David Rutherford Show: David Clements Breaks Down the 2026 SCOTUS Election Rulings

Professor David Clements returns to make his case that a handful of 2026 Supreme Court decisions have reshaped what a president can do on elections without waiting for Congress.

David and Clements break down three rulings — the mail-in ballot deadline case, the Slaughter decision on presidential removal power, and the birthright citizenship ruling — and Clements lays out his argument for how each one connects to executive authority under Article II. You'll hear his read on the Youngstown war-powers framework, the Election Assistance Commission, and why he believes the legal terrain has shifted. 

Professor David Clements is a former law professor and election-integrity advocate featured in the documentary [S]election Code.

Sponsors:
☕ Black Rifle Coffee: https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/
🏫 Get coaching by David Rutherford: https://www.froglogicinstitute.com/

Timestamps:
00:00 — The SCOTUS mail-in ballot ruling
07:41 — Youngstown and Article II war powers
17:59 — The Slaughter removal-power decision explained
19:56 — The Election Assistance Commission
25:59 — The Dominion/Lindell settlement
33:14 — Tina Peters Is Being Used
42:13 — Where Clements sees the next three months heading
52:31 — Voter Rolls
57:28 — Iran War Strategy, Trump's Legacy & Lloyd's of London Play
1:06:41 — What Clements is working on next

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome back to the show, everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
I'm your host David Rutherford, and we welcome back Professor
David Clements to the show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
He's an election expert.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
His notoriety is from a great documentary produced about the
twenty twenty elections electronic voting machines. He's been a staunch
advocate and traveled all across the country trying to bring
awareness as to the vulnerabilities, and we thought we'd bring
him on today to discuss all the recent SCOTUS rulings
and maybe some other stuff.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
So welcome back to the show, professor.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Hey David, it's good to be with you.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Great, thank you. All right, let's jump right in.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Let's start with the Scotus on mail in ballots. How
did that one hitch you?

Speaker 4 (00:46):
Well, obviously it's not the decision that anyone that's involved
in election integrity wanted to see. But somewhat predictable. I mean,
Amy Cony Barrett, I've kind of flagged in the past
is a liability and I didn't want to be right
about it, but unfortunately I am. And here's the central

(01:07):
issue in that case was just whether or not you
had to have your mail in ballots in by election
day or whether or not you can just live with
a postmark and receive them for another five days, at
least in Mississippi. The problem with that from an election
security standpoint is if you can generate a counterfeit ballot,

(01:27):
which you can just get a PDF copy of a ballot,
put it on Kinko's paper, and those tabulators will accept
those ballots, why can't we do the same thing with envelopes,
especially with the postmarking of those envelopes. And as long
as you have these drop boxes with zero chain of custody,
as long as I've got a stamp, that's a fix

(01:49):
to that envelope, those ballots are coming in. And that's
really the big issue. And Justice Alito really did a
great job in his dissent talking about, uh, just the
restrictions in the old days, like the Civil War, like
hey even then with snail mail and and uh and

(02:09):
with with no technology, those ballots had to be in
by election day to be counted.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (02:16):
So this is a it's a devastating loss for election
integrity because five days you can you can flood the zone.

Speaker 1 (02:24):
Oh we saw it.

Speaker 2 (02:25):
I think in the La Mayor's race, I mean against
with Spencer Pratt. I mean he was up against that
that the that third woman who was on the city council,
and you know, within seven days she had surpassed them.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
They just kept coming in.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Is there any way for another state to or someone
else to file a lawsuit, uh, somewhere on the superfery
of this type of thing, to attack the chain of
custody of the mail in ballots, or is there any
other way to bring back a case that might get her.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Rise to the Scotus level again.

Speaker 4 (03:04):
I anticipate that Trump's going to do something that's going
to have an adjacent effect on Supreme Court ruling through
his National Security Article two power, and we've seen an
element of that in his last executive order where he's
effectively common your the us Polsal Service and they've got

(03:24):
tracking codes. And if people aren't familiar with that case,
it's basically this, if you're going to use the USPS states,
you're going to use r curated voter rolls, and if
you don't and we catch you, you could be subject
to penalties wow mail fraud. So it's ingenious and he

(03:44):
didn't have to create any new legislation. This is completely
within the black letter law that you find under have
a mail fraud statutes, and so there's still something that
Trump can work with that will have an effect on
the tracking of ballots in and out. And the real

(04:05):
point of enforcement is we've just entered into a fiscal year.
In most places, all of the machines that we use
are largely funded by the Help America Vote Act. And
so if someone calls up Scott Descent and says, hey,
we're not seeing a whole lot of compliance with HAVA

(04:26):
through this executive order order, could you stop disbursements to
state X, State Y. And Scott Descent has shown that
he's willing to do that in the case of Somali fraud.
So if we see fraud at the state level, saying no,
we're going to go our own way, We're gonna we're
gonna do whatever we want, We're going to use the
US Postal Service, I'd expect to challenge. And so that's

(04:49):
a very clever way to still survive in light of
this the Scotis decision on ballots, because there's a tracking element.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Right and that and that all always I mean, I remember,
you know, from every investigation that took place, whether it
was Arizona or you know, it was always you know,
the tracking just seemed there was a gap somewhere along
the line that chain of coustody reality.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
And and I remember when I.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Had Sean Smith on he you know, he kept going
down that road as well too. It's like, you know,
there's got to be a tracking component that you can
understand where the ballot came from, even if it originated
you know some you know, from a collector, uh somewhere,

(05:40):
like they get it. They have to scan it like
your Amazon package. Right, they take the picture. Now they've
got it, it's with them, they're in possession. They go,
they drop this batch off into the mail in ballot
collection point. And at least there's a tracking component that
you can figure out if there is where the vulnerabilities
are a little bit more in a sophisticated way.

Speaker 4 (06:02):
Yeah, and well, and the other thing is like normally
what I'm sharing with you, I'd have zero confidence. And
if this was under the Biden regime, because look, we
saw the US Postal Service being complicit in twenty twenty
and just having virtually no safeguards for the introduction of ballots,
and so there's an element of faith here where it's like,

(06:24):
please someone be at the helm at the US Postal
Service to make sure that they're doing their job. And
so there's there's kind of we're all in a wait
and see kind of you know element here on what
exactly is going to happen from enforcement. But yeah, it's

(06:44):
it's one of those things where I still don't like
the fact that we're even in a place where we're
relying on a government agency and the US Postal Service
has not exactly been the greatest model of efficiency, So
why would we expect them to be, you know, the
entity that's going to slap hand.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
So you know, hopefully Department of Home and.

