justice john roberts having all sorts of scandals just waiting to be uncovered um and that that's why the supreme court refused to hear the case filed by texas a while back with um

And I think it's probably true, although the specific allegations are so offensive. I'm not going to assume that they're true unless I can see better evidence that they're true. You know, there was just a case where CIA lost in court against Assange for a bunch of things. So now, like...

And Mike Pompeo is going to be. And that's probably maybe that's why they lost, because they can blame it partly on Mike Pompeo, who served under Trump. Of course, he's not on Trump's side at all. He's on CIA side. But I think we should watch the health of that judge or like his career or something, because. Well, I'll tell you, this is just my opinion. I doubt I'm the only person who has it. But I believe that that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was murdered.

I haven't heard that before. Yeah. He was the conservative chief justice. Was he the chief justice? Actually, maybe he – I think he was the chief justice. But it happened like in 2000 and –

Shoot, I don't know. It was I think it happened before I moved to the Netherlands. So maybe 2005 or 2006, something like that. But he had gone on a I think it was a hunting trip. And I believe it was one of the southern states. I think it might have been Texas. But he was found asphyxiated to death with a pillow over his face. OK. And then before anyone had an opportunity to do an autopsy to determine if somebody smothered him with a pillow,

They cremated his body. Oh, my God. This is like a JFK recipe. 9-11. Yeah. But the thing is, he was such a thorn in the side of liberals that I can easily believe that he was assassinated. OK, assassinated so that they could change the balance of the Supreme Court so that they could start getting justice.

laws that would benefit not the Democrat or the Republican Party, but whoever it was that's pulling the strings behind the scenes. Yeah. And with the deep state cooperation, that always struck me as absolutely unbelievable that he died of natural causes, which is what they said. And actually, you know, one of the things observation I made when I was living in the Netherlands, you know, one of the things I loved about the Netherlands is I completely missed the Obama years. Right. So I was here for the whole time he was president.

But the thing that really shocked me when I, and I also didn't pay attention to politics because I was really just interested in teaching my classes. But one thing I found really strange was when Dinesh D'Souza was,

went to jail for a campaign contribution that would not have resulted in anybody else going to jail. And in fact, he was the first person to ever go to jail for this thing. And he was a conservative, right? And he had just made this documentary about Hillary Clinton that was highly unfavorable to Hillary Clinton. And it was very popular. So that kind of struck me as odd. But then the next thing that really got my attention was the deplatforming of Alex Jones.

Now, Alex Jones, I had seen a couple of his shows, but not too many. They didn't appeal to me because I thought he was too emotional. He seemed prone to exaggeration. And I also thought the way he advertised products was a little strange as well. But nevertheless, he seemed to be on the ball, meaning he seemed to be right about certain things, things that normal people wouldn't or most people wouldn't even think about.

So I found him interesting on that. And more importantly, he means what he says. He's not like... Yeah, he absolutely seems to believe exactly what he says. But the thing is, it doesn't really matter if I agree with him or not. What I think does matter to your listeners is that I had seen a couple shows and decided it wasn't for me, right? Totally agree. But nevertheless...

And silencing him was incredibly scary. When I saw that happen, I was like, holy cow, this is a test case scenario to see if they can take away our freedom of speech. No, it's the second test. It's a test for media. You had the same reaction I had back in, I think it was 12, when they did exactly the same to Assange, because it's very suspicious.

When all the banks at the same time takes down Wikileaks. Yeah. And not only the banks, PayPal, Visa, every powerful part of the system coordinated. Bam.

And yes, exactly the same thing happened to Assange. This means the word conspiracy that's thrown out, that's the definition of conspiracy. When people collude behind the scenes to implement their will. Yeah. And that's exactly what happened in both cases. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And the funny thing now with Jones, that's the one that like really had the hair on the back of my head standing on end, because I was thinking if they can do it to him, they can do it to absolutely anybody.

And they will because, you know, they picked him because he's an extreme example and he would probably be the easiest one to slip under everybody's radar. But it's...

Well, the funny thing about Sandy Hook is, you know, first off, I think that judgment against him was ridiculous. I don't think that the case should have ever been brought against him because essentially they were suing him because he was wrong in public. That happens all the time. You know, all these people... No, people think he did Sandy Hook. That's what people think. And just so people know, do you remember the amounts of money he was... It's like...

billions of dollars. Well, that was what the judgment was for. Yeah. You know, he didn't have that kind of money. No, of course. But in America, there is not the perception that he did Sandy Hook. What it is and what the lawsuit... Oh, I promise you there's idiots who now think... You know, not everybody's paying attention.

They think he did Sandy Hook. Many people do that. That's the extent of... Yeah, well, if that was the case, then the judgment would make sense. But that's not what the case was about. Actually, it wouldn't. He would be in jail if that was the case. Yeah, exactly. The thing is that he...

No, he said that he thought that the deep state had been involved in Sandy Hook. That was what the contention was. And I don't care if he's right or wrong. He's got the right to say it. And he's also got the right to be wrong. And, you know, the thing is that when you go to let's look at something that I think is much more actionable, and that's Pfizer and all these drug companies saying that their COVID vaccine is safe and effective when we know it's, you know, sometimes deadly and very often quite injurious. So, yeah.

In that case, I would say they're saying something that they know is false so that they can make money. And those guys are criminally liable for that. But if somebody believes them and says, take this, it's safe and effective, they're not liable because they don't know it's false. Okay. So if a doctor follows that, yeah, so the doctor just acts in good faith, right?

But those who presented it to the doctors, they are the ones who are then liable, right? That's how it works. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. So by that standard, Alex Jones, there's absolutely no way that he should ever be convicted of anything. And I

As a matter of law, I would think that the complaint against him was insufficient to bring the charges in the first place. And the case should have been dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't ever be refiled by anybody. And I am wondering about the honesty of the lawyers who actually presented that case, because I don't know how you can.

present that case as a lawyer who's been through law school and obtained a license without knowing for sure that it's a fraudulent case on its face. But even then, lawyers have the right to do that and they don't get punished for it. They just lose the case. That's the punishment. They don't lose their law license also. You know what I mean? And so, you know, but to me, like where Rudy Giuliani does lose his law license for doing something that seems totally fine to me,

And then, you know, these Sandy Hook lawyers are able to file that case, get away with it and have this huge judgment against Alex Jones. I mean, if anyone's supposed to lose the law license, it should be them. But even then, I don't think they should lose it either because they're still doing what their clients wanted. So they're doing their job. And it's up to the judge in that situation to dismiss the case. And the judge didn't do his job by not dismissing it. So in that situation, I think it's.

more of the judge's fault. But, um, as far as I'm concerned, ultimately somebody put that group up to it because they wanted to punish Alex Jones. You know, the thing about Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, funny thing about that is I, um,

When I first heard about those two guys, I was willing to accept the media's portrayal of both of them as bad guys. Edward Snowden was compromising important secrets that shouldn't be in the hands of people of other countries. And Julian Assange was...

releasing information without regard for the damage it could do because he was being very careless about it and he had absolutely no controls on him because he was independent. And also the information he was releasing was obtained illegally because people were leaking it from places where it's illegal to have the data, let alone to give it to somebody else. So I felt like Snowden, I'm sorry, not Snowden, Assange had a

a fairly weak defense because he was working with information that was given to him through illegal means, right? So that's how I looked at it. But nowadays, I'm looking at it very differently. And this is primarily because of the exposure of the deep state, which I used to think was just a crazy idea. But now I look at Snowden and Julian Assange as both being

unalterably opposed to the deep state and as such they're huge enemies of the deep state and so they're being you know persecuted by them exactly and now i think that what snowden did was really important and as far as julian assange yeah that too you know the whole just remember one thing assange is not in prison for lies he's in prison for truth and it's not in prison even for the hillary clinton stuff although that's the real reason why they went after him he's in prison for exposing the war crimes

during the Iraq war. And the one who gave it to him, he or she is free.

today. What's his name again? The soldier. Yeah, it starts with a C. I forget the name. But look, I have more questions, but I want to throw in two quick comments to your excellent analysis. People should look up the Stephen Donziger case. Stephen Donziger is a lawyer, just to illustrate how corrupted the law system has become in America. Stephen Donziger won a case against Chevron, a powerful corporation, and

in South America. I forgot the country. Ecuador, maybe. And he was representing farmers, 30,000 farmers and indigenous people. And they won an unprecedented lawsuit against Chevron.

