The day after the 2020 presidential election, a lawyer for former U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign called Ken Block, a registered Republican and former gubernatorial candidate in Rhode Island, and asked if his firm, Simpatico Software Systems, would look for voter fraud. Block knew somebody was going to do it and he knew he could do it honestly, thoroughly, and impartially. In Disproven: My Unbiased Search for Voter Fraud for the Trump Campaign, the Data that Shows Why He Lost.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez Live is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Bill Martinez Live is broadcast live Mondays at 3PM ET on W4CY Radio (www.w4cy.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Bill Martinez Live is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Bill Martinez Live Podcast is also available on https://www.billmartinezshow.com, Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
The topics and opinions expressed in thefollowing show are solely those of the hosts
and their guests and not those ofW FOURCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates.
We make no recommendations or endorsements forradio show programs, services, or
products mentioned on air or on ourweb. No liability, explicit or implied
shall be extended to W FOURCY Radioor it's employees are affiliates. Any questions
or comments should be directed to thoseshow hosts. Thank you for choosing W
(00:21):
FOURCY Radio. Well, hello andwelcome Bill Martinez here. Great to have
(00:41):
you with us. For more informationon the show, you can check it
out Bill Martinez show dot com.The controversy continues, no doubt twenty twenty
election. You've got numbers that looklike still what eighty percent over eighty percent
of Republicans believe that there were shenanigansin the twenty twenty election. Their lack
of confidence about what happened in twentytwenty still looms independence now sixty one percent
(01:06):
according to some surveys, even Democrats. Now a majority of Democrats are saying
they's just something about what happened inthe elections that leave us in a quandary.
Our next guest has taken on toprove something that with all his experience,
and I mean this, I meanhe has such a breath of experience
(01:30):
in tackling this topic. It issomething that we only could only hope that
our government would have done. Andin this particular case, it was Donald
Trump who hired Ken Block to lookinto the twenty twenty election to find out,
you know, what the heck happened. His book subsequently has been the
result of what you might say,you know, maybe three years of research
(01:56):
plus a lifetime of experience. It'srepped into this book called My End Biased
Search for Voter Fraud for the Trumpcampaign, the data that shows why he
lost and how we can improve ourelections. Ken Block, welcome the show.
Good to have you with us,Bill, thank you for having me
on. I've been so looking forwardto this because we've had a lot I
(02:16):
mean in our search, I meanwhere we come from here, Ken,
We're pursuing the truth. We wantpeople to understand what's going on. Unfortunately,
today's journalism outlets and that sadly seemto be biased and prejudiced, and
there's few and few outlets available thatare open to take these topics on at
(02:38):
the risk of in some cases,social media canceling. I've been put in
social media jail a couple of timesbecause I believe I have a you know,
I just have a mandate from ouraudience, is Bill, find us
the truth, check it out,you know, And so I appreciate you
coming on the show to help usget to, you know, the bottom
(03:00):
of all this, because, asI mentioned, these numbers, when you've
got these huge numbers of Americans,the voter, the electorate saying hey,
I don't know what to believe aboutthis election. That's a sad commentary where
we are in this democratic republic,don't you think one hundred percent? Uh,
the number of people who believe thatsomehow the elections were rigged is extraordinary.
(03:28):
I was asked by the Trump campaignsimply to look for fraud sufficient to
change the results of one of theswing state elections, and they also asked
me to evaluate claims of voter fraudas they rolled into the campaign just for
the month after the election in twentytwenty. Ken, how do you do
that, because I mean, onone hand, you've got a former attorney
(03:51):
general under Barack Obama who said thatvoter fraud doesn't exist. So you got
that, you know, that perceptionon one side and then the other side.
Let's just say, for lack ofanother name, Sydney Powell, that
you know, we got cracking allover the place. So you know,
this is the extremes of the perception, and so this is not something you
(04:17):
know that I think that you canjust you know, say, okay,
I'm going to go in and ifI can prove these three or four things,
then maybe I can get to thebottom of this. Is the way
I look at it. But ofcourse that's in my own neophied way.
You're the expert. You know thenumbers, and you know how to do
this. I mean, you've beendoing this for a long time. So
(04:39):
help us understand how you approach thisto where what you're sharing with us right
now we can say, okay,maybe we can start to get you know,
some peace and understanding as to whathappened in twenty twenty. Sure.
So in my background, very quickly, I've been looking a voter data,
(05:00):
not just in my home state ofRhode Island, but across the country for
a decade. I was one ofthe first people to really start looking in
twenty fourteen at people who voted twice. I found people who lived in very
fancy homes in Newport, Rhode Island, who were voting in Rhode Island,
and also from their very fancy homeaddresses in Palm Beach, Florida, for
(05:20):
example. So that's sort of howI started getting into it. Over the
decade that went by, we becameexperts at identifying deceased voters, understanding very
clearly how different states put their voterdata together. I was asked to present
(05:41):
to former President Trump's Election Integrity Commissionin twenty seventeen. I went up to
Manchester, New Hampshire and helped,and I discussed the results of research that
I did for the Government Accountability Institutewhere I discovered roughly eight to nine thousand
duplicate vote that were cast by votersacross twenty four different states, and that
(06:03):
included twenty two hundred duplicate votes thatwere cast in Florida. And as I
developed, as my company developed thisexpertise, we began to get we were
asked to participate in doing the dataanalytics for lawsuits, and that's a really
different animal than just doing it asa hobby. You have to when you
(06:26):
find results that are going to bebehind a lawsuit. Your results are going
to be attacked by the opposing sideexperts, and you'd better have your act
together or else they'll destroy you andthen you have nothing. So not only
let me interject this real quick,So as early as twenty seventeen, the
Trump campaign gets a hold of youto look into voter fraud. The actually
(06:49):
of his vice President, Pence's chiefof staff, who reached out to me
because he was in charge of thePresidential Voter Integrity Commission at the time I
went down. I spent the dayin the Vice President's office with his staff
and other members of the commission,and subsequently was asked to present in Manchester
(07:13):
some of the work that we havedone in the past. Yeah, so
I am no stranger to it.And most importantly, as we work our
way into this conversation, my datahas survived legal scrutiny. I have helped
people and organizations sue secretaries of statebecause they weren't properly maintaining voter data.
(07:33):
I have helped states fend off lawsuitsagainst them where the lawsuit was centered on
data and I was able to dothe analytics and have my analytics survive the
scrutiny of the opposing sides experts.So you know, I am very good
at We're very good at what wedo. And when the Trump campaign reached
(07:53):
out to me, it was originallya simple ask of me. They wanted
me in my company to determine ifvoter fraud impacted any of the six swing
states in twenty twenty, and theywanted me to look specifically for deceased voters.
And they asked me to look forduplicate votes that were cast by somebody
(08:18):
in the swing state and also inany other state in the country. Basically
and walk real quick. Ken Blockeis with us in his book Disproven.