Speaker 4 (07:03):
Security is is taking a look at this with a
with a second set of eyes, uh to to look
at the operation at US bosed Service.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
Uh I just kind of on a sidetrack. Obviously, when
we chatted before last year, one of the big things
for me was reading Ralph Pazzulo's book with you know,
Gary Bernston. We saw the Venezuela raid take place. Everybody's
saying it's about you know, recapturing or reconstituting our position

(07:35):
in this hemisphere. And you know, but if you if
you take any value in what Gary Bernston or Martin
Real dial talk about with the Venezuela network.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
You know the code, the source code for all these elections,
you know the these machines. You know. Do you think
any of the.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
That national security component, right, which gives him the power
to really dig into elections in a much more sophisticated
way I would imagine for oversight. Do you have any
faith that maybe some of that is pending or has
come from our interrogation of Maduro or is there any

(08:17):
positive or have you heard anything?

Speaker 4 (08:19):
Yeah, So I look at the landscape through the lens
of the Youngstown Steel decision because that's the definitive case
on war powers, right, And to really have any coherent
idea of what's possible from the standpoint of what the
president can and can't do, you.

Speaker 3 (08:36):
Have to subject yourself to justice.

Speaker 4 (08:39):
Jackson's concurrence and what I love about his executive order
was that he was working with in a congressional framework,
which means he's going to be upheld. So while people
can have heartburn over him commandeering the postal service, everything's
on the books. It's not like he's waiting for the
Save Act to be passed. In other words to effectuate

(09:02):
what he's doing. And then you've got two other categories.
If if you're not working with Congress, you're either in
this twilight area, which isn't a great place to be,
or if you're an open defiance of Congress, you're you're
you're said to have been to be at your lowest
ebb of power as the commander in chief, which means
you have to rely purely on your article to powers

(09:26):
from a from a planary standpoint. So we're talking about
commander and chief stuff. So I'm always looking at where
is the line where Potus can say pound Sand Supreme
Court like pound Sand, I don't have to do anything.
You're you've made your ruling, let us see you enforce it,
kind of the words of Lincoln, right. And and so

(09:49):
when you start getting into the area that was that
that you know, there's commentary offered by Pazzulo and Bernstone
and uh Martin Rudel.

Speaker 3 (09:59):
Uh. You are in article to land.

Speaker 4 (10:01):
You are in the planarrea authority where I'm sorry, the
President doesn't have to ask for permission from Congress to
strike down a missile.

Speaker 3 (10:12):
Likewise, he has.

Speaker 4 (10:13):
No obligation to Congress with the Supreme Court to wait
before he intervenes and intercepts cyber intrusions into our elections.
And I think he's on perfect footing that even if
there was a decision, even if there was legislation, he
would be duty bound to say nope, not on this
because elections are critical infrastructure. And whether Democrats want to

(10:36):
have heartburn over that, they can thank Obama for that,
because it was Obama that designated our elections as critical infrastructure.
So yes, you know, to tell you that Bernston's onto something,
Bazoola's onto something, you know, I think that's the trump
card that that Trump has been holding onto. But I

(10:57):
think he's trying to ferret out as much support as
he can hand with the laws that are on the books.
And the other anecdote that I'll leave with you is
that when you look at the essentials of the Save
America Act, which is, you know, only US citizens can vote,
got to have voter ID mail in ballots, severely limited
for just military personnel, and those that are truly bedridden.

(11:21):
Trump has issued in an executive order on each of
those issues already, and people miss that he is effectively
codified through his executive power and set on record that
the curbing of mail in ballots using voter ID, that
these are national security prerogatives. So it's like he is

(11:42):
carving out like, sure, Congress, come along with me, please
pass the legislation. But he has done enough through his
own executive power where I think he's daring, or at
least he's willing to have a showdown with the Supreme
Court the same way that Lincoln did. And so the
parallel from from a historical standpoint with Lincoln was the

(12:05):
suspension of the rid of habeas corpus.

Speaker 1 (12:08):
Right.

Speaker 4 (12:08):
You know, it's not an article it's not an Article
two power according to the text, it's a congressional power
under Article one. And therefore, when he said, okay, look,
i've got to put down the rebellion. I can't wait
for Congress to legislate this. Uh, the Supreme Court came
down and said, Lincoln, you're wrong. This is unconstitutional. And

(12:30):
Lincoln said, too bad, I've got other constitutional responsibilities to
put down the insurrection. My hands are tied and I'm
going to fight back. And I think in the election terrain,
Trump is on solid footing. It's just one of those
things where he's got to win you know, if he
doesn't win, we're all screwed.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
Right and by that win, you mean maintaining control the
House to prevent any possible impeachment process or I just
saw one of the you know, betting lie online things
that they just you know, gave Republicans a slight advantage

(13:08):
and making and keeping the Senate. But you know, the
the numbers for the House don't seem to be as
favorable as we you know, plow through these primaries by.

Speaker 4 (13:19):
When I actually mean something far more severe, got it.
I'm talking about like, look, there's got to be a major,
a major disturbance in the force, if you will, within
the next three months that could accelerate things to a

(13:40):
kinetic conflict. I mean, that's that's when we're talking about Lincoln.
He was in a kinetic conflict. And uh and so
when I said when it means he has to survive now,
he was still assassinated. But you have to you basically
are sitting there going I'm I'm I'm in a place
where people are killing each other. My countrymen are killing

(14:02):
each other. I think we're in a similar environment right now.
I Mean, I don't say this to be salacious, but
I mean that to me, a victory of retaining the
House or the Senate means nothing in its current iteration,
if for no other reason, if you've got the majority

(14:24):
and John Thune and Tom Tillis are coming out saying
we can't even take this to the floor for a vote,
and you've got the majority, so you know, like, look,
is that a victory come November if we keep Tillis
or you know, even though he's gonna step down and
John Thune, no, I think they are just as fearful

(14:45):
of what Trump is doing as the Democrats are, because
it will be a death spiral to their incumbency if
we actually had real integrity.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
You know, it's interesting because you know, I got confused
on your words and I should have known there was
an underline metaphor and they're somewhere.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
I needed to pay more attention. I apologize. Uh uh.
You know, it's always fascinating when.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
You see this group of of you know, and I
don't know if you just saw, but it's being reported
that Mitch McConnell is was rushed to the hospital.

Speaker 1 (15:16):
They was found unconscious.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
So you know out of that that that you know,
the four that are just you know, stall warts again it.
But what really caught me by surprise with the Save
Act to stay on this topic was the House vote
that they tried to pin it to another bill and they.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
Still lost in the House. What were your insights on that?

Speaker 2 (15:37):
Why would the House pass it before for something else?
But they are adamantly opposed integrated and into uh you know, uh,
you know some financial bill that that's critical to maintain
you know, the government and going.

Speaker 4 (15:54):
Yeah, so if if I if I'm tracking what you're
laying down, uh, you're looking at I think a reconciliation
bill where these are the big spending packages. So even Obama,
I think some of the most unconstitutional things that he did,
he would always tag them in the big budget bills,

(16:15):
and so he would use the greed of Washington against itself.
It's like okay, and so I think that's what Trump
is trying to do, is like I'll just shove you know,
the Save America Act inside of a three hundred and
fifty billion spending package and just let the big military
industrial compdux primes basically say okay, let's just live with it.

