#338 Moving Toward Accountability? w/ Matt Meck

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:56):
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the state of freedom where we're grounded in faith and the Constitution, wherewe're committed to the core principles of giving voice to truth, living with courage, and
taking action.
It's Thursday, October 2nd, hard to believe.
It's 10 a.m.
Central.
I'm Danielle Walker, and I'm joined by my good friend and co-host, Chris Alexander, who'sdoing all this.

(01:18):
Yeah, hey, good morning, Chris.
We're coming to you live on Voice of the People.
USA TV and Radio Network on Rumble, X, YouTube and Facebook.
You're catching us later.
You can listen to us on our podcast platforms like Spotify and Apple and wherever else youlike to catch your podcasts.
ah And we would love it if you'd share, give us a like, give us a thumbs up, leavecomments.

(01:42):
We want to hear what you're thinking.
Joining, yeah, during the show as well, absolutely.
ah And joining us today is our friend Matt Meck.
He's basically been with us from the beginning of the state of freedom.
And if you're ever wondering why we have such great guests, it's the grace of God and MattMeck.
Those are the two primary ones responsible for the amazing guests we have on this show.

(02:08):
Matt, as you know, is involved with a lot of election integrity efforts and he is the hostnow of On Tap with Patriot Party News on Rumble.
uh
I know I left out a lot of uh the things that you are involved in, so you can fill in theblanks here in a second.
But let me get into the scripture of the day.
And I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that you ah don't want us to know that you'reinvolved with.

(02:33):
ah But the scripture of the day today is Hebrews chapter four and it's verses one throughthree.
And it says, Now God has offered to us the same promise of entering into his realm ofresting and confident faith.
So we must be extremely careful to ensure that we embrace the fullness of that promise andnot fail to experience it.

(02:58):
For we've heard the good news of deliverance just as they did, yet they didn't join theirfaith with the word.
Instead, what they heard didn't affect them deeply for they doubted.
For those of us who believe, faith activates the promise and we experience the realm ofconfident rest.
For he has said, I was grieved with them and made a solemn oath.

(03:19):
they will never enter into my calming rest of the spirit.
God's works have all been completed from the foundation of the world." And that scripturewas for me this morning, if anybody was wondering.
We can rest in the confidence that all of the Lord's work is already accomplished.
He's not scurrying around reacting to the news and reacting to phone calls.

(03:41):
He's not trying to put our lives together to meet some deadline like a last minute artproject.
He's not worried about anything.
His promise of deliverance and salvation is already done.
It's been done since the foundation of the world.
Our job is to do what he called us to do and to rest in confident faith.
It's our faith that activates the promise of salvation.

(04:04):
It's our faith that gives us confidence that he will do what he said he will do becausehe's already done it.
So don't miss your blessing because of unbelief.
Don't miss out on the opportunity to experience the fullness
of the Lord's salvation because of unbelief.
James 1, 6-8 says it this way, and he's talking about the way that we pray.

(04:28):
He says, just make sure you ask empowered by confident faith without doubting that youwill receive.
For the ambivalent person believes one minute and doubts the next.
Being undecided makes you become like the rough seas driven and tossed by the wind.
You're up one minute.
toss down the next.

(04:48):
When you're half-hearted and wavering, it leaves you unstable.
Can you really expect to receive anything from the Lord when you're in that condition?
So let me encourage all of us today, myself at the front of the pack on this one, let'sdiscipline our minds and refuse to a waiver or to allow doubt to come in about the

(05:08):
goodness and faithfulness and finished work of the Lord in our lives.
That is extraordinary, Danielle.
And it is the finished work.
He has won the victory.
And that is exactly why we can have confident rest, even as we work, even as the worldswirls around us.

(05:29):
We can have a center of serenity.
It reminded me, Danielle, when I studied with the Jesuits, one of the Jesuit's Jesuitmottos is to be contemplatives in action.
to be contemplatives, which implies a certain serenity even while you are acting becausewe're anchored in Christ and in his finished work.

(05:51):
And we are not moved about like waves because of whatever the circumstances are.
That is so powerful and such a great reminder to me personally.
ah And someone who no matter what he's going, no matter what's going on in his life, and Iguarantee you he's juggling many, many balls every single day

(06:12):
but always seems to have a cheerful outlook, lives on the sunny side of life, and alwaysseems to be just moving ahead like a barn buster's mat-match.
The former Marine who's with us today and that before we get started, have to just, as Itold you pre-show, I have to admire your tapestry.
As you know, my dad was a US Marine and that tapestry behind you is exactly like the onethat he had.

(06:35):
The very first thing that he ever told us when we were growing up was that one of mybrothers said, uh Pop, uh you're an ex Marine, right?
And he looked at him and said, you know what?
I'm not going to take any kind of corporal punishment against you for that uh statement,but I will remind you once that there's no such thing as an ex-Marine or former Marines,

(06:58):
and we have a temporal and eternal bond that will live forever.
So God bless you for your service in the US Marine Corps, Matt.
And what a pleasure to have you with us, sir.
thank you, know, we there's a joke on the eighth day God created the Marines.
And in our hand, we do we do protect the early gate, protect the pearly gates for theMarine Corps him.

(07:23):
So that's that's kind of drives me.
You know, I think I was telling you before the show started, I had a gentleman officer Iknew as a colonel when I was.
oh
in earlier and then he became a three-star general.
I was retired and he grabbed my arm and he said, just remember you're still a Marine.
You're just serving in a different capacity.

(07:46):
I love that.
I love that.
That is just so beautiful.
So anyway, a true warrior with us.
Matt, I want to start here with a topic that uh certainly is of keen interest to ourlisteners and I believe at this point to conservatives across America who view her as an
American patriot and an icon and that is Tina Peters.

(08:09):
And I know you're familiar with her case.
um The last we heard about what was going on with Tina Peters a couple of weeks ago wasthat they were
There was a disagreement over the Trump DOJ and the Colorado attorney general aboutwhether or not she should be.
provided a post-conviction bond uh while her appeal is winding its way through theprocess.

(08:33):
The position of the AG is that she has a constitutional right to a post-conviction bond.
The position of the AG is that it's a state court prosecution at any rate, and it's ourdiscretion whether to award that.
uh And so we don't know what's going on there.
And most recently, uh August 21, Trump came out.

(08:54):
And you know what he said on Truth Social, uh
She's an American patriot, she's old, she's not in good health, either you get her out orwe're gonna take some harsh actions.
uh What are you uh hearing about Tina at this point and can we get this American patriotout of jail?
Uh, well first I'll let the audience know Come tomorrow.

(09:17):
She'll have been in prison for one year one year tomorrow um And where she's in uh,there's not like you typically see in the male side where you've got a You know a
penitentiary a medium a low so forth.
She is in with Some very bad people.
She's in general population um the updates that I that I know is that

(09:41):
one that her team was working the hardest on.
just had a, know, not too long ago, hearing in Colorado in a federal court on her writ ofhabeas corpus.
That's what it was and I should have said that.
Yeah, was the writ is where they're arguing whether or not the Constitution requires arelease exactly right.
And so they had a great hearing per Peter Tickton and the legal team.

(10:05):
And as I was telling Danielle before the show started, he and Stephanie Lambert won ourshow last night.
So we can get into some of the things he said there, which were very, very significant.
But they're waiting now that the judge, the federal judge gave the A.G.
of Colorado was like 14, I think to the end of this month and end of last month.

(10:28):
So they should have that response from the state AG, the judge, the federal judge should,for the federal judge to adjudicate if he has proper jurisdiction to rule on the habeas
corpus petition.
Now, I do know also something that Peter has said.
He said on our show last night, he said it on Admiral Robinson's show two or three daysago.

