#335 Fraud, [S]elections & the Gatekeepers of the BIG Money w/ Walter Charlton & Draza Smith *sound issues resolved* - The State of Freedom

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(01:25):
Welcome to the state of freedom, everybody, where we are grounded in faith and theConstitution, and we are committed to the core principles of giving voice to truth, living
with courage, and taking action.
It is Tuesday, September 23rd.
It's 10 a.m.
Central.
I'm Danielle Walker, and I'm joined by my dear friend and co-host, Chris Alexander.

(01:48):
We are coming to you live on Voice of the People TV and radio network, Rumble X.
YouTube and Facebook if you're catching us later, you can listen to us on our podcastplatforms like Spotify Podbean and Apple podcast wherever you're listening or watching
Please give us a like a thumbs up and a share it helps us out Give us a rumble rant ifyou're on rumble comment in the chat.

(02:11):
We want to hear from you Well today buckle up We are going to be having a conversationabout the extraordinary extent of corruption fraud and treasonous actions against America
at the hands of installed politicians.
Let me bring on our guests.
Joining us today are two absolutely incredible and brilliant patriots.

(02:34):
Walter Charlton is 95 years young.
He's a Supreme Court qualified attorney.
He was also, until last year when he gave up his license, a CPA.
So he is uniquely qualified to understand the manipulation that has been seen in ourrecent election results.
And you know, Draza Smith, she was with us not too long ago.
She's an engineer.

(02:54):
She's a brilliant computer mind and she has figured out how they are stealing.
our elections.
Welcome, Walter, and Draza to the show.
It's such an honor to have you with us.
Absolutely.
It's wonderful to be here.
Thank you for having me.
get into it, sorry, Drazu, there might be a little bit of a delay, so we'll try and bearwith that.

(03:17):
But ah before we get into it, let me read the scripture of the day.
It is 1 Thessalonians chapter four, verses 11 through 12.
And it says, aspire to lead a calm and peaceful life as you mind your own business andearn your living, just as we taught you.
By doing this, you will live an honorable life, influencing others and commanding

(03:39):
respect of even the unbelievers, then you will be in need of nothing and not dependentupon others." And that's a familiar passage for a lot of us, but in this passage, Paul was
instructing the church in Thessaloniki on matters of personal character to keep thepromises they make, not to meddle in the lives of other people.

(04:00):
But unfortunately, this passage has been used by believers and even pastors as proof thatwe should not be engaged in politics or the governance of our country.
And I believe we've learned in a very clear and painful way over the last five years,especially that when the church ignores the political realm, it makes it completely
impossible to live a calm and peaceful life where we mind our own business because weleave a vacuum in that space.

(04:26):
And then we are governed as we have been by chaos, corruption, greed, perversion, and allmanner of insanity.
When Jesus talks about his church in the New Testament, he doesn't use the word church.
That's a later, that's kind of a later invention.
He used the word ecclesia, which is a governing or legislative body.
It's a political assembly that gathers and rules for the benefit of the entire society.

(04:50):
And that's what we are to be as a body of believers, ones who are engaged and determinethe direction of our culture according to the word of God for the benefit of our
communities and our nation.
We're not supposed to be people who gather in a building and never impact the people andthe society around us.
Yes, we are not supposed to exist, Danielle, in an echo chamber and keep our heads buriedin the sand, are we?

(05:16):
And St.
Paul's message today is certainly not that.
And the guests that we have on today know full well that election security and electionfraud in America is all of our business because it directly affects all of us.
And so I just want to take a second also to welcome Walter Charlton and Deraza Smith.

(05:39):
Walter has been an attorney for well over 60 years now uh and probably accomplishes morebefore 10 a.m.
than most people do, half his age all day long.
I was so impressed with our conversation yesterday.
And I don't know if you know this about Walter Daniel, because I don't know if youmentioned this yesterday, but I read it about him.

(06:01):
He actually sued the Federal Reserve and won.
ah And that is something I don't know any other lawyers who've ever done that.
Let's just talk about his skill.
And of course, Draza, who was on the show, as you said recently, uh both of these greatAmericans have been at the tip of the spear on election fraud in America and have done so

(06:21):
much work raising public awareness about really the system in which we are living.
ah Thank you both for joining us today.
Thank you so much.
Let me start here.
one second, Chris, Drazi, your sound is very low for me.
I don't know if it is for you, Chris.
Can you hear her?

(06:42):
um I can hear Drazha, but it is faint.
Okay.
But I can hear her.
Mr.
Walter.
Well I'm pleased to be here, I didn't mean to leave it at that, was letting Draza gofirst.
Oh, well, we're just so thrilled to have you both here together.
I want to ask a question to start off here, Mr.

(07:04):
Charlton, to you based on a conversation we had yesterday.
I want make sure I understood this correctly.
Many of the elected officials who are running our government in America now are notlegitimately elected by the American people.
Well, yeah, that's true, but that leads to a much uh larger question because you've got tobe a little precise with that.

(07:35):
If, for example, start with a proposition or a rule that anything fraudulent, and this issupposed to be the rule in the federal courts.
and so forth.

(07:56):
Anything fraudulent, any action fraudulent is void ab initio.
Now, so I hate to start with the Latin phrase but what that means is from the verybeginning.
Now, big problem.
Okay, since there's undisputed evidence.

(08:21):
at this point in time, or least overwhelming evidence, to the effect that the big cheathas been going on since at least the turn of the century.
Well, how do you un-
Unvote anybody.
How do you defrock them?

(08:42):
When half of them are dead by now, you know, it's it's weird
Democrat possibly still voting, Mr.
Walter, even if you're dead.
yeah, so the cutoff date is it's almost just got to be the cutoff start date Has got to bekind of an arbitrary start now what we did arbitrarily And I think draws actually made the

(09:11):
decision and it was a practical decision where does our data start and the data we startedwith was
think it's 1,499 days.
Is that correct, Draza?
I think it is.
Anyway, the last...
January 1999.

(09:32):
So that, so, so anyway, that kind of starts this off.
And then you get to the question, well, the people, dog catchers and the, and the, and thejudges where they're elected and the county commissioners and whatever you got all across

(09:55):
the country.
first cycle of these is long gone and the fraud, whatever it happened to be, if itexisted, is long, it's not over because it's continuing.
We've found the whole process continues from at least that start date.

(10:17):
And how I got started in it starts this up and I saw a presentation by Dr.
Douglas Frank.
and his data starts at the turn of the century.
Now, if this mess we got here starts at the turn of the century, who is legitimatelyelected and who isn't is a real hard problem for the Supreme Court among others.