(16:38):
You know, because you only need a simple majority, you
don't have to worry about the filibusters my understanding.

Speaker 3 (16:43):
So he tried that.

Speaker 4 (16:46):
And then the other thing that he did is he
invoked the Defense Production Act. And this was lost on
a lot of people on like.

Speaker 3 (16:54):
Why would you do that?

Speaker 4 (16:57):
And it has everything to do with the Youngstown steel
decision often like and people think, Okay, are we talk
we have shortages with steel or are we talking about
like rockets. I think the play here is election related.
I think they're looking at supply chains and the compromises
that Colonel Sean Smith already pointed out. He's the guru

(17:18):
on that area that if you start invoking that that
national emergency, then you're you're you're building up your husk,
You're building up the article to plnary authority that we
just talked about. So I see this as a chess
game of positioning Trump into a place where he is
just putting on the armor and he's going to have

(17:41):
to say, you know, give the proverbial middle finger to
the Supreme Court if it comes to that. But there's
another case that I mentioned before it came on that
I think really ties this together, which is the Slaughter decision.
And it's probably best.

Speaker 2 (17:58):
To bring it up now, please, yeah, would you just
give a background and to everybody understands.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
Sure.

Speaker 4 (18:04):
So, for the past seventy years, presidents have been curbed
from firing independent quote unquote government agencies unless there is
a four cause reason.

Speaker 2 (18:17):
We used to joke in the CEO in the in
the CIA, as contractors, you know, we'd be out in
the field and we'd see, you know, full timers who
had zero business being in you know, being in these
areas whatsoever, much less being in the intelligence world, and
we would laugh. They would come in completely mess up,

(18:39):
and then they would go back and get a promotion
and keep getting higher up at the agency.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
It was so funny because nobody could get fired.

Speaker 3 (18:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (18:48):
Well, well under the fact patterns of slaughter. The agency
that was under the crosshairs was the Federal Trade Commission,
and so you're looking at Usually these independent agencies are
kind of composites of a Republican gets to nominate and
put someone forward, a Democrat gets to do that, and

(19:08):
at some point the Senate is supposed to give you
a confirmation after they give their advice to the president.
And so presidents have been hamstrung when they've been saddled
with independent agencies that don't believe in their policies fight
against their policies, and Trump basically has been firing people

(19:30):
left and right. And this litigation ensued, and surprisingly the
Supreme Court said, yeah, the President under Article two has
the right to fire anyone he wants, even in these
independent agencies. Now, why is this important with respect to elections?

(19:52):
After he sees one thing, But the holding is much broader.
You have an entity called the Election Assistance Commission, which
is an independent agency. It's an independent board that serves
at the pleasure of the president. I mean, now getting
the right people there, that's a more cumbersome process because

(20:14):
I think the Speaker of the House gets to put
someone forward, Senate majority leader gets to put someone forward,
and then the minority.

Speaker 3 (20:23):
Leaders get to put someone forward.

Speaker 4 (20:24):
So you could count on Speaker Johnson to give you
a quality pick and everyone else you're not going to
get anyone that's worth crap. But at least in theory,
right now, he can fire the entire board as it's comprised,
and it's completely constitutional. So let's talk about the power
of the Election Assistants Commission. They get to desertify the machines,

(20:48):
they if they want to. Okay, so this is already
congressionally authorized, it's already on the books. That's their job.
They can right now say the elections arevulnerable, the machines
are crap.

Speaker 3 (21:03):
Were desertificating decertifying them.

Speaker 4 (21:05):
And in some states you would say, well, this is
just voluntary guidance. This isn't like anyone really has to
listen to the AAC. Well, not necessarily. Most of the
state legislatures have codified or adopted the EAC standards, and
there's usually buy in that you're going to abide by
federal regulations to get federal money. So for all intents

(21:26):
and purposes, if the EAC were to desertify the machines,
it's game over. So this this holding provides an amazing
opportunity for Trump to start firing people right out the gate.
Bill Poulty, who's overseeing OD and I, has been given

(21:47):
a mandate to downsize and fire everyone, to classify everything,
which will play in nicely into the election discussion. In fact,
Holsie was promising to have a major bombshell drop on
the election machines. And so I think the obstacle is
that right now, Senate Majority Leader Thuon is basically creating

(22:12):
the fiction that the Senate is doing something by having
kind of pseudo meetings just so Trump can't get into
a recess appointment scenario. But if Trump can come up
with an answer to that, not only can he fire
the board, he can appoint people through recess appointments, and

(22:32):
all of a sudden you could have like a Sean
Smith on the EACO.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
So I haven't war gamed at all.

Speaker 4 (22:40):
I'm thinking about it, as you can tell, but I'm
very excited about the possibility of a very elegant solution
that doesn't require the legislature to get involved at all.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
Can you give the audience a quick understanding, because I
know Thune and the gang they talk about these procedural
challenges to be able to get the at least get
the Save Act to a vote. And there's a person
that's been there since the Obama administration who I guess

(23:11):
she she's just she just keeps that job and that
that person, can you describe what the conditions are to
get to that past the Filipposter and and why is
that critical?

Speaker 1 (23:24):
Well?

Speaker 3 (23:25):
I would probably butcher that's not my wheelhouse.

Speaker 4 (23:27):
But what what I'll tell you is that I'll give
you an insight on on where I think you're going
with this, which is Tom Tillis guest led everyone when
he was approached and it's like, hey, you guys have
no idea how archaic the rules are. To think that
we're gonna get the Save Act passed, let alone have
it implemented by November, shows how stupid you are. And

(23:50):
that that's a that's a pretty accurate paraphrasing.

Speaker 1 (23:53):
I think it's spot on. That's the way I felt
like he's literally calling as stupid.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
Yeah, and so the eye is like, okay, wait a minute.
So who benefits from the archaic structure? And so you
like till Us, last time I checked, I think you've
been there since twenty fourteen. We had the rigged election
in twenty twenty, so we've had six years to do
something to clarify or correct or modify these archaic rules.

(24:23):
And so this is a classic example of someone saying,
look at the bureaucracy, look at the labyrinth. There's no
way we can do it. And he's happy about it.
I mean that's the take on Like it's like, even
if we wanted to, we couldn't. And so this is
where you start getting into Trump's messaging with you know,
ending the filibuster, like you can change the rules, Like

(24:45):
why can't you just simplify them? Like that's that's the
real issue, is what's stopping the majority from going scorch
earth right now? They could simplify the rules today if
they wanted to.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
Want to really talk about my incredible partnership with one
of my best friends, and that's Evan Hayfer and the
boys over at Black Rifle Coffee. I'm so honored to
be a part of their organization and just really can't
thank them enough for allowing me to participate. What I

(25:21):
want you to do is go to Black Riflecoffee dot
com and I want to check out their new energy drinks.
They have these incredible energy drinks that you can buy
at all different kinds of stores Walmart, Bath Sports and others.
Or you can go online in order and if you
want to put in your little promo code Frog Logic

(25:42):
two zero there you get a little discount on stuff there.
I highly recommend that. For me, it's my morning coffee.
I am addicted to. Black Rifle Coffee is just black.
I think the tiger stripe Cammo definitely reels me in
the other one I love.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
Is the A K Espresso. This one right here is phenomenal.

