Speaker 1: Up next, How Loud with Johano Caldwell Partlynglis. This is
Speaker 1: out Loud with Giano Caldwell. If you've been watching television,
Speaker 1: if you've been reading the blogs, you've been looking at
Speaker 1: the mainstream media, you know what they've already said and projected.
Speaker 1: That is that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have won
Speaker 1: this election. They've projected that Joe Biden is the forty
Speaker 1: six president of the United States. For many of you,
Speaker 1: I am certain that you reject this narrative. One, the
Speaker 1: election hasn't been certified to in Wisconsin, in Michigan there's
Speaker 1: going to be recounts, and also Delfia rather Pennsylvania, I
Speaker 1: should say, the Supreme Court has said for those votes
Speaker 1: that came in beyond eight o'clock that's a p m.
Speaker 1: Eastern standard time on election day, those the votes should
Speaker 1: be set aside mail invalids, et cetera. So you and
Speaker 1: I both know that this election isn't yet over. Now
Speaker 1: here's the truth if it is found out after the
Speaker 1: recount and Wisconsin, Michigan, and if there's no evidence of
Speaker 1: voter fraud presented in places like Pennsylvania and Nevada and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is found to have won this election fans
Speaker 1: square as a conservative and as those who are listening
Speaker 1: who are either conservatives, Trump supporters, or you may be
Speaker 1: a Democrat listening to this, I recognize that I have
Speaker 1: a vast difference of opinion when it comes to listeners.
Speaker 1: I recognize that you know that if it's found out
Speaker 1: that there's not rather been presented evidence of voter fraud,
Speaker 1: then Joe Biden won this election. You know, we can
Speaker 1: have difference of opinions, but we would know that that
Speaker 1: would be the case. And unlike liberals, we're not going
Speaker 1: to riot, loot, steal from your local Walmar target. You
Speaker 1: don't have to board up your building. We will accept
Speaker 1: the results of the election and move on with life
Speaker 1: as we always do. We will go to work the
Speaker 1: next day. But at this time it doesn't feel among
Speaker 1: a lot of individuals that this has been a fair
Speaker 1: and legitimate election. There's been cause a voter fraud, which
Speaker 1: we're not necessarily seen the evidence of. We're waiting for
Speaker 1: the evidence. We've understood that there's been people in places
Speaker 1: like Nevada who voted who didn't live in the state,
Speaker 1: which would make it an illegitimate vote, and we're waiting
Speaker 1: to see that evidence come forth where seeing that in
Speaker 1: places like Philadelphia, we have a witness who works for
Speaker 1: the United States Postal Service who said that the postmaster
Speaker 1: in that area has said if any votes come in
Speaker 1: past election day to post dated to November two. These
Speaker 1: are reports that have come out. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's true yet or not, but these are at least
Speaker 1: what have been said. So with that being the case,
Speaker 1: I'm here allow Giano Caldwell not projecting Joe Biden to
Speaker 1: be the winner at point. If there's some additional information
Speaker 1: that comes out which solidifies that, then absolutely we will
Speaker 1: call it what it is. We are not whiners, we
Speaker 1: are not losers, and we're not gonna do what the
Speaker 1: left did when they say Joe, when they said Donald
Speaker 1: Trump brother is not our president because they didn't like
Speaker 1: the results. That's not who we are as conservatives, and
Speaker 1: that's not who we will ever be because we have
Speaker 1: a lot more to look forward to. It looks like
Speaker 1: the Republican Party may keep the Republican Senate, which we
Speaker 1: need to prevent any radical left Green New Deal, any
Speaker 1: radical left tax increases on those who make over four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand or more is what Joe Biden said. But
Speaker 1: we know the truth. It's not about who makes four
Speaker 1: hundred housing them more. Once you decide you're gonna raise taxes,
Speaker 1: everybody gets their taxes raises, whether it be directly or indirectly.
Speaker 1: If a person and has a business and a corporation
Speaker 1: and you're gonna raise the taxes, you know that the
Speaker 1: item that they may sell becomes more. You know that
Speaker 1: anybody that's associated with that company could be laid off
Speaker 1: because they don't want to pay additional taxes and have
Speaker 1: a particular group of folks working for them. And I'm
Speaker 1: talking about they lay all people because they can't afford it.