(10:51):
So this is the environment we're walking into.
this discussion here today.
Now just to finish it off where we actually started, I picked the day of July the uh 4th,2023 as our start date.

(11:14):
And since it was a holiday, it actually started the next day, July the 5th.
And so basically everything that we talk about here today,
as that start date and the ending cycle for the particular problem you're talking about isa jillion different start and stop dates for every particular election you're talking

(11:42):
about.
And just to set the framework a little bit further, purportedly, all of the financialmatters
start with with the donations that are tracked the money coming in are tracked with theirdonations to the Federal Election Commission FEC for short who gets a what I would call a

(12:17):
shadow copy of every donation everybody made now so when you start with something likefraud
and you start with election fraud and you start with money, then you talk about tracingthe money or the best proxy for the money is the FEC data and all of the other data that's

(12:44):
available in state records and other records from checks and so forth that are supposed tobe...
Mr.
Walter, there's...
be audited.
Anyway, that's the environment we're in.
you
There's Mr.
Walter, there's a lot of interference coming from your uh feed.

(13:08):
Do you have maybe your cell phone near a microphone or something?
I do.
I'll tell you what, I'll unplug my cellphone.
If you just maybe move it away from your computer, would be probably, that might stop it.
Although it hasn't stopped it, it's still going on.

(13:29):
The devil hates here in the truth.
I know.
Sorry, I don't know where it...
Well, I got all kinds of stuff right around the computer.
Yeah.
It's okay, you can carry on.
was hoping that would be a simple fix, but it's all right.

(13:51):
Yeah.
Well, my sound system is, and I guess that's the input and the output, the sound system isalso sitting right next to the computer.
I can turn it down a little bit on the volume.

(14:13):
something.
Are okay?
Well, it's about the same.
Well, I haven't changed.
Damn, is that okay?
I think, I don't think it must be the thing that's interfering.
I'm not sure where the interference is coming from.

(14:35):
Well, hold it.
Here.
That's the...
That's my, uh, headset.
Okay.
yeah, that's better, way better.
Okay.
Beautiful.
Okay.
It's all good.
uh And usually I put my headset on because I'm hard

(15:03):
We got you loud and clear now.
Now, I am aware I left off, but what I tried to do was set to the moral spoke of all this.
of the fraud and in the FEC reporting and in the financials.
Thank oh

(15:24):
Okay.
It's still happening.
background.
I can give some some background on what he's speaking about.
I know at this point in time a lot of people have heard about the Act Blue slash Win Redissues that have been going on.
But the basis of it is that when when we started looking at the data, the FEC as Waltersaid, gets this shadow copy.

(15:53):
But what it is is it's reporting
of donations that people are making to any campaign or committee, which are NGOs, that arereceiving money from what should be individuals.
And when they receive these donations, these are not tax deductible donations, but they'resupposed to be reported for election laws to see where the money's coming from to make

(16:21):
sure.
that all of the money received is obeying election laws, that we're not receiving moneyfrom foreign donors, and that we don't have certain people donating more than their fair
share, trying to buy more influence and such.
And if that was all followed, that would be wonderful.
But what we found is we found incredible amounts of donations that came in fromindividuals listed as retired or unemployed or not employed.

(16:52):
that we're making thousands of donations, sometimes a day.
So the scope of this, it's being filtered through.
Now the FEC data only handles the federal elections.
So if you have someone running from Louisiana for a federal office, your Senate, or yourHouse seats, you would see that there.

(17:21):
You would have to look at your state ethics for the state contributions.
But we see that this happening in the state contributions as well.
So the FEC data that we're talking about with the huge numbers that we're talking about isonly for the federal elections and the federal committees, committees like Angie's List

(17:42):
that seeks to put pro-abortion women in office and judicial committees they're getting,
Spreadable amounts of donations filtered in from all over the frequency is what'sexceptional at like $12 and 50 cents a pop but when you when you have that coming in a

(18:05):
hundred times a month from each Individual and then it spread out among all theseindividuals all across the country.
It's like an army of ants
Yeah.
The first person that brought this to my attention called it Death of America by $12.56 adonation.
Just to give you an example, we pulled five donors.

(18:28):
So these are just five donors from each state.
So five donors from all 50 states.
And we added up the total number of transactions that they had made.
over the course of the last two election cycles.
And the five people, this is just five of the people that show this manipulation, which webelieve is donations being made in their name, not by them, comes to 2,287,227 individual

(19:06):
donations.
Five people from each state.
And the total amount that comes in then
is $36,346,308.
This was just a sample of five, and this isn't even necessarily the five largest donorsfrom each state.
We just did it as a sample.

(19:27):
So the magnitude of the money that's coming in and when people are spoken to andinterviewed, they say, it's not my money.
And some people are honest and say that they would be donating to these causes if they hadthe money.
But many people just don't have any idea whatsoever.
And it's a shocking amount of money that's being flooded into our elections and into theNGOs that provide support and advertising and whatnot for the election.

(19:59):
A question for both of you on this.
So you think about what we've learned and what's been uncovered by really by you, Draza,over the last um four or five years that uh not only, for instance, in the elections were
uh votes being inserted for Biden um or Kamala, but

(20:22):
Votes were also being removed for Trump.
So that leads me to the question of, you think the same, have you investigated as whetherthe same thing was happening for funds?
So we know that money was being inserted for these selected candidates that uh whoever thepowers that be are want to be installed into these political positions of power.

(20:48):
Were they likewise taking money?
away skimming money from candidates who are pro-constitution, conservative candidates, notviable candidates.
Has that been looked at?
Let me address that.
Because I think it's, this is kind of an audit and follow the money trail as distinguishedfrom the vote trail.

(21:15):
It's a different trail.
I think the answer, and draw a check on this, I think the answer is no.
It is not taken away because all we are, first of all you got to realize that this is.
The money we've tracked is not the real money itself.

(21:37):
It's a report of the real money itself.
Now that's supposed to be accurate, etc.
But it only goes one direction.
On the other hand, when you get into the other kind of cheating, the other 50 or 60 kindsof cheating, whereby, for example, in an electronic system,

(22:01):
They manipulate the totals, the electronic totals, and they switch from uh a conservativevote to a non-conservative vote.
Now what you get there is a double whammy.

(22:23):
That is, a switch vote is to be distinguished from a canceled vote.
A switch vote is you get two bangs for the buck.
And we had this discussion recently and that gives you enormous leverage in a couple ofways that maybe Draza would like to discuss in some more detail.