I think they had to pay 12 billion or something. That's pretty big. Yeah. And although for them it's pocket money, but still they don't want to – it's not about the money for them. They can afford that. It's about the – they are supposed to control the system. That's why they tried TISA, TTPA. I'm going to have a future show about how corporations are taking over the world. There are folks you can learn about how they rig the international system.

in their favor. But anyway, this was an outlier. It had to be SmackDown. They blamed Dunsinger. He was just a lawyer, right? American. So Judge Kaplan, and he pops up in the most insane places, this Judge Kaplan in the Southern District of New York. Very corrupt, in my view, person.

And part of the, you know, the national security state apparatus. And so they threw Dunsinger in jail for some silly theory. He's the first who's been in jail for, what's he called? Like something completely unserious. What year was this? Oh, it's very recent, 22. He just came out. He was in...

Jail and house arrests. It went all over the independent media. But it's a very fascinating case because it's unprecedented. They're not just smacking down on media. They're also smacking down on, like you say, on lawyers. That's why I wanted to mention this. But the power here is obviously, in this case, Chevron. And Chevron, you know how the multinational corporations work. It's daughter companies. It's conglomerates. It's cartels.

And Alex Jones said in a very interesting interview, he was interviewed by Jimmy Dore at the Jimmy Dore show recently, just a week ago or something. And he said that, and he said, look it up, folks, look it up. There was this before Assange and Alex Jones, or maybe it was after Assange, but before Jones interview.

Both are media representatives who threatened the powers that be. They bragged in some international magazine for corporatist people. So it's not like the man in the street reading it. How they had to take down Assange and Jones. Fascinating. As example cases, as what you say, the canary in the mine. Because if I... Yeah.

I would say that, number one, they needed to get rid of them because they needed to get rid of their voice. But they also needed to get rid of them in a very public way so that they would intimidate others into compliance. Statue examples. That's exactly what Jones said. And they bragged about it before it happened. So that should be interesting because it is a pretty sedentary. But after that, we know what happened. It went from taking down a wild man like Jones to ending up taking down...

the president or the ex actually it happened when he was president the president of america you know from twitter so i'm not just saying about arresting them i'm saying like taking away their voice censorship that's what i'm talking about but let's return to the election

Have you heard the name Beth Harris? Beth Harris, yes. So you know about her, right? I don't know about that. You just asked me if I knew her name. Okay, but she's been in the vanguard of fighting election fraud. She was the one who blew the whistle on Diebold, these machines, how they have been used.

I don't think those machines are used anymore. They have a new name now. Oh, Bev Harris. Bev Harris, yes. Oh, I thought you said Beth Harris. Okay. No, not Beth. Yeah, not Bev. Yeah.

It's Skype, not as good quality as Zoom. Right. Okay. So she would have been in like, yeah, I saw her in a documentary that was made before the 2020 election, if I recall, where she was talking about election hacking. And at that time, it was Democrats worried that Republicans were going to use the voting machines against them, which incidentally is yet another indication of how this goes both ways.

You know, one of the things I thought might be happening with Michael Pence is that the invisible powers behind all this, which I call the bad guys, are positioning. We're trying to position Mike Pence as the Republican nominee and possibly the Republican winner. And the reason is because and this is my theory. OK, if I'm looking at this from the point of view of the bad guys, I'm.

At this point, Biden is, I think, lost. There's just no way that they can believably present him as the winner of the 2024 election. And they know it. They also probably feel that there is no way they can present any Democrat as the believable winner. Therefore, whoever wins has to be Republican. But it has to be a Republican that they control. And so they are going to pick one that, like Mike Pence,

who they absolutely control and who is Republican and hopefully has a connection to Trump, which he does because he was the vice president under Trump. So they would have what looks like a very slightly believable victory for a Republican. And they can say, see, the Democrats weren't cheating.

But the trick is that it's not the Democrats who are cheating before. And it's not the Republicans who are cheating when George Bush won in 2000. It's these bad guys whose names we don't know. They're the ones who are cheating. And they're just picking who they think is most expedient for their purposes at that time. And that person can be Republican or Democrat, depending on the circumstances. So I think that their trial balloon with Mike Pence didn't work.

So now what they're trying to do is to present... Nikki Haley. Nikki Haley, that's it. Get her mixed up. But I beg to differ. I think what they will do... Yes, they never play one plan, like plan A. They have tons of backup plans. But I think the main plan for the real power to put up a new mask for the fake democracy is to...

go through the entire democratic process and then after the primaries and caucuses are over then Joe Biden is going to declare but he doesn't seem to want to do it so it's a fight behind the curtain but

Then he's going to declare, oh, I promised I was just going to be a one-term president. But because of my health and my family, blah, blah, blah, I have to resign. And then they put in someone like the California guy. What's his name? Oh, Gavin Newsom. Yeah, yeah. So that's probably the way to go. The problem they have right now, and it's a serious one, is at this point,

I don't think you could convince almost anybody that Biden or Newsom or any Democrat can win an election. And on the other side,

I think it'd be very hard to convince anyone that anyone but Trump could win as a Republican. So they've got a real serious public relations issues. They do. They have a huge problem. And if it was just Trump, they could do an excellent, sublime CIA op on him so that one day we wake up and read in the newspaper he had a heart attack or something.

But they can't get away with it because they've tried character assassination. They tried smearing, all that stuff. Not just with Trump, with all of these. Even with, what's his name? Dr. Gorka? No, no, the Afro-American. Oh, Ben Carson. No, no, no. Not a Republican. He's now running. Activist guy. Ron Paul? A black Afro-American running now. Not Ron Paul.

He's running now in this election as an independent. I'm just blanking on his name. Vivek Ramaswamy. No, he's Indian. Okay. Well, just so you know, I count him as Indian also, but people from England will say black or colored when they are talking about Indians. So I wasn't sure. Cornel West. Cornel West. Oh, him. Okay. Even him. Even him they did as mayor of Campanian. Because the problem now is, let's say they take out Trump.

Everybody who would want to vote Trump will then go straight over to Vivek. And they can't control Vivek either. And they can't assassinate both of them.

And then you have the very real threat of RFK. He's on 20% now, and he's going to chip more away from both the Republicans and the Democrats. Actually, I'm going to disagree with you there. I actually like RFK in a lot of ways, and I don't even remember what it is that made me change my mind, but he has said a couple of things that turned off Republicans' attention.

pretty seriously so at this point and the same with democrats he said things that have turned them well he's gonna i i think he's gonna take more from democrats than from republicans but but then they have an even bigger problem right what's that i actually think that if if it was rfk if it was rfk against biden biden is finished

Even in the primary, that would happen. And remember, the primary is dedicated Democrats. That's why they couldn't let him run. If it was Biden versus a Mickey Mouse toy in a supermarket, the Mickey Mouse toy would win. Yes. And I'm talking about that. But I could make a case. I get you. But I could make a case that he would even win against Trump.

But I don't know if we should waste time on discussing this. We're in theoretical speculation now. I want to go back to Bev Harris. She revealed this black box voting thing. And there's been a lot of stuff going around these more modern machines too. I want to ask you this question.