(10:52):
He said it on Bannon's show that same day in the evening.
He said they had a plan in place and the deputy AG Todd Blanche has blocked it and he wenton to say uh Todd Blanche who I don't know and he said he doesn't know but he can see He
can see what's going on and it's interesting, know because Todd I mean Peter has knownTrump since they were like 15 17 years of age matter of fact, said last night on the show

(11:20):
the day Kennedy was assassinated the person
one row up, I think, and one row over for him, they were an American history class at thatmilitary academy, was Donald Trump, right?
And he indicated on for pardons, because no pardons have happened since May, on the Tinathing.

(11:41):
That was a go for something that the federal government was going to do, evidently, on herbirthday.
And with uh election security measures, it's all being blocked uh per Peter Tichtin uh atTodd Blanche, who was the Deputy Attorney General.
Matt, do you think that, you know, last week or a week, maybe two weeks ago, time is alittle fuzzy.

(12:08):
Trump came out and made a big statement that Pam Bondi needed to basically get off herduff and do some indictments and then the Comey indictment got rolling from there.
Do you think that that same, you know, that's Trump saying, hey, I see that you're notdoing what I what I've asked you to do or do you think that's a separate matter?

(12:30):
Personally, I think it is him seeing that and I think he sensed frustration and I can'ttell you the source, but I was told the Comey indictment was done over the objections of
Bondi and Blanche.
Wow.
Wow.
Any idea what's going on over there?
really had to get involved and like, Pam, what's going on?

(12:51):
Why do we have this person that was going to be the attorney who, you know, doesn't reallycomply with our vision.
So he had to get involved and push that, make sure I'm using the President's authority,push that person out.
got the, I forget her name, but she was an attorney in the White House.
in three days, you know, she got that dang indictment done.

(13:11):
And, know, and that's
It's interesting.
mean, it's probably the least egregious things that Comey's done, what he's charged for.
And I can think Seditious Conspiracy as one that I think that most people would say he'sinvolved with.
And Peter Navarro said today earlier on Bannon, goes, you know, this guy's charged withtwo felonies and they're treating him very nicely and he's got time to report.

(13:37):
And he goes, I was charged with a misdemeanor.
and they grabbed me at the gangway at Reagan airport in handcuffs and shackles.
He goes, so no, we're not, Trump is not weaponizing the government against uh hispolitical enemies.
That's what Biden did.
He said, Trump is weaponizing the government against those criminals who weaponize thegovernment against the American people.

(14:02):
Yeah.
So is there uh a rift uh between President Trump and uh Blanche and even, know, Pam Bondiat this point about...
uh Well, I guess specifically the charges that were actually brought against Comey and isit your view that the charges brought against him were were actually relatively innocuous

(14:32):
compared of the legitimate crimes for which he could have been charged?
You know, that could be, I don't know.
uh I can't tell you firsthand what folks have indicated to me is that maybe Comey'sactually working with them.
it's, you know, in exchange for something a little less egregious, you get someinformation.

(14:55):
Kind of like, you know, uh Rudy talked about when you build a Rico case, right?
You go for the lowest nanging fruit and you get those with the least stamina to flip,right?
And to talk about their others.
But here's what I think, and Peter Tickton uh talked about it in more detail last night.
He said he truly believes Pam Bondi is completely aligned with Trump politically andphilosophically and that she loves Trump.

(15:25):
He has a concerns with Todd Blanch.
you know, as I'm learning about how the DOJ works, guess Pam is more like the CEO.
And Todd would be the COO, right?
The DAG runs the day-to-day operations of the Department of Justice.
But he was indicating that, this is Peter, that, I'll put it in context, he goes, youknow, he was in that military academy with Trump, I think a couple of several years.

(15:54):
He said Trump was like the captain of the battalion or something, and Peter was hissergeant, you know, and they passed inspections all the time.
Really good.
he goes, do you know how many times I Donald Trump raise his voice or lose his temper oranything like that?
And then, you know, he goes, and this is like, we're 17, you know, hormones are raging at17.
He said zero, zero times did I ever see him do that.

(16:18):
And he said, if the, one thing I'd say, this is Peter, is that the president has a, uh,can have a blind spot when he puts trust in somebody.
And sometimes that, that might be.
his Achilles heel is he's so good of a person he's trusting even when the people he trustssometimes maybe are taking advantage of that trust.

(16:40):
was Peter was intimating last night.
That's a great point.
And even though their personalities are very different, you just you just peeked at me.
I don't know why.
It just reminded me it's sort of the way Robert E.
Lee was during the during the Civil War with his with his own generals, that he was such atrusting person and such a great man that he oftentimes was a little naive when it came to

(17:06):
whether or not his subordinates were actually doing what they were supposed to be doingfor him and the extent to which they are actually being loyal to the agenda.
That's just an example that popped into my head but let me just ask...
yeah.
As you say, Chris confuses me because I'm sitting there in the Marine Corps context of mybackground and I'm going, you know, when you have someone in your command, your chain of

(17:28):
command, they report to you if they're not complying with the commander's intent.
That's what we call it in the military, commander's intent, division, as long as it'slawful and all those very important caveats.
You comply.
And if you can't comply, have a, the boss has you in for a meeting and you get an attitudeadjustment.

(17:51):
Interestingly, Peter said he doesn't think Todd can have an attitude adjustment.
said, it's not going to work.
He's got, he was intimating.
He's got to be replaced.
Um, but you call them in and then, you know, if you continue not to do what the commanderhas let out as his vision, you're let go.
Right.
And the next person gets in there.

(18:12):
And that's what Peter asked.
He asked our audience and others, and I would ask your audience, he said, you know, get onthe Trump's true social.
And he goes, Trump's not the problem.
goes, Trump is a great man.
He said, I've known him since I've been a teenager.
He said, but let them know the grassroots, what is going on.
And she had mentioned his name, you know, Peter Tickton, sir.

(18:32):
We heard, saw Peter on these various shows talking about Todd Blanch and ask him why, whyis Todd Blanch
seemingly blocking your agenda from being fulfilled in DOJ.
Yeah.
And you know what comes to mind as well.
Now that we're in this government shutdown, Trump has a whole lot of leeway to makepersonnel changes at will without any blocks.

(18:56):
So I think it'll be a very interesting time to see how some pieces are moved around thedeck.
Yeah.
Matt, Danielle said earlier pre-show something that I didn't even know that Todd Blanchdoes have connections with Colorado.
Maybe he was raised there or originally from there.
I don't know exactly, but I do think he has a background that is connected to Colorado.

(19:20):
If in fact he is blocking
action on Tina Peters release.
uh Do you think it could be in part political ah because of his connections and hisrelationships with authority figures in Colorado?
You know, I don't know.
uh that's, you know, I think it's some of the three most underused words in the chain,right?

(19:44):
I don't know.
Is uh because, you know, Mike Davis, who is no lightweight and he's a vice-foreman, heequally is an advocate for Tina is being grossly mistreated for no crimes.
You know, he took umbrage with the attacks on Blanche.
And he says Blanche is doing some good things, you know, stop the circular firing squad.

(20:06):
So I don't know what's going on there, but I don't know if Blanche has connections there.
It's something Peter said, if that's influencing his decisions.
But Peter said last night, he said, as an example, and it's going to be extreme, but hewas using these, I'm going to use them.
He said like folks who want to lower the population to 500 million or so because oftheir...

(20:29):
uh
their fealty to uh the green revolution, ah and they don't care if people die or abortionsor anything like that.
They think they're doing good.
We think they're evil.
They think they're doing good.
he said, his interpretation, Todd Blanch is doing what he thinks is the right thing to do,even though that philosophy does not line up with what Trump's wanting to do, seemingly.