Speaker 2 (26:04):
Love these but they have so many different things that
you could get at Black Rifle Coffee.

Speaker 1 (26:09):
You will love it.

Speaker 2 (26:10):
Uh Again, when you go over Black Riflecoffee dot Com
and you're checking out, type in frog Logic to zero,
get your little discount quote and tell them already Rut
sent you. So to all those folks out there who
love coffee like I do, please do yourself a favor
and go over and check out my brothers at b

(26:31):
R C C right and I and and I think
that's you know, anybody that's paying any attention to it,
as you know, completely recognized, you know, the lock that
Murkowski and McConnell and Corn and.

Speaker 1 (26:46):
All these people have.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
I really was impressed that that packson got, you know, pushed.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
Over the line.

Speaker 2 (26:51):
I thought that was a jolt to that juggernaut, you know,
loosening a little bit too. And I certainly hope he
wins that. All right, let's pivot a little bit too.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
Why is uh is the case the dominion case against
Mike Lindell is that relevant? Is it something that's important
to see or recognize, uh, because that case was thrown
out or they agreed to not pursue it.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
You know, should we go back and analyze the Fox
News case as well, Like, what what does this mean
on on a scale of all of these these UH
impediments so to speak of of really pushing for election integrity.

Speaker 4 (27:41):
Well, I think both sides, and I obviously like one
side more than the other, are are using the victory
to message in a way that you know, solidifies you
know what they're about. So if you're on team Lindell,
you're going the reason why they settled is because there's
nothing there and we were telling the truth the whole time,

(28:02):
and that that's that's true, But that's not the reason
why you have a settlement. You've got the Trump administration
that was royally screwed, and you're a vendor trying to
survive in a marketplace where Trump can do whatever he

(28:23):
wants for the most part, to NUQ into to orbit
and so dominions no longer dominion, it's liberty vote. It's
headed up by Scott Lindecker. A lot of Republicans have
argued that this is a good thing. You know, the
Republicans are control. And I think last time I was
on your show that like let's let's time out line

(28:47):
Decker was running elections in Kosovo owner the Obama administrations
aid Right and he was the chief overseer of, you know,
some of the technology that's the most vulnerable, the books
in particular, where we've seen people that have just appeared
out of thin air and are being checked in to vote.
And so he has been someone that has consolidated different

(29:11):
aspects of the election system, and with his acquisition of
Dominion and the rebrand, he has solidified control over just
about every moving part. So this is a terrible thing
for election security. Yet the psyop is he's Republican dominions dead.

(29:31):
And look, they put liberty in the name, so obviously
this is all about freedom, right, and so that's kind
of the it's easy to spot and if you're in
this world looking for subversions. So I see Liberty Vote
doing everything it can to ingratiate itself to the current administration,

(29:56):
to figure out who the insiders are that are part
of the Atto government. The swamp that's left in Siza,
that's left in Cis, that's left of the Department of
Department of Homeland Security, and I think they're trying to
thread the needle to live somewhere in the slime from
a regulatory framework that kind of looks like they are

(30:19):
going along with changes. So some of the concessions that
they may seem to be okay with, at least at
face value, is oh yeah, paper ballots. You know, of course,
we love the idea of paper ballots until you realize
that every single jurisdiction outside of Louisiana uses paper ballots.

(30:42):
Then you start getting into a discussion on well, there
are paper ballots that you hand mark, and then there
are those that are generated through a touch screen. So
how about we take one for the team and we
only you know, facilitate machines that use hand paper ballots.
We'll get rid of the QR code, all of the

(31:04):
controversy that was going on in Georgia.

Speaker 3 (31:06):
We'll go to a system.

Speaker 4 (31:08):
But you know, these these look like these are victories
for election integrity. And I'm here to tell you this
software subversion is so elegant that it doesn't matter like it.
You can be in a place that uses paper ballots
as long as you're running them through the tabulator there's
a vector for subversion. And even worse, I think the

(31:31):
cheat has migrated away from the tabulator those black boxes
to the processing of the election on the cloud on
the Internet. So it's like the black boxes are becoming
increasingly irrelevant. To where the person has power is whoever
has the integrated software in the state. Usually it's the

(31:52):
secretary of State working in tandem with a liberty vote.
In microseconds, they can overwrite the data. And even more
concerning is the AI singularity event. And I've written about this,
where AI is working at a clip that is so

(32:12):
fast that it's constantly programming and refining its programming. And
our only saving grace thus far on the election fraud
is that we've got experts that can identify patterns. The
human eye can detect those patterns and say, huh, this
is not natural behavior. Therefore we know that there's an

(32:34):
algorithm with with AI, David, it's like you're you're entering
into like quantum physics, an ability to display numerical data
in a way that will look natural, because it's like
these are equations that a man can even come up with.
And so when you've got like the terminator and how

(32:55):
talking to one another, figuring how do we we create
something that looks natural that's unnatural. We're there, and so
that might be the biggest con of them all is
how do we retain the machines yet look like we're
pliant and we're working with the Trump administration.

Speaker 3 (33:14):
I think that's where we're at.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
Wow, That's that's powerful, you know, and that this comes
on the I think probably one of the at least
the best feel good story that I've seen was, you know,
Tina Peters getting out of out of prison.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
And and doing her rounds, and.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
You know, it's just obviously her stories, you know, very
dear to me too, you know, with her son being
a seal and dying over in Iraq, and you know,
how does that piece because obviously she and for those
of you who are not familiar, she went to jail
because she took a copy of the hard drive out
of one of those machines at a county in Colorado,

(33:54):
much kind of similar to the Intrim County stuff up
in Michigan, although their result was not the person who
did it going to prison for it on just her horrific,
horrific the grounds of a judge that's just an absolute radical.

Speaker 1 (34:10):
How do you feel about her release? What does it
mean for the movement?

Speaker 2 (34:16):
And and you know, obviously I think Trump has you know,
been very vocal about his support for her. Is that
part of this overall strategy of some kind or how
do you evaluate it?

Speaker 3 (34:30):
Well, you know, it's like.