You have proven that the registration stuff, like the primaries for the machines kind of, there's something fishy there. But does it matter if it's hand ballots or if it's machine ballots? Or are these only for machines? This is kind of an interesting point because it introduces the possibility of multiple conflicting...

fraud methods actually causing the frauds to fail because they conflict. Okay? So anything that utilizes the voter rolls has to be consistent with those voter rolls. So it has to be built into the fraud that it accommodates whatever is in the voter rolls. So if you're using tabulators, you have to know how many votes you're casting in each county based on how many fraudulent registrations you've got available in those places.

If you're doing it independently, you could accidentally cast more votes than are available fraudulently or legitimately in that area, and you would be exposed. Now, my feeling is of the two methods...

You could eliminate the tabulators, you could eliminate all the electronic vote counting mechanisms without having any effect at all on the fraud that I'm talking about. And the reason is because as long as you have the fraudulent registrations in the system, you can still create fraudulent ballots for them. Okay. Now, the issue there, though, is it's kind of combined with something else, which is mail-in balloting.

So if you eliminate mail-in ballots and you eliminate the electronic voting machines, I think that would eliminate

so much fraud that even if the voter rolls remained as corrupt as they are, you might have actually overcome the problem. But you really would have to get rid of the mail-in ballots because those mail-in ballots, I mean, this black box thing that Harris created has to do with the electronic vote counting machines. But I look at the mail-in ballots as a black bag, okay, of possibilities because you never really, you know how many

were mailed out, but everybody who gets one doesn't have to send one in. Like in New York, everybody in the whole state gets one. I got one and I don't vote that way. So I've got a mail-in ballot that was sent to me at my address, same for my wife, and we voted in person. So that's an opportunity for two votes. And I mean, we didn't do that. I don't remember if we tore them up and threw them away or if we stored them in a drawer, but it was something like that. But

But the thing is, is that because no one can know how many of the total that were sent out were actually used, they can say it's any number up to the total. Right. And that allows them a chance.

practical limitation that equals the entire size of the election because they send them to everyone, right? So that means there's no realistic limit on how many of these things that they can use.

which is a problem. I don't see any way that election fraud gets solved without eliminating mail-in ballots. I think that if you kept the electronic tabulators but got rid of the mail-in ballots, it would make it a lot harder to commit fraud. It would still be possible, but it would be much harder because

Um, then you would have to double count the ballots and you wouldn't have this black bag of unknown mail-ins coming in. Yeah. But if you get rid of both of them, I think it would make it just about impossible to, um, have the amount of fraud that we've seen. You'd still, I mean, it would still be possible to,

for someone to go to a nursing home and through illicit means obtain. But small scale. Yeah. Actually, no, even what I just said wouldn't be possible because that only works if they have absentee ballots sent to them by mail, because that's how you get the absentee ballots. So

Yeah, that wouldn't work at all. And the other thing is you would have to set it up so that absentee ballots, you have to provide a very good reason and you have to be able to document it. You know, in the old days and by old days, I mean, as recently as I think five years ago.

So if you wanted an absentee ballot, you had to go to court and prove that you needed it. Like you were handicapped in a wheelchair in a hospital and, you know, you could make your wishes known by nodding to an electronic monitor in a certain way. But, you know, outside of really extreme cases like that, there was no way you'd get an absentee ballot. So it has to be like that again. The issue we have in America is the Constitution says,

says that every citizen has the unabridged right to vote, right? So what certain groups do is they take that as meaning that we have to make it easy to vote. But their methods for making it easy to vote, like mail-in ballots, for instance, and no contest identification, also allow all sorts of different types of fraud.

And so what they say is, well, the fraud is minimal. And in return, we get all these extra people registered to vote. And I would say that it makes no sense to create opportunities for fraud. So if people want to vote, they're going to have to follow. In most of the world, it's normal that you have to have an identification. I understand you don't even need that, which is hilarious. It's offensive. I'm going to just tell you this just because I have to express my indignation. So when I go to vote,

or when I went to vote here in New York for the first time, I pulled out my wallet and I pulled out my driver's license with my photo on it. And I put it in the face of the, of the person and he turned away and, and just like pushed my hand away and said, we don't need that. I was, I was like, that is so inappropriate. I couldn't believe it because I,

I have to show my ID for practically everything. And why for voting, which is more important because, you know, here's something that's kind of important about elections is that if you put the wrong person in office, that person is enabled by the authority granted by the office to commit almost any other crime. So this actually is more important than anything else that you could possibly imagine. You want to prevent some other type of crime.

like driving without a license. So you check the license and make sure the photograph is right. But that is a smaller crime than, you know, putting a guy into office because that guy could actually let all the criminals out of jail, for instance. It's just incredible. Yeah. Start a nuclear war, for example, which is very real. Yeah, that too, which, by the way, I'm looking at might happen, which is really astonishing because I'm looking at the Democrat Party. Even a long time ago, I was thinking this.

Because the way Hillary Clinton was talking, I was thinking, what does she want? A nuclear war with Russia? Because it sounded like it. And the way Obama was talking, the way they were trash talking Russia all the time, I was like, what on earth? These guys are behaving exactly like they want to go to war with Russia. Why? And then Trump came in and he's like,

to like settle things down in Russia and North Korea. And I'm like, great, that's fantastic. I don't like North Korea. And, you know, at that time I didn't have any reason to like Russia either. Um,

But I certainly didn't want to go to war with them. And so I thought it was good what he was doing there. I didn't look at that as him colluding with them because it's to their advantage also that we not go to war, but it's also our advantage. So I don't really see a problem there. Anyway, sorry, that was a diversion. Go ahead. No, it's okay. So, no, but I mentioned Bev Harris because I think you say...

You're despairing for how this can be turned around. And I do think Tulsi Gabbard's law suggestion, which I, well, I didn't read it in details at the time, but I looked at the reporting, was pretty solid. But I don't think it's an either or. I think we need as many honest politicians as possible who are not on the take. There are always some. I mean, Ron Paul is the gold standard, right? He's like an autist.

But we need to put in as many as possible that want to fight the system. In addition, yes, people need to do their job and as much media as possible. But then you have the voluntary organizations. I think people need to come together there.

Bev Harris has, I forgot what her organization is called, is one. I mentioned Tim Canova to you. He had the unthankful task of going up against, what's this Hillary Clinton she called? She's called Debbie Wesserman Schultz, one of the worst. Oh, that's a horrible person. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, very horrible person. So he has been, and by the way,

To show guilt here, the Florida governor, what's he called, who's running against Trump? DeSantis. Yeah, who many things was good on COVID, therefore they gave him a blank. Well, he has helped and protected Wasserman Schultz for the same reason you mentioned earlier, because they don't want to overturn this system of rigging because it will hurt themselves.

So you should check out Tim Canova. He's been fighting. He started as a Democrat, tried to win over her in the primaries. Then he ran as an independent and his organization has been fighting. And he's been putting money into this, right? Yeah. So I think your organization ought to contact people like Bev Harris, Tim Canova, and the guy I had on my show. He ran for the – he's a lawyer, but he also ran for the Greens at some point.

And he said on my show, this was right before the 16 election. He said that, yes, we will. If they rig it against Trump, we will come out and say it.

And he has a very good survey over the history of voting fraud in America. I hear you go back to the 1800s or something. 1700s. 1600s. 1600s. That's amazing. I don't know if he has done that. But he's written books about this. And he's a professor. So he's an academic. So this isn't just one man's crazy opinion. It's like you. He's done his homework.

So have you reached out or your organization reached out to people like this and if not cooperate, at least be in the loop with each other? Because if everybody is scattered and try to fight this beast separated, it's not going to work. You have to come together. There are, and you've asked this same question a number of different ways. And, you know, to the extent that it could be managed, there are those connections. You know, like for instance,

One of the guys who was working with our group was also working with the Canadian truckers who did that protest and got everyone bent out of shape up there. And he also went all the way to, or maybe it was somebody else that was like his wife did it, but it was either him or somebody, a friend of his that was also in the audit group. But they both were invited to participate in the farmers protests in the Netherlands.