Ken is an expert in voter data. And there's so much you know to
your career. You've run for office. I think you've run for governor twice
there in Rhode Island, right,I did. Well, good for you.
(08:41):
Well, well, you know you'veactivated your citizenship and you are fervent
about maintaining this democratic republic. Soyou know, God bless you and your
team, you know, for lookingout for America, because I mean,
there's just something I don't know inherentlyculturally upsetting about where we are right now.
(09:03):
You know, here we are.You and I are talking days after
the President of the United States,former President Donald Trump, has been indicted
on thirty four counts felony account counts, which is unprecedented and unheard of,
and you know, part of meis thinking that, you know, what
could happen here? I mean,are there going to be other states that
(09:24):
are going to follow the lead ofthis nuclear bomb that was led off in
New York kind of like a HarryReid nuclear bomb that he let off in
the Senate if you remember regarding thefilibuster, and it was that nuclear weapon
that he unleashed that you know thatgave us three conservative judges in the Supreme
(09:46):
Court, right yep, Ndred.It's you know, we the time that
we live in right now is soextraordinarily hyperpartisan. I worry about it from
the viewpoint of we are a singlecountry that's largely divided along political lines right
(10:09):
now, and we have to figureout how to jump over that divide to
get things done. You know,I ran for governor because I wanted to
get things done in my corrupt,broken little state of Rhode Island. That's
been run by Democrats for close toninety years, and we have pension deficits
that are extraordinary. I can goon and on about the problems that Rhode
(10:31):
Island has. You know, I'ma guy who rolls up the sleeves and
wants to get in there and fixit. And I don't know how we
ever overcome where we're at right nowwith the political divide, but for sure,
sharing my experience in what I wasasked to do for the Trump campaign,
what we found and what we determinedis a very very important piece of
(10:52):
information. And just so everybody understands, the reason I'm talking about it at
all is because my communications with theTrump campaign campaign were subpoenaed by Jack Smith's
grand jury a year ago in DC. My communications were subpoenaed by Ruby Freeman's
legal team, who was the blackelection worker in Atlanta, Georgia who Rudy
(11:16):
Giuliani defamed. And I've also beensubpoenaed by Fannie Willis's legal action in Fulton,
Fulton County, Georgia. So I'vebecome, not through any desire on
my part to be one a professionalrecipient of subpoenas I don't like it.
But now that all of my materialsare in all three of those different parties
(11:41):
hands, I realized I'd better tellthe story on the straight, up and
up, and not let somebody elsedo it for me. Well exactly,
Well, you know you're getting hitwith sami. This gets to be expensive.
I mean, did you have alegal war chest in order to fend
off all this stuff? Oh?I didn't fend it off when you received
it off? That was the wrongword. I'm you know, to answer.
(12:01):
You've got to answer these subpoena andyou have to answer. And I
have a long, long time personalin corporate attorney, and I had to
pay him to make sure that wedid everything precisely the right way, and
we buttoned everything up because you canget yourself into some deep water quickly if
you don't, if you don't respondcarefully, and we responded very carefully and
(12:24):
transparently, because there isn't any otheroption when you get from a scibpoeno like
these. Well, especially as yousay right now, I mean the partisanship
in our country is so filled withrancor is that? Boy? If you
can be you know, attacked inany way, if there's a chink in
your armor. If there's any avoidanceof the truth at any level, boy,
(12:46):
they're going to find it and exploitit and invalidate you in a heartbeat.
Right yeah. I mean, asI got into politics in twenty ten,
I was complaining then about what partisanshiplooked like and how bad it was.
But that was a piece of cakecomparedently what you've got now, right,
I mean, you know, it'sit's extraordinarily bad. I wish I
(13:07):
really desperately wish it wasn't because atthe end of the day, we're all
Americans, exactly, and at somepoint we may be all called to come
together quickly to solve a problem,and we got to be able to do
so. Well, is it goingto take another nine to eleven some national
catastrophe or or is there you know, some leader that's going to be able
(13:28):
to kind of you know, grabthe the moral consciousness, so to speak,
of the country and you know,kind of shake, you know,
shake the sense into us in sucha way because you know, you know,
we've been on this journey for youknow, a couple of decades,
and it seems to be getting worse, not necessarily getting better, it's definitely
(13:50):
getting worse. I I look backto when Tip O'Neil, who was a
Democratic speaker in Congress, was wellknown for taking folks from across the isle
Republicans out having drinks at the bar, you know. I mean that's we
need to get back to that.We need to get back to a situation
where instead of taking shots at eachother means literally, you know, verbal
(14:13):
attack and that kind of thing,the shots we should be taking with each
other, to be at a barand enjoying ourselves a little bit. Well,
I'm for that without a doubt.It would definitely be more palpable,
you know, for the citizens ofthis country, because we're the ones at
the end of the day, KimBlock, we're the ones that are paying
for it, are we not?One hundred percent? It's going to require
(14:35):
leadership on both sides of the aisleto pull it together and to move us
from where we are right now.And am holding my breath waiting for the
right set of leaders to come alongand make that happen. Well, you
and me both, I think sometimeswhat happens is you just have to,
you know, get the fight outof you. It's almost like somebody drowning,
you know. I grew up onthe West Coast and the beaches and
(14:58):
lifeguards were very early that when somebodywas out there drowning, you didn't go
in and save them right away.Of course, it freaks those of us
who have compassion out because we're going, hello, guy drowning, women drowning,
and they, oh, yeah,we see it's okay. And what
do you mean it's okay they're drowning. Well, they knew from experience in
(15:18):
training that they had to get thefight out of themselves. And once they
got the fight out of themselves,then they could be you know, much
easier to contain and saved. Otherwisethey went in and tried to save them
right away, you know, thenboth of them became at risk, right,
makes sense? Yeah, so maybethat's the way we are right now
(15:39):
politically speaking. Yes, it's tough. And you know for those of us
who observed this and we see what'sgoing on and see that it's no benefit
to anybody. I mean, we'rethirty five trillion dollars in debt, our
borders are wide open, national securityis compromise, cost of living is through
the roof. You know, howis that serving we the people can luck?
(16:00):
Yeah? Well, you know,I crazily. I live in one
of the highest tax states in thecountry, and you know, so I
fully understand and I push back hardagainst the not only the inefficiencies of my
government here in Rhode Island, butthe non professionalism of so many who serve
(16:21):
in Rhode Island in government. Youknow, it's it's a it's a problem.
I think it's a problem across theboard. And uh again, I
don't really have an answer at thefederal level on what the right thing to
do is. But uh, youknow, we what we can't afford to
do. I'm a I'm a veryconsertisically conservative individual. Right. You know
what we need to do is weneed to make sure that we're not jeopardizing
(16:45):
the livelihoods and the financial security ofour grandchildren. Right now it's at risk
because of what we're doing with thedeficit and that sort of thing, and
we should be doing far better thanwe are. Well, I believe that
local is what feeds into the nationalUh, it happens faster, you know,
(17:07):
I've seen this time and time again. Uh. Local Uh, you
know can make the changes much quickerand ultimately it will affect the national level.