Speaker 1: We know what that means. We're not idiots. We understand
Speaker 1: the dynamics at play, and that's why so many of
Speaker 1: you voted for Donald Trump. Now I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: and this is very interesting. I think Tom Fitton, who's
Speaker 1: our guests for today, offered some legal analysis, or rather
Speaker 1: he's not a lawyer, so I don't want to say
Speaker 1: legal analys He offered an analysis that I think the
Speaker 1: Donald Trump campaign may follow. You know that this election,
Speaker 1: by no means is over the process. Is what I'm
Speaker 1: referring to the election supposedly ended on Tuesday, but the
Speaker 1: process continues, recounts, recounts, recounts, and you need to be
Speaker 1: following very very closely. I'll tell you this, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has been enormously beneficial to the American people. I don't
Speaker 1: agree with everything he says, I don't agree with everything
Speaker 1: he tweets. I don't agree at all, and I think
Speaker 1: it's important for me to mention that to you. However,
Speaker 1: from a policy specific standpoint, he's been enormously beneficial. And
Speaker 1: if the exit polling, which is still coming in, we're
Speaker 1: still learning what the results are every day because there's counts,
Speaker 1: counts and counts. If Republicans are smart, they're going to
Speaker 1: take a page out of Donald Trump's playbook. Whether keep
Speaker 1: being in the White House for four more years from
Speaker 1: now or into January, we must must enlarge attempt. I
Speaker 1: wrote a piece that came out on Fox News dot
Speaker 1: Com over the week in talking about that very specific issue.
Speaker 1: We have to enlarge the tent. We have to ensure
Speaker 1: that we're in the racist We have to include everybody.
Speaker 1: Not that we change our principles, but we welcome new
Speaker 1: voices in We keep our principles and we move forward.
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you this, we cannot stop fighting. And
Speaker 1: for those who may think it's a lost cause because
Speaker 1: the media has called it, you're wrong. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you that right now. And you may be a loyal listener.
Speaker 1: You may listen to this podcast every Monday when it
Speaker 1: comes out, and I thank you for your listenership, but
Speaker 1: I want to tell you directly and forcefully, you're wrong.
Speaker 1: This election is not over. It is not over until
Speaker 1: the recounts have happened, until every legal vote has been counted,
Speaker 1: until we get a decision from the courts. When the
Speaker 1: courts decide, then we understand and Republicans, if Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has one fair and square, he has one and he
Speaker 1: will be the president. And I will tell you this
Speaker 1: right now. We won't be running out saying that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is and our president. If it's legal, if it's
Speaker 1: one fan square, we will not be doing that. We
Speaker 1: won't do what the left did under Donald Trump. They
Speaker 1: said that he wasn't their president. And of course the
Speaker 1: election was fair and square. And we know that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton Steel hasn't gotten over it. The Democrats and on
Speaker 1: the folks that still haven't gotten over it. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: in fact, has said that this election was a mandate
Speaker 1: from the American people. How so you lost seats in
Speaker 1: the House, We're likely to keep the Republicans Senate. This
Speaker 1: wasn't a mandate, not by no measure. And now we
Speaker 1: have to ensure that every legal vote is counted. So
Speaker 1: I wanna make sure that everyone that's under the sound
Speaker 1: of my voice, everyone who's watching what I placed on
Speaker 1: social media, that we're all in this together. We are Americans.
Speaker 1: And if Joe Biden is president, if it is every
Speaker 1: legal vote counted ensures that he is pressed did it,
Speaker 1: we will say that he is the president of the
Speaker 1: United States after he's inaugurated. If he's inaugurated, we have
Speaker 1: no issue with that. But we want to ensure that
Speaker 1: there was no cheating and no fraud. And I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be honest with you, there's a lot of funny business
Speaker 1: going on. We don't know what exactly it means. But
Speaker 1: keep your head up, keep fighting, stay on social media
Speaker 1: until every legal vote is counted. This is outlied with
Speaker 1: Gianno called well, listen to Tom Fenton, listened to his advice,
Speaker 1: and send this podcast around to all of your friends
Speaker 1: and family because we will never stop fighting. This is
Speaker 1: outled with Gianno called blow Tom. Thank you again for
Speaker 1: joining us. I think you're one of the most important
Speaker 1: guests that I could ever have, especially on an issue
Speaker 1: like this. A lot of Americans are concerned about the
Speaker 1: integrity of our elections. They're concerned about transparency. They're concerned
Speaker 1: about what happened to their vote. They about actually get counted,
Speaker 1: that additional individuals put votes in the system that weren't
Speaker 1: supposed to be there. There's a lot of questions, and
Speaker 1: I think you told The New York Times last week
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice should be prepared to go
Speaker 1: to court to stop the counting of any mail in
Speaker 1: ballots that arrived after election day. Why do you believe
Speaker 1: the DLJ should do that, because I think the law
Speaker 1: requires it. When you and your listeners can go and
Speaker 1: look it up, it's three USC Section one of the
Speaker 1: US Code, and the paraphrase it says, election days on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: The electors for the president and vice president is supposed
Speaker 1: to be selected on Tuesday. Is that happening in Pennsylvania?
Speaker 1: Is that happening in Georgia? Did that happen in Wisconsin
Speaker 1: or Michigan. No, they counted ballots after election day. Frankly,
Speaker 1: counting ballots after that arrived after election day, it really
Speaker 1: is awful. But under the law, you really shouldn't be
Speaker 1: counting ballots that arrive at after election day at all.