So, you know, they went, they flew. I think it was like three people from the group went all the way to the Netherlands. They invited me, too, in fact. And the idea was we need a translator. And I was like, number one, they speak English there. And number two, I don't speak Dutch. I might have been there for 12 years, but I was at a university that only spoke English and I never had the need to speak Dutch. So it's like I can read it to an extent, but speaking it, I'm kind of hopeless. Yeah.

But yeah, there are connections like that. And I think ultimately that the solution is going to be multifaceted. You know, I think one guy who's actually made great strides towards solving this and I think is absolutely instrumental is Elon Musk. His purchase of Twitter was huge. It was huge.

It was important and necessary. You know, when he did it, I love the fact that liberals are trying to ridicule him for losing money on Twitter because, number one, it was pretty obvious from the beginning he didn't lose money or not. He was doing this because he needed to protect free speech.

And number two, he's not losing money. He can afford it. Yeah, that's very true. Yeah. But he was doing it as far as I could tell anyway. He was being purely altruistic. It was like free speech has to be protected and this is how I'm going to do it. And the funny thing, and this gets into a topic that might be more interesting for a different program, but I've had a couple of dreams about Elon Musk that...

depict him as having a different role to play than many would expect but it seems to be one that he's fulfilling and is very important and very good actually so but as far as cooperation is concerned sure i actually am feeling kind of optimistic uh about the 2024 election i i

I don't like to say it out loud because I don't want to jinx it. You don't want to jinx it, yeah.

And as far as I'm concerned, anybody who runs against Trump is not a good guy because... Well, I can give you the... No, no, no. Look, he's an insurance. Don't you get it? Because if they take down Trump... Well, yeah, but the thing is that that would be unnecessary if they all dropped out and the Republican Party was forced to pick Trump, which they obviously don't want to do. But they will be forced to pick him when the primaries come. Yeah.

It's actually – no, no. But there's more. I don't think it's coordinated between him and Trump. But it could be. If Trump was smart and strategic, he would send someone like Vivek because second of all, you get the populist message on the debate stage where Trump doesn't debate. And he defends Trump there. Yeah, he was. And those – remember, he was high up in the polls. Now he's down to 5%.

And that's simply because people are now going over to Trump. Yeah. So he will, Trump will get the Trumpers no matter what.

Some other, there are people who are not into Trump, but are still on the side of, let's say, anti-establishment, anti-deep state populist. And they need an option too. You don't want them to go to Nikki Haley or something, right? So I think it's good. It's always good for democracy to have many options, whether it's in the primaries. If Trump can't carry people in his own party, he

He has no business running for the Republicans. Oh, but that's not the point. I'm looking at this a little bit differently. As far as I'm concerned, Trump does carry the people in his party, and the polls are so controllable that they are meaningless. So I don't care. No, but they show that he's in the clear, clear lead.

Oh, yeah. He's 30% ahead of. No, it's more than that. He's like 60%. Yeah, 60% ahead. And the other guy split the remaining 40%. So anyway. Yeah, that's what I mean. He's 30% ahead of number two. Yeah. Yeah, something like that. So in any event, the issue is not that he hasn't won over the Republican voters, but that the Republican Party is trying to find an excuse to replace him on the ballot with somebody else. Yeah.

That's the issue. So if you don't give them anybody to replace him with, they lose that option. But regardless, as I see Vivek talk, I really like him. So the more I see of him, the more happy I am with him. At this point, I've reached the point that I hope he's the vice president nominee.

That's what many people think he's running for. Yeah. Yeah, well, the Republican presidential primary is about vice president, not president. Right, right, right. But the difference between Ramaswamy and everybody else is that everybody else seems to think that they're running for president. Vivek seems to know he's running for vice president. Hmm, hmm.

Good point.

that are going in what I consider to be the right direction. So like it was just, was it yesterday? There was a case in Georgia that got decided. Yeah, that was true. The vote was Catherine Engelbrecht who had found fraud in Georgia. And then they were trying to prosecute her for finding fraud in their state. And she sued them saying, you can't prosecute me for finding fraud in your state. Yeah.

Which is it's ludicrous. You shouldn't I mean, that just shouldn't be an issue at court. But but nevertheless, it was made into an issue by people who wanted to use extra or actually used the law to punish her. And she won the case, which was really fantastic news, because these days with so much lawlessness in our court system, you know,

It was nice to see a good decision. And Trump has actually won a couple of not so much cases, but decisions in his favor in other cases. Mm hmm.

And it's also becoming really, really clear that the Democrat Party seems to have completely lost the minority communities. And that's good because those are people who normally don't access the kind of news sources that I look at and potentially the kind that you look at.

because they're essentially captured by the mainstream media. But the fact that they've gone wholly over to Trump's side tells me that now there is a fairly large group of people who currently occupy the traditional media space who now completely disagree with and don't believe

the positions that that media space has taken. And that means they're in a position to magnify that information to other people that exist in that same space. And the difference is they authentically belong to that space. Whereas somebody like me, I can, I can join Facebook and I can talk with liberal groups, but I'm not an authentic liberal. So I'm not going to be able to really talk with them without them figuring that out. And actually I would make that pretty clear from the beginning just because of who I am. But yeah,

But these other people who have authentically belonged to those groups for quite a long time, they can talk to the people they already know who are willing to talk to them because they know them, even if they change sides. You see what I'm saying? So to me, that is a very important victory. And the funny thing is, I believe the whole thing at the tipping point for it was when Trump's booking photo was released for the Georgia case.

Because at that point, he became what they call a gangster. Yeah. And all of a sudden,

the American black community was thinking, wait a minute, we don't trust the law and the law is doing this to Trump. So maybe we should pay attention to what he's saying. And then they started paying attention. They're like, wait a minute, this guy's actually on our side and he has been all along. So, yeah, but it's been like this from the beginning, the more they have tried to take him down, you know, smear and characterize as a nation, um,

the more people have. Of course, people see that there's a centralized power and the natural instinct of people is to then... I mean, it backfires. It creates Trump supporters. Even people who are not agreeing with Trump policies are sympathetic to Trump in that scenario.

So, yeah, they are out of options, which is why it's going to be a very interesting year. And I agree there are many good signs going on. I agree with that. But I think as far as your organization goes, I think you should note down the names Tim Canova and Bob Fitrakis and Bev Harris and check if they actually…

But, you know, one thing just about me, I'm not a particularly good networker. Okay. I, that's. No, I was thinking you could pitch it to, to those who are. Oh, I don't need to. They, they know these guys. Okay. And I know they know these guys because I've heard the names from them. Right. So I appreciate that. But this is something that is already basically done. And I know quite a few other people. In fact, actually, one of the funny things is that the gal who is in charge of the group, Marley, she,

she knew that I wasn't out there making contacts. And so she did what she was constantly sending contacts to me.

So I'd just be sitting around minding my own business, doing research, and then I'd get a call and she'd say, let me introduce you to, and then she'd introduce me to somebody. That's why I went to all these town hall meetings and so on. Okay, that's good. It means that there is a deliberate networking going on. They're not just operating solo. Yeah. I don't like networking just because I don't understand how it works. And

Also, my personality is hard to take for some people. Let's just put it that way. No, that's okay. I mean, we use the abilities everyone has. So your qualities is the research. So that's brilliant. Yeah. Well, as long as you have people on the case, that was what I was worried about, that you was an isolated group.

No, they're not isolated. And they have... How to reinvent the wheel. Yeah, they've got publicity. And actually, what I've been told is that our group...