But I mean, we have seriousproblems, as you know, and
you've witnessed, you know, ona on a federal level, and uh,
you know, And but that doesn'tdoesn't take away from the foundation of
(17:30):
this great country. We've got agreat country. You and I have been
so blessed to be raised in thiscountry, and we want our kids and
our grandkids to have that same opportunity. Right, Yeah, I'm right with
it. Well, we're talking withKen Block. His book disproven my unbiased
search, and and he means thatwith all sincerity, and I believe him
(17:51):
to be true. I mean,it is an UnBias search. You know,
something that we needed for voter fraudfor the Trump campaign, the data
that show why Trump lost and howwe can improve our elections. So can
break it down for us. Whatdid you discover as you were first hired,
you know, by Mike Trump's Advisorycommittee to look into voter fraud.
(18:18):
You're talking about what I did intwenty seventeen or what I did in twenty
twenty, twenty twenty. I'm sorry. I referenced twenty seventeen, so I
understood. I'm sorry for the confusion. No subsequent when Trump's team said,
hey, help us. Understand,you're the expert. What went on?
Yeah, So it ended up beingtwo different things I did for them.
My contract asked me to look forevidence of dead voters and duplicate voters sufficient
(18:42):
to have changed an election result inany swing state, and my findings had
to survive legal scrutiny. Was afair Was that a fair question? Ken?
Was that a fair question to poseat that point? Absolutely, Look,
it's very difficult. It's very difficultto look at voter rolls and determine
(19:03):
who's dead and who's not. Andit's even harder to determine if two people
with the same name and the samedate of birth voting in two different states
is the same person or a differentperson. It's very very hard. We
know how to do it. It'snot cheap, and it had never This
is really important. I'm not awareof any presidential campaign ever auditing essentially the
(19:30):
results of a national election. That'swhat the Trump campaign asked my company to
do, and we had all ofthirty five days to do it. Because
what a lot of people don't understandis that the legal window to contest an
election result starts on election night andit ends the day each state certifies its
election results, and most states havecertified their results by the end of the
(19:52):
first week of December. So thatwith that deadline, how much of a
problem is that, Well, it'sa substantial challenge. And to really do
the analysis the justice that it deserves, you can't start working on it the
day after the election, like Iwas asked to do. You really need
(20:15):
to have an operation that's done allkinds of work months ahead of the head
of election day so that you havea big head of esteem grow going.
You know exactly all the data you'regoing to be looking at, and you
can save weeks of effort by doinga lot of work in advance. We
didn't have that luxury that I didn'tget the phone call until the day after
the election, and so we basicallyjumped in hard and it was an insane
(20:42):
thirty five days. It hada beeneven from the start, because you got
chain of custody issues right off thebat, don't you. So we took
all of the voter data directly fromthe Republican National Committee's data They called it.
A data lake is a big computerwith lots of data in it,
and all of the files that welooked at came directly from state or county
(21:07):
governments. So from a chain ofcustody perspective, I was pretty comfortable that
the data that we had was whatit needed to be. I've looked at
most states data in the past.The data looked the same for all the
different data that we looked at fromthe six states of interest that we looked,
and it probably warrants saying the namesGeorgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin,
(21:32):
Michigan, Pennsylvania, states right exactly, yep, the swing states.
So you know, the chain ofchain of custody was solid. I mean,
there's there's so there were so manychallenges in just getting into it and
getting going and then on top ofthat, so I was contractually obligated to
do our own digging for fraud.And the day after I signed the contract,
(21:57):
the lawyer I reported to. Hisname was Alex Cannon. He loved
We talked first thing in the morningoften, and you know, I'm talking
like six am, five point thirtysometimes. And I got the early morning
phone call from Alex, my firstof what turned out to be many and
he said, hey, I've gota claim in Pennsylvania where they have a
(22:18):
spreadsheet of one hundred names. Theyclaim we're dead voters. Can you tell
me what's going on with that?So that was the first request, and
what he was asking me to do, just so everybody is clear, he
was asking me to perform due diligenceon the claim because what he was asked
to do was take this claim tocourt if the claim was valid, and
(22:40):
he was asking me to do hisdue diligence, vet the file and tell
him if it was a good resultor a bad result. And he brought
me fifteen twenty claims over the courseof those thirty days, most of them
on an emergency basis, drop everythingyou're doing and look at this. We
have to file a lawsuit tomorrow ifit's true. And I was able to
(23:00):
look at them and unfortunately tell himtime after time after time after time,
Nope, this one is wrong.Here's why this one is wrong. Here's
why this one is wrong. Andthe way our interactions went, the early
requests were tell me whether this oneis right or wrong. By the end
of the whole thing, he wasjust saying, tell me why this one
(23:21):
is wrong. Because everybody were makingmistakes. A lot of people were well
intentioned, a lot of people.But by the way, I wanted to
be the person to find massive fraudif it existed, right, I mean,
you know, if we have abig time problem with our elections,
I wanted to be the guy toto unearth it. It simply wasn't there
(23:42):
in terms of findings that would havestood up in court and survived legal scrutiny.
And this is the whole key toall of the talking that we do
as a nation about our elections.Only conversations that are worth having about voter
fraud are the provable claims that willstand up in court because any other claim
(24:06):
doesn't matter. It can't ever impactwhat the results of the election were.
So that's the long and the shortof it. That's why when the last
of the swing states certified their results, my job was over. There was
no role for me at that pointbecause there was no hope of being successful
in court. Well of all thethings that were questioned, you know,
(24:30):
you run into the mathematical calculus thatsays one hundred votes, Well you lost
by twelve thousand, so what youknow? And you know, so now
you're kind of like Don Quixote chasingwindmills because unless you can get the mother
load and demonstrate that there were,you know, hundreds of thousands of votes
(24:52):
that are involved here. I mean, you've got I think there were like
something like I thought there was athous I think at one time there were
one thousand sworn affidavits from pole watcherssaying, hey, there's a problem here
in River City. I don't understand. I'll swear to it that the whole
truth, nothing but that this iswhat I observed. And that number since
(25:14):
has risen to seven thousand. Soyou get into the perception versus reality issue
here. But I can see,I can see in some cases where if
you're talking one hundred votes, dig, go up, it doesn't matter.
Well, you're right. So thiswas in Pennsylvania, where the margin of
victory was ninety thousand votes. ButI looked at them and it turned out
(25:37):
that the person who had done theanalysis made a bunch of mistakes. Almost
all of the votes that were identifiedwere in twenty twenty. In Pennsylvania,
it was legal. The vote wasallowed to be counted if you voted early
and then unfortunately died before the election. Almost all of the one hundred votes
were either legally valid vote because thevoter cast the vote while alive but then
(26:04):
died before election day, or insome circumstances, the person didn't understand that
you can have two people with thesame name and same date to birth,
It doesn't mean they're the same person. Usually means it's somebody else. So
that's another classic mistake that I sawover and over and over again. But
we found one out of one hundredthat was actually questionable because the date of
(26:29):
birth and the receipt by the board, by the Board of Elections of that
mail ballot overlap by only like aday, so you know, it could
have been fraud. It could havebeen that it is an allowable vote.