(22:48):
Because she's got the details, not me.
So we've discussed this several times and the important part about understanding that iseven if you have especially, this is especially important to Louisiana, this is
traditionally red state.
So if you have votes that are now being electronically manipulated, moving from the moneyto the actual votes,

(23:11):
If you have votes that are being manipulated, even if you have your conservativeproposition or your conservative candidate being elected, ah even if the past, what's
happening now is you have a psychological effect that your candidate, even if you get thisreally great straight guy, you know, bro, whatever, going to going up to Congress, now

(23:34):
they are responsible for representing their constituents.
They now have a mixed vision.
of what their constituents actually are.
So now if they perceive that their constituents are much more liberal than the actualcomposition, they have to be concerned for several reasons.

(23:57):
First, they have to be concerned that they're doing the right thing in representing theirconstituency, which may tamper down their fire and support of conservative values, even
for Louisiana.
They have to be concerned about reelection, which if they think that there are moreliberals that are voting, that may affect some of their behavior.
And then they have to also check that seat as a conservative seat.

(24:21):
And if enough votes are switched that it looks like it's closer to a 50-50, then that putsthem in a difficult situation just to protect the seat in general, even if it's not their
personal reelection.
So that would affect the tone and the background of the people that would be nominated forthose seats.

(24:42):
ah That you may not run someone as staunchly conservative if you believe that thecomposition of the voters is more borderline.
So it affects the psychology of the continuance even more than the actual event of theelection.
Yeah, that's an excellent point, Draza, that is rarely brought up.

(25:06):
Even when a conservative, a real conservative, a race, the margin of victory, if it'srelatively close, if the margin of victory is closer than it would be uh because of the
fraud, then that certainly psychologically can affect the way a legislator votes, the waya legislator governs, uh and uh even more broadly,

(25:30):
ah If you continue incrementally to increase the fraud, when finally the liberal wins therace, people are much less alarmed because the fraud has been incremental in nature.
That's the story of the purpling of Texas, if we're to believe that.
Mm-hmm.

(25:51):
Yeah, I think that is really interesting.
uh Draz, to get back to a point that you made a few minutes ago, and I know we discussedthis previously, but again, to reiterate, the people who are purportedly making these
donations on these online platforms, uh ActBlue, WinRed, and whoever else, but those seemto be the main ones, they are not...

(26:16):
actually making these donations and more often than not they're not even aware of thedonations.
And you know it just seems like and I was talking to Danielle and I know I'm going alittle bit out of order here but if this is occurring and these people do not know that
their names and identities are being stolen for purposes of these political donations um

(26:42):
At what point can we assume that the candidates themselves must be aware of this?
I mean, if I'm a candidate running for office and my campaign committee sees the characterand the nature of these donations, which are very suspicious the way you've described them
to us, uh at what point can we assume the candidates themselves must be aware of this?

(27:07):
ah I have heard some people say that the candidates are more aware of it.
Peter Berniger has uh been doing totals for different senators and house members and howmuch they have been receiving in this manner.
But it's not quite as obvious as maybe my initial discussion would have uh described.

(27:33):
because when you have this person making 100 donations a day, they're making the 100donations a day and extrapolating that out on the month to like 850 different campaigns
and committees over the course of that month.
So it's small donations that come in in a very fractured manner.

(27:56):
What we have found in order to avoid that kind of detection is that the people that we see
that are used in this very odd kind of identity theft, they usually have these donationsgoing to campaigns and committees outside of the state of their residency.

(28:20):
One particular lady that I looked at in Louisiana contributed over $100,000 in these smalldonations to over 800 different campaigns and committees
And the one campaign that she did not contribute to was the only sitting Democraticcongressman in Louisiana.

(28:40):
Doesn't that make them even more suspicious, Draza?
But they're coming in in these small donations.
So you would not see the same person in your campaign contributing all these times.
see 100,000, 150,000 people, different people donating with these small amounts.

(29:06):
And that encourages uh people to say that they have very broad support.
It lends itself to that.
sounds like like 90, like 80 or 90 percent of it coming in from people who don't live intheir state.
And one of the other interesting things that has uh come out of that is that when you lookat the criteria for being able to participate in, say, the national presidential primary

(29:34):
debates, they have criteria set forth that you must receive so much donations from so manydifferent states to show that you have enough support.
to participate in the national debates.
And this was one of the levers that they used to keep Tulsi Gabbard off of the primarydebates, if you remember when she was running for president on the Democratic table.

(30:01):
see you.
Yeah, absolutely.
Speaking of what we're talking about here, and I'm sure that you probably looked at this,Walter, and I'm sure you have, Draza, this very damning uh report by the House Oversight
Committee uh and Judiciary Committee from April of this year.

(30:22):
And it's difficult to imagine a more damning portrait of Act Blue uh and the corruption onthis platform.
than is contained in this report.
uh I mean, we're talking here about, I mean, apparently deliberate indifference to fraudthat's occurring right in front of them, an effort to minimize uh the disclosure of the

(30:49):
fraud, uh the effort to subordinate uh fraud prevention to DEI standards.
ah It's as though, I mean, it's like, and this report, but talk about the report.
Either one of you can talk about this report.

(31:09):
And also one of the things that jumped out at me, and I was talking to Danielle about thisthis morning, why does this report only include ActBlue?
Why does this report not include WinRed, which is the Republican platform?
to talk about that a bit.
ah

(31:33):
Chris, I would suggest that for an attorney, for attorneys talking about fraud, they hatetalking about fraud because it's such a complex matter.
It might simplify the discussion if you substitute the word felonies.

(31:57):
Here's what the truth of the matter is legally.
Every single deposit, whether it's 25 cents or $12.50 or $400,000, every transaction thatcomes in in someone else's name violates Sarbanes-Oxley.

(32:19):
It's a fraudulent, a chunk, a little chunk of fraudulent matter, information matter, thatis contained in the record.
Now, think about
is something, forgive me Walter, Sarbanes-Oxley is something so important for people tounderstand.
Can you give a definition of Sarbanes-Oxley?

(32:40):
Yeah, I can give just a quote from it.
Not a quote, specifics.
It is a felony that's five years in jail, or, you know, this is not a slap on the wrist,for intentionally placing any false information in any federal government.

(33:12):
Now, think about the FEC, for example.
They don't even have an audit.
There is no audit.
But, if you are auditing the FEC, you're not auditing money, it's merely shadow money,reporting, but it's a federal document.
And it purports to show the results that everybody uses on all aspects of the election.