(21:01):
And Peter, if you've watched Peter on various interviews and so forth and people who knowPeter, kind like with President Trump, very nice guy, very, very easy to talk to.
He was out here for the 9-10 August event at the AERN, at the Gateway Pundit put on.
Wonderful man, level headed, calm, cool, collected.

(21:22):
And he said, you know, I never, I never usually do this.
I don't go out and talk about this, but I'm seeing this and this has got to be made knownthat.
in his mind, Blanche is blocking Trump's agenda.
em he's seen it and I've seen it from some folks at DOJ who are uh frustrated.

(21:46):
They know they've been given great jobs, great responsibilities, and they haven't beenable to execute on those responsibilities because they haven't been given the requisite
authority, dollars and people to implement.
said responsibility.

(22:06):
If he's, if Blanche is impeding the effort to get Tina Peters released, any insights orspeculation on why he would be doing that?
We do know that he was a Democrat.
uh until 2025 apparently, but we also know that he defended President Trump's criminalcase in New York City.

(22:31):
He's also defended Rudy Giuliani.
He defended Paul Manafort.
ah So, you know, there's certainly not clear evidence that uh
that his political ideology in any way would be uh what's impeding him or even hisimmediate background.
But if you had to say, if he is in fact doing this, why would he be doing this?

(22:57):
You know, I'll take the devil's advocate route just for a second.
And maybe with his knowledge background, maybe he sees a different solution than what hasbeen offered.
Or maybe he sees, maybe he thinks he's being loyal to Trump so that you're not, I'm justbeing devil's advocate.

(23:18):
So you're not ready, shoot, aim.
You're ready, aim, shoot.
That's the only thing I can think of because
It seems to have stopped a lot of the inertia that was going on in DOJ on these otherthings.
I mean, they're doing other things wonderfully.
Memphis, they're in Memphis.
know, DOJ is working with Secretary of War and helping and Pam with the, activating theJoint Terrorism Task Force.

(23:45):
So, you know, to struggle for answers, my thoughts are...
I'm not looking for duplicity or nefarious perspective, but he might have a differentphilosophical approach to something.
But equally, would say, even when you're doing that, you work at the pleasure of thepresident.

(24:11):
the president, if you are not, he obviously was frustrated because he kind of unloaded on,on Pam.
again, I'm hearing it from a second source.
Uh after that unloading on pam suzie wiles, it's it's you really don't you don't want todo that in that manner So you had one immediately thereafter that kind of gave her top

(24:32):
cover But I think his frustration is rising that um, I mean put our own lives you have youhave a dear friend or family member that you're close with and you're asking them to do
something and they're repeatedly not doing it at some point you still love them, butyou're like What the hell are you why are you not doing this?
And sometimes maybe, and it's harder when it's a friend, it's harder when there's a closerapport there.

(24:57):
You say, hey, you know, this job and what I need you to do, it's not working out, but youknow something?
Let me make you ambassador to Finland and go have a nice life.
Yeah, yeah.
Let him save face a little bit and then get him out of there.
And to play devil's advocate just for a second along with you here, uh Matt, the Coloradoattorney general does have at least a facially credible argument that this was a state

(25:28):
court prosecution.
uh It's a state court conviction.
And the attorney general in Colorado
has plenary authority about how to conduct this case, both during the trial and theprosecution and post-conviction.
They rarely grant post-conviction habeas relief in Colorado.

(25:50):
uh maybe Todd Blanche is thinking that, uh and this sort of alludes to what you saidearlier, maybe he wants to avoid potentially embarrassing
President Trump by moving forward at head speed and then losing and then losing and havingthe Colorado AG vindicated.

(26:11):
So maybe there is something to what you're saying and maybe he is considering anotherroute that he thinks could be more effective.
So I guess at this point I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and not concludethat he's simply not being loyal to President Trump's agenda.
Yes, and I think that's a logical case.
with one thing.

(26:32):
Sorry, Matt.
Go ahead.
I think there's a little bit of a delay between us.
Go ahead.
I was just going to say that one thing that comes to mind, when Trump said that he wantedTina out, he talked about there being swift consequences if they didn't get Tina out of
prison.
so part of me wonders if there's some kind of calculus here for the consequences to comebefore the release so that the release can happen with some free will from the Colorado

(27:05):
side because
Trump has put the squeeze on him.
You know, it's very possible and you know, it's like an iceberg, right?
We're just seeing the top of this and so much is happening below the surface.
And I wonder, mean, you Chris, your uh legal background, I remember I think Bannon hadjust gotten out of prison, again, for misdemeanor.

(27:31):
He's in a low for a misdemeanor.
ah
is, I think Jeff Clark had remoted in, think Mike Davis was in studio and uh PatMcSweeney, who's also on Tina's Nickel team, and he was a Nixon lawyer back in the
Watergate era, and he was in DOJ with Bork at the time.

(27:53):
um All three of those attorneys said Colorado is bizarro world.
the person who was enforcing federal and state law by backing up data is in prison.
The people who did the trust to build and destroyed evidence, destroyed records, are theones charging her.

(28:16):
And she was never able to offer that as a defense.
And every one of those, every attorney I've talked with, Peter Tickton included, saidthey've never seen, in her case, this judge, a judge more biased and more egregiously
ah unprofessional than the judge who sentenced her and uh presided over her trial.

(28:38):
Great point, Matt.
I have seen judges at sentencing in the worst, most heinous criminal cases you canimagine.
I'm talking about cases, serious sexual offenses involving minors, brutal murder cases,where the judge has not been as harsh on a defendant as this judge was with Tina Peters.

(29:03):
It certainly betrays
a political agenda there.
There can be no question about that.
I agree.
know, and a lot of the folks, oh Danielle and Chris, that have been briefing Tulsi Gabbardand certainly the president now has all this.
A lot of things going on behind the scenes.
oh Every every one of them.

(29:27):
Will say that Tina's heroic efforts led them to the Rosetta Stone that allowed them tohelp go where to look.
So, and this is a unanimous position against, very credible people who have beeninvestigating and working on this and now have gotten all that information uh into Tulsi.

(29:52):
And I shared with Peter last night, I said, isn't it interesting, say for Pete Hegseth, ofall the cabinet officers or officials, the two people who were really
uh, in my estimation, um, exemplifying a test on afforditude or, as, as, uh, emeraldRobinson said, certainly with tolls, she's, she's got balls of breath.

(30:14):
It's is Tulsi Gabbard and, and, and, Kennedy, both former Democrats who were just tryingto do the right thing.
And Tulsi is, she is being exceedingly targeted and blocked.
And I understand that, you know, when she was
trying to get all the information to Trump and folks in the Intel community, CIAspecifically, want a lot of stuff done.

(30:39):
The DIA general who got fired, Cruz, I think his name was, he was trying to block thiselection stuff, our own ICE's involvement in the manipulation of our 2020 election to
Trump.
um Flynn helped to buck her up and get there, um but she is under immense uh pressure andshe's still doing the dang right thing.

(31:02):
Because she's a woman of God.
she sure is.
That's right.
No doubt.
there, speaking of elections, I know we're going a little off script here, Danielle, butspeaking of elections, Matt, we had Colonel Conrad Reynolds on.
or three weeks ago and he discussed what he thought was good intel that we're likely tosee a clarifying executive order from President Trump regarding these electronic voting

(31:28):
machines is the fact that we have not and I'm sure that that is what Tulsi Gabbard wantsbased upon her public comments.
regarding her skepticism about these machines.
Certainly President Trump has expressed it.
Is there a possibility that that is also being blocked within the Trump administration?

(31:53):
It might a DOJ might be Slow walking it and I'll I'll I'll just put it this way is thatthere's some folks in DOJ who You know for years people have been saying What we now know
to be true and they were perceived as crying wolf But now it's real and DOJ now knows it'sreal and they're still not acting with the alacrity that they need to For each of some

(32:20):
folks inside DOJ
But um I would say from what I understand to Tulsi, because of leaks that were occurringon, she's locked down ODNI.
They're not sharing it with DHS, with DOJ.
uh They are doing their thing.
They're getting all that information to the president.