There was no smoking gun with thatone. You mentioned one hundred thousand or
more votes. I got one claimlike that. This one is by far
my favorite claim to talk about beforewe do. Let me do this because
(26:56):
I got to remind everybody, youknow, we're talking to the world famous
block. He's becoming world famous now. A race car driver by as we
say so, he's an expert invoter data, a technology entrepreneur, two
time candidate for governor, advocate forgood government, and founder of the Centrist
political Party. Author of the bookDisprove and my unbiased search for voter fraud
(27:21):
and the Trump campaign the data thatshows why he lost and how we can
improve our elections. All right,so let's pick out the story. Talk
about your favorite one hundred thousand votestory. Yeah, it was actually seven
hundred and forty thousand votes. WHOAok. Yeah. In early December,
Alex called me and said, checkyour email, I got I got one.
(27:44):
You have to tell me why it'swrong. There were some folks in
Wisconsin who had done their own analysisand determined that seven hundred and forty thousand
Wisconsin voters had voted twice. Theycouldn't make the numbers add up of what
they had done with what the Secretaryof State was announcing for the total number
of votes cast. They came upseven hundred and forty thousand votes short.
(28:07):
Assumed it must be because of duplicatevotes. They wanted the Department of Justice
to come in. They took theirfindings to a friend of theirs who played
golf, who brought it to themanager of a Trump golf course, who
brought it to Eric Trump, whobrought it to the Oval Office, who
gave it to Alex Cannon, whogave it to me and said, you
need to tell me why it's wrong. And quickly I understood almost immediately the
(28:33):
mistake that they had made. Theydidn't they the file of data they were
looking at only had mail ballots init and didn't have in person votes cast
votes by people who went on electiondata vote and the number of votes that
they were off by was basically thenumber of in person votes that were cast
in Wisconsin. And you know,I was able to that was probably the
easiest one that I had to disprove. And then that was it, you
(28:59):
know, but it was People getreally excited when it comes to trying to
provide the proof to back up theclaim that voter fraud surrounds us everywhere.
You know, I am probably theonly person in this country who predicted mail
ballot fraud before it happened in thewell Jimmy Carter, excuse me, back
(29:23):
in the eighties, nineteen and whatwas in nineteen eighty nine, He and
who was the senator, the twoman commission that they led, said mail
in balloting was going to be anightmare. It was a way for voter
fraud. Yeah. Well, itturns out I was doing a court case
(29:44):
in September October November of twenty twentyin Pennsylvania, and as I was looking
at the voter rolls and we werelooking for evidence of deceased voters on the
rolls, and I had discovered abouttwenty one thousand of them. One of
them in particular caught my eye becausethis woman had registered to vote in September
(30:04):
of twenty twenty. She had diedin twenty thirteen. And I looked at
that and I said, the timingof that registration and the whole thing about
this, you watch, this willbecome a fraudulent deceased vote. That prediction
found its way into the court recordin the court case, and it turns
(30:26):
out that on the day it wentinto the record, the mail ballot had
been cast in that dead woman's nameby her I believe it was her widowed
husband, and he subsided that thevote ridiculously counted in that election. Even
though election workers were aware this hadbeen identified as a likely fraudulent vote,
(30:48):
they didn't do anything about it.It was a vote that was counted after
the election. The guy's name wasPresto. He was arrested charge and he
pled guilty to committing voter fraud.So you know there are anybody who says
there's no such thing a voter fraudhas is wrong and has been wrong for
(31:11):
as long as we've had computerized recordsthat research. Yeah, even before then,
Ken, I was looking back,and I mean going back to seventeen
hundred, there was indication of voterfraud taking away when there's something about the
human condition, you know, itjust somehow we haven't bred in us that
it's acceptable to cheat, even ingolf. But that's a whole other story,
(31:33):
you know, you know, justto talk to that point, people
will cheat if they believe they canget away with it. If it's a
low risk crime, they're much morelikely to do it than if it's a
high risk crime. Right, andvoter fraud used to be a low risk
crime. It was very difficult todo the kind of analysis. It still
(31:56):
remains difficult doing the kind of stuffI'm talking about, but people are doing
it now. We have done it, and states, even though I understand
the reasons for your listeners who areaware of those who aren't, there's this
thing called Eric capital Eric and withoutgetting in, deep, deep, deep
(32:19):
into the mess, that that thingis what they're trying to do is very
important. The different states who aremembers pool their data together, trying to
identify people who are registered to votein different states, because since each state
manages its own voter data, it'svery hard without something like ERIC in the
middle to determine if somebody has multiplevoter registrations and multiple states. ERIC was
(32:44):
became very political all the way.It was political from the day it got
started. There needs to be somethingelse to replace it. Frankly, I
think that the Election Assistance Commission,which is a federal nonpartisan organization, should
do that function so there's no partisanshipto it. There's nothing to it other
(33:07):
than helping states get their data clean. It's hard to have integrity in our
elections when the data that sits underneaththose elections is dirty. Exact, man,
we have dirty data. Now,dirty data doesn't mean fraud is happening
everywhere. Okay, Voter fraud isa five year prison term felony on top
(33:31):
of a ten thousand dollars fine.It used to be you could do it.
No one was even aware that youwere doing it. Who cares?
Now there's lots of people watching,and I believe that's driven down the number
of people willing to risk committing afelony moving forward. But let's talk.
(33:52):
Your listeners will love this. Soin New Jersey, and I got to
say before I say this, it'snot evidence of voter fraud. It's sloppy
data, but not voter fraud.There are twenty five thousand registered voters in
New Jersey with a year of birthof eighteen hundred. Eight thousand of them
(34:13):
voted in twenty twenty. Okay,but it's not fraud. That's election workers
not cleaning up the fact that thosevoters registration records didn't have a date of
birth. If eight thousand people arevoting with a year of eighteen hundred,
you can get their year of birthfrom them, right, You can get
it by who gave them that birthday. So that's what the default in their
(34:37):
computer system is if it doesn't poseright. So, same problem in New
York. In fact, New Yorkhas some of the worst data that I've
ever seen ever. Right, Sothere are lots of things that we should
be doing to clean up the data, but that also doesn't stop a small
(34:59):
amount of vote or fraud from happening. Right, wrapping up my engagement with
the Trump campaign. Every claim theybrought to me, I was able to
show them why it was false,including claims brought by college professors PhDs using
really complicated mathematical theories to prove thatvoter fraud was everywhere in Pennsylvania for example,
(35:22):
Right, exactly, I had twentyfour hours to prove them wrong,
and I did, and it doesn't. It wasn't. And it wasn't so
much that you were trying to provethem wrong. You were just trying to
just do the analysis, right.I mean, I want people to understand.