Speaker 4 (34:33):
I wrote and advocated for a much more ambitious and
effective way of extracting Tina Peters from prison by just
again you know, looking to the past, the civil rights
age where presidents deployed the army to force integration under

(34:55):
a civil rights paradigm. So the idea of tens of
thousands of troops being sent to escort you know, Medgar
Evers to enroll in school, like that's been done, and
so under that framework, ups like, look, she is upholding
the ultimate civil rights legislation to help America vote Act,
which it's civil rights legislation. Get her out of there,

(35:18):
You've done her federal pardon. Just get her out there
and let the courts fight over it. And they can
say that you're wrong, but are you really going to
put Tina back in? So that was really ambitious, and
people get really nervous when you start talking about one
sending the military to escort someone out of a prison,
but I went there. I think Trump left it on

(35:40):
the table, but he was likely exerting massive pressure on
the Colorado governor. Pol Us through likely and this is
me speculating, but I think there's some grounds for it,
pulling federal contracts left and right. So there were billion
dollar industries that have been ganked out of Colorado and

(36:01):
they were bleeding. And so the fact that Polus, of
all people, a Democrat, decided to commute Peter's sentence and
get sanctioned and censured by his own party speaks volumes
that it's not something you want to do. He's not
a good guy, but he did it. That took longer

(36:22):
than anyone wanted. And even the Patriots can't agree on
who a good guy is at the DOJ. So this
happened on Todd Blanche's watch. It didn't happen on Pambondi's watch.
There have been people that have been very, very critical
of both, including Blanche. But you know, at the end
of the day, she's out and it happened under Blanche's watch.

Speaker 3 (36:45):
So there's that.

Speaker 4 (36:48):
So what I'm looking at is, all right, she's out,
and I got to spend some time with her in
person at an event recently, give her a hug, and
and she I was worried, I'm sitting there going has
prison chilled her? Is there conditions on the parole release
that it's going to affect her ability to just swing

(37:09):
for the fences? And thank god, it's still the same Tina,
And in fact, she is swinging harder than she ever has.
And so the best thing to come out of it,
for my money, is the truth post that Trump put out.
He's got the picture of Tina in the Oval office

(37:32):
and what was in there rigged machines. I can't tell
you how much that means to me that he brought
up that, because I'll give you an example, like Benny Johnson,
you know, huge following had Tina on and they put
out one of their graphics of Tina Peter's prescription for
cleaning up elections, and it's okay, but it's not really

(37:53):
Tina Peter's prescription. It was created by whoever's behind Benny Johnson.
And you'll notice it's absent is any mention of the machines.
And so there's a sigh up where people are using
her because they can't deny that it's her time. So
Carrie Lake puts up a picture with Tina Peters and
he gets reshared thirty thousand times and everyone's supporting it.

(38:18):
Tina Peters told me this. I don't know if she
wants me to share this story, but I'm going to
do it. She got to go to a concert with
Ted Nugent, and Ted is a friend of liberty and
conservative politics. Well you know who else was there? Lauren Bobert.
No way, Lauren Bobert was there. And Lauren Bobert did

(38:41):
nothing for Tina Peters when she was incarcerated, none, nothing,
didn't raise a finger, didn't raise a finger, didn't speak
to it. In fact, she probably would have been just
fine if Tina stayed there for the remainder of her
sentence for seven years. But Lauren wanted to take a
photo with Tina and position herself to you know, like, look,

(39:04):
I was here the whole time. I'm so happy that
you're out. So it just shows you how shameless these
politicians are that not only did you encourage I think
that's the facts is that she encouraged Tina to take
a friends a copy. But as soon as Tina did
that and saw the consequences that Tina suffered. She cut

(39:25):
bait and she she didn't make her a staple of
her advocacy for the people of Colorado. She didn't stand
by Tina Peters. So Tina said, you'll have to run
it by my security team that was there. And if
you know anything about Tina's security team, they don't like
Lauren Bobert. So she kind of got the message that like,

(39:47):
this isn't going to happen, and sheepishly walked away. But
Trump putting that out there, it's like, Okay, there's still
a sig out within conservative ink where people are like,
let's give you the facade that we care about elections.
Let's use Tina, but let's never mention the damn thing

(40:08):
that got her in prison, which is the exposure of
not just machines, but machines that they proved that alter
twenty nine thousand election records.

Speaker 2 (40:19):
I for me, it's it's it's the focal point everything
converges in that act alone, right, which is I'm doing
my job that I'm legally responsible for. And then I
had the Secretary of State, you know that, you know,

(40:42):
trying to be as gracious as a Ken who's a
corrupt politician, right, that's given her the best, you know,
just went out.

Speaker 1 (40:51):
And then that judge, which was just I mean, he's
just an activist judge.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
I mean, my favorite was watching the hearing of the
next quarter above of just at this rate the lawyer
that they put up and she had no answer to
any of the questions, and it was just like, that's
the thing.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
You just see the blatant manipulation of.

Speaker 2 (41:13):
The law and how they read it, and and that
for me goes back to this idea of this article
two of what Trump in this national emergency.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
Which is what I believe it is.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
And I know you believe you were one of the
people that really convinced me the level of this, you
know that, and but yet nothing's being done, right I.
Man I, After we spoke, you know, I was able
to get Garland Favorrido on which was phenomenal. And it
was just coincidentally it was the whole raid with h

(41:47):
down in Georgia at the warehouse. You know, there's the
famous photo of Tulsi in the background on on you know,
and why would the Director of National Intelligence be there?

Speaker 1 (41:57):
And man, I was like, this is it? This is
the moment.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
You know, this is the thing they're going to drop
a civil rights case and national emergency case. It's coming
out of this and you know it's been crickets and
you know, you just you know, now with this COTUS ruling,
with the mail in ballots again, I'm i I too,
like you, I think will seet back to the kinetic

(42:25):
necessity of things in some context.

Speaker 4 (42:28):
I think the whether things go kinetic has always been
a foregone conclusion. It's it's just about mitigating how kinetic
it could get. And so you know, we've drawn the parallel.
I think we've discussed the idea of if Trump sees
the machines in twenty twenty, we didn't have an awakening,

(42:49):
So what you'd have as good souls getting caught up
with the orchestrated, funded radical left.

Speaker 3 (42:55):
Elements, and Trump would would have lost that war.

Speaker 4 (43:00):
Now you've got people, I think, and I think the
goal has always been eighty percent of the population to
see the truth tore at least at best, your average
American sits on the sidelines, and I think we've achieved that.
It's like, I think people are at least on the
side of election integrity to the degree that I am,
or they're uncertain enough that they're gonna sit on their hands,

(43:24):
and then all you're left with are the paid Antifa communist. Well,
the good news there is that Scott Thessent has tracked
their funding sources and they can use that in the
grand conspiracy case that they've got in Florida, you know,
and even the victories the crickets. It's like, look, let's

(43:45):
take stock of something. The former National Security Advisor of
the United States of America not only was arrested, he's
pled to the Espionage Act.

Speaker 1 (43:59):
Bolton.