(32:40):
um so DOJ is kind of in the blind and they're somewhat frustrated because in the firstelection, EO came out.
There were some issues that, again, the legal background had DOJ seen it.
They could have maybe changed some, some paragraphs, word sentences, because immediatelyMark Elias saw some weak spots and targeted it.

(33:03):
That maybe wouldn't have happened if DOJ had had a, had a cut on it before it went out thedoor.
But uh there's concerns of, you know, from our own team, you, interesting, you said whatConrad Reynolds said, Stephanie Lambert.
She's also a hero and one of the attorneys for Tina uh being targeted herself in Michiganfor fighting for election integrity.

(33:24):
She said the same thing last night.
She goes, there's good things coming out.
And please, so the elections will be OK.
There's good things coming out soon.
Please, please run for office.
It's going to be free.
It's going to be fair, especially the local levels.
Please, if you haven't done it, we need to grassroots, especially put your hat in thering.

(33:46):
run for office, these things are gonna be fixed.
And Stephanie's pretty tied in there, I know.
Well, and you know, uh kind of that creates a good bridge because Emerald Robinson andPeter Berneger have been reporting for the last, I don't know, two weeks or so that
there's now over a dozen whistleblowers from Serbia, Venezuela, Canada, China, the Serbianwhistleblower, I believe was specific to Dominion in Mesa County, where Tina.

(34:17):
where Tina, all this stuff went down with her.
And then I believe Smartmatic was uh the, the Venezuelan was a Smartmatic whistleblower.
He, he was dating back to the Chavez regime.
uh This all has to fit together somehow.
You can't tell me that this is just, you know, uh scatter shot.

(34:41):
No, it does.
even Peter said it last night and I go back to, it's like boujadé all over again withOperation Fast and Furious.
If you just looked at it in little snippets, is as legal, people would say interesting,you know, interesting, but irrelevant or something.
Well now, but if you look at it in in total, now you see what's going on.

(35:02):
to me, well, not to me, what is factually now understood by the right folks in thegovernment, as Peter said, even the president,
foreign interference in our election assisted by domestic accomplices.
And uh I know there is somebody who was very close to Chavez.

(35:23):
mean, somebody like a national security advisor type level to Chavez who's in US custody.
This person is naming names.
And this was earlier in September, uh Juan, myself, uh
Jim Marshott, some others.
were in DC meeting with some people and uh this high level person in US custody was namingnames.

(35:49):
uh And one of those names was the head of Dominion.
uh As far as people who were who were doing it, Soros was another one.
There was three people.
And one has already been indicted and it's going to get another indictment, I think, whatwe were told.
And that guy was indicted for the Philippine Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, know,smartmatic rigging the Filipino elections uh back in the day.

(36:18):
So people are beginning to talk.
There's interviews going on, but what we have to be careful of, even in that closed loopenvironment, leaks were getting out.
to like Trende Aragwa and the Cartel dos Solis.
So we still have a problem in our own government.
And a lot of the folks we talked with who are briefing Tulsi and everything else areadamant that 50 % of the scene needs to go.

(36:46):
And the comments they made to us is why does Radcliffe
have two senior advisors who are Brennan acolytes and holdovers.
And they posit, does Brennan still have more control over the CIA than Radcliffe rightnow?
Good grief.
Chris, you're on mute.
You're-
his security clearance stripped, ah which I think Brennan has.

(37:11):
people in there.
He has his people in the CIA.
yeah, if you, exactly, yeah.
Yeah, Danielle, what do you think we, Danielle, should we put that transcript up there,that brief portion of the transcript, if we can?
uh And why are you doing this?
Because apparently, uh Matt, there's a whistleblower who's actually given swornconfidential testimony.

(37:38):
in a court proceeding regarding whether or not elections can be rigged in America.
And it seems pretty clear.
Have you looked at that transcript of that proceeding that Emerald Robinson posted?
ah I have not, I agree with you.

(37:59):
know, the folks that, and we first got briefed on this back in January, the folks whoorchestrated this process and people have to understand that Mark Cook is one of the best
to articulate this in a way that the average person can say, I get it.
Is it's not just the machines.
It's everything from uh voter registrations to voter validation to the tabulation andreporting.

(38:26):
But the people who helped construct this diabolical process, so essentially there's 14entry points into an election ecosystem.
If they can control two of the 14, they can flip an election and they demonstrated it.
But go ahead, Daniel.
Yeah.
no, I was just going to read this top part.

(38:48):
So this uh is the top of, I guess, a deposition with the witness.
And it says, sir, do you have personal knowledge whether the election systems in theUnited States, the voting systems can be manipulated by foreign agents?
And the answer was the electoral systems of the United States can be manipulated byforeign agents or third party.

(39:09):
He goes on to ask if he's in physical danger.
He said yes.
he's agreed to, they've agreed that his identity will be redacted to protect him goingforward.
So ah that one, Chris, I believe was the, that's the smartmatic whistleblower.
That's the one from the Chavez regime.

(39:30):
and that was the one that was posted six days ago.
Emeril Robinson said this whistleblower just testified.
So obviously it's very recent, and this is a guy who apparently has knowledge and who hasexplicitly said that these machines can be manipulated.
um And it just seems like that's a pretty big deal.

(39:53):
You know, that's a pretty big deal.
it's huge.
And that's why, you know, the group, our coalition, some secretaries of state, electionofficials, judges, uh Professor Clements, Tim Konova, Mark Cook, Laura Schar, have allowed
in a host of people put together a proposed draft EO that I know uh Bannon's gotten andother folks in DOJ has gotten and the folks brief in Tulsa have gotten in.

(40:22):
And you're right.
And the predicate to that was things the president can do, citing a national emergency.
Right.
And we would advocate and articulate, we have a national election emergency.
have foreign interference in our elections and Congress has already delegated to thepresident powers that he or she can, in this case, he can execute invoking that which the

(40:50):
Congress has already passed.
And when we've talked, and I'm sure Chris, you'll understand what I'm saying.
We've talked to folks like Professor Clements or uh lawyers with voter GA or Tim Konova,another lawyer down in Florida, constitutional lawyer.
They call that uh the Ohio Steel case, right?
Truman did something, um doing some executive order and the Supreme Court said, when thepresident is aligned with the Congress,

(41:17):
He's at the zenith of his power, right?
When the constitution doesn't explicitly say something, but Congress is agreeing with him,in this case would have pre-agreed with him.
ah He's at the height of his power.
And that's why everything we put out there, it was predicated on the president declaring anational emergency, certainly in our election system.

(41:39):
The board has been infiltrated.
Our election ecosystem has been infiltrated, both foreign and domestically.
And I would go further to say that this isn't just an emergency.
They are assaulting the United States.
We are at war.
We are under attack.
We're under siege right now.

(42:03):
Yes.
When they say, well, you get what you deserve.
emergency seem to be there.
Yeah, yeah, I think so.
And that's why I tell people when they say, well, people get what they deserve.
You elected these people.
No, did we really?
I don't think so.
Yeah, it's so frustrating to me to hear people say that on uh kind of the mainstream news.

(42:27):
I don't think people in our circles are saying that nonsense anymore, maybe here andthere, but uh you get what you vote for is a straight bald-faced lie.
Yeah, that is absolutely the truth.
uh And let me ask you this last thing on this, Matt, is there a chance that aninvestigation into Smartmatic or Dominion ah is being blocked in the Trump administration?