It wasn't like you were sitting therelike you you had skin in the
game one way or another. Imean you you went and approached this from,
(35:43):
you know, an objective viewpoint.I you know, I sense,
right. So what I was doingwas the due diligence that the lawyers that
I reported to asked me to do. They didn't want to walk a claim
into court that was false, exactly. So, my Joe, you know
what happened to some attorneys that didthat, correct, It didn't fare well
(36:07):
for them. They're terribly So.My job, when I was asked to
evaluate all these claims of voter fraudwas to protect the lawyers who were going
to bring the claim into court,because the only thing there's nothing worse than
filing a lawsuit that has at itsfoundation false data and the other side's experts
pointed out and blow you out ofthe water. It's humiliating, exactly.
(36:30):
My job was to prevent the humiliation. And like I said, it doesn't
give me great glee to say it, but the cold truth is that none
of the claims that was given tome to evaluate pass muster. None of
them would have survived their day incourt. Right. Well, I do
want to clear up something I saidnineteen eighty nine. It was actually two
(36:51):
thousand and five and it was JamesBaker and President Carter that did the investigation
into mail end voting and their conclusionwas that that mail in voting was ripe
with potential fraud. So here itis, so everything that you did mathematically,
that your company analyzed, and youknow the bottom line was you could
(37:12):
not see and discern and conclude anywholesale voter fraud. However, Ken,
after everything is all said and done, why is it? And I don't
believe it's just because Donald Trump.I mean, the mainstream media want to
say, well, because Donald Trumpkeeps beating the drum of you know,
voter fraud. I mean Stacy Abramsbeat that drum forever. You know,
(37:34):
she lost by eighty thousand votes,and I think she still beats that drum,
but nobody believes her. But forDonald Trump. You know, these
numbers, like I mentioned when wefirst started talking, you got over eighty
percent of Republicans not having their faithin the twenty twenty election, sixty one
independent, sixty one percent, overfifty percent now of Democrats. So we've
(37:58):
got a disconnect between I mean,you know, perception and reality. You
know, I would say that.You know, my wife and I were
traveling across country. We went throughtwelve states in October leading into the election.
And you know, I've been amarketing guy all my life, and
I have a sense for momentum.And you know, I saw this happen
(38:22):
with Barack Obama, for example.You know his campaign. You said,
Wow, this guy's got such youknow, such wind at his back,
and he's just you know, he'sgot a lot of momentum in his campaign.
And this is the same thing thatI witnessed with Donald Trump. You
know, going into the twenty twentyelection. I went through twelve states and
(38:42):
I saw Trump signs, Trump Pennsigns everywhere I went, and I counted,
just out of curiosity, I said, I got to make a note
and guess how many signs for BidenHarris? I saw through twelve states?
And we're not just going through youknow, through states. I mean we're
we're going through you know, mostlyblue states, including Los Angeles. And
(39:07):
asked me how many how many signsfor Biden Harris that I saw going through
twelve states? Right? I sawthree? I believe, Yeah, I
saw three. So so the perceptionof momentum and all that's going on,
and then you have the president,even with the count, getting ten million
(39:28):
more votes than he got previously,which is unheard of. I've never heard
of president getting ten million, theincumbent president getting ten million more votes,
but losing by a record number froma politician, you know, by comparison,
Barack Obama didn't even get those numbers, you know. So this so
there's a there's a very there's avery interesting document on the website politico dot
(39:53):
com. And Trump's polster is aguy named Tony for Ezio, and I
know Tony. Tony did my pollingin twenty fourteen last time I talked to
him. As twenty sixteen or so, he was asked by the Trump campaign
to do exit polling in all theswing states in twenty twenty. And what
(40:15):
an as a pole is is theyhave workers standing outside the polling places interviewing
people as they leave the polling place. We will vote for why did you
vote that way? Blah blah blah, and Farrazio in an internal campaign document
that was leaked came up with thefollowing findings. So this comes directly from
(40:38):
Trump's pollster. It's not my data, it's no one else's data. It's
very expensive data that came right fromthe guy he won. Out of six
voters that they interviewed, out ofthirty thousand voters that they interviewed across the
swing states, one out of sixwere first time voters who came out to
(40:58):
vote against isident Trump. And thereason they did so to me is bonkers.
They did so, they said becauseof COVID. Okay, that's I
mean, that's a big number,big percentage of the votes. They all
had the same, more or lesssame explanation for it. So they were
blaming blaming Trump for COVID. Ithink they didn't like the way the he
(41:20):
handled COVID. I don't know theparticulars of it. And like I said,
I think it's a little crazy,but voters sometimes vote for crazy reasons
anyway, right, you know,having run for office, it's so depressing
sometimes for what motivates people to vote. Not only when you run for office.
Not only do you need an attorneyan upholster, you need a therapist
(41:40):
afterwards you do. It took meout. It took me a long time
to recover from both runs. Andthat's in a small state. Another one
out of six voters were and I'mgoing to use Trump's term for them,
were Rhinos who were lifelong Republicans.They told the exit polls, but they
voted against Trump in twenty twenty.They Trump lost them. In fact,
(42:05):
Trump told him to take a hikein so many words. Right, you
know, we know that President Trumphas no love for Rhinos. So you
know that's a third of the peoplethey interviewed brand new voters and loss of
Republican support. And in Fabrizio's dialogueabout those findings, he talked about the
(42:27):
loss of Republican support as a cruciallyimportant element that contributed to the actual loss
that they experienced in the swing states. So now what And I understand that
the way I think and the wayformer President Trump thinks could be very,
very different. But if I wasin his shoes, I would try to
(42:49):
figure out how to bring those votersback. Because his own polster told him
they had such a negative impact onthe results in twenty twenty. That hasn't
happen yet. I watch pretty watchand listen pretty carefully, and I think
that's a problem that the campaign hasthat they have to resolve before election day
now. Fortunately for the Republicans,Biden has his own loss of democratic support
(43:14):
right now, and young progressives whoI guess they believe they're going to penalize
Biden for the Israel Gaza problem bynot voting for Biden and therefore in effect
casting a vote for Trump. Youknow. So it's we there's a lot
of unknowns as as we roll intothe election. And what I would just
(43:35):
ask everybody to do is take abreath. If there was that there truly
was monumental fraud, it would bedealt with, it would surface, we
would all come to an agreement.It's a problem and by the way,
things like ballot harvesting should be madeillegal across the country, no doubt about
(43:58):
it. Why how can al presidentialelections hinge on a bunch of people running
around collecting ballots. That's wrong allthe way, right, right, Jerry
Man is wrong. Right. Whenwe start new democracies around the world,
I guarantee you we don't take thepractice of jerrymandering and tell them you ought
to do this because it's good fordemocracy. Right. It's not good for
(44:20):
democracy. So there are there are. When I put my good government hat
on, it's there's like a dozenthings that I could talk that we could
talk about for changes that we shouldmake that would make our elections stronger,
fairer and a level playing fielding gettingrid of jerrymandering, getting rid of ballot
harvesting, putting a formal government databasetogether to help all the states clean up
(44:43):
their data. Right. I cango on and on and on about it.