And this is largely thanks to my research, as I understand it anyway, that we've been the most successful election audit group in the entire country. Nice. And that I have personally found more evidence of fraud in New York than anybody has found in any other state. And that the group, you know, if you add in the rest of the group's efforts, we have found even more, you know, obviously, because they've found things that I haven't found. Yeah. So...

And this hasn't changed. As far as I can tell, the most recent time I've had a comment like that was not that long ago. So over time, this has remained true. Now, that doesn't mean that

Other states haven't found interesting things. There are plenty of interesting things found by other people. There's a guy named Vico in Pennsylvania that's found all sorts of interesting stuff. And that's gotten into the news, I forget what, offhand, not to do any disservice to him. But one thing I do know of is that after I told him about the algorithms in New York,

He started looking for that in Pennsylvania. And although he didn't find it in Pennsylvania. Yeah, you forgot to answer that. I was going to remind you. So you've been using that key. You discovered other places, looking other places. Well, it turns out that I've looked at several other states in the context of trying to find an algorithm. I've looked at

North Carolina and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Hawaii, Idaho, Colorado, Ohio, Texas. There's a couple other places I've looked at. Now, I want to finish the Vico story and then I'll tell you the answer to that question. So in Vico's case, I didn't find anything in Hawaii. What I found was they had an ID number that was a UUID, right, which is one of these incredibly complicated universal IDs.

And I looked at that and I was like, I give up. It's just, it's one of these 64-bit encryption deals. And I figured, you know, to break that, I'd first have to break the encryption. And then I'd have to work out the meaning after that, right? So it would be a two-step process, the first part of which would be impossible because it'd be rooms full of supercomputers to deal with it, right? So I just gave up. But then Vico figured it out. And I was like, oh my gosh. And the reason was, what they did is,

In Hawaii, they added a 12-digit tag to a certain group of records. So about 10% of all of Hawaii's voter roll ID numbers have the same 12 digits at the end. So what somebody had to do to get that result is they had to take the original form of those numbers and then replace the last 12 digits. And in that way, you can...

And all of those records are tagged. So I can right now easily find all of those records because I know what the tag is. And I already punched it into my database. So now if I just touch the number one, is this true or not? It has the tag or it doesn't have the tag. It'll bring up just those special records.

The problem with Hawaii though is that they don't have as much information in the public version of their voter rolls as New York did. So although he can identify those using that tag, he can't go any farther and neither can they. And the reason is because they don't have birth date, they don't have a bunch of other indicators that you would need to determine whether the record was suspicious. So the only way they can figure that out is literally to go out and visit the homes of the voters.

And apparently quite a lot of them just got torched a couple of days ago or months ago, I guess, in Hawaii where they destroyed this entire city. So those guys wouldn't be available for comment. Okay. Getting back to the other states, I did find an algorithm in New Jersey. It was totally different in some ways from what we have in New York, but in other ways it was very similar. So they partitioned their number space in the same way New York did where they've got a low range, a high range, and then the

range in between where the range in between is organized and the ranges on either side are not organized. And the range in between had a few other similarities. Like for instance, one thing I didn't tell you about the, the algorithm in New York is that they also decimalized the CID numbers and

as an obfuscation method. So what they did there is they added a decimal point to the front of the numbers, right? And then sorted that way. And then using that sort, they attached them to the, the modified sort order of the, using the algorithm. But by putting the decimal point there,

It changes the way they sort because the number one million will now come before the number two because with a decimal point, it's point one and then point two. You see what I mean? So it's a very clever thing. And then after they did that, they removed the decimal points. So you can't tell they were ever there. So in Jersey, they did something like that also.

But the key to their method was different from in New York. Because in New York, we have a county and a state ID. But in New Jersey, they only have the state ID. So they couldn't do what they wanted to do without changing the number itself. So in New York, they could do it just by creating an association. And if you knew the association, you'd be able to track your records.

In New Jersey, what they did is they rearranged the numbers, and they did it in a way that I figured out, so I can now restore the original number, and I can make certain predictions based on that. Okay, so that's New Jersey. And then in North Carolina...

They have what looks to be something related to the shingle algorithm that I found in New York, or actually I should say Daniel and I found in New York. It's not exactly the same, but it has a lot of similarities.

So the problem with that particular algorithm though is that it's not deterministic. The spiral algorithm is deterministic, but a non-deterministic algorithm can't be reversed. And for that reason, I would literally have to have their software in my hands to be able to figure out the meaning of it. All I can say is it's there because it matches the pattern and the pattern is definitely not random.

Texas, Texas, their voter rolls were really weird. They, um,

For every vote that a person makes, they create a new record. So what happens is that if you voted in 37 elections, then you have 37 separate records in their database. And since I wasn't focusing on Texas and I didn't have the programming skills to combine all those records, I just decided to let that one go. But when I looked at scatter plots that I made of Texas, it definitely looked like they had an algorithm in place.

It looked like it was a graphics program-based algorithm because it made a very specific visual pattern. But I can't say anything more than that. Ohio looked like they had an algorithm that was similar to the Tartan pattern found in the out-of-range territory of New York.

Again, because it was another state, I only went far enough to say there is an algorithm and there is, it's non-random. And, but it appears to have a random seed built into it, but it's, it's got other control mechanisms that, that create this certain pattern that wouldn't happen otherwise. And let's see, Idaho,

Idaho was kind of strange. Idaho looked like it didn't have an algorithm controlling the voter roll ID numbers, but what it had was it had two different time periods where they used a different method for assigning the numbers. But in Idaho's case, it did not look nefarious at all to me.

The one in New Jersey looks incredibly nefarious. That one looks super, super, super suspicious. The one in North... Wait a minute. Isn't New Jersey like from like the cliche? Isn't that like a mafia area? Yes. I would expect it to be. Yeah. Well, so is New York. I mean, New Jersey and New York share a boundary. Yeah.

The Hawaii ones look very suspicious to me. My guess is there's some kind of fraud involved there. The North Carolina ones are kind of suspicious, and I did figure out a couple more things about it I forgot to mention. So there are certain types of numbers that their algorithm favors, and I've identified what they are, and I know when they show up because they were all introduced at a certain time period. So the

Before this time, which was similar to the time in New York, it was around mid-2007 or so. So before that, they don't – was it before that they used the special numbers and then after that they don't? It was one or the other. I forget which way it was. But in any event, they definitely have something going on there, but I wasn't really sure what it was.

Texas, I can't say anything. Pennsylvania, I didn't get very far with. Pennsylvania seemed to have a county ID and a state ID, but when I looked into it further, I realized they didn't.

I am absolutely convinced that there is a lot of voter fraud in Pennsylvania just based on other evidence, but I wasn't able to find much in Pennsylvania. Too bad, because that was the pilot case for you, wasn't it? Yeah, yeah. And I'd like to say otherwise, but I can only say what the data tells me. Now, I was able to find a number of illegal excess registrations in Pennsylvania, but

but not enough to account for the amount of fraud that I believe occurred there. I believe that the amount of fraud in the presidential election was no less than 600,000 votes fraudulently cast. Okay, that's what I think happened. In Pennsylvania. Yeah, I think the number could very well be higher than that, but I don't think it was any less than that. And I was only able to potentially account for, I don't know, a few tens of thousands, like 20,000 or something like that.

So whatever they did there either didn't utilize the method used in New York or did it differently. Now that I think of it, I've talked to people in, I think it was Illinois and Wisconsin and Michigan. There's a guy named Peter Berninger, something like that, that I spoke with. Very nice guy, actually, who's doing really amazing research work in either Wisconsin or Michigan. Yeah.