Speaker 1: They should have figured out who want on Tuesday. We
Speaker 1: do know who want on Tuesday. The president did and
Speaker 1: that result, in my view, should be defended in court
Speaker 1: and if it comes down to it in Congress when
Speaker 1: they choose to ratify or not ratify the electors that
Speaker 1: have been sent there by the states. So how do
Speaker 1: you respond when people say, hey, there's been elections in
Speaker 1: the past where people are waiting in line for hours
Speaker 1: on end to get their ballots in. It's and it
Speaker 1: can be clearly at some point, I know there's been
Speaker 1: some elections where has been passed midnight because people are waiting.
Speaker 1: With that still be in conclusive with your argument in
Speaker 1: terms of the election is on Tuesday. Well, it would
Speaker 1: be a reminder to the states they can't do that anymore,
Speaker 1: that they got to make sure people are voting and
Speaker 1: they have to count, you know, and in theory you
Speaker 1: can count for the administrative work record you know what
Speaker 1: the what the numbers are for days after election, but
Speaker 1: it can't change the result. And if the results to
Speaker 1: be changed, there's the process for doing that under law,
Speaker 1: which is through the electoral College and the state's election
Speaker 1: of the state legislature and the governor certifying electors. But
Speaker 1: we know who want on Tuesday, but the results been
Speaker 1: changed or if you know, or it's said to be
Speaker 1: changed because the fat Lady hasn't sign in that regard.
Speaker 1: You know, the no president is there's going to be
Speaker 1: no new president until Congress. Plus is it under our
Speaker 1: constitutional and federal system, we have to take a quick break.
Speaker 1: Please stick with us now. Judicial Watches no strange of
Speaker 1: the lawsuits. Your organization has successfully sued the government several
Speaker 1: times to access key information the powerful people didn't want
Speaker 1: the American people to see. Perhaps the most famous case
Speaker 1: of all was Hillary Clinton and her email scandal. What
Speaker 1: does Judicial Watch doing implanted to do in terms of
Speaker 1: legal action regarding this election, Well, we're already in the
Speaker 1: courts trying to make sure the roles are clean and
Speaker 1: it highlights the information we'll be able to uncover. Why
Speaker 1: it's important that we be skeptical of mailing ballots to
Speaker 1: people who haven't asked for them, when the roles are
Speaker 1: filthy across the nation. In Nevada, for instance, which is
Speaker 1: in dispute still, we found there were counties with more
Speaker 1: people on the rolls, on the voter roles and who
Speaker 1: are living there in aligeable account, they got more people
Speaker 1: on the roles and they were moving, they were actually there.
Speaker 1: So that's an indication that the roles are dirty, and
Speaker 1: and if you have dirty election roles, in my view,
Speaker 1: you can have dirty elections. You know what's interesting because
Speaker 1: you you mentioned Nevada and Adam Housley, who's a former
Speaker 1: journalist at Fox News Reporter you may know him. He
Speaker 1: posted on Twitter last week that he spoke with a
Speaker 1: family in Nevada and apparently he verified their concerns. He
Speaker 1: said he decided to check their ballot status online. They
Speaker 1: got it. They got this ballot and it's about five
Speaker 1: of them, and they registered, They were registered to vote,
Speaker 1: and they voted about a week and a half before
Speaker 1: the election in person, and they voted for President Trump.
Speaker 1: But somehow the system is saying that their vote isn't there,
Speaker 1: almost as though they'd never voted to begin with. Do
Speaker 1: you think these kind of things are kind of cases
Speaker 1: are being realized on all of the country or in
Speaker 1: the battle or in some of these swing stakes. Well,
Speaker 1: when you have tens of millions of ballots being counted,
Speaker 1: there are going to be issues like that pop pop up.
Speaker 1: And the question is that a substantial enough issue to
Speaker 1: raise questions about the outcome? Generally, you know, you don't
Speaker 1: need in my view, and the Left is setting after
Speaker 1: this false standard that you need to prove that the
Speaker 1: fraud was material to the outcome of the election. I
Speaker 1: think what you need the show is that there's enough
Speaker 1: evidence of fraud and there's enough evidence that they weren't
Speaker 1: doing enough to combat fraud that you can question the results.
Speaker 1: I think that's the case in Philadelphia. I think it's
Speaker 1: the case in Detroit, Atlanta, Fulton County deciding to stop
Speaker 1: the counting ballots on election day or what what? What's
Speaker 1: up with that? You know those are indisha fraud and
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if the courts are gonna
Speaker 1: buy into it, but certainly, again, as I peak on
Speaker 1: pointing out, this is a pot a cool question. And
Speaker 1: under our constitutional system, the legislatures in Pennsylvania, which is
Speaker 1: controlled by Republicans Sam in Georgia, same Wisconsin, saving Michigan.
Speaker 1: They're going to have to decide whether they're going to
Speaker 1: ratify and endorse what went on, or maybe a point
Speaker 1: their own slate of electors that support President Trump and
Speaker 1: let Congress figure out who to accept. It could come
Speaker 1: down to what Congress does in January. So so let
Speaker 1: me ask you this question, what advice which And I'm
Speaker 1: sure you've been in touch with President Trump in this campaign,
Speaker 1: and I know that they rely on you a great
Speaker 1: deal for your legal expertise because you've uncovered a lot
Speaker 1: of things that the American people wouldn't have known about.