Speaker 4 (44:01):
You know, if there's if there's something about reading a
man looks like he wants to save himself, and of
course he does. Okay, but the plea deal does not
seem to indicate jail time. It seems to be like
a two point two million dollars fine. And so you've
got a guy that's connected to everyone, that's been communicating
to everyone. So we can't overlook the fact that like

(44:23):
this is a heavy like Bolton's one of the worst
of the worst. I don't have to tell you this.
And my last piece, the last article that I wrote,
was this thing called Endurance, because what you just express
is exactly where I'm at, which is I don't know
if I can wait any longer, and I've circled the

(44:44):
fourth of July in my head for six months. Is like, okay,
this has got to be go time on some level.
And even wrote about the oddity of having an R
and C convention in an off here, which the Republicans
have never had. And so maybe this is hoping I'm
on my part, but I'm like, makes no sense unless

(45:04):
you've got massive vacancies. So I'm piecing things together with
a little bit of hope, but also, you know, I'm
not going to walk past the weirdness of what's going
on in the Trump administration. I think this probably is
worth hitting on, which is the Q phenomena which I

(45:24):
wrote on, and I try to give someone an entry point,
like if you're not a quote unquote que tard, Yeah,
this is what I think it is as a guy
that's not a Q guy per se. The White House,
the Department of War, every single Trump agency has gone
full Q in their communications. They're not hiding it. You know,

(45:48):
where we go one we go quantum. They're talking about
Q posting and so those are signals that shows me
that they are accelerating this idea of the military being
the solution. Now, if it's not true, it's the cruelest

(46:08):
joke that the Trump had been could be pulling on
the American people. And again we're at an article of faith.
We're like, either you're an idiot for believing in the man,
or perhaps we're do the greatest kind of fairy tale ending.
I choose the latter, and I'll keep speaking, hoping to
it as long as I can discern progress, even if

(46:30):
we're eking it out. But most of the obstacles and
heartache that you and I share our civilian courts or
systems that aren't built to imprison former presidents.

Speaker 3 (46:46):
That's right, you know.

Speaker 4 (46:47):
It's like, yeah, I get rico, I get racketeering. I've
done the cases and they work, yep. Perfect for the mafia.
I don't think, in my humble opinion, they work for
the Central Intelligence Agency.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
I mean, why would they?

Speaker 2 (47:02):
I don't my My the favorite one was Brennan is
suing the d o J to get records released, Like
I apparently that are some kind of in favor because
I know he's he's scared because they got Komy a
little bit going on something right now, and you know,
I I'm with you on all that. I and then

(47:23):
after we what we just saw with the birthright citizenship,
and I just I would love to get your thoughts
where you know you had, uh, you know Roberts, who
is obviously I think Roberts has been playing both sides
of defense for as long as as as ever. But
you know, you look at Amy coney Barn and it's like,

(47:45):
what are you talking about. Of Course, the woman who's
adopted two children from eighty is gonna you know, it's
gonna side with his birthright citizenship, and it's.

Speaker 4 (47:57):
Well all all while you know, just again this is
where you start getting into you don't want to read
everything as the op like yeah, yeah, yeah, but I.

Speaker 3 (48:10):
Can't help myself.

Speaker 4 (48:10):
There's times where my mind goes there and and I'm
just sitting there going right when she does this really
really bizarre decision. Uh, it's announced that she's got a
book deal where I think it's two million dollars in advances,
and many people that are in the know know that
the book deal advance is like the primo way for

(48:34):
money laundering, and so part of me is just sitting
there going Okay, is she being set up for a
spectacular fall? I think Roberts has always been someone that
you know, the conservative community has been, you know, we've
soured on since the Obama rule, the Obamacare ruling years ago.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
Well, for him, my favorite stuff is the stuff that
Mike Ben's discovered that he was going over sees as
a part of the election integrity, working with you know,
some top democratic you know funders and these NGOs and
you know, and he's I mean, it's like, of course
we're not going to get the support that we want

(49:17):
based on on on these people. I just don't think.
And then you know, the birthright citizenship for me, was
the whole thing. Leana.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
No, we're going to give you your voting block for
here and tell somebody codifies it in Congress with a
new amendment.

Speaker 4 (49:33):
Well, let's hit on that then, because you know, the
ruling comes out and it's clear that the understanding of
the founders and those that had to navigate our difficult
period of slavery was all right, you've got to have
some vested jurisdictional tie to the land.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
And so they recognize that, all.

Speaker 4 (49:54):
Right, slave slavery for all of its warts, They are
jurisdictionally tie to the land at three fists of a person.

Speaker 3 (50:03):
All right, So there's it.

Speaker 4 (50:05):
Wasn't the same thing as the idea of someone who's
got no legal ties to the ground whatsoever, coming in
and just having a baby. I mean, there was a
I think a Babylon b post where if someone gives
birth that an olive garden, they are now Italian citizens.
And it is it's that absurd. But the link to

(50:28):
election integrity and why again this helps build up that
article to husk that armor that we've been talking about,
is that the Motor Voter Act that was signed in
the law by Bill Clinton was the conduit for bloating
the voter rules, and it basically mandates that you go

(50:50):
and you conduct any DMV visit business, you are going
to be added to the voter rules as a matter
of law. And so when you've got twenty million illegal
and vats that come over the border, and perhaps you're
you're going to want to get a job, and at
a bare minimum, human resources can require a photo ID
to put in the you know, the copy machine. Maybe

(51:14):
they're not checking citizenship, but for purposes of payroll and
everything else.

Speaker 3 (51:18):
Unless unless it's purely cash.

Speaker 4 (51:21):
They've got to get a driver's license or they've got
to get an ID because a lot of these businesses
require them to.

Speaker 3 (51:27):
Drive trucks and drive you know stuff.

Speaker 2 (51:30):
You know.

Speaker 4 (51:31):
So with that in mind, you can see why the
decision by scot is such a terrible one for national security.

Speaker 3 (51:40):
Like if we get a.

Speaker 4 (51:44):
A hard and fast disclosure from Ode and I that oh,
we've speculated that it's twenty million, but in fact it
is twenty million. They're on the voter rolls, and they're
there because of the flaws in our system. Then again
you've got this huge national security concern where Trump sitting
there going wait a minute, I told you, I've warned you.

Speaker 3 (52:07):
So what I see Trump doing is.

Speaker 4 (52:09):
Effectively he is letting the Supreme Court justices back themselves
into a corner m hm, driving a spotlight on them.
And it's like, for better or worse, they had they
had the chance to do the right thing. But when
we get the d class, that really shows you how
big of a problem is. They're going to look like

(52:31):
a bunch of traders. And I think Trump's counting on that.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
That's a great assessment. I think you're right before we
wrap it up. Can you just talk a little bit.
You've talked several times about voter roles and how critical
that that piece of this puzzle is.

Speaker 1 (52:49):
I do know that the head of the Civil Rights
Division of d J Army Dylan right, and she's.

Speaker 2 (52:57):
Got active cases and acquired everybody to submit their state
voter roles in all of the blue states are fighting
back in court. Do you have any assessment of where
those cases are and how entrenched these states can be, well.

Speaker 1 (53:16):
They be able to shake them loose and get access
to them.

Speaker 3 (53:19):
I think there's a level of kfabe that's going on
with har Meet. I mean, like, look, I want to
pull forward.