So, but it has led to some court consequences. What do you mean by that? Yeah, I mean the efforts of your organization. You have made some, because you said you guys checked in New York, but this is all over the place, right? So have you, like on the national basis, have you moved some stones so far? Ah,

Yeah, well, I know that the New York group that I was formerly associated with is now a national group and they're now controlling audit efforts throughout the country. They call themselves United Sovereign Americans now. And but that just started. And I know they're changing their group leadership a lot. So there are a number of changes that are happening there.

One guy who's been involved and is now the chairman of United Sovereign Americans is a guy named Harry Howry, who actually helped draft what's called the Help America Vote Act, which is an election law. And so he's been consulting. I have to admit, when I talk to the guy, I never understand what he's saying. So I don't know if that's because I don't know what I'm saying. I don't know if it's because I don't understand him or if it's because he doesn't understand himself. It's one or the other. But

But he knows a lot about election law and they definitely have all sorts of connections. They do have connections to the Trump campaign and to Donald Trump. Trump is aware of, as I know it, as I understand it anyway, Trump knows who I am. Although I'm not exactly sure.

how that information got to him. But I, but I think it's generically in the context of the New York research. And speaking for myself, I know that my research has kind of made me well known in the election audit community. Um,

Yeah, we should hope so. Yeah. Outside of that, I don't think I have... Actually, one thing I'll just say, this is just because I think it's kind of fun, okay? Imagine an autist, as you described them, just happened to do something unique and is rather pleased and has had empirical reasons to believe it is actually unique. So he just wants to share that with you. But the way it's been described to me, discovery of this algorithm may be a first in the history of discovering this kind of thing, okay? And it's not...

Because it's the first time an algorithm is discovered. It's because it specifically is called an example of steganography. Do you know what steganography is? Yes, I've had shows about that. Francis Bacon used it. It's steganography in Shakespeare, but it goes back to the, I think it's the 1300s.

No, it goes back further. I've done research on it. It goes back at the very least to the ancient Greeks because it was used in the Greek-Spartan War, just so you know. And it's been popular in esoterica, but it's also been popular in intel, like pre-industrial intel circles. Now, the thing about steganography and the discovery of it that makes this kind of unique and possibly is literally unique

Mm-hmm.

you would know looking at it that it was encrypted. You just wouldn't know what it meant because you would need the key to the cipher to understand it. Steganography is hidden in plain sight. OK, so but it's very hard to even know that there is a cipher there. OK, so they use this most popularly in the context of protecting copyright. So videos and music, DVDs, that kind of entertainment product

they will encode the copyright information into the images or the audio track of those products. And they do it by very subtly altering the colors or the audio so that it actually spells out all the copyright information. It's not visible or audible to the human eye or ear.

but it is detectable to a machine that can enhance and extract that information. Ah, so they can locate a leak, for example? Yeah, exactly. So they throw these tags into a video, and if it's been pirated, they can tell where it came from. So anyway, what I found is not like a message type of steganography, because that's not what it is. What it is is it's hidden attribute information.

Right. But because it's in the wild and nobody would have any reason to look for it, nobody would look for it. And that is the main reason nobody would find it. But even if you did look for it, it's highly unlikely you would find it because of the way the number space was partitioned.

And the only reason I found it is because my database only had half the records. And I was looking at them in a very specific way because I had a lightning bolt blow up my file. Yeah, God's finger, huh? Yeah. And so the thing is, is that it's very unlikely that anyone would know there is any kind of steganographically hidden information in the first place.

But even if they were looking, it would have been really, really difficult to find. And so the fact that I found it is, uh, considered really remarkable by the people who know about this, who have experience with this kind of thing. So like Harry Howry and another guy, Jeff O'Donnell, who's known as the lone raccoon online, who is also a well-known researcher in the vocate, uh, the voting fraud stuff. And Alex actually, Alex knows this also. Um,

they've all said things like it would take a room full of supercomputers years to have found this. Hmm.

So the fact that you found it is really amazing. Yeah, it's wonderful. Because if it was taken seriously, which is, you know, you had done a brunk of the work. Most of the steps are taken. No, it's just to get to make it be taken seriously. And if it is being taken seriously, with seriously, I mean that it actually leads to some formal investigations or even some court cases happening.

then there's really no defense against it, is it? It has to unravel stuff. Yeah. Even if the guilties are not taken, at least the responsible people will be taken. I would like to think so. We'll see how it goes. I mean, to me, what we see going on in America is like a combination of Nazi Germany and the Cultural Revolution in China. Oh, my God. Yeah.

I used to go to bed wondering if it was one or the other, which would be better, right? And I decided the Nazi Party is better than the Cultural Revolution in China. And the reason is because nobody has yet managed to defeat the Cultural Revolution in China. But the Nazi Party was defeated conclusively in...

after just a few years. And the reason I think is because the Nazi party tried to take too much, too aggressively, too fast. Yeah. Whereas the communist party in China, I think has been a little bit more restrained in the way they went about things. And they, um, they weren't anywhere near as abusive, uh, or as aggressive in the speed with which they, they took over.

as the Nazis were. And as a result, the frog got boiled really slowly there. But in Nazi Germany, it happened really fast. It happened so fast in Germany that there was a resistance to it. And in America, I think that there I think they were doing it the Chinese way right up until Trump. I think as soon as 2016 happened and he started dismantling all the stuff that they did, they

They thought, oh, my gosh, we've got to pull out all the stops and make sure he doesn't get reelected. And they did. But they were so obvious about what they did that it caused a lot of people to start investigating. People like me, just ordinary people throughout the country investigated.

And we have now accumulated so much more evidence beyond what initially made us suspicious that that's starting to leak out all over the place. And our entire government is starting to look like a puppet oligarchy, I guess you could say, as you suggested. Not me. University of, was it? I forgot which one it was, but you can Google it. It's famous. But the point is, is that it's, I think that it is becoming general knowledge that

that our government has been taken over through corruption and that it is serious straits and needs to be fixed. In fact, actually, my main concern right now is whether it's going to be fixed through the legal system somehow by a bunch of honest people doing their job or if it's going to be taken out of their hands by people going down to the border with Mexico with rifles and starting to shoot at people trying to invade the country from there.

And I am hoping that it doesn't come to that. But I am very worried that if civil war, secession of states, that's a dangerous option. Yeah, it is. And the thing is, is that I'm really hoping that this goes the other way.

However, the real problem with it is that the bad guys have committed treason, at least as far as I can tell. That's what it looks like. And the treason is a death penalty offense. So those guys, if they did what I think they did and if they did what everybody else seems to think they did, then they have the death penalty waiting for

meaning they have absolutely nothing to lose. Also, it means they're fighting for their lives right now. Exactly. That's why they need an amnesty like South Africa did. It's horrible. Nobody wants it. Everybody wants to. But remember, these guilty people, these crazy murderous people, they are not just screwing up America. They're screwing up the world, and they've been doing it at least since Canada. So the thing is…

Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm really glad you mentioned that because that's something that really concerns me. You know, if you if you think about the Germans in Nazi Germany, right, I often think about the ordinary Germans. You know, when I lived in the Netherlands, I ran into Germans all the time and they were actually very nice people. I didn't meet a single German who I thought was rude in any way. Certainly not the way they're portrayed in American TV shows or British. Yeah. And and I wondered, what about the, you know, the ordinary Germans during that time?

because after the war all Germans were reviled as evil awful fascistic and you know awful people right so they bore the guilt and the shame for

for what a tiny minority of their country did, because really the Nazi party represented something like 5% of all Germans. And I can easily imagine the remaining 95% being terrified of those guys and not wanting to go against them because they didn't want to be immediately executed by some evil Nazi guy.

But they still bore collective guilt for it. And in America, I see doing the same thing. I see America causing harm outside of America's borders with neighboring actually and far flung countries.

And as far as I can tell, this is because Americans, just like the Germans who were not Nazis, allowed the corruption to happen. They didn't stop it. And it was their responsibility to stop it so that they could basically control their own house. Right. So.