(43:00):
You know, I don't, that I don't know.
Again, just harkening back to meetings we had in DC in early September, I know with newinformation that came out, new indictments were being levied against people.
So I think it's kind of like, let me put it this way, maybe this makes the most sense.

(43:26):
In this particular case with elections and with Tina and so forth, appears it's like thetypical government, right?
It's a Leviathan stuck in molasses and it's just not moving at the tempo Trump wants it tomove.
And I would say Trump's again right when you're in a war and we're in a war, I people haveto, I think your audience understands it, you have to move with, what did...

(43:55):
Hegseth say at Quantico right?
He wants our military move with alacrity and ferocity.
And right now, in this particular case, my perspective, my looking at it is DOJ, you'vegot great people in there who know all the facts now and want to go do the right things.

(44:18):
And the bureaucratic process is just going along like Leviathan and molasses and in
They will tell you, again folks, good trusted patriotic folks in DOJ will tell you theshock clock is running, the primers are coming, we gotta get off our keisters and get this
done.
Yeah, exactly.

(44:39):
Several weeks ago, maybe a couple of months ago now, Matt, it was my argument when we weregetting all kinds of complaints that the indictments were not moving fast enough.
My position then was that when you're talking about indictments on this level, theseriousness, the magnitude, the gravity, the positions of the defendants,

(45:06):
I mean, you're talking about former presidents, former top level officials in the mostpowerful country in the world.
My position was that once the trigger is pulled on indictments, you can't un-pull it.
And you've got to make sure your T's are crossed, your I's are dotted, ah not only becauseof the who is being charged and the seriousness of the charges, but the fact that these

(45:33):
people are going to have the very best
criminal defense lawyers in the world, defending them.
And so I'm still inclined to believe that that may be the case, knowing what it takes tobe able to successfully prosecute a serious case on this level.
But with each passing day, with each passing week, I'm becoming a bit more skeptical aboutthe extent to which they're actually going to move forward with indictments against these

(46:03):
bad actors.
You know what I would like to see though is uh I would love to see DOJ pull a Trump andcompletely flood the zone because there's only so many attorneys, criminal attorneys at
that level that can represent these crooks of the highest order.
And if they're all in conflict, I mean, I would like there to become a rule of scarcityamongst the crooks not being able to get represented because there's so many of them.

(46:34):
Well, I think that's probably unlikely because there are a lot of top level criminaldefense lawyers out there and with sort of the kind of money that they're going to be paid
to do these cases, I think there'll be plenty of lawyers probably to go around.
look, I'm deriving some hope to some degree from the Comey indictment.

(46:57):
He was a top level official.
At least he was indicted for two felonies, perhaps not everything he should have beencharged with.
But I'm deriving a faint glimmer of hope from that.
And certainly I'm hoping that they will move forward.
Matt, one last thing on this.
um I read from perhaps, it may have been Patrick Byrne, who said that Pam Bondi isessentially running the DOJ from Florida, shows up for press conferences and makes public

(47:29):
statements, but that it really is Todd Blanch.
who is running the Department of Justice for all intents and purposes.
Do you tend to agree with that?
You know, I don't know.
I don't know if she's doing that.
uh I know Patrick has said that.
Heck, know Bannon has said that and others is like, hey, how about a little less Fox Newsappearances and more, you know, stuff, getting stuff done.

(47:54):
Yeah, I don't know if she's commuting for only important things back and forth.
oh Folks who do know her from Florida, uh one, some good friends of Juan's, Juan, I met inDC.
They're from Florida.
They have absolute faith and confidence in her.
uh Peter Tickton thinks that she's completely supportive, uh loves and is aligned withPresident Trump.

(48:21):
So, you know, I don't know if it's Bondi as much as Blanche, but it's just perplexing.
mean, that issue...
Trump I mean good stuff on the on the the Secretary of Health and Human Services did butyou had the CEO of Pfizer that's driving the base bat-bongo crazy in the White House you

(48:46):
got him in there the stuff to do with Palantir and so you it's like in the words of a goodfriend of mine retired General Holt He says like we're taking two two steps forward and
one step back two steps forward and one step back and I think
I'll leave it with this on this topic is that you risk public sentiment analysis, meaningthat you have to have the population with you as you go through this thing, as Juan would

(49:19):
say, so that you might have civil unrest, but not civil war.
And I think right now, certainly on the DOJ side, things are not keeping up with publicsentiment and the public
grassroots is getting uh significantly upset and you risk, I'm putting a politicalcalculation into this, you're risking 2026 turnout if folks think that, we just got the

(49:50):
same old crap.
What difference does it make?
Well, exactly.
Yes, that's such a such a good point.
And, you know, it really is a to me the the dispositive evidence about whether or not theadministration is serious about uh ensuring that justice is done here will be if we if we

(50:13):
begin to see serious indictments.
I mean, when I heard President Trump in the Oval Office, this is a couple of months back.
I mean,
He absolutely blistered Obama himself.
President Obama, you know, as though President Obama was just some thug off the street whoneeds to be prosecuted and put in jail for the rest of his life.

(50:37):
so I don't know whether Trump's just, I don't think he's the kind of man who just playsword games, but President Trump has expressed the fact that he thinks Obama needs to be
indicted for the most serious criminal offenses against the United States there are.
And so I certainly don't believe that the delay on these indictments has, as you suggestedearlier on other things, it really is an effort to, I think, abort or impede President

(51:06):
Trump's desires, ah you know, rather than to facilitate what he wants because he's beenvery clear about what he wants.
He has, you know, and I would offer something that Trump said, I'm going back maybe a weekor two, I think it was after the true social about Pam.
He just said, just, you got the evidence.

(51:31):
I'm paraphrasing, get the indictment, and then if they're guilty, they're guilty.
If they're not, they're not, but at least adjudicate the damn matter.
Yeah.
And I think that that would be all the American people really need.
The American people, from our vantage point, the way we view the Constitution is the sameway that Thomas Jefferson viewed the Constitution and our founders.

(51:57):
Trial by jury.
is the last anchor and only hope by which we can be held accountable or the government canbe held accountable to the principles of its constitution.
So if the matter goes forward and is properly adjudicated and these defendants are foundnot guilty, the American people are not going to hold the Trump administration responsible
for that.

(52:17):
We just want to see good faith action and a vigorous effort to try and make right all ofthe horrible
uh criminality and persecution that we saw over four years with Biden and even duringTrump's first administration.
That's all we want to see.
Yeah, but how are we going to see it?
You see these judges, they're so crooked.

(52:38):
They're absolutely crooked.
can't properly, you said properly adjudicate the matter.
It cannot be properly adjudicated with crooked and dirty judges spread throughout andacross this country.
You see the way that they've handled all of Trump's EOs.
You've seen the way that they handle any Republican that has, uh that looks at them thewrong way.

(52:59):
Well, that is true, Danielle.
There are corrupt judges, even on the federal level, uh which was designed to be preventedby our founding fathers.
were specifically designed to be inoculated from the kind of political pressure that wouldcreate corruption.
They're appointed for life.
But unfortunately, as we've seen, there is almost the same level of corruption on thefederal level, federal courts, Article III courts, as there is

(53:26):
on the state level where judges are elected.
So I agree with you.
The only response I would make to that would be.
uh Shrewd prosecutors know how to handle cases, even with corrupt trial judges.
And as long as you have a jury, there are certain evidentiary rules that the judge has tofollow.

(53:47):
And of course, if he commits reversible error, then fortunately, most of our appellatecourts, many of the judges on our appellate courts were appointed by President Trump.
So hopefully there could be some relief there.
But I do tend to agree with you that it's a hard call.
with a lot of these judges.
I mean, look at the January 6th federal judge.
That's a perfect example.