I know the most important part ofthe book. Yeah, I know
that one of the things you talkedabout was shortening up the number of days.
I believe there should just be anational day for voting. You know,
everybody takes the day off it's afederal day off. It's one of
those federal holidays that I would agreewith. You know. You know,
(45:05):
we've got so many of our federalemployees, they had so many holidays not
even funny, but this one Iwouldn't have a big problem in adding is
that you take the day off,you have a day off, you go
ahead and vote, and then afterwardsyou come together as Americans and we celebrate
and said, hey, we didour deal. I don't care about you
voting for Republican or Democrats, justhey, look at we all got skin
in the game. We participated,we exercised our civic responsibility, and let's
(45:30):
see who the next president is.And you know what I find quite interesting,
ken is that in primaries we're ableto get this information by midnight in
all these different states. But whenit comes to a federal election, all
of a sudden, it gets socomplicated, and you know, we need
days and weeks to you know,add the numbers. What's going on.
(45:52):
Right, So we're in the mostcomplicated element of election law talking about mail
ballots. One of the big problemsI think we have in our elections is
the fact that the states can toa large extent conduct the elections however they
want. And what that means inpractical terms is for the swing states in
(46:14):
twenty twenty four, the shortest mailballot window is twenty seven days. The
longest one is sixty days, right, And I look at that and as
a computer guy, I want themto all be the same number of days.
Right. We talked early on aboutdead voters, allegedly dead voters in
(46:35):
Pennsylvania and how many of them casttheir votes early and then died before election
day. Well, it turns outthat in a third of the states the
state allows those sorts of votes.In a third of the states the state
disallows those sort of votes. Andin fact, in Michigan in twenty twenty
they disallowed three five hundred votes wherethe voter voted early and then died before
(46:58):
election day. That's not a smallnumber of votes votes. And in the
out of the third of the states, there's no law about this circumstance at
all, even though it has tohappen. So that's a mess, right.
How can we have a different outcomefor these voters depending on where they
live. It should be the sameexperience for all of them. We should
either make them all count or makethem all not count for me, because
(47:23):
it's so hard to determine that avoter is deceased or not. I say
that we should let them count becausedetermining that they can't count is crazily,
crazily hard, especially if they passaway just a few days before the election.
Oh yeah, I mean so,Actually, I think here we go,
here's the first chance for a compromise. Right nationwide, make those votes
(47:46):
count. But as part of thecompromise, make sure that the mail ballot
window is only two weeks in lengthor less. Right and studying do something.
You're a technology guy, what doyou make I mean, there was
so much controversy over these voting machines. You know, I thought maybe,
as a grand experiment, maybe wehave a couple of you know, a
(48:08):
couple of states, do a dualprocess. We do the voting machines and
then we do a ballot, andthat way we could you know, have
something in which to gauge to saythat, you know, these machines are
really you know, they're viable.You know. I think the problem I
(48:29):
had was when you know, theywent to the hill. I'm talking about
dominion specifically, and they were askedwhether or not there was Internet connectivity,
and the CEO said absolutely not,and then they find a modem in the
machines. So you know, againthis is the stuff that gives people doubts
(48:50):
and you know about this whole process. So I'm going to let you address
that, summarize everything, and wrapthings up because we've got about two minutes
left, so I'm going to giveyou the floor. Okay, sure,
So, repeating what I said previously, when it comes to voter fraud,
people can often get mixed up betweenfraud and integrity issues that have dirty data
(49:15):
and other things behind them, butthey're bad, but they're not evidence of
fraud. Fraud is something that youcan verify and quantify. And unless you
can do that with some of theclaims that people are talking about, you're
really not talking about fraud. Youknow, As somebody who's run for office,
as somebody who was paid, franklya great deal of money to look
(49:38):
at the twenty twenty election and tohelp the Trump campaign. If it was
able to be done, we weren'table to do it. It was a
straight up assessment. That's what thelawyers wanted. The lawyer I reported to
accepted my evidence is true. MarkMeadows, Trump's chief of staff at the
time, accepted that as truth whenAlex Canon told him the voter fraud that
(50:04):
you know everyone wants us to findsimply isn't there exactly? Well, Ken
Block, thank you so much forbeing with us. He's the author of
disproving my unbiased search for voter fraudfor the Trump campaign, the data that
shows why he lost and how wecan improve our elections. That's you know
again, and I can't overemphasize enough. And you mentioned a Ken that your
insight and your suggestions and how toimprove our elections is a critical part of
(50:30):
this book and a must read.So again, thank you so much for
being with us. Appreciate it.Thanks, I really appreciate it. Thanks
Bill Well. It was the dayafter the twenty twenty presidential election. A
lawyer for former US President Donald Trump'scampaign called Ken Block, a registered Republican
and former good manatorial candidate for RhodeIsland, and asked if he is firm
(50:52):
Simpatico Software Systems would look for voterfraud. Block knew somebody was going to
do it, and he knew hecould do it on thoroughly and impartially so.
He took on the job and it'sall right here in this book disproven.
Thank you, Ken Block, andthank you for sharing a part of
your day with us. May Godbless you and keep you, May make
(51:14):
His face shine upon you, andmay he give you peace. Thanks again
for being with us. God bless
The topics and opinions expressed in thefollowing show are solely those of the hosts
and their guests and not those ofW FOURCY Radio. It's employees are affiliates.
We make no recommendations or endorsements forradio show programs, services, or
products mentioned on air or on ourweb. No liability, explicit or implied
shall be extended to W FOURCY Radioor it's employees are affiliates. Any questions
or comments should be directed to thoseshow hosts. Thank you for choosing W
(00:21):
FOURCY Radio. Well, hello andwelcome Bill Martinez here. Great to have
(00:41):
you with us. For more informationon the show, you can check it
out Bill Martinez show dot com.The controversy continues, no doubt twenty twenty
election. You've got numbers that looklike still what eighty percent over eighty percent
of Republicans believe that there were shenanigansin the twenty twenty election. Their lack
of confidence about what happened in twentytwenty still looms independence now sixty one percent
(01:06):
according to some surveys, even Democrats. Now a majority of Democrats are saying
they's just something about what happened inthe elections that leave us in a quandary.
Our next guest has taken on toprove something that with all his experience,
and I mean this, I meanhe has such a breath of experience
(01:30):
in tackling this topic. It issomething that we only could only hope that
our government would have done. Andin this particular case, it was Donald
Trump who hired Ken Block to lookinto the twenty twenty election to find out,
you know, what the heck happened. His book subsequently has been the
result of what you might say,you know, maybe three years of research
(01:56):
plus a lifetime of experience. It'srepped into this book called My End Biased
Search for Voter Fraud for the Trumpcampaign, the data that shows why he
lost and how we can improve ourelections. Ken Block, welcome the show.