Although those Germans who weren't members of the Nazi Party and who have hoarded the Nazi Party never were really complicit in any of the actual crimes committed by the Nazis, they were complicit to the extent that they allowed the Nazis to take over. It would have been very dangerous for them and it would have been very costly to them. It would have cost them lives and injuries and jail time and money.

to stop the Nazis, but the Germans could have done it. If they had realized what was going to happen, it would have been better for the world if they had stopped the Nazis, even if it had meant sacrificing many of themselves. And better for themselves, of course.

Well, yeah, it would have. Yeah, ultimately. But I can easily imagine if you went up against if you had ordinary Germans fighting Nazis in the streets of Germany before Hitler came to power, you would have had hundreds of ordinary Germans killed by the brown shirts. OK, I can easily picture that happening and they don't want to take that risk. It's kind of like the World Trade Center disaster, you know.

The first two planes went in, everybody got killed on the planes, and the towers went down. But that third plane in Pennsylvania, the people knew about the other two attacks, and so they knew there was no hope of the hijackers landing safely and everybody being okay. So they knew it was worth the risk to try and take them out.

The Germans at the time didn't know it was worth the risk to take out the Nazis. And what I'm saying right now is in America, it's worth the risk because I believe the damage they're causing is so great and so global and involves so many countries outside of our own that they are not only creating dangerous enemies, people who are now acquiring legitimate reasons to fight us,

But at the same time, they are doing things that hurt Americans as well. And on that basis, what we're doing is we're creating a class of human beings in this country who are collectively responsible for not stopping them. And that, I think, is a real responsibility. You're right. The only way the Nazi Party was taken out was through an exterior force. So if the parallel bears true, then...

We're talking about a war. I really, I mean, an invasion against America. I hope it's going to be, I don't hope it's going to be a civil war, but that's better than a world war, right? Yeah, but I mean, I'm already seeing, look, the COVID business with those vaccines, because I see that that is entirely an American problem.

We had an American company, actually a group of American companies, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna. Yeah, but it's the Anglo-American oligarchs. It's not like the government officially. And you see the same...

controlled the government to an extent. They got the government they wanted the government to do. And they pushed those things in all these other countries. And people died globally because of it. And WHO, who now can take over the... Yeah, but the WHO, which is supposedly a world organization, is controlled by Bill Gates, who is an American. Yeah.

Yeah. And China. And even COVID. I mean, you say COVID started in Wuhan, China. Well, why? Because Anthony Fauci, an American, and the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, an American institute, sent the money to China to do that. Okay. Under strain. Under strain. Yes. Have you read the book, The Real Anthony Fauci? Yes. I think it's a fascinating and amazing book. But the thing is, is that the America...

especially with the COVID vaccines, I believe, has caused harm to other nations, nations who have reason to seek redress from Americans. Yeah, but you don't forget that those nations are usually those that America controls. China had their own versions of the vaccine.

Russia had their own. I think there was 300 COVID vaccines out there. But in the West, we only got four. Well, that's fine. But then look at the Ukraine war. As far as I can tell, that wouldn't have happened at all without American involvement. Of course. Look, if we're going to list the sins of America, you're never getting out of here. I said it started in, not the sins, but I said the slow coup started with the assassination of JFK and it accelerated after 9-11.

Yeah.

In this audience, people are aware of that. No, it's you're cracking the code and you're super important. And I have to commend you and thank you on behalf of the listeners and behalf of Americans, of course, but behalf of the rest of the world, too, because the reason we care about this.

It's because we don't know just nation states anymore. The way America fares has echoes all over the world. The COVID case in point, right? Yeah. All the wars. So, yeah, we care. We care what's happening in your house. And it was once a bastion of freedom and liberty. And we need to bring it back to that. So.

Very good karma for you, my friend, what you've been doing. And I would say don't stop the good work, but I understand you have to take a break to think of your own health. I do. But I hope you at least keep some

you know, keep in touch with these people. And, you know, if they need. Hey, one thing I'm going to ask you, you said at the end, I could have a plug for, for. Yeah, let's do that now and wrap up. Okay. So if anybody wants to help out, I would really appreciate paid subscribers and

to my Substack, where I write about election fraud and other things related to politics. So the Substack is the Zark Files, Z-A-R-K-F-I-L-E-S. So if you just go to zarkfiles.substack.com, you'll get there. And if you want a link to that, just look at any of the emails I've sent you at the bottom. It's in my signature. I have another Substack for my dream research, but I'll talk about that in a different program. Yeah.

But that would be the way to help me out. Now, if you want to sign up and not be a paid subscriber, of course, you're welcome to do that as well. It's just at the moment, you know, that's like all of my income comes from this right now. And it's enough to pay my food bill for the year. And that's about it. Which leaves me a little bit short. What about books? I'm writing one right now. We'll see how it goes. I've got a book agent who's interested in it.

And she's a very good book agent who represents some very well-known authors. But she's not satisfied with the way it looks yet. So I'm still working on it. What's the subject matter? The election. Okay, okay. So I'm talking about my research. Right, right, right. We can plug you other books then maybe in your next time you come on. Yeah, yeah, that would be fine. Okay, so is that it then?

I think so. Yeah. Conclusion, America or the world is becoming a combination of 1984 and Brave New World. But we are doing, you know, the independent media is doing our best to stop it. And people like you are crucial in stopping it. So thank you very much for coming on. Oh, my God. Five hours, six hours. Hey, yeah, it's ridiculous. I don't envy your editing task on this job. But anyway, by the way, actually, Al, one thing I'm just going to say here. Yeah.

You know, America has come to the has legitimately come to the aid of other countries on a number of occasions.

most dramatically in World War I and World War II. That's right. But right now, as in America, I feel like America needs help from other countries. I think we really do. So I just want to officially say that, you know, just speaking for myself. Anyway, go ahead. I'm doing my part just by having this show, but it's an incremental drop. But we'll see now 24. If they can't take, if someone like RFK takes over, I think we're going to be good.

But anyone but the machine and their masks. So it's a very interesting year. It's a make it or break it year in my book. So we'll see what happens. All this work you've done may be taken up if, you know, the proverbial deep state loses control after this. Because a president is just a figurehead, of course. But to get someone in who is not controlled, huge clog in the machine.

So this could be unraveled seriously if, like you said, honest people take over. But it has to start with the top.

of the white system, I'm saying, not the deep state. There's no hope there. But if you get in someone who's not on the take, then things could actually happen. So, yeah, I'm, I'm optimistic. Good. But thank you so much for all the time and energy. Also, you, you provided in the show today. No problem. You have a great day or evening as it would be. And gosh, it's got to be three o'clock in the morning down over there, right? Midnight. Yeah. A little past midnight. Okay. Yeah.

All right. Well, you have a good night then, Al. Nice talking to you. Okay. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

Thanks again to Dr. Andrew Parkett for bearing with us for six hours. And due to that, I'll keep this post-commentary short. But I do feel obliged to remind you some important takeaways from our discussion, notwithstanding this groundbreaking research in itself, which has not had consequences yet. So you can expect the same for the election of 24. I can only hope.

There will be some measures to clean it up in the aftermath. But remember what I said in the discussion. For some reason, and I guess we all know the reason, the United States cannot deliver election results the same night. Every other democracy does it. Even huge chaotic places like Brazil. Stick to paper ballots, okay? They are tested and proven. If you don't use machines, there's no algorithmical monkey business.

There's no reason to use machines. Whoever insists on it cannot have clean motives. So just get rid of it. Make a movement against them. Paper ballots, hand counted. People can still count. And that way you get results immediately. And also not let only Democrats and Republicans count because they can make deals like, OK, we win this precinct, you win that precinct.