(54:08):
Yeah, I agree with you.
this was a couple of general officers who were retired, who gave some insight into, intoHank Seth and Trump having all the flag officers meet at Quantico, right?
The election rigging, I'm going to paraphrase, the election rigging in the U.S.
and globally completely eclipses any other global consideration except perhaps a directChinese invasion of Taiwan.

(54:34):
We will very likely not have another chance to defeat the current 50 state 5 UW attackagainst America unless we unravel that in the next year.
A military leadership is being brought away from their command under the pretext ofreinstilling the warrior ethos to weed out wokeness, assure presidential chain of command
and ensure military traders like General Willey, General Milley or not returned to thepositions to foment mischief and even outright insurrection.

(55:00):
B.
Military tension is being refocused by Trump on the Western hemisphere and the Americas toconfront the asymmetrical warfare being conducted against us by our adversaries, domestic
and foreign.
and actually Professor Clements thinks there's going to be a bifurcated approach andyou'll see what I'm talking about here.
Much of the last eight months has been about exposing the scale and scope of infiltrationand subversion of our Republic to get buying of the American people.

(55:26):
Public sentiment analysis.
The distortion of a republic has become so great that it may not be possible to write itwithout military intervention and tribunals, which would be foolish to start unless you
have some confidence in the outcome.
Even Professor Clements has now said some of these are going to some of the egregiousthings, this addition and conspiracy are going to have to be done by military tribunals

(55:51):
because the Article 3 courts cannot proceed at pace they need to proceed at.
Wow, wow, is, that is absolutely extraordinary that you would have these extremely seriousfelony cases uh being tried by military tribunals instead of by Article III federal

(56:15):
judges.
And I would suspect that Professor Clements would probably say also one of the reasons forthat, in addition to their perhaps inability to proceed uh as quickly as they need to to
get this done,
perhaps because of some of the corruption that Danielle alluded to earlier that perhapsit's just unfortunately very difficult to get justice in federal court for really anything

(56:43):
that President Trump really wants in so many places in the country, especially uh in thevenue where many of these cases are likely to be tried, which is right there in Washington
DC.
So yeah.
And not the good swamp of Louisiana, but the bad swamp.
well yeah yeah yeah we don't we don't try yeah we have both we have both kinds but thekind we like or when we're out in the swamp lassoing alligators Matt but we only do that a

(57:12):
couple of times a year next time you come down we'll have to do that
who hunt alligators.
God bless you.
That's some great bravery.
Yeah, yeah, it took me a while to domesticate the one that I have.
Yeah.
Can we kind of continue our line of thought down the line?
So let's say someone like an Obama is indicted for treason and sedition.

(57:37):
Let's say he goes to a military tribunal and let's say that they find out that actually hewasn't even rightfully elected in the first place.
Does that give us the ability then to finally wipe out these fraudulent judges that hewould have appointed?
It would negate every single act that he did, would it not?

(58:01):
You know, that's a constitutional issue to look at, to make it even put a little morespice in the gumbo is at Quantico, there's a little clip.
don't know if I sent it to you.
Trump said, I was 45, 46 and 47.
was 45, 46 and 47.

(58:23):
Interesting.
Yeah, that it really is interesting.
And of course that would, that would implicate the legitimacy of Biden's reign, uh notObama's, but yeah, it certainly applies.
And well, I mean, I can tell you that, you know, it seems to be pretty clear now that for70 % of Biden's administration, he wasn't even in control of anything.

(58:50):
He may not have even been cognitively capable of making
decisions, including many of the executive orders.
But that's a really interesting question, Danielle.
If, in fact, a military tribunal determined that President Obama, for whatever reason, wasnot legitimately elected as the Constitution requires, absolutely.

(59:10):
It would render null and void every single action that he took as president.
Would become null and void on its face.
Absolutely illegitimate.
What an interesting uh question to ask.
uh
Matt, what about this?
oh I'm so interested in your opinion on this, on this act blue and this wind red moneylaundering.

(59:34):
We had Draza Smith and her father, Walter, not her father, but the father of a friend ofours, Walter Charlton, who's a lawyer who's been studying this for a long, time about
these laundered fraudulent donations, these very suspicious donations that are beingfunneled through these
platforms, act blue, win red to the tune of millions and millions and millions of dollars.

(01:00:00):
It's been established at this point.
Yeah.
money through real estate.
Okay, through real estate as well.
ah
shared with some folks about that, if I could.
And I'll just put it this way and see what you think about this.
I shared it with somebody very important, and I said, uncovering and dismantling theprevious system, we're talking about act blue, win red, no less than 20 years after the

(01:00:28):
fact of how they started, is only being allowed because it is no longer required as new,more effective techniques are now being employed.
Dang, Matt, that's terrible.
What?
Wow.
Unbelievable.
So the...
just, they don't make stupid ass mistakes.

(01:00:51):
They're willing to give it up and have all the attention over there because they got awhole different way of financing this ballgame.
Yeah, they do.
And go ahead, Danielle.
one of the things I talked to Sean Taylor about yesterday.
He came on For the Love of Freedom and we were saying, yeah, absolutely.

(01:01:11):
He's so great.
And we were talking about...
um
This idea that the USAID money has been cut off, so perhaps some of the inflow has beenshut down.
But by this point, they have their entire ecosystem that's creating compound interest,that's moving money around.
Perhaps they don't even need...

(01:01:33):
The conversation was in the context of the federal funds coming in and not necessarilybeing needed anymore, but the same could be said true of different avenues to get the
money into the campaigns.
as Juan's Chief of Staff, things that I've gotten to be aware of, and he's trying to meetwith folks in DC right now and Florida, there's a whole level of finance.

(01:01:59):
We're talking gold and trillions and trillions of dollars at an off-ledger accounts allthroughout this planet.
That it's the average person would have no clue.
And that's how that's how that globalist weff city London structure works.
They don't need that.

(01:02:20):
That's this is for the minions that are act blue and wind red.
They've got this they plug into this whole completely off ledger money that we have noclue about.
No clue.
And I've seen people we're meeting here.
I've seen it.
I see a person whose life is in danger trying to get that person to the States.
Trump actually tried to call this person January 2nd of this year.

(01:02:42):
We're trying to make that connection and let's use that money intended for bad to be forgood as we deflate the Fed and bring it under the treasury.
And that's what they want to do.
This money that's out there is Fed money, Fed-derived money that is being used to targetthe Republic.

(01:03:02):
by the globalists, so let's use their money and either deflate it or reallocate it to usunder Treasury control.
Wow.
So are you suggesting here, Matt, that this Act Blue and Win Red money laundering schemeis small potatoes?

(01:03:26):
Yes, exactly.
can tell you that from what I've seen.
It is small potatoes.
I mean, it's important, but I mean, just with one person.
over 800 bank accounts throughout the world, over 40 in the US, 1400 tons of gold.

(01:03:49):
mean, this level of...
Yes, but this person wants to help Trump.
Wow.
This person wants to meet Trump and help Trump, help the United States, help uh freedomand liberty and not the others.

(01:04:10):
This person, Biden tried to get to this person.
Obama tried to get to this person.
uh And this person has been in secure positions uh because they're concerned.
But yes.
as big as act blue and win red and certainly with Sean Taylor those guys are fine which iscritical that is one way but there's one level there's a level above that I mean I

(01:04:35):
recommend to the audience follow EM Berlin game echo Mike EM Berlin game on X it's calledthe sport of kings Suros is a top manager he's not even up he doesn't even compete with
these people he's just a forward-facing face
These people, you don't even see them, you don't even know them.

(01:04:55):
These people hide in the shadows.
They have these trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars.
I've seen it.
I've seen the accounts.
I've seen it with my eyes.
It exists.
And Trump tried to call this person, and it's just one person.
January 2nd of this year.
And you know, Matt, it's so disgusting.