(33:40):
Now that same principle, Sarbe is honestly covers it all.
It's any, it's not any election document, it's all got to it.
So that it isn't just the money flow we're talking about here, we're talking about theflow of information, all of which, including the psychology that Draza just referred to,

(34:05):
including the reports relied upon by media.
All of it is a whole bunch of hooey and you know I cleaned that up.
It's just false.
Every single item there carries with it and goes into jail for five years.
This is huge, enormous in terms of scope of it, magnitude of it, and the evil that flowsthrough this hole.

(34:38):
And again,
When the money goes in, that's a false, that's an identity theft, that's a whole otherbunch of felonies.
And when the money goes out, it's the processing of fraudulent money going in from Godknows who because you can't, you don't know where the money came from and it advances oh

(35:07):
sub-audit.
uh
semi-audited of all of this.
Two-thirds of the people interviewed.
uh in a small sample from Maryland, but it's everywhere.
Two-thirds of the people in the country said, no, I didn't.

(35:29):
I didn't donate that money.
I don't even know who did it.
It's not my money.
Now, whose money is it?
Well, you can bet some of us there's the source's money in there, and you don't need to.
so ginormous in magnitude almost any alleged violation of it is true.

(36:03):
This is not a hypothetical or theory or something.
This has enormous amount of evil of the money going in, the money going out and how it'sspreading around.
psychology of it drives everything.
I never said it was an act, blue audit, that the government picked at because you don'tknow who controls the government.

(36:35):
it's, Win Red, that's on the other hand, rises in for me, all of it.
And just as a, as a strange anomaly.
And I'm going buy some And going to buy some I'm going food.
And I'm

(36:57):
So, it wouldn't even have been in Act Blue.
They're in Wind Ridge.
And I think you just answered the question, Walter.
I think you just answered the question why Wynred is not being included.
it.
Yeah.
There's also a magnitude.
There's also a magnitude when you do look at the total number of donations through thewind red that appear to have this profile.

(37:25):
It is less.
ah So there is that.
But I think that a more fair assessment would be that the focus is on Act Blue because of
the people that have been willing to do the investigations and bring it forward to thecongressional committees were focused on Act Blue.
And then that was what they let the committees move toward the judicial and the House ofRepresentatives.

(37:52):
And what's even more disturbing is something that we um discussed yesterday on the phone,Walter, you laid it out for us, but the why, the why people are being installed to me is
one of the most disturbing pieces of this.
Would you get into that a little bit?
I was in on that conversation yesterday, but at the moment I do not recall what the whymeans.

(38:17):
Thank
why these people are being selected rather than elected?
Why are they being installed into these positions and what do they do when they get there?
you
You want my opinion on that?
Well, yeah, sure, this is not a certified public account opinion or a legal opinion, but Ithink it's an obvious common sense opinion.

(38:44):
The crooks are running the hen house.
and they installed who they want to install.
And it's got nothing to do with capability.
It has, it really has nothing to do with anything except, I mean, I'll say it, thecommunist of goddess.
The cartel in, it's just been disclosed that the Venezuelan cartel is, who's got more oilthan anybody else in the whole world and probably more money too.

(39:19):
They do what they want to do.
And you've talked about a scary thing.
Now that's a scary thing.
It's frightening is what it is.
oh
And these are the people you mentioned, these politicians, particularly the ones inCongress are the ones who are determining how our tax dollars get spent, who gets the

(39:44):
contracts for our tax dollars.
And so the web of corruption that you have laid out is just so vast that it's almostbeyond comprehension.
It is so bad.
uh I can tell you from this is not an audit experience, personal experience that I happento be there when starting the practice.

(40:16):
I know how it started.
If you want me to get into this at all, I do it quickly.
And this is also a nightmare.
So when I was starting the practice of law, was hired by the uh senior people, seniorauditors in the general accounting office, GAO.

(40:42):
And we set up or attempted to set up a class action.
And there was no such thing as computers at that time.
So.
We were told, we were taught, this is a long dissertation, but I'll try to shorten itdown.

(41:03):
In any case, in that year, and I believe it was in the years 69 and 70, but I'm giving youthat from memory, there were two bills passed in Congress where they removed...
the general accounting office which was the finest auditing organization maybe the worldhas ever seen at that time and some people in our firm we hired them because they were so

(41:31):
good and so forth but anyway they were getting
defrocked removed the seniors were because These two bills had taken the oversight and ofCongress out of the executive branch and moved it to the Legislative branch in other words

(42:02):
Congress was now the boss whoa
What does that do in terms of separation of powers?
It takes the people who control the money, Congress, and gives them audit-free leave to dowhatever they want.

(42:26):
So this is not, or was not at that time, at least to my knowledge, it was not a Republican
Democrat thing, it was a power thing.
Now where are we?
Well, everybody knows in the Washington area that congressmen go in poor if they can makethe cut to get there and every year it goes by they get richer and richer and richer.

(42:58):
Now, what has that got to do with what we're talking about?
It's got everything to do with it.
Because now we are at where we're at because of that.
Okay?
Sounds like I created a poem right there.
Whatever.
Now, Chris, I don't know whether that answered your question or not.

(43:20):
It's a great, it's an excellent answer, Walter.
In fact, I was talking to Danielle about what you just said before the show this morning.
And what you're saying here is, you know, the Fox is guarding the hen house.
And so can we not expect any real oversight of these this massive amount of money that isbeing

(43:47):
feloniously, to use your word, uh donated to these candidates ah on behalf of people whohave no idea that it's being done.
Will there be any oversight here?
uh And uh what do you expect to come out of this?
Well, let me just give you another little snippet that just makes it little bit worse.

(44:14):
This went before a wonderful guy named John Garrett Penn, a U.S.
District Court of the District of Columbia.
And Judge Penn, when he turned us down on the certification of the class, he said,

(44:36):
I'm sorry,
Sorry, that phone rang.
I'm sorry, but I have to deny this.
And the case went along for about five more years and some guys from Kansas City hired meand I did another set oh of discovery.

(45:01):
And I found out that...
There was a guy, a doctor, a PhD.
I've got to turn this off, hold on just a minute.

(45:27):
totally disruptive my chain of thought but I'll get it back.
Anyway, there was a doctor that I should take his deposition.
I took his deposition and he said all of the information that you were given by the GAOdefense team, which was DOJ, was false.

(45:52):
They had a personnel system.
All this time.
that so they lied to you about certifying your class.
This case went.
I'm gonna turn that...
I don't know who's...