Speaker 4 (53:27):
She's part of the Trump administration, but they are entering
into a flawed premise that somehow, even if you get
the legal wherewithal to purge the voter role, as Colonel
Sean Smith has said, it's like sweeping a dirt floor
because they're never off of the grid, they're never out
of the system. It's just a matter of someone identifying

(53:50):
the voter that needs to be purged and clicking invalid.
And you can do that in a microsecond. Well, likewise,
you can put them back on in a microsecond. And
so I've always been miffed, and now you know, I've
been doing this so long it doesn't really bother me.
But I love it when you know, Tom fitten Over
at Judicial Watch would celebrate a legal victory where they

(54:13):
remove seven hundred thousand people from the voter rolls, and
then I work with experts that look at those same
voter rolls three months later, they're all back on Oh
my gosh.

Speaker 3 (54:24):
And that's the work of Chris Jersky. I think you've
spoken with him. So you've got two camps.

Speaker 4 (54:30):
You've got people that are using tools to do what
Jersky's doing, which is, I'm going to identify the fluctuations
day by day by taking a snapshot every day to
show the insanity of that the legal decisions mean nothing
in effect, they have no practical effect on whether the
roles are being inflated.

Speaker 3 (54:52):
And then you've got the camp.

Speaker 1 (54:54):
Then I'm I'm in.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
I like the tool as long as you can spot fraud.
But it's not a solution from the standpoint of like
let's run an election and let's just stop catching people cheating.
You have to construct a whole new role and to
the best that you can you can effectuate create a
closed system architecture. And so this is like everyone, we're
going back to zero. And this is where the Save

(55:18):
America Act is important. Before you get back on the role,
you got to prove your citizen and you got to
prove you know that you're eligible to vote all these things.

Speaker 3 (55:27):
You got to have your voter ID.

Speaker 4 (55:29):
And at that point, I would like to get back
to the days of a filing cabinet with a key
that's only held by you know, the grumpy clerk, and
you're only going to be added to that role that
paper roll by virtue of showing up in person and
being vetted, just like you'd be vetted at a DMV.
You don't get a license until you show up in person.

(55:52):
So it's that kind of thing where like, yes, there's
a place for the tools the regulation of the cyber
but you know, anytime you're going to get into a
cyber fight where the chief cheater in elections is your
own government. It's like the Department of Home Security was
really the entity that was responsible for twenty twenty. They

(56:16):
always get the last touch of the keyboard, which means
they always win.

Speaker 3 (56:21):
We don't.

Speaker 4 (56:22):
And so you're not going to out cyber corrupt government agencies.
And so that's why when you look at the totality
of what we're talking about, you need to have a
military like commission where those treasonous seditious conspirators that were
part of using the government apparatus to rig and steal
elections are prosecuted, tried, put out to pasture, and then

(56:46):
you've got the opportunity to have something that looks like
something from the nineteen sixties or fifties. I mean, the
further you go back in time to better the system.
So when I talk about closed system architecture, you're just
trying to eliminate every vector where someone can digitally alter
the software. And so we want to get back to

(57:08):
the day where if you're going to commit fraud, do
it the good old fashioned way. Send your union thugs,
threaten someone that's in line. If we can get back
to that, or have just a corrupt clerk that's doing
things behind, you know, closed doors, I'll take it. But
we got to get away from this nation state thing
where some goon can click a button and your elections

(57:31):
are toasted.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Right, that was brilliantly put. Thank you, last little piece.

Speaker 2 (57:37):
Obviously, I know you pay close attention, but there's a certain,
I don't know, enclave of people that have grown weary
with Trump's inability to and their words follow through on
his campaign promises. You know, I think several of the

(57:59):
big ones obviously no new Wars US and Iran is
probably the biggest.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
That's caused a lot of problems with people.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
I think the doge cuts and you know, being able
to weed out corrupt practices that that people are uh
frustrated with that a little bit.

Speaker 1 (58:17):
Do you think Trump.

Speaker 2 (58:21):
This the election component based on everything that he's endured,
whether it was Russiagate or.

Speaker 1 (58:29):
Whatever. You know, all of the other uh illegal filings.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
Against him from Adam, whether it's his business or Eachene
Carol or whatever. All those those cases that you know
cost him, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars in
legal fees. Do you think the election thing might be
the thing he really wants to hang, you know, his
his legacy hat on.

Speaker 1 (58:56):
I get that feeling. I get the thing. It's it's
the you know, up soft palace coups come and go.

Speaker 2 (59:02):
It's a component, it's built in right, and you always
have corruption in government spending.

Speaker 1 (59:08):
It's built in as well too.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
I mean there's a lot of people just you know,
throwing the flag up that his family members are getting
wealthy off his own you know, his own business dealings whatever.

Speaker 1 (59:19):
But this, this is the thing, like, this is the
thing that's historical to be.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
Able to draw people back because, as you said, eighty
percent of the population. I think all the polls show
this is not an issue outside you know, it's eighty
plus eighty two percent of the US populations believes we
need to secure the elections with the day of vote
paper ballots showing id that it's not a problem. Is

(59:45):
this the thing that Trump could really hang that legacy upon. Well,
I think what Trump is doing strategically is he is
saving the most difficult occult issues to expose and educate
the public for last and because he needs psychological buying.

(01:00:08):
So he has been methodical on Okay Mueller hoax, check, crossfire,
hurricane check, impeachment hoax. And it's gotten to the point
where he has revealed how many there have been so
many hoaxes that he's been vindicated on the fine people
hoax that by the time you get to something that's
so complex to understand the architecture of people are like, like,

(01:00:30):
we get it, the government lies, they suck, like we're there,
like they don't even need to look at the manuals
to really dissect how they're being screwed over. So I
think there's an element of that. But I think the
true enemy and the true legacy is going to end
up being something that's even darker than the election stuff.

(01:00:52):
And that's difficult for me to say, cause that's kind
of my daily wig. Like I focus on this as
the issue, but there is a kind of unspoken.

Speaker 3 (01:01:03):
Club of.

Speaker 4 (01:01:06):
Elite bankers, financiers, and so for every you know that
that are truly the enemy, because you've got to have
the money to make the rigged election architecture go. And
so what Trump has done is he's actually way ahead
of what people think that he's way ahead, way ahead
of the problem. We're looking for the other shoot to

(01:01:30):
drop in the election apparatus, and he's already done the
more difficult thing, which is he has thumbed the nose
of Specter, the syndicate, the Rothschild family, the medicis the arsenis.

Speaker 3 (01:01:48):
What I'm saying is that.

Speaker 4 (01:01:50):
The stuff that's going on in the Middle East where
people can accuse him of breaking his campaign promises because
of you know, we're not going into war. He's not
going into a war torn conflict the way that people
think he is.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
And so.

Speaker 4 (01:02:09):
If your granularity of the subject is such that you're like,
Iran bad is Reel good, They're still fighting, we're expending resources,
then yeah, it's fair to say that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:25):
Trump did break his promise.