Speaker 1: What advice have you either given the campaign of President
Speaker 1: Trump or what advice would you give them? Well, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer, so I don't give legal advice,
Speaker 1: and certainly any advice I give to anyone privately, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to talk about. But you know, I've been
Speaker 1: pretty public about what I think ought to be done.
Speaker 1: They need the challenge and protect the result that took
Speaker 1: place on Tuesday. Challenge votes being counted after the fact,
Speaker 1: either that arrived after election Day or frankly counted for
Speaker 1: days afterwards. In a way that undermine the outcome. The
Speaker 1: rules don't allow for that in my view under federal law.
Speaker 1: And then secondly, they have to be aware and prepared
Speaker 1: to challenge all of that in the courts. They may
Speaker 1: be able to ask for a redo of the election
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania and Georgia. I don't know, maybe if they
Speaker 1: have enough evidence of fraud another misconduct. And then secondly
Speaker 1: there's the constitutional option in terms of the electoral college
Speaker 1: and having the state legislatures exercise their prerogatives under our
Speaker 1: constitutional system to select the electors that better comport what
Speaker 1: they think was the appropriate outcome in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Speaker 1: What's the likelihood of something like that actually taking place? Well,
Speaker 1: we'll never take place unless there's leadership for it and
Speaker 1: we're providing it. Okay, what type of changes what you'd
Speaker 1: like to see happen for the federal election laws, Well,
Speaker 1: we need to make it clear. You need to figure
Speaker 1: out who want on the Tuesday of the election. Okay,
Speaker 1: I think the law is clear there. The degree needs
Speaker 1: to be clarified. There should be no mail in ballots
Speaker 1: except in extraordinary, limited circumstances. There should be significant security
Speaker 1: for those mail in ballots. If they're to be allowed
Speaker 1: at all, we need universal and national. Whether it's some
Speaker 1: state by state or federal we can all argue about,
Speaker 1: but we need vote or i D. We need to
Speaker 1: confirm the identity of people are sharing the vote in
Speaker 1: both in terms of their identity and their citizenship status.
Speaker 1: You know, we know aliens are on the rolls. Studies
Speaker 1: have shown that, and we know they vote were they're
Speaker 1: voting in a way to undermine the outcome that's still
Speaker 1: has to be determined. But because we don't really check
Speaker 1: to see if aliens are on the roles or not
Speaker 1: in any regular way, we have no idea unless they
Speaker 1: once they decide to really seriously investigate. And you know what,
Speaker 1: I know there's been talking about a national vote or
Speaker 1: i D requirement across the country and people Emilian folks
Speaker 1: on the left there there against voter i D laws.
Speaker 1: And I know in cases that you need vote, you
Speaker 1: need ide to cash a check, you need idea to
Speaker 1: go get up a government benefit. Well, what seems to
Speaker 1: be the logical argument against it? I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: see there being one, do you There is? In my view,
Speaker 1: there the logical argument against voter ideas They want to
Speaker 1: be able to steal elections when necessary and sell voter
Speaker 1: id gets in the way of doing that. Judicial Watch
Speaker 1: recently released a study funding that three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: three counties across twenty nine states had one point eight
Speaker 1: million more registered voters than eligible voting age citizens. In
Speaker 1: other words, the voter registration rates in those counties exceeded
Speaker 1: one of eligible voters. Tell me about the study and
Speaker 1: how does it factor into the post election madness that's
Speaker 1: going on right now. Well, when you have more people
Speaker 1: on the roles than eligible to vote, that those are
Speaker 1: opportunities for voter fraud. It doesn't mean they're all voted
Speaker 1: voting fraudulently, but that's a pool from which frosters can
Speaker 1: draw to mess with the election. And it's a further
Speaker 1: indication that their voters are on the roles that shouldn't
Speaker 1: be there, that they're not taking their generally not doing
Speaker 1: the required list maintenance that would reassure voters that only
Speaker 1: people who are supposed to be there are being able
Speaker 1: to vote. And so when you mix that in with
Speaker 1: what's happening in places like Nevada, where, for instance, the
Speaker 1: Republicans are alleging that people have moved away, we're voting
Speaker 1: in Nevada. That kind of fits in with our concerns
Speaker 1: about what went on in Nevada where they got names
Speaker 1: of people who have probably moved away for some time,
Speaker 1: still on the rolls and eligible to vote in theory,
Speaker 1: But do you think even if those people are provided
Speaker 1: and I know that last week they were saying they
Speaker 1: had a list of folks that they were gonna send
Speaker 1: to the election officials. I think it was the county
Speaker 1: prosecutor in Nevada. Um they've wanted to have them take
Speaker 1: a look at it, do you think it'll make those
Speaker 1: individual invalidate those votes? Essentially? Who knows. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: they shouldn't do it, but I don't see anything the
Speaker 1: campaign's doing it's going to change the what's happening now.