(46:15):
I'm pretty sure it's not a female admirer.
I wouldn't be too sure about that, Walter.
So anyway, they went to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of ColumbiaCircuit under

(46:37):
chief judge who is of some fame at this point and they they did it in opposition and theybased on putting all the false information in that they first put it in in there and i

(46:58):
took it to the supreme court and the supreme court

(47:36):
Solicitor General's office, but I'm not gonna give it to you cuz I might get sued orkilled or worse.
Who knows?
They're just reminding you that you might not want to mention it.

(48:00):
There you go.
oh So anyway oh
The general accounting office and the DOJ did not oppose, they filed no opposition to mymotion before the Supreme Court saying that you've been lied to.

(48:23):
And they just decided not to answer it.
And I went to a supervisor there when this happened and I said, can they do that?
And the guy says, wait a minute, I want to check something.
And then he went in the other room and checked and I don't remember whether.
It was Supreme Court rule, operating rule, and everybody's got to oppose it except thefederal government.

(48:49):
You don't have to oppose it.
So they didn't oppose it.
And naturally, it was denied.
oh
some some years later
can't, I might be a bit out of sequence here, but in any case, I found out that when thislie occurred, uh nobody ever...

(49:22):
to it except one senior guy from the Department of Justice and they removed him from theCivil Division and put him in the Criminal Division.

(49:44):
So all of this stuff with lie into the Supreme Court, I've...
was allowed to file a supplemental brief in the Supreme Court saying it.
And I did.
And it's still sitting there, unacted upon.
Now, that is the process whereby the audit of all federal agencies effectively ceased.

(50:15):
And they adopted this silly idea of Inspector General's offices.
where you, and that always puts the guy who discovers something in the position of havingto fire his boss and the federal government.
So, so when you try to try to find the root of all of this, I mean, this, you talk about abucket of spaghetti, I mean, it's, it's like this all the way through everything.

(50:41):
And I wish our wonderful president, Godspeed in fixing it.
Yeah.
it is not an easy task even if they want to.
And believe me, most of them don't want to.
so it just explains how we got to where we got to somehow.

(51:03):
Yeah.
So you're saying there's probably not going to be any assist.
It's unlikely you're saying, Walter, that there will be prosecutions associated with thisfraud.
It's unlikely that there will be an in-depth, thorough ah audit of these contributions,where the money's coming from.

(51:27):
You're saying we're just unlikely to see that because
ah the oversight responsibility has now been shifted ah to the very branch of governmentthat is participating in it and benefiting from it.
Well, I think that that's part of it.
Yeah, I would disagree a little bit because I think I don't want anybody to get the ideaI'm saying this is an unfixable problem.

(51:55):
It's a fixable problem.
But how you fix it is you must look about the legislative fix.
You've got to have a change in the laws.
You've got to have the restoration of the separation of powers.
And in the separation of powers, you have to have an effective audit branch of thegovernment, same as you've got to have an effective FBI.

(52:23):
I mean, the idea of the FBI being under the DOJ is also ridiculous.
Because who?
Who then in the DOJ do you put in jail?
And who's going to do it?
you told us yesterday, as you told us yesterday, Walter, which I didn't know before youtold us this, there was a period of time when the FBI in this country was totally

(52:46):
independent from the Department of Justice as it should have been.
Well, it wasn't as totally free as it should have been, but...

(53:09):
Anyway
that's where we are, it can be fixed and the election can also be fixed.
but it requires, shall I go into this now?
This is short and I apologize for the interruptions.

(53:34):
The next election has got to be paper and pen and paper and an electric editing machinewith a paper tape on it.
And that's all in terms of who wins.
Any electronic stuff with the corrupt systems run by Dominion and ES &S and the...

(54:01):
as well as cartels is doomed to failure.
can't and no correct system can be installed quick enough.
The first thing you have to do is you have to do a total audit on all the electionrecords.
I mean the voter registration records because they're all corrupt too.

(54:25):
The dead folks are there and the out-of-state people are there and
I don't know about forgeries, the fake everything is there.
So you gotta have an, this odd thing that's missing is really, really important.
And it is proven by the old data processing adage, garbage in, garbage out.

(54:52):
And what the garbage starts with is the motor roles.
oh
I mean you can re-add them a million times, a million different ways, if they're wrong tostart off with, you'll never get them right.
So you must have that, and the old auditor like I be uh knows how to do that.

(55:13):
And so do a whole bunch of the old time guys, unless they've all gotten recycled out.
So there's that that has to happen, and then after that happens,
you're able to enter into a semblance of reality over a period of time, again supervisedby audit, meaningful audit, and criminal, criminal penalties enforced by a separate branch

(55:53):
of government.
You can't...
You can't do it without the independence of all of these functions functioning together.
But we don't have a choice.
If we're going to have a country, and we're going to have a country based upon fairness,we can't let the fox run the hen house.

(56:23):
You just can't do that.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
And how do you even know who the fox is?
Unless it's, unless it's pulled off that way.
And when we know all of this has been going on since the turn of the century, it'sappalling.
Dr.
Frank said to me, I said, Doug, where does Maryland stand in this category of

(56:54):
fraudulent states and Doug says, Warner, you guys are number one.
I said, what?
And that's how I got into all this.
said, that's good.
you know, oh what they're saying is that we cheat better than anybody.

(57:20):
When you look at the scope of this problem, it takes a lot of people for this machine tooperate, this fraudulent, felony-ridden machine to operate.
How many people, what percentage of the population do you think is in on it?
opinion on that.

(57:41):
again, this question could be easily answered with a nationwide audit, with all of thehorsepower and people available to do that.
But as a guesstimate, you've got to separate that question into two parts.

(58:01):
How many people are in on it and running it?
And how many people are
benefiting from it, knowing that it's corrupt.
And then you got the victims, which is all of the rest of us dumb folks that don't get ityet.
See?

(58:22):
We're the victims.
And how could anybody ever figure this out?
I don't know, but I'm gonna answer the question.
I would say the...
The governing class Soros and his friends that are making jillions of dollars on this islike 1 % or 2 % of the people.

(58:44):
The people in the Venezuela cartel and all of the...
supervisors and so forth in the Dominion machines and the ES &S machines and the printerswho print the forged ballots and the whole and change the forged ballots when they're told

(59:08):
to change another 10,000 so I can pop them into Louisiana next week.
oh I guess they're probably another
10 percent maybe of the population, counting the people that somehow their their daughterfound out about it from from daddy or something.