Good to have you with us,Bill, thank you for having me
on. I've been so looking forwardto this because we've had a lot I
(02:16):
mean in our search, I meanwhere we come from here, Ken,
We're pursuing the truth. We wantpeople to understand what's going on. Unfortunately,
today's journalism outlets and that sadly seemto be biased and prejudiced, and
there's few and few outlets available thatare open to take these topics on at
(02:38):
the risk of in some cases,social media canceling. I've been put in
social media jail a couple of timesbecause I believe I have a you know,
I just have a mandate from ouraudience, is Bill, find us
the truth, check it out,you know, And so I appreciate you
coming on the show to help usget to, you know, the bottom
(03:00):
of all this, because, asI mentioned, these numbers, when you've
got these huge numbers of Americans,the voter, the electorate saying hey,
I don't know what to believe aboutthis election. That's a sad commentary where
we are in this democratic republic,don't you think one hundred percent? Uh,
the number of people who believe thatsomehow the elections were rigged is extraordinary.
(03:28):
I was asked by the Trump campaignsimply to look for fraud sufficient to
change the results of one of theswing state elections, and they also asked
me to evaluate claims of voter fraudas they rolled into the campaign just for
the month after the election in twentytwenty. Ken, how do you do
that, because I mean, onone hand, you've got a former attorney
(03:51):
general under Barack Obama who said thatvoter fraud doesn't exist. So you got
that, you know, that perceptionon one side and then the other side.
Let's just say, for lack ofanother name, Sydney Powell, that
you know, we got cracking allover the place. So you know,
this is the extremes of the perception, and so this is not something you
(04:17):
know that I think that you canjust you know, say, okay,
I'm going to go in and ifI can prove these three or four things,
then maybe I can get to thebottom of this. Is the way
I look at it. But ofcourse that's in my own neophied way.
You're the expert. You know thenumbers, and you know how to do
this. I mean, you've beendoing this for a long time. So
(04:39):
help us understand how you approach thisto where what you're sharing with us right
now we can say, okay,maybe we can start to get you know,
some peace and understanding as to whathappened in twenty twenty. Sure.
So in my background, very quickly, I've been looking a voter data,
(05:00):
not just in my home state ofRhode Island, but across the country for
a decade. I was one ofthe first people to really start looking in
twenty fourteen at people who voted twice. I found people who lived in very
fancy homes in Newport, Rhode Island, who were voting in Rhode Island,
and also from their very fancy homeaddresses in Palm Beach, Florida, for
(05:20):
example. So that's sort of howI started getting into it. Over the
decade that went by, we becameexperts at identifying deceased voters, understanding very
clearly how different states put their voterdata together. I was asked to present
(05:41):
to former President Trump's Election Integrity Commissionin twenty seventeen. I went up to
Manchester, New Hampshire and helped,and I discussed the results of research that
I did for the Government Accountability Institutewhere I discovered roughly eight to nine thousand
duplicate vote that were cast by votersacross twenty four different states, and that
(06:03):
included twenty two hundred duplicate votes thatwere cast in Florida. And as I
developed, as my company developed thisexpertise, we began to get we were
asked to participate in doing the dataanalytics for lawsuits, and that's a really
different animal than just doing it asa hobby. You have to when you
(06:26):
find results that are going to bebehind a lawsuit. Your results are going
to be attacked by the opposing sideexperts, and you'd better have your act
together or else they'll destroy you andthen you have nothing. So not only
let me interject this real quick,So as early as twenty seventeen, the
Trump campaign gets a hold of youto look into voter fraud. The actually
(06:49):
of his vice President, Pence's chiefof staff, who reached out to me
because he was in charge of thePresidential Voter Integrity Commission at the time I
went down. I spent the dayin the Vice President's office with his staff
and other members of the commission,and subsequently was asked to present in Manchester
(07:13):
some of the work that we havedone in the past. Yeah, so
I am no stranger to it.And most importantly, as we work our
way into this conversation, my datahas survived legal scrutiny. I have helped
people and organizations sue secretaries of statebecause they weren't properly maintaining voter data.
(07:33):
I have helped states fend off lawsuitsagainst them where the lawsuit was centered on
data and I was able to dothe analytics and have my analytics survive the
scrutiny of the opposing sides experts.So you know, I am very good
at We're very good at what wedo. And when the Trump campaign reached
(07:53):
out to me, it was originallya simple ask of me. They wanted
me in my company to determine ifvoter fraud impacted any of the six swing
states in twenty twenty, and theywanted me to look specifically for deceased voters.
And they asked me to look forduplicate votes that were cast by somebody
(08:18):
in the swing state and also inany other state in the country. Basically
and walk real quick. Ken Blockeis with us in his book Disproven.
Ken is an expert in voter data. And there's so much you know to
your career. You've run for office. I think you've run for governor twice
there in Rhode Island, right,I did. Well, good for you.
(08:41):
Well, well, you know you'veactivated your citizenship and you are fervent
about maintaining this democratic republic. Soyou know, God bless you and your
team, you know, for lookingout for America, because I mean,
there's just something I don't know inherentlyculturally upsetting about where we are right now.
(09:03):
You know, here we are.You and I are talking days after
the President of the United States,former President Donald Trump, has been indicted
on thirty four counts felony account counts, which is unprecedented and unheard of,
and you know, part of meis thinking that, you know, what
could happen here? I mean,are there going to be other states that
(09:24):
are going to follow the lead ofthis nuclear bomb that was led off in
New York kind of like a HarryReid nuclear bomb that he let off in
the Senate if you remember regarding thefilibuster, and it was that nuclear weapon
that he unleashed that you know thatgave us three conservative judges in the Supreme
(09:46):
Court, right yep, Ndred.It's you know, we the time that
we live in right now is soextraordinarily hyperpartisan. I worry about it from
the viewpoint of we are a singlecountry that's largely divided along political lines right
(10:09):
now, and we have to figureout how to jump over that divide to
get things done. You know,I ran for governor because I wanted to
get things done in my corrupt,broken little state of Rhode Island. That's
been run by Democrats for close toninety years, and we have pension deficits
that are extraordinary. I can goon and on about the problems that Rhode
(10:31):
Island has. You know, I'ma guy who rolls up the sleeves and
wants to get in there and fixit. And I don't know how we
ever overcome where we're at right nowwith the political divide, but for sure,
sharing my experience in what I wasasked to do for the Trump campaign,
what we found and what we determinedis a very very important piece of
(10:52):
information. And just so everybody understands, the reason I'm talking about it at
all is because my communications with theTrump campaign campaign were subpoenaed by Jack Smith's
grand jury a year ago in DC. My communications were subpoenaed by Ruby Freeman's
legal team, who was the blackelection worker in Atlanta, Georgia who Rudy
(11:16):
Giuliani defamed. And I've also beensubpoenaed by Fannie Willis's legal action in Fulton,
Fulton County, Georgia. So I'vebecome, not through any desire on
my part to be one a professionalrecipient of subpoenas I don't like it.