(01:05:15):
It's so absolutely heartbreaking and disgusting.
You look at the way some Americans are forced to live, right?
You think about especially high disaster prone areas like where I live.
Some people are living in abject poverty.
People are living in truly horrific conditions.

(01:05:36):
And it's the way that our government has been hijacked and run.
probably since what 1913 just with an increasing going you know increasing in intensityand severity since then since the creation of the fed but the prices are out of control

(01:05:57):
energy prices are getting out of control people have we have to pay more and more and moreto get less and less and less and then there are people who just sit up there
controlling the levers of power and controlling such vast sums of money and it'sabsolutely disgusting.

(01:06:19):
And what you're seeing, some of these people there who weren't part of this, maybe peoplein their family were, and now they're trying to do the right thing.
What they're trying to do is get those funds on ledger, right?
Back into the global system.
And something WAN is working closely with is doing it in such a way.

(01:06:44):
that it comes under the control of the Treasury, not control of the Fed.
I think no one's got baseball knowledge, but I think what you're seeing Trump trying todo, wipe away the year 1913, right?
Get rid of the Fed, get rid of the IRS.
You get rid of those two things.
And in the words of, as you mentioned, Patrick Byrne, the great Patrick Byrne, I love whathe says.

(01:07:07):
My idea of great government is deliver my mail and get the hell off my porch.
Yeah.
.
absolutely.
I love that.
love that.
you know, was a Kirk, Charlie Kirk back in 2019 when the government actually shut down, hesaid, that's a really good thing.
You know, we don't we have way too many federal employees and while you're at it, you needto abolish the IRS.

(01:07:32):
So so Kirk was was on board with that.
But I want to get a drill back down.
I certainly appreciate your point that the amount of money
that we're talking about uh on a higher level that's being used nefariously does make theAct Blue and the when red uh illicit activity seem small.

(01:07:57):
relative to the ordinary American citizen and the ordinary Louisiana citizen, we'retalking about a tremendous amount of money here that's funding these campaigns.
It's been established that uh
the people who are purportedly making the donations, the retired people, uh the singlemoms, that's where they are not making the donations.

(01:08:23):
They're having their identity expropriated and these repeated suspicious small dollardonations often going from one state to the campaign or the candidate in another state.
ah I mean, these things are facially suspicious.
but it's being done on a big, big level for Act Blue and Win Red, Act Blue to Democrats,Win Red to Republicans.

(01:08:46):
And the issue that keeps coming up here is we know we can fairly assume that the campaigncommittees for these candidates and these politicians themselves are aware that this money
laundering is going on.
They have to have knowledge that this is illicit.
They have to know these people who are purportedly making these donations are not actuallydoing it, which is a felony.

(01:09:08):
to expropriate someone else's identity for this purpose.
My question to you is, and if you're in a position to answer it, to what extent can actualknowledge of this illicit activity be imputed to the actual candidates or be imputed to
the actual politicians?

(01:09:30):
Or do they have plausible deniability there?
We're running for office.
We're trying to serve the public.
We're doing the...
We don't know what's coming in.
use what's there.
But is there a nexus?
At some point, can you presume that there has to be a nexus of knowledge between thecandidates themselves or the politicians themselves and their campaign organizations?

(01:09:56):
Chris, I would say from what I have learned the last five years is oftentimes thecandidate, especially if they're new, uh they're relying on their campaign finance chair.
So they're not looking at, the finance chair is doing all that stuff uh and they don'tfollow it as closely.
But what I would say is that now that it's come out and now you see these things with WinRed and Act Blue, there's not...

(01:10:23):
You can't use the excuse, I didn't know.
You now know.
And I would, I would advocate if you're a decent politician, and I think there are decentpoliticians, and more importantly, as a citizen, don't donate to ActBlue.
Do not donate to WinRed.
uh If you like somebody running for office, donate to them directly.

(01:10:45):
Write a check to their campaign directly.
Do not run it through.
an act blue or a win red or any third party, do it to them directly.
Because you know something, even if all is above board and fair, I've watched where, youknow, the national Republican congressional campaign or the counterpart in the Senate, you

(01:11:10):
know, they'll raise money and then they have somebody they like because of favoritism andthey'll flow the money to a candidate instead of making sure
It's going to where it was thought to be going, right?
So don't donate to the NRCC or the SRC.
Donate to the candidate personally.

(01:11:31):
Do not allow a third party, whether it's in the Congress or a private entity, you likethat person, donate that person directly.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Otherwise you're outsourcing your voice and your money.
You have no idea where your money lands.
take these huge percentages from these people.
Even if everything else is above board, they're taking a huge percentage out.

(01:11:56):
No, more wholesale, less retail.
You want to help a candidate, one, run yourself, if you don't.
Number two, give the money directly to that candidate that you think aligns best with yourvalue.
Yeah, yeah, it's a great point.
I'll tell you what, you you got to give great credit to Peter Berneger for the, you know,the yeoman's work that he's done to expose this.

(01:12:25):
I mean, the guy truly, truly has uh shed tremendous light uh on this activity here.
And I agree with you now.
And Sean, yeah.
Sean and Mark Fincham and Joe Flynn were in DC, I think when Ed Martin was still theacting attorney, US attorney for DC.

(01:12:47):
And they briefed Ed Martin on this specifically several months ago.
was Joe Flynn, was uh Sean Taylor, and it was Mark Fincham.
It's a great lineup.
Yeah.
Matt, Danielle may have something to follow up here, but this is my last question for youtoday.
What is the likelihood handicapping at gut feeling that within the next week or two, nextmonth or so, we're going to get an executive order from the Trump administration regarding

(01:13:18):
these electronic voting computers in America for federal elections?
I, my, my gut feel, I mean, I don't have firsthand knowledge is that October, will see it,we'll see it in October.
And I think it will, it's not just going to be the machines because the audience got torealize it's not just the machines.

(01:13:40):
The machines are an aspect, but as the, as only Mark Cook can really articulate it betterthan I, I'll try to do it justice.
It all works together, right?
You have to have the headroom with the registrations.
You have to have the poll book manipulations and
centralized data, then you have the tabulations and then the reporting.
And I think you're going to see an executive order ah that encompasses all of those.

(01:14:04):
And hopefully something that we were requested to do and we put some our minds to it andsent something up the chain on creating a bill in the White House, kind of like a national
security advisor.
But you are working just for the president.
You have the authority from the president.
You can task DOJ and

(01:14:24):
DHS and the intelligence communities and you are the person overseeing the security andassurance of federal elections and you you and my mind that be somebody a dream team for
me would be like having Ed Martin Mac Warner and Professor Clements all in that officeworking together.
That would be wonderful and Mark Cook in there is the technical guy that's really helpingthem all but we've put that up there because uh right now what you might have

(01:14:54):
is what we you see in your life sometimes or in business, right?
Everyone thought someone was doing it and nobody is.
You need you need a designated person that corrects this mess and then transitions us backto something post declaration of national uh national emergency to normalize our elections

(01:15:15):
again.
So we the people control our damn elections and not some third party vendor and someforeign influence.
Great point, great point.
Probably the best point of the show that you've made, Matt, you've made some good ones.
When the federal government assumes temporary emergency power, there's always a danger, nomatter what the issue is, that they're not going to return the government to normal

(01:15:49):
constitutional operation.
And you saw it with FDR, with the Great Society Program.
FDR was adamant that this is an emergency action taken under...
extraordinarily exigent circumstances, these programs are not meant to be a permanentfixture of government.

(01:16:12):
And guess what they became?
A permanent fixture of government.
And we have to remember that the government, even beneficent governments, never returnpower voluntarily.
So your point about making sure that we do that ah is just so critical.
And I'm always, always

(01:16:34):
concerned whenever, even under the best of circumstances, the government assumes uhemergency powers.
Not that it's not necessary.
I think that it is necessary, and I believe it's probably necessary in the case of ourelections, but we've got to make sure that we don't stay there.
So that's a brilliant point you make.
bingo.
We cannot stay there.