Speaker 1: So you don't think there's any legal tactic of the
Speaker 1: campaign even pushing it up to the Supreme Court, because
Speaker 1: we're not seeing, at least as of late, we've heard
Speaker 1: about evidence, not necessarily seen it per se, any grand
Speaker 1: amount of evidence that could possibly change the outcome of
Speaker 1: the election. But there's this idea, at least among a
Speaker 1: lot of folks that things have happened that shouldn't happen.
Speaker 1: We can talk about transparency being a big issue. We
Speaker 1: can talk about the fact that when the campaign got
Speaker 1: a judgment to go in and be able to view
Speaker 1: the counting of votes in Philadelphia, the sheriff wouldn't even
Speaker 1: enforce it. No one's enforcing it, and it seems as
Speaker 1: though these folks just don't care. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: about having a legitimate and fair election. It's kind of like,
Speaker 1: what are you gonna do anyway? And it's how do
Speaker 1: you do? Not understanding? I hear what you're saying. I
Speaker 1: guess I go back to what relief are they seeking?
Speaker 1: Are they doing? Are they seeking this sort of release?
Speaker 1: It's gonna change. Yeah, I'll come with the election. I don't.
Speaker 1: I just don't see it now if they went in
Speaker 1: and you know, again, I go back to my legal argument,
Speaker 1: or it's a political legal argument. I guess that election
Speaker 1: day was on Tuesday, and all the votes after that
Speaker 1: were or were inappropriate, and people will be mad that
Speaker 1: their votes weren't counted, but they got into late. That's
Speaker 1: their problem, and it's the state's problem that shut up
Speaker 1: that system that was foreseeable, that they would have gotten
Speaker 1: into late. I mean, under this logic, we could be
Speaker 1: counting ballots through January. Does that make any sense anybody?
Speaker 1: Why not? Why if it's two days, why not three days?
Speaker 1: Why not twenty days? Indeed it is twenty days in Ohio,
Speaker 1: it's seventeen days in California. How does that comport with
Speaker 1: any semblance of regular, uncorrupt elections? But do you think
Speaker 1: that argument would have some sway on this opion? Court?
Speaker 1: Would they throw out the vote if you're looking to
Speaker 1: change the outcome? I don't know what elder argument you'd make.
Speaker 1: To me. It's a plain reading of statutory law. It's
Speaker 1: an easy thing for the court to figure out when
Speaker 1: way or another. They may not buy into it, but
Speaker 1: I think it would be attractive to justices who actually
Speaker 1: want to apply the law is written as opposed to
Speaker 1: what's happening right now that they're pretending the law doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: So you think that's the only argument that they can
Speaker 1: make that may change at least the diamondamices. There are
Speaker 1: other arguments they can ask for potentially a do over
Speaker 1: in certain states because there has this that there's been
Speaker 1: enough fraud associated with the process that the court may
Speaker 1: be persuaded. The only way to resolve it is to
Speaker 1: do a do over. That's been done before. It was
Speaker 1: done just last year in North Carolina and congressional race
Speaker 1: where Republican consultant was involved in fraud and and it
Speaker 1: was a do over. So do overs are possible in
Speaker 1: the states. That's another possibility and can be done in
Speaker 1: time for the electoral College to consider the the votes
Speaker 1: that arise from such a duo. So what's the standard
Speaker 1: you think you just is it? I'm not familiar with
Speaker 1: the case you just mentioned it well that I don't
Speaker 1: know what the standard would be for the court to
Speaker 1: authorize a do over. That's where the lawyers have to
Speaker 1: come in and see what what hoops they need to
Speaker 1: jump through in order to legally persuade a court to
Speaker 1: do a do over. I would presume that you know
Speaker 1: what went on in Pennsylvania, the gamesmanship that went on
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania. Maybe they say, look, you know that's been
Speaker 1: so that process has been so corrupted by this misconduct.
Speaker 1: The only way to kind of resolve it and reassure,
Speaker 1: reassure the law the court is to do it over
Speaker 1: again and then man vindicate the votes of people who
Speaker 1: want to vote honestly and have their votes kind of appropriately. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that that the way things are looking, especially considering
Speaker 1: the fact that Trump he was running against the media,
Speaker 1: he was running against social media. He's running against Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: running against the Leeds to Democrats. And honestly, I think
Speaker 1: this might have been the outcome had people believed that
Speaker 1: he could possibly win in seen they took him as
Speaker 1: a joke, so they didn't go to Wisconsin, they didn't
Speaker 1: go to a lot of these states to Hillary Clinton laws.
Speaker 1: But we might have seen probably this kind of outcome,
Speaker 1: and people took Donald Trump seriously. And it's just a
Speaker 1: shame to see that the public's vote, in terms of
Speaker 1: the integrity of the election could end up like this.