Speaker 4 (01:02:27):
But if you take a longer view and say, wait
a minute, I don't think Iran is even real. I
see them as a proxy that is benefiting the Bank
of England, Lloyd's of London, and that anytime a president
gets a wild hair that they want to get away

(01:02:49):
from the banker's spiderwebs, what have you, we will raise premiums,
will make moving oil vessels in the strait of hormone
is so painful that no matter what you think the
problem is with respect to elections, the gas prices are
going to be so high, your food prices are going

(01:03:09):
to be so high that it won't matter. And that
tool has worked on every American president, and I think
Trump's sitting there going okay. If I time this right,
I can take that tool away from them just in
time for the mid terms, and that's why it's urgent,
that's why it's got time right now.

Speaker 1 (01:03:30):
So what do you do?

Speaker 4 (01:03:32):
He said, Okay, wait a minute, Why does the Lloyds
of London have anything to say about ensuring our vessels
when it's the US Navy that's responsible for their safe
passage wherever.

Speaker 3 (01:03:47):
So he took that off the table.

Speaker 4 (01:03:49):
And I think we finally hit the point where gas
prices are coming down because he has defeated Voyds of London.
And so from a transnational you know, syndicate, from a
from a real life specter standpoint, it's so easy now
to connect the dots with elections. Venezuela, Iran's foreign minister,

(01:04:10):
was in Caracas, according to our our good friend, celebrating
the overthrow of Trump in twenty twenty. And so when
you see that all of these streats come together and
they have effectively not only neutralized the funding apparatus for
the elections, you know, we've we're in a position now

(01:04:31):
where they can't fight because they can't afford to fight.
And I think this also accounts for Trump's wild, wildly
inconsistent messaging, which is which is weird. It's like we've
we've won, and then he has a message to the
next day that something happened, and then it's like we've won,
we've got peace.

Speaker 3 (01:04:50):
We don't have peace. So effectively, what I think he's doing.

Speaker 4 (01:04:55):
Is just like people that are prone to insider training
insider trading, like to short the market.

Speaker 3 (01:05:00):
He is shorting the bankers.

Speaker 4 (01:05:02):
He is getting them to move all of the resources
based on his messaging only to undercut them. And he's
willing to look crazy and stupid as he is just
blood lending. I mean, we're talking about hundreds of millions
of dollars every day that that they're losing, and so
you're going to be left with this thing called Spector,
but it's going to be in name only. They aren't

(01:05:24):
going to have the financial wherewithal to to do what
they need to do come November. So I've been talking
quite a bit, but all this to say that, you know,
Specter is Specter for a reason. They're they're the shadowy people,
and so much of what we do as we focus
on Hillary Comy Obama, and they're not even mid tier players, not.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
Even not even Yeah. I just I'm so happy that
you you brought it back to that. You know, I
you know this this isn't this isn't uh what is it?

Speaker 2 (01:05:58):
This isn't checkers and it's chess, and you know, and
and I think I read a brilliant piece on on
that whole thing about how if you interrupt the insurance
of the shipping industry, uh, you know, it could collapse
the Bank of London and you know, and then that
starts to chain reaction all through what the what's the

(01:06:23):
system of payments overseas I forget what that was called,
but that can interrupt that whole thing. It goes after
the I m F. It can interrupt their loan debt ratios,
right and and and then he's you know, obviously you
know the FED. The FED war that's going on too,
is also something interesting, but that's definitely for another show.

Speaker 1 (01:06:47):
Professor.

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
I can't thank you enough for your time, uh, thank
you for flushing out all these topics and why they're relevant,
and also to bring people and their focus back to
the importance of I think the.

Speaker 1 (01:07:03):
Only thing that matters.

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
And you know, we're we'll obviously we're we don't have
time to drop it before the two hundred and fiftieth
anniversary of our nation. Perhaps you could just close a
little bit with what you got going on, what's coming
up for you where people can file, but also maybe
can we look forward to a piece you're doing about

(01:07:25):
the two hundred and fifty years of America.

Speaker 1 (01:07:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:07:28):
So, yeah, I'm one of these weird cats where I've
got the election stuff, but I've been challenged intensely on
just personal faith issues and spiritual issues where and I
feel silly talking about some of it, but I do
talk about it. So this weekend, I've got some amazing

(01:07:51):
people coming into my hometown and we're going to hike
to the top of a mountain. We're going to go
to the high places, and we're just gonna pray and
we're going to listen. There's a guy that's gonna come
plays the harp. I don't know if you ever had
a heart player. And we're all gonna you know, we
all want downloads, we all want to have direction for

(01:08:12):
this season. And so I don't know if you know
who Father Andre Mohanna is.

Speaker 3 (01:08:18):
He's one of these.

Speaker 4 (01:08:20):
Archbishop Viganot types where they are a blessing to the
Catholic Church because they're truly fighting for it, and they've
been fighting against pedophilia and child abuse and all those things.
And he fought against the edicts of the Church during
COVID and was effectively defrocked. And so he's a piece

(01:08:43):
a priest that has been stripped of all of the
things that he that he's supposed to do. And we've
developed a friendship. So I've got a very very deep heart,
even though I'm not big sea Catholic, looking for partners
in this battlefield of where can we unite quote unquote

(01:09:04):
Protestants Catholics bring them together, And I'm finding tremendous overlap
between people that really appreciate the reverence and the traditions.
And there's something about the old faith that draws someone
like me, even though I'm not Catholic, to confirmed lifelong
defenders of the Catholic Church that have been treated like

(01:09:26):
garbage by the church for retaining all of the beauty
that is there if you know where to find it,
if you can look past a Pope Francis. So we've
got this opportunity to bring some great minds together on
topics of restoring the church the ecclasia. And so that's

(01:09:50):
this weekend, and my next writing topic might have a
flavor of that. But most of the stuff that we
talked about today on those case decisions, I've got a
draft of stuff that I want to tie together, and
so I don't know how I can blend the two,
but that's that's part of it. But if people want

(01:10:10):
to follow what I'm doing, I've got a website called
the Professor's Record, and I've got little buttons for all
of the social media that I'm on, including substack and
substacks really where I support my family, and I've got
you know, a lot of people that are sponsoring the
show in an amazing way because all the content's free,
so it's like you don't get anything extra by paying

(01:10:33):
you You'll get it whether you want to help me
out or not. But I've been blessed to meditate on
these things. So anyone that wants to help what I'm doing,
come over to substack, subscribe, and if you don't want to,
you know, empty your wallet to share whatever I put
out there.

Speaker 2 (01:10:50):
Amen, Well we'll be praying for you and your team.
And that sounds like a really beautiful thing to do.
And to get that focus and to get that conviction,
just knowing that Christ is always with you, no matter
where you go, no matter what fight you're in. I
just commend you and we'll be praying for you.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
Doc.

Speaker 3 (01:11:08):
Thank you, David.

Speaker 1 (01:11:09):
Yeah, God bless