(59:31):
oh
And the rest of the people, like all the people that draw us interviews, the ones shelocated from the high volume stuff and that we actually, I'm not talking about those, I'm

(59:55):
talking about the people that really know that somebody's fooling around and manipulatingmy...
bank account, not my bank account, but the record of my bank account, there's probably 20% of the population.

(01:00:15):
Now what are we up to now in total?
Is that about 40 %?
Something like that?
Wow.
well over 30.
Whatever it is, it's a whole lot of people.
And if you talk about, if you talk about the typical one of these low level implementerswho are still, every time they put one of those false dings into the mechanism, it's

(01:00:41):
another five years for me, okay?
and Senates.
It boggles the mind.
But that's the way it is.
And recently I made a comment that I think that the last time the President of the UnitedStates or the Supreme Court or anybody had this kind of a decision to make was right at

(01:01:05):
the end of the Civil War.
What are we going to do with all the traitors we just beat?
Is that what Walter, is that why your Rico action?
How long has your current Rico action uh in which you are alleging this voter fraudconnected with this campaign finance money laundering on all of this?

(01:01:26):
How long has this been this Rico action been pending at the U S Supreme Court?
well, I don't remember.
What is it, about a year now?
Taraza?
I don't remember.
been about a year, it's still sitting there, but it's not been ruled on, so it's an activecase.

(01:01:50):
that long.
Not quite that long.
That's not quite right.
At the Supreme Court level, it's only been at the Supreme Court level for about three
Three months, okay.
months, okay.
All right.
let me say something to clarify the current status of it there.
Because of my sad experience that I just talked to you about, about the odds of 750 to 1and not having any money to do the $15,000 worth of printing of the booklets and the

(01:02:23):
appendix and all that stuff, I decided that I'm not gambling in that game.
with my own money, even if I had that much.
see, just roll with it.
So we filed a petition for certiorari and it cost 100 bucks.

(01:02:45):
But we also filed a petition for injunctive relief for immediate and irreparable harm thatcosts nothing.
And you didn't have to file according to the...
printing rigs, you didn't have to file these funny shaped booklets and all that cost ajillion dollars to print.

(01:03:13):
And so we filed it in regular paper.
The clerk's office rejected it on the grounds of the formatting of our briefs.
And we never even...
We don't, I don't want them to vote on whether we have standing or not.

(01:03:34):
Cause you don't have to have standing in a petition for, in a petition or an injunction.
So it is now kind of in limbo because there is no cutoff date, limitation of when you haveto do injunctions.

(01:03:59):
immediate and irreparable harm, as we all know, is continuing.
And there's no limit.
And that's good, because every week that goes by, Draza and her cohorts, and all the otherpeople around the country, the heroes around the country like her, find a whole new bunch

(01:04:27):
of ways they cheat.
And this body of knowledge, I mean that snowball's rolling down the hill and we'repushing.
That's where we are.
uh
this, Walter.
Doesn't the government have to at some point file an answer on an injunction?

(01:04:49):
they have to answer it but how are going to answer it when everything we're telling you istrue the only way they got out of this all this stuff with what's his name Chris the other
Chris in Wisconsin uh, Bernager uh, he's won some cases and all but uh

(01:05:13):
Everybody else almost has been thrown out on the grounds of you don't have standing toraise this question.
Well, why don't we?
Well, I don't know why, we just don't.
And this is one thing we're gonna address in our next filing which is coming up as soon aswe get there.

(01:05:35):
Soon.
Wow.
Well, it is extraordinary that it sounds like you've laid out the evidence.
The evidence is there before the United States Supreme Court, and it sounds like it'sabsolutely damning.
And Walter, you said a minute ago that this will be a very difficult decision for the U.S.

(01:06:02):
Supreme Court to decide on this case.
Will it be difficult because
They don't understand the nature of the activity that's going on here, or will it bedifficult for them for other reasons to make a just decision?
say other reasons.
And the other reasons are we don't have jails big enough.

(01:06:29):
not only that, some of these people that are doing, you know, are the 30 % of thepopulation that know this is all corrupt and crooked, I mean, what are we going to do with
them?
We can't put them all in jail.
There's too many of them.
True.
That's a big, that's a real serious problem.

(01:06:49):
And not only that, you're not going to change their cuckoo heads that think wrong just bysaying you're wrong.
I mean, this whole situation is very, very serious in terms of actual solution to itwithout huge bloodbath of some kind.

(01:07:10):
And Walter, what advice do you have for us then?
For us and our viewers, our listeners, what action can we take?
Because it seems like we're literally being held hostage in our own country.
It's absolutely true.
I used to install computer systems, design and install them.

(01:07:32):
I have not installed it.
I know how to do this.
A lot of accountants and engineers and bankers know how to this problem.
I know how to fix it.
But you can't do it by the time of the next election.

(01:07:52):
So what you have to do is we have to have a paper ballot controlled election with the oldhand CPA methodology that worked for 200 years.
It'll work for one or two more elections.
And during the next one or two more elections, you build, you must build up a bulletproofblockchain uh electronically controlled

(01:08:22):
independently audited system that is good for the next thousand years.
oh
No, I think you've answered it.
And as a follow up to Danielle's question, Walter and Daraza, feel free to jump in here aswell.

(01:08:44):
Speaking of the paper ballot system, the secure serialized paper ballot system, from ourperspective, President Trump, Tulsi Gabbard and others have been extremely clear on their
desire that we move away from machines to secure serialized paper ballots.
ah This is for both of you.

(01:09:05):
What is the likelihood of that occurring and if so, when?
You asking me or trust it?
free to answer that Walter, I'd like to know.
I can jump in real fast and then I'll let Walter finish up.
ah I don't see a lot of uh support from the people that actually run the elections to makethis happen.

(01:09:30):
So I believe that if that is going to happen, it will have to be forced and there willhave to be an executive order or something like that issued.
know that.
uh
Colonel Reynolds was on your show and was discussing the possibility of that.
And Peter Berneger has been discussing the possibility of that.
I have no insight into that, but I think that that would be an absolutely beautiful thing.

(01:09:56):
It would not only allow us to be free of uh the fraud that we have seen, but it would alsoallow us to get a better picture of
the bend of the actual American opinion.
Draza, percentage of the American people ah do you believe, if you have any way of knowingthis and Draza answer, uh support uh a paper ballot system as opposed to machines?