Speaker 1: It should be about transparency. Who knows who might have
Speaker 1: committed fraud or not. No one knows. I don't have
Speaker 1: any evidence to that. I can only imagine that that
Speaker 1: some may have occurred. But still, in all, for this
Speaker 1: to be the state of our elections is disturbing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is. And and you know, personally, we may have
Speaker 1: our own views about who should win and lose, right,
Speaker 1: but it's not about that. It's about the process being
Speaker 1: something that vindicates the rule of law, reassures the public
Speaker 1: that the elections were free and fair, and if that
Speaker 1: process isn't there, that should be concerning for everybody, both
Speaker 1: you know, honest liberals and and honest conservatives like you
Speaker 1: and me. Yeah. Absolutely. Now, you've been busy recent days
Speaker 1: on covering documents about Hannah Biden and Biden families business
Speaker 1: dealings overseas. What information have you found that the American
Speaker 1: people might not know about. Oh, there's a lot going
Speaker 1: on there. Um. We had emails coming from the State
Speaker 1: Department showing that the State Department was concerned about what
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden was doing. They were monitoring what was going
Speaker 1: on about it in terms of social media. In fact,
Speaker 1: one social media person, accuse me. One Obama state official
Speaker 1: called Barisma the gift that keeps on giving, and he
Speaker 1: bemoaned the fact that the Russians were trolling and that's
Speaker 1: his work, Joe Biden, because of his conflicts of interest,
Speaker 1: because of his son being on Barisma while he's pretending
Speaker 1: to be against Ukraine corruption in Ukraine. Do you think
Speaker 1: so it's just a deep state. They all knew about
Speaker 1: what was going on there, and they knew it was
Speaker 1: a problem and a longstanding one, and that certainly that
Speaker 1: is contradicts the fake news we've been getting about the
Speaker 1: Biden scandal. Yeah, and reporting show that during that time
Speaker 1: that Obama White House had issues with Biden's sun being
Speaker 1: on a board being on that board, and they raise
Speaker 1: flags all throughout the White House on it, but of
Speaker 1: course it continued on. Do you think that if Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is it's worn in as president in in January,
Speaker 1: do you expect that we'll see more of these kind
Speaker 1: of shenanigans on her hunter Biden I can get away
Speaker 1: with it. I think the more substantial outcome, or were
Speaker 1: likely i'llcome frankly, is that he's going to be facing
Speaker 1: criminal investigations, either her son is or he will be.
Speaker 1: So that's that's the more likely income outcome. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it's Underbiden keep said down if his president
Speaker 1: father becomes president, but there's still accountability to be had
Speaker 1: for what went on here, and that's going to require
Speaker 1: just Smarmer to do something. And you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: naive about the likelihood of d O J doing anything
Speaker 1: under Joe Biden administration, but it's going to be difficult
Speaker 1: for them not to do something, because again, you know,
Speaker 1: we still have a republic. It's been weakened, but the
Speaker 1: rule of law is still a big issue, and it's
Speaker 1: hard to, uh, at least avoid it faith in your
Speaker 1: face way, Well, if the Obama folks spot on Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's campaign, the Hillary email scandal went without her being prosecuted,
Speaker 1: I just find it hard to believe that the elites
Speaker 1: like Joe Biden and Hunter Biden anything would happen to him.
Speaker 1: I think I kind of lost faith in the judicial,
Speaker 1: the court system, the prosecutors, and the d o J
Speaker 1: because it seems as though the elite seemingly get away
Speaker 1: with it. And interestingly enough, I don't necessarily although Trump
Speaker 1: is the president of the United States, I don't necessarily
Speaker 1: consider him one of the elites. Per site. He seems
Speaker 1: like he's one of the guys that's kind of with
Speaker 1: the people. And interestingly enough, I spoke with a friend
Speaker 1: of mine who's really high up in Joe Biden's campaign,
Speaker 1: and he mentioned to me that he thinks that if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump loses, he's gonna get prosecuted for what. I
Speaker 1: have no idea. I don't know if this is an
Speaker 1: internal restation going on in Joe Biden's campaign or what
Speaker 1: they what they may be thinking there, But that's actually
Speaker 1: something I can see them attempting to do, especially considering
Speaker 1: the fact that Trump has put his finger in their
Speaker 1: eyes every time he gets a chance, which is his right.
Speaker 1: So I'm interested. Do you think anything may become of that?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what they could be A llegend would
Speaker 1: be prosecutable, but your thoughts, Oh, I believe President Trump
Speaker 1: will continue to be harassed after Healy's office, whether it
Speaker 1: be even whether it be next year or four years
Speaker 1: or now. It's never gonna stop. It never will stop.
Speaker 1: And they don't need a reason. I mean, we already
Speaker 1: know that they did it before with no reason, no justification,
Speaker 1: so why would they need a reason? Now? Yeah, I agree,
Speaker 1: And and it's been terrible. There's been this terrible corruption.