(01:16:55):
You're absolutely right.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, Matt, it's always a pleasure to have you with us.
And it's not only because you're a US Marine, sir, but that's one of the reasons why welove you.
And we're always blessed to have you on.
Keep us in the loop on what's going on.

(01:17:15):
And thank you for all your work.
And please tell Mark Cook, hello for us.
Yeah, and it's been too long since we had you on, so we'll have to have you soon.
doing some great work with uh some good folks both in Texas and in Colorado.
I've never seen a more hardworking guy than Mark Cook.

(01:17:36):
And a little tidbit for the audience as we go out a little bit levity, I like to leave alittle levity.
If you need a garage door fixed or your RV or your dishwasher, Mark is a literally truly aRenaissance man.
Hehehehehe
the pleasure of eating dinner at our house uh one evening with Mark Cook when he came downto Louisiana for a meeting that we had with the attorney general.

(01:17:58):
And I was just blown away by not only his wealth of knowledge, but as you said, hisenergy.
I mean, he really has Trump like energy.
There's no question about that.
And what a great American he is.
God bless you, Matt.
And we will talk to you soon, sir.
God bless you all.
Thank you so much.
Have a great morning.

(01:18:19):
Great day.
Thank you, Matt.
We'll talk to you soon.
Chris, it's always a pleasure to have him.
I know we struggled a little bit.
It seems like there were some connectivity issues on his end that caused a little bit of adelay.
So hopefully people were able to enjoy that conversation.
Yeah, I hope so too.

(01:18:40):
And I hope that he's right about his gut feeling about the executive order.
And you know, Danielle, I do have the sneaky suspicion, uh not really verified, that whatTulsi Gabbard probably wants with regard to these, our election system and the concerns

(01:19:04):
that she's expressed
perhaps are not being codified in the form of an executive order because of quislingswithin the Trump administration who ah do not want it to happen.
I hope that is not the case and I hope that we get something out soon because we need itbecause as you know, for immediate purposes right here in Louisiana, we're still trying uh

(01:19:27):
tenaciously to stop the investment of a large amount of our money.
uh in new voting machines.
it looks like at this point, the only thing that's probably going to stop our Secretary ofState is an executive order, as Drosasmith said.
Yeah.
Well, if an executive order even stops her.
I mean, you would think that it would have to, but I'm not convinced, Chris.

(01:19:51):
uh She's behaved with complete and total, um she's ignored everything that's come out ofTrump's office as it relates to elections.
She's acted like it doesn't even matter.
Well, it, you know, as Dr.
Ross has told us many times, our election systems are considered critical infrastructure,which gives the president executive authority to issue an executive order on that issue.

(01:20:22):
If he comes out with an executive order prohibiting the use of electronic voting computersin federal elections and she goes forward despite that,
then her problems at that point go from mere political problems to criminal problems.
And I'm not sure that as brazen as she is, even she is willing to cross that bridge.

(01:20:46):
We'll see.
We'll see.
We'll see what happens with it.
But I would be surprised.
in the meantime that she, can bet her foot is hard on the gas to get it done becausethere's that tiny window of time between right now after those demonstrations happened and
the moment that President Trump releases his executive order that we expect to be comingto outline that, to outlaw the use of these in federal elections at least.

(01:21:20):
ah We'll just see.
We will see because I'm not convinced, you know, I mean, she made her own way very, veryclear and smooth through the legislature this session.
And I don't know, Chris, I'm feeling very frustrated with the whole situation.
I'm feeling like the ignoring has hit a different level.

(01:21:40):
ah And I don't know.
She will have, she'll be in some deep water, some deep trouble.
Hot water was what I was looking for.
She'll be in hot water if she does move forward, but we'll see.
We'll see.
At this point, at this point, the way I see it, Danielle, it's becoming increasinglyobvious because of our platform and the platform of others that Nancy Landry's

(01:22:05):
administration is directly at odds with the desires of the Trump administration withregard to our electronic voting system.
with every day that passes that she continues to move forward with this, think herpolitical problems become worse.
But from a legal perspective, because there has not been an outright prohibition ofcomputer-based voting systems in federal elections yet, she doesn't yet have a legal

(01:22:37):
problem necessarily.
But if we do get an executive order that clarifies this, that expressly prohibits it, atthat point, if she goes forward, she has a legal problem.
And we'll see whether or not she's as brazen as you seem to think that she is.
And maybe she is.
We'll see.

(01:22:57):
Maybe she is.
Yeah, I have a couple of announcements before we close out, Chris.
Tomorrow and, well, tomorrow's Friday, right?
Friday and Saturday in Grandview, Texas is the Stay Awake America Tour.
It's got an incredible lineup, including Doc Chambers, Dr.
Brian Artis, Dr.
Judy Mikdovitz, and JJ Carroll, Trinis Evans.

(01:23:19):
We've had a couple of those folks on the show.
and more.
You can find out more about that if you're in the area at StayAwakeAmerica.com.
And Tuesday, we will have two segments, so we'll be mixing things up a little bit in termsof our format.
We will have City Judge Candidate Brendan Craig join us for the first half hour, and thesecond half hour will be the event organizer, one of the organizers of this Stay Awake

(01:23:44):
America tour.
Amy Young will be joining us to talk about the tour.
and we'll find out if they're gonna be coming to Louisiana and where else this tour willbe headed.
So that's all from me, Chris, on the announcement front.
I just want to add to that briefly.
I've known Brendan Craig, Danielle, for a long, time.
I know him to be an honorable lawyer.
I think he would be a good and a fair judge.

(01:24:06):
early voting for the Baton Rouge City Court race uh starts September 27th, ends on October4th, and Election Day is October 11th.
So I would just encourage people to seriously consider voting for Brendan Craig.
I think he'd be a good and fair judge.
Other than that, um I think we're in good shape today.
Other than to say, I know that we can count on all of our listeners and all of our currentsupporters to share the state of freedom today.

(01:24:34):
with at least one friend, one colleague, one coworker, one associate, ah and subscribe tothe state of freedom, donate to the state of freedom, advertise with the state of freedom,
uh because it really does help us.
As you said, Danielle, we are a community supported political podcast and we are gettingthe voice of Louisiana citizens out across the state more and more every day and knowledge

(01:25:00):
is power.
Knowledge is power.
So let the state of freedom be on your lips every day.
Also, uh support and donate to LeCAG, our advocacy group, my advocacy group, as wecontinue to clean out the rhinos from the state legislature.
Danielle, we're going on a rhino sweep throughout the state of Louisiana right now, namingnames of legislators.

(01:25:26):
who have betrayed Louisiana citizens on a whole host of issues that directly affect us ahto inform their voters in their districts of what they're doing so they can make an
informed decision when they go vote.
And before LCAG came along, Danielle, I don't think there was any organization doing that.
So it's a niche that we are very, very happy to fill.

(01:25:48):
So support us and help us to level the playing field as we battle, yeah.
it's more important than ever because we're about to be in a position to truly get thesepeople out once and for all.
So we need to know who they are.
The people of the state need to know who they are.
The people of the state need to know who they are for sure.
Knowledge is power as I believe Sir Francis Bacon said, knowledge is power.

(01:26:11):
So help us to expand it.
And Danielle, as always in the words of one of my biggest heroes, the late great William FBuckley Jr.
in vain, we shall go.
Awesome.
Thanks, Chris.
I'll see you on Tuesday.
God bless.

All Episodes

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;}#338 Moving Toward Accountability? w/ Matt Meck

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

#338 Moving Toward Accountability? w/ Matt Meck

Stuff You Should Know