(01:10:32):
don't have any idea, but I also say they don't have any choice.
There's only one viable answer in our existing situation.
And it just has to happen.
there should be no debate about whatever.
It should be an executive order or oh

(01:10:55):
judgment order of the Supreme Court after declaring some kind of emergency that this hasto happen.
And then the next step can proceed in the building of a correct and viable system.
uh
I have a patented system already that's been in functioning, that is the patent's beenalive for two years regarding, of all things, identification and suppression of terrorists

(01:11:30):
wherever they are in stadiums and in school rooms and everywhere else.
And it's an existing patent right now.
Show you a shot of it,
Sounds very intriguing.
Well, Danielle and I here, and I know a lot of other people are aiming very, very high.

(01:11:52):
And what a great day it would be if President Trump comes down with the executive order,shutting down this fraudulent machine-based voting system, and then not long thereafter or
within proximity of that, the U.S.
Supreme Court rules favorably on your case.
at the United States Supreme Court.

(01:12:13):
Now that's a day where I'll have to pinch myself to believe that I have not transportedmyself to the blessed Isles of Ever After.
But I certainly believe that it can happen.
uh Walter, uh by the way, Walter, my wife asked me to ask you before you go, what is yourdietary regimen?

(01:12:34):
Because she, because you seem to idle faster than most people half your age.
run.
ah And so we need to adopt whatever dietary regimen you're engaged in.
What is it?
Well, I have a couple of secrets, okay?
When you say dietary, you're using too narrow a regimen.

(01:12:58):
The first secret, the first thing you do is you appoint a very, very genetically powerfulmother and dad.
Yeah
And believe it or not, I've got two more brothers.
I'm the eldest.

(01:13:19):
But they're also in the same kind of shape.
And my mom died at the age of 99 and three quarters while she was still paintingportraits.
amazing.
excellently.
Now, in terms of diet, am also, because of that genes, am genetically able to handlealcohol.

(01:13:50):
And I have a lot of my drinking buddies that have all died by now.
Many of them from alcoholism and related deeds.
Now, that's a start.
And then I eat everything that I want to eat.

(01:14:12):
And I try to maintain my weight with a minimum of effort.
It just stays this way.
So you eat whatever you want.
Yeah, we have a lot to be jealous of.
So Walter, you basically uh eat whatever you want to eat.
You're uh allowed to drink uh some alcohol because apparently genetically you are, youknow, perhaps it doesn't affect you the way that it may affect others.

(01:14:41):
What?
that in moderation.
I to say, I've always done that in moderation.
at point I do it in moderation because I find that one of blessings I have is I gethorrific hangovers.
I don't like to have a hangover.

(01:15:03):
I don't...
much for sure.
Oh wow, what an amazing human being.
What an amazing American you are.
I appreciate it.
God bless you, And God bless you, Draza, for everything that you do.
We're gonna be keeping an eye on the case moving forward, and ah let's hope and pray forgood results across the board.

(01:15:27):
And we hope to have y'all both back on very soon.
Thank you.
By that time, I'll have my phone rejiggered here so that it don't
Well, one of these days, uh, we're going to have to have a glass of wine together, Mr.
Walter and talk about all this stuff.
And I'm just going to sit there and listen to you.
And I'm not going to say a word because you probably have experiences in your life that,um, the world needs to know about.

(01:15:55):
And I would love to know about.
certainly do.
I'm even thinking about writing a book.
I've had more fun than most people.
I've been married three times and outlived all of them, although we also all had a divorcebefore that.
Do you have any current prospects?

(01:16:16):
I don't know, it might be the one on the phone.
Yeah, I almost felt bad.
I almost felt bad during the show, Walter, because I thought it might be a girlfriendcalling or something.
And I'm like, I felt bad you not being able to answer.
So make sure you return those calls when we get off.
seeking applications for a girlfriend.
How's that?
God bless you both.
good.

(01:16:37):
Thank you.
And we look forward to having you back.
It's such a gift to speak with you both today.
Amazing, Chris.
Absolutely amazing.
You know, when we were listening to Mr.
Walter speak uh about the, not only the fraud, but the institutionalization of the fraud,I couldn't help but think about our own legislative session this past year where our

(01:17:08):
legislators drew up this long campaign finance reform bill, probably 60, 80 pages long,where they uh
created a very nice massive loophole for foreigners to be able to donate money to theircampaigns.
I was just wondering if that's something that would surprise Mr.
Walter or if it was something to be expected.

(01:17:32):
I would suspect, it probably wouldn't surprise him.
Corruption tends to seep downhill.
uh And I would imagine that that would probably not surprise him.
But that is very apropos that you would bring that up.
uh Not only uh did they uh carve out a loophole in the bill that was passed, the ethicsreform bill that was passed to allow for foreign donations, but they killed on the Senate

(01:17:57):
floor a bill that would have
eliminated such foreign donations entirely, would have put a stone wall up between foreigndonations and our elections or campaign propositions in Louisiana.
And you and I couldn't figure out exactly what's going on here.
Why will they not call this bill?
Why would they not call this bill?
And then we looked at the bill that did pass and we're like, well, this looks pretty good.

(01:18:19):
This looks pretty good.
They can't do this.
And then we found the loophole and sure enough, and therein was the answer for why theykilled the other bill by any spell on the floor.
Yeah, because they needed WinRed and ActBlue to work for them, just like it's working forthe feds.
Absolutely.

(01:18:40):
And uh in this congressional report that I just cursorily read this morning, Act Blue hasbeen implicated not only in domestic felonious donations, but foreign felonious donations
as well.
So it does tie in here very cleanly for sure.
But Danielle, um I'm just amazed that on a personal level that

(01:19:07):
We have a 95 year old man here who is still litigating cases.
It's like we have no excuse.
not small piece- not small piece cases either, this is not a traffic violation we'retalking about.
This is not a traffic violation we're talking about exactly.
it was just it's such an incredible pleasure to have him on.

(01:19:30):
And I think he did, Danielle, answer the question maybe a little bit indirectly as to whywhen Red uh is not being uh implicated to the extent that act blue is perhaps the fraud is
not on the same level as when Red, but it clearly exists.

(01:19:51):
And Peter Berneger included WinRed in his report uh and even included Louisiana publicofficials right here in Louisiana who are implicated in it.
uh but the reason I think why Act Blue is not included in the congressional report that'sso damning or why WinRed is not included uh is precisely because we have the Republican

(01:20:15):
Foxes guarding the Republican henhouse.
uh
party.
It's all the same beast and it's two heads of the same beast.
And that's just a fact.
And, you know, one thing that came out in our conversation with Mr.
Walter Andraza that I think is particularly interesting is an answer to a conversation Iwas having with your wife, Katie, yesterday, which is she was saying that she really

(01:20:41):
believes that a number of politicians, even at the local level, even at the state level,
would have to be in on the election fraud.
And I wasn't 100 % convinced, you know, because I think there's a lot of useful idiots outthere.
But I, you know, I don't know that they're 100 % read in or read in even percentage wise.