Speaker 1: There's been no accountability for it. So there's gonna be
Speaker 1: the you know, bad guys wh only stop what bad
Speaker 1: guys do when you put him in jail or make
Speaker 1: it make the game not worth playing. And there's no
Speaker 1: reason for them to stop. There's been no countabile city.
Speaker 1: And if you're Joe Biden or that people around him,
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, look, we got back into office despite
Speaker 1: everything that we have been implicated in. Why would we
Speaker 1: stop doing it? You know, there's been no there's been
Speaker 1: no sanction for doing it, so it's not gonna stop.
Speaker 1: Let's continue the conversation on the other side of the break. First,
Speaker 1: as a word from our sponsor, this is so interesting.
Speaker 1: What good news do you think we can share with
Speaker 1: our listeners because I think this is at all the
Speaker 1: podcasts I've done, and we've been on the air for
Speaker 1: about a month now, massive thanks to the lusteners, because
Speaker 1: we've been getting exciting numbers. Is there any good news
Speaker 1: to share? Well, Hillary Clinton is in president. I don't
Speaker 1: think Joe Biden is going to be do you know
Speaker 1: He's in a even if he had taken the Senate,
Speaker 1: even if he had gotten more seats in the House,
Speaker 1: that the Left can't do everything they want to do
Speaker 1: as quickly as they wanted to do and as successfully
Speaker 1: as they thought they would be able to do. There's
Speaker 1: always going to be an opposition and honest opposition, and
Speaker 1: it would have been significant even if they had taken
Speaker 1: control of the executive and legislative branch. And this is
Speaker 1: assuming if Joe Biden nor wins, and that's not that's
Speaker 1: a big in Somesact. Presume that he wins. The Senate
Speaker 1: is controlled by the Republicans, So there's gonna be no
Speaker 1: court packing. There's gonna be no DC statehood, no Puerto
Speaker 1: Rican statehood, no medicare for all. So a lot of
Speaker 1: that big socialism is going to be significantly curtailed assuming
Speaker 1: the Republicans control, and more importantly, Conservatives control the Senate, because,
Speaker 1: as you know, Republicans sometimes can include people who want
Speaker 1: to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let me. I got just two questions that I want
Speaker 1: to get it with. One question I want to get
Speaker 1: into your book. What do you think President Trump would
Speaker 1: do if, in fact he did lose. Do you think
Speaker 1: he would go away? I doubt he would. Would he
Speaker 1: run again in in four years? What happens to the
Speaker 1: mega movement make America a Great Again movement? What do
Speaker 1: you think would be the outcome of that? Because I
Speaker 1: know he's not going to stop fighting. This election certainly
Speaker 1: isn't over. The courts are going to have their saying.
Speaker 1: For people who've been listening to me on this podcast,
Speaker 1: allow with you, Carblo, I said, and predicted time and
Speaker 1: time again that this would end up in the courts.
Speaker 1: I just didn't think Democrats would play fairly with this,
Speaker 1: and we're seeing it end up in the court. Perhaps,
Speaker 1: what do you think would happen if President Trump were
Speaker 1: to lose fair and square. I don't know what he's
Speaker 1: gonna do. I don't know he's gonna run again. I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, but I think we should think
Speaker 1: about what we're gonna do, and what I'm gonna do,
Speaker 1: and whatich is Issue Watch is gonna do. When I
Speaker 1: suspect you're gonna do the same thing, you're gonna take
Speaker 1: the same approach. He's just gonna keep on working. You know,
Speaker 1: we've got lawsuits we have to pursue. There's Joe Biden
Speaker 1: in the presidency and there's corruption associated with his conduct.
Speaker 1: We're gonna investigate that. When you to oppose big socialism
Speaker 1: and big corruption and big secrecy, that almost always go
Speaker 1: hand in hand. You know, we're just gonna We're gonna
Speaker 1: continue to be patriots. We're gonna be continuing to fulfill
Speaker 1: Judicial watches mission to hold the government accountable to the
Speaker 1: people and make sure that the government tells us what
Speaker 1: it's up to so that we can hold it accountable.
Speaker 1: That's what we're gonna do, and we're gonna do that
Speaker 1: whether or not Trump wont And I think that's what
Speaker 1: patriots should be thinking about. What are they what were
Speaker 1: they going to do? Anyway, and just do more of
Speaker 1: it because it will be significantly different challenges, maybe even
Speaker 1: worse challenges with a different president. But you know, you
Speaker 1: still just you know, the fight changes a little bit,
Speaker 1: but the fight continues in terms of the big picture.
Speaker 1: I'm actually surprised by your answer. That's she was gonna
Speaker 1: say you go out right and loot and yell at
Speaker 1: the moon would be the more like and not like
Speaker 1: the lab for that too. Well, that's good news, and
Speaker 1: you're right. I will absolutely continue. I don't do that company. Okay,
Speaker 1: personal time, that's another question, but absolutely agree. I think
Speaker 1: that's something that a lot of conservatives really need to hear,
Speaker 1: because I've friends call me in tears when the day
Speaker 1: after the election of wondering nothing, there's nothing worth crying over.