So all the parties represented on a ballot should have the right to be present and count. This is a minimum of democratic requirements. Publish all results locally. Okay? Not just the end result. Because then there can be no or it's very hard to trick upward in the chain. These are simple time-tested methods being used all around the world.

So anything else is excuses to keep a rigged system or keep it vulnerable for rigging. So that's one takeaway. Another thing I would want to say is that, as you've heard in many shows, I don't identify with neither left nor right. In fact, the whole notion of left and right is ridiculous.

There is a very real top-bottom battle going on. Establishment versus the people. That's another matter. And of course, you have establishment on both wings and you have populism on both wings. But look, first of all, this dichotomy you're trapped in. At some point, you need to start voting third parties. You've voted one of the big ones your entire life. Has it gotten better? No.

So there's really no reason to maintain that paradigm because every election they say, oh, this is it. This is super important. And in every election it is because when it's the lesser of two evils, it just become more and more evil.

You can't vote yourself out of this by sticking to the main parties. And if the third parties, and of course it's the Greens and the Libertarians who are best suited for this, gets 5%, then you are secure. People don't know this rule. That's enough. Get 5% and then they will get ballots everywhere in the next election and they will get campaign funds. Which will finally break the duopoly you're trapped in.

So that's why they are always kept below 5%, whether it's genuine or not, because they don't want someone to reach out. This recording was done in January of 24, and by then RFK was potentially representing the Democrats. At this point, he has not just gone independent, which if he had stuck to it, I think he would easily get above 5%.

In the real pulse, in the big pulse, he was up on 20-25%. And had he gotten any media attention, I think he would have beaten them both. That said, now he and many others, many ex-democrats actually, has joined forces with Trump. Elon Musk is one, Tulsi Gabbard another.

And this wonderful person, Nicole Shanahan and others. And even Dr. Phil, Phil McGraw, who's a self-declared social democrat. Many libertarians too, Vivek Ramaswamy. Are these fascists? I don't think so. In fact, they want to make America healthy again.

So it seems to be like a populism uprising there because even though the Republican Party obviously belongs to the establishment, I don't think many people are left thinking Trump represents that after what he has been put through of everything from lawfare to assassination attempts. Now, there are never Trumpers out there. And I sympathize with you. If you can't stomach voting Trump, if you can't get past Trump,

some of the cringe stuff and you know i'll not elaborate then you don't have to vote harris like i said there are third parties out there that need your vote and especially this is true if you live in a state that is guaranteed blue or guaranteed red you're just wasting your vote voting either

Like if you live in California, what's the point of voting Harris? There's no way Trump can win there, even if it's not rigged. So I would totally go for a third party candidate, something closer to your real aspirations. See, here in Europe, we know that it's not about winning. People think it's a wasted vote. Oh, I voted Canada who didn't win. So it was wasted. Not at all. My country, for example,

Small parties can have extreme influence. They come on the tip and they need their votes, the big ones. And if there's a left versus right block, they will vie for your support. And then you can make demands. And that's just the day-to-day politic in parliament, even when it comes to governments. I can't remember the last time we had a one-party government.

Normally, different parties go together and they form a coalition government. And that would include very small parties, even down to 5% votes.

And even if they don't come in government, they can demand stuff. Yeah, I'll support you making a government if you give us this, that. So it's time to get out of this. You're becoming China, okay? This goes out to my American friends. Now, another oddity is that many people think, oh, if Trump wins, he's going to implement fascism. Yeah.

And they think, oh, if Harris wins, she's going to implement communism. Both notions are ridiculous. First of all, we have eight years of both rules. We know what Trump will bring and we know what Kamala will bring.

Now, you can say in Trump's case that things have changed, but it's not for the worst, because he did have many neocons in the first administration. This time he has many ex-democrats and anti-war people and a lot of populists. So I don't think it will be like a huge populist revolt.

But I think it will be better than the first four years, which was completely unfascistic. OK, if he really was a wannabe dictator, he would have seized opportunity, for example, under COVID. But no, Trump's politics has proven not to be fascist. And if anything, it's like old school laissez faire capitalism.

And he didn't want to even do a lockdown because business would hurt. So that notion is ridiculous. The same with when they say Kamala is a Marxist or a communist. I don't think you really know what that is.

In Europe, most countries in Europe have communists in their parliament. Some places, these parties are very big. Nothing of what she represents is represented by communism. I know you mean like extreme liberal or like often it's the Vogue stuff that you attribute to communism. But if you look at any communist party out there, they are not into the Vogue stuff. So it's such an Americana.

to associate these two things. Now, it's not important. It's just terminology. I don't care, Billy, what you want. But if she's anything, she's a corporatist. Okay? And

And you can see these four years that's been. Now you can say she was a vice president. It doesn't represent 100% what she wants. First of all, she's an empty suit for the machine. But even if you do believe she will do whatever she wants, she said herself she can't think of anything that would change from the current administration to when she takes over.

So when you call Trump fascist or Kamala communist, I think what you really are referring to is authoritarianism.

So how does that stack up for these two? Well, if we compare these eight years, then we see that life goes on. For most people, it's pretty similar, but there are some crucial differences. For example, the world is thrown out on the brink of a world war under the last four years. Okay. And including a genocide, which I never thought I would see in my lifetime. So I don't see that getting better under Kamala.

But what really frightens me, if Harris wins, is her urge to increase the censorship. Because if there's something that has increased the last four years, it's surveillance, lawfare, censorship. And these are things that Trump, whatever you think of him, he's been a victim of it himself. And given what he's pledged and the people he has on board, I doubt he'll amp that up.

Even if you don't think that he will take on the deep state, he will certainly not amp up these things, wars and oppression. So I think there is a real difference there. I'm speaking just for myself now. I would never tell you who to vote. But for myself, I think they are coming for the podcasts. If they get four more years, there's nothing to stop them.

They will take down Rumble, like they started to do in many places in the world. They will take down Twitter and Telegram. There will be no platform left for free speech. The complete ceasing of the Internet is on the agenda. And this goes much deeper than Kamala. So my show, I think, will be gone or at least, if not removed from platforms, at least horribly suppressed again.

We have to kowtow to these new rules. We must avoid malinformation with this basic system criticism. Now, if you cannot criticize the powers that be, there is no freedom and there is no democracy. And America is a beacon of free speech because of your First Amendment.

They are openly now speaking of removing it. It's very scary times because, like Kennedy said, the First Amendment is the first for a reason. Everything else follows from there. If you remove it, all of the others will also fall. And they have done some very weird things. For example, they are silently implementing CBCDs now. Check out Project Agora now.

they have also conscripted Americans. They are now automatically conscripted to the army when they're 18. No debate, not even information about it. So are they amping up for a new world war? And if that's not enough, they have instructed Pentagon is now allowed to put the military towards America.

American citizens. We know already that the CIA has legalized it for CIA and now they legalized it for Pentagon too. Why? What are they expecting will happen? I think maybe that could be connected to the election. So that's where we are, I think. It's a very crucial election. And if it's a clean win with no election fraud...

That would be one thing. But if the machine is maintaining this course and it's resorting to election fraud, then I think you find yourself in a new 70-75-76 situation. So I think there is a difference in terms of authoritarianism. I think it is very clear where it is and that it will be amped up.

But that's as far as I want to go, because it's very important to remember that power doesn't isn't ideological. In 2001, the machine, the permanent government, if you like, was clearly behind Bush. And it can swing depending on where it's more, more, you know, which vehicle is most advantageous to use.

And both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is vulnerable for that. Again, a good reason to increase the small parties. They are harder to hijack like that. But I can only wish you good luck and good night. And that's it. Thanks for staying with us. I've been your host, Al.

Thanks to my team and your support. Please share this episode as much as possible before the election. I'll leave you with the words of Plato. The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Be senior. Be senior. Be senior.

Who is number one?