(01:21:04):
But based on what Mr.
Walter said, they are read in.
At least they understand what they're doing.
They understand the implications of what they're doing.
They are in some way aware.
You're talking about state level public officials.
Yeah, I would say that that is correct.

(01:21:28):
And I would say that whether you're talking about on the state level or on the federallevel, I have a difficult time believing that these campaign committees and by
implication, the candidates themselves, if not actually the candidates themselves, have
either actual or constructive knowledge of what is going on here, ah because of the natureand the character and the frequency of these small donations over and over and over again.

(01:21:56):
I think you'd have to be really as dumb as an ox not to know that something is not rightabout all this.
Now, if all this, when this breaks out, which is starting to do now, if there are criminalprosecutions associated with this,
They're going to say that, we're just the candidate.

(01:22:17):
We don't really know uh anything about what the campaign contributions are that come in.
We're running for office.
We're here.
But at some point, you have to assume and be able to argue that the candidates themselveshave some nexus to this.
And that is what I was trying to get out of Mr.
Walter.

(01:22:38):
Well, if I'm trying to think of an analogy that, you know, would uh correlate to this, andI can't come up with a good one off the cuff right now, but we are responsible for a great
deal of things that we sign away.
know, like if you, the amount of data that we sign away whenever you get a new phone orwhenever you add an app to your phone.

(01:23:03):
You you agree to those long terms of service.
Something tells me that the long terms of service when you apply to be a candidate withthe secretary of state or with the FEC or whoever you actually apply to on the federal
level, something tells me that you do own ultimate responsibility for the management ofthe funds that come into your campaign, for your reporting of those funds.

(01:23:28):
I don't think that you can just get off scott-free because something was happening on amass scale that you weren't aware of.
maybe that is the case.
Maybe a lot of people will get off scott-free for that, but I have a hard time thinkingthey will.
And I do think that some of them are deeply in on it because as you and I were talkingbefore the show, Chris, there has to be a reason that

(01:23:52):
the elected officials that we see in so many places and some of the names that come tomind, Stacey Abrams, Letitia James, Latoya the Destroyer, these people do not operate as
if they are beholden to the people, their constituency, right?
They operate completely with disdain and as if there will be no consequences for theiractions, even when words like, um

(01:24:22):
indictment are brought up, they act as if they're completely and utterly untouchable.
And the only reason I can think that they would act that way is if they knew that theywere untouchable.
Very good point, uh which is why it is so important that there be action on these issues.

(01:24:43):
mean, criminal action on these issues from the top levels of government.
Whether Pam Bondi uh is able to do this, whether she has the gravita to do it, uh whetheror not a special counsel will be appointed to investigate all of this.
And even quite frankly, whether or not President Trump uh has the appetite to move forwardspecifically on these fraudulent uh financial donations uh relating to both Republicans

(01:25:15):
and Democrats, we'll see.
ah But clearly it is a massively important issue with millions of American citizens havingtheir identity expropriated ah and purporting to donate money to
millions of dollars uh net to candidates and they don't even know that it's being done.

(01:25:39):
And that to me, as Walter said, anytime you file something with the FEC that is false,there are potential civil and criminal consequences associated with it.
I think that it's an issue that really demands real investigation from the JusticeDepartment and real justice.
And I'm not limiting it to the Democrat Party.

(01:26:00):
Both parties are culpable here.
And all you have to do is read Peter Berneger's report.
100 % and I think this is also very, very right for class action lawsuits because a lot ofidentities have been stolen.
lot of people's um first amendment right has been violated by uh using fake money or usingreal money in their name.

(01:26:27):
So it looks like they are speaking with their money in support of something that they arenot.
Great point.
The First Amendment, Danielle, uh not only establishes the right to speak and speech isalso in the form of action, political action, political donations, but it's also the right

(01:26:49):
not to speak.
It's also the right to refrain from speaking.
And when people are not voluntarily exercising their speech in the form of thesedonations, in fact, they don't even know that it's being done with their identity, that is
a violation of their First Amendment constitutional right of speech.
That's an excellent point.
uh And I'm glad you brought that up.

(01:27:12):
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, do you have any other thoughts you want to share on that?
If not, can get to our announcements.
I'm just excited about having had these folks on.
I know, they're amazing, absolutely amazing.
And apologies for the interference, the sound interference.
Got it figured out about 40 minutes in what was going on, but we'll get it sorted out.

(01:27:33):
And if you want to listen to the beginning of this again, we should have hopefully a cleanversion of this uh out on audio and probably on YouTube tomorrow.
So we'll try and get that cleaned up for everybody.
But join us again tomorrow.
I will be on uh at 10 a.m.
Central for the Love of Freedom.
We'll be hosting Professor David Clements.

(01:27:54):
He'll be joining me to talk about what's driven him to be such a warrior for truth.
He'll be talking about his new podcast, excited to have him.
And then Thursday, Chris and I will be joined by some Louisiana natives.
Jason Guillory and Brandon Trostclair participated in the Secretary of State ElectionMachine demonstrations.
So they'll be coming on and talk about what they saw and learned at the dog and ponyshows.

(01:28:18):
And I don't think we will want to miss that.
exactly what it was and you do not want to miss this because these guys were there, theysaw it.
I cannot wait to discuss that with them.
All the machines.
and one more announcement.
We the People Buy You community, as many of you know, I'm a part of, is hosting a CharlieKirk Vigil for those in the area of Terrebonne on Sunday afternoon.

(01:28:42):
If you're interested, you can go to WTPBuyYou.org to reserve a seat.
But I think that will be an amazing time of community and reflection.
What a powerful, powerful impact Charlie Kirk had.
uh Don't forget to donate to the state of freedom.
Don't forget to share the state of freedom with at least one person today.

(01:29:04):
Don't forget to subscribe to the state of freedom and also to support LCAG because we aremoving the ball down the field, working hard to get the word out.
Knowledge is power.
Never forget, knowledge is power.
Help us expand our voice.
That's right.
Awesome, Chris.
Well, I will see you back here on Thursday.
Talk to you soon, God bless you.

All Episodes

#335 Fraud, [S]elections & the Gatekeepers of the BIG Money w/ Walter Charlton & Draza Smith sound issues resolved

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#335 Fraud, [S]elections & the Gatekeepers of the BIG Money w/ Walter Charlton & Draza Smith *sound issues resolved*