Speaker 1: Crying for the unborn who may die and increase numbers
Speaker 1: under a Biden presidency, that's worth crying about. But if
Speaker 1: you've done what you can do in terms of affecting
Speaker 1: your public policy values and defending the country as you
Speaker 1: see fit. There's nothing to cry about. You've done what
Speaker 1: you can do, and you can go to sleep easy
Speaker 1: at night, and you just have to keep on battling
Speaker 1: as you see fit. But if you do what you
Speaker 1: can do, don't worry about it. That's nothing. You know,
Speaker 1: no use crying over something you can't change. Now that
Speaker 1: makes sense. Well, just last month, you publish your latest book,
Speaker 1: A Republic under Assault, the left's ongoing attack on American freedom.
Speaker 1: What's your argument of the book and why did you
Speaker 1: decide to write this now, which it seems very appropriate, Well,
Speaker 1: getting to get a little negative to kind of highlight
Speaker 1: what the you know, our republic is under assault. The
Speaker 1: president was under assault for years. The presidency was under assault.
Speaker 1: That was President Trump personally, but the constitutional office was
Speaker 1: under attack. They assaulted our sovereignty by trying to break
Speaker 1: our borders with the caravan invasion and trying to allow
Speaker 1: that to continue on abated with having you know, essentially
Speaker 1: have open borders. And on top of that, you've had
Speaker 1: the assault on our free and fair elections, which we've
Speaker 1: been talking about, which the consequences of which we've been
Speaker 1: talking about, which is the chaos, the lack of security,
Speaker 1: and the likelihood of unchecked fraud that you know, we
Speaker 1: can't even really figure out because we don't even have
Speaker 1: the rules in place to help us figure that out. So,
Speaker 1: you know, our republic content, you know, relies on the
Speaker 1: ability of the people to govern themselves and not to
Speaker 1: be waylaid through corruption. And that's what's happened with the
Speaker 1: assault on the presidency, our republic, the assault on our are,
Speaker 1: our borders, our sovereignty, and the assault on our elections. Wow.
Speaker 1: Uh must read your book sincerely, and I want to
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your time today. You're doinging
Speaker 1: credible work, incredible work, and I would love for folks
Speaker 1: to know your social media handles so they can follow you.
Speaker 1: You put out important videos all the time. You put
Speaker 1: out a lot of important information that people really should read.
Speaker 1: I think that you uncover so much that people didn't
Speaker 1: even think it was possible that Hillary email can't scandal
Speaker 1: as a as a point, and the hunter Biden the situation,
Speaker 1: We're going to continue to follow and see what's gonna
Speaker 1: come out of that, especially if there's a Joe Biden presidency.
Speaker 1: Will Hunter Biden try to use the US government as
Speaker 1: a piggy bank so you can get billions of dollars
Speaker 1: in contract and to enrich himself. And the ten percent
Speaker 1: to the big guy, which man goes up may go
Speaker 1: up to thirty percent, now who knows, or just give
Speaker 1: me the whole thing. I ask for a bigger chunk
Speaker 1: since he has a better Yeah, if if he were
Speaker 1: still in this right. So we're still in this right.
Speaker 1: So thank I know, I know, but yeah, no, I
Speaker 1: get you a pent So thank you. Please tell the
Speaker 1: people where they can follow you. Yeah, it's an at
Speaker 1: judicial I at Tom Fitton. We're on Facebook at Judicial
Speaker 1: Watch and real Tom fitting on Facebook and I and
Speaker 1: I say this because I believe it, not because it's me.
Speaker 1: Our Twitter feeds are the best album. If you really
Speaker 1: wanting material that you are an interesting take that you're
Speaker 1: not going to hear from somebodywhere else where. We're actually
Speaker 1: providing leadership on these issues. You want to follow our Twitter.
Speaker 1: That's why they're censoring us because we're probably we're saying
Speaker 1: the wrong things about what's going on right now. And
Speaker 1: I know we go mad viral. I see you can
Speaker 1: go viral and a regular consistent basis. So thank you
Speaker 1: for your work and thank you for being a patriot.
Speaker 1: Thank you, jam I assume to take You're good on
Speaker 1: my pleasure. Thank you. If you're enjoying the show, we
Speaker 1: leave us a review and rate us with five stars
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts. Also follow me on social media Instagram, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and Facebook at Gianno Caldwell g I A N N
Speaker 1: O Caldwell c A L d W E l L.
Speaker 1: If you have any questions for me, please email me
Speaker 1: it out loud a Ginglish three sixty and I'll try
Speaker 1: to answer them in the future episode. If you're interested
Speaker 1: in learning more about me, please get my latest book,
Speaker 1: Taken for Granted, How Conservatism Can Run Back to the
Speaker 1: Americans Did Liberalism Fell? Thank you to our researcher Aaron
Speaker 1: Kleinman and executive producers Debbie Myers and of course speaker
Speaker 1: ne Ggbridge, part of the Gingrige three sixty network.