But now that all of my materialsare in all three of those different parties
(11:41):
hands, I realized I'd better tellthe story on the straight, up and
up, and not let somebody elsedo it for me. Well exactly,
Well, you know you're getting hitwith sami. This gets to be expensive.
I mean, did you have alegal war chest in order to fend
off all this stuff? Oh?I didn't fend it off when you received
it off? That was the wrongword. I'm you know, to answer.
(12:01):
You've got to answer these subpoena andyou have to answer. And I
have a long, long time personalin corporate attorney, and I had to
pay him to make sure that wedid everything precisely the right way, and
we buttoned everything up because you canget yourself into some deep water quickly if
you don't, if you don't respondcarefully, and we responded very carefully and
(12:24):
transparently, because there isn't any otheroption when you get from a scibpoeno like
these. Well, especially as yousay right now, I mean the partisanship
in our country is so filled withrancor is that? Boy? If you
can be you know, attacked inany way, if there's a chink in
your armor. If there's any avoidanceof the truth at any level, boy,
(12:46):
they're going to find it and exploitit and invalidate you in a heartbeat.
Right yeah. I mean, asI got into politics in twenty ten,
I was complaining then about what partisanshiplooked like and how bad it was.
But that was a piece of cakecomparedently what you've got now, right,
I mean, you know, it'sit's extraordinarily bad. I wish I
(13:07):
really desperately wish it wasn't because atthe end of the day, we're all
Americans, exactly, and at somepoint we may be all called to come
together quickly to solve a problem,and we got to be able to do
so. Well, is it goingto take another nine to eleven some national
catastrophe or or is there you know, some leader that's going to be able
(13:28):
to kind of you know, grabthe the moral consciousness, so to speak,
of the country and you know,kind of shake, you know,
shake the sense into us in sucha way because you know, you know,
we've been on this journey for youknow, a couple of decades,
and it seems to be getting worse, not necessarily getting better, it's definitely
(13:50):
getting worse. I I look backto when Tip O'Neil, who was a
Democratic speaker in Congress, was wellknown for taking folks from across the isle
Republicans out having drinks at the bar, you know. I mean that's we
need to get back to that.We need to get back to a situation
where instead of taking shots at eachother means literally, you know, verbal
(14:13):
attack and that kind of thing,the shots we should be taking with each
other, to be at a barand enjoying ourselves a little bit. Well,
I'm for that without a doubt.It would definitely be more palpable,
you know, for the citizens ofthis country, because we're the ones at
the end of the day, KimBlock, we're the ones that are paying
for it, are we not?One hundred percent? It's going to require
(14:35):
leadership on both sides of the aisleto pull it together and to move us
from where we are right now.And am holding my breath waiting for the
right set of leaders to come alongand make that happen. Well, you
and me both, I think sometimeswhat happens is you just have to,
you know, get the fight outof you. It's almost like somebody drowning,
you know. I grew up onthe West Coast and the beaches and
(14:58):
lifeguards were very early that when somebodywas out there drowning, you didn't go
in and save them right away.Of course, it freaks those of us
who have compassion out because we're going, hello, guy drowning, women drowning,
and they, oh, yeah,we see it's okay. And what
do you mean it's okay they're drowning. Well, they knew from experience in
(15:18):
training that they had to get thefight out of themselves. And once they
got the fight out of themselves,then they could be you know, much
easier to contain and saved. Otherwisethey went in and tried to save them
right away, you know, thenboth of them became at risk, right,
makes sense? Yeah, so maybethat's the way we are right now
(15:39):
politically speaking. Yes, it's tough. And you know for those of us
who observed this and we see what'sgoing on and see that it's no benefit
to anybody. I mean, we'rethirty five trillion dollars in debt, our
borders are wide open, national securityis compromise, cost of living is through
the roof. You know, howis that serving we the people can luck?
(16:00):
Yeah? Well, you know,I crazily. I live in one
of the highest tax states in thecountry, and you know, so I
fully understand and I push back hardagainst the not only the inefficiencies of my
government here in Rhode Island, butthe non professionalism of so many who serve
(16:21):
in Rhode Island in government. Youknow, it's it's a it's a problem.
I think it's a problem across theboard. And uh again, I
don't really have an answer at thefederal level on what the right thing to
do is. But uh, youknow, we what we can't afford to
do. I'm a I'm a veryconsertisically conservative individual. Right. You know
what we need to do is weneed to make sure that we're not jeopardizing
(16:45):
the livelihoods and the financial security ofour grandchildren. Right now it's at risk
because of what we're doing with thedeficit and that sort of thing, and
we should be doing far better thanwe are. Well, I believe that
local is what feeds into the nationalUh, it happens faster, you know,
(17:07):
I've seen this time and time again. Uh. Local Uh, you
know can make the changes much quickerand ultimately it will affect the national level.
But I mean, we have seriousproblems, as you know, and
you've witnessed, you know, ona on a federal level, and uh,
you know, And but that doesn'tdoesn't take away from the foundation of
(17:30):
this great country. We've got agreat country. You and I have been
so blessed to be raised in thiscountry, and we want our kids and
our grandkids to have that same opportunity. Right, Yeah, I'm right with
it. Well, we're talking withKen Block. His book disproven my unbiased
search, and and he means thatwith all sincerity, and I believe him
(17:51):
to be true. I mean,it is an UnBias search. You know,
something that we needed for voter fraudfor the Trump campaign, the data
that show why Trump lost and howwe can improve our elections. So can
break it down for us. Whatdid you discover as you were first hired,
you know, by Mike Trump's Advisorycommittee to look into voter fraud.
(18:18):
You're talking about what I did intwenty seventeen or what I did in twenty
twenty, twenty twenty. I'm sorry. I referenced twenty seventeen, so I
understood. I'm sorry for the confusion. No subsequent when Trump's team said,
hey, help us. Understand,you're the expert. What went on?
Yeah, So it ended up beingtwo different things I did for them.
My contract asked me to look forevidence of dead voters and duplicate voters sufficient
(18:42):
to have changed an election result inany swing state, and my findings had
to survive legal scrutiny. Was afair Was that a fair question? Ken?
Was that a fair question to poseat that point? Absolutely, Look,
it's very difficult. It's very difficultto look at voter rolls and determine
(19:03):
who's dead and who's not. Andit's even harder to determine if two people
with the same name and the samedate of birth voting in two different states
is the same person or a differentperson. It's very very hard. We
know how to do it. It'snot cheap, and it had never This
is really important. I'm not awareof any presidential campaign ever auditing essentially the
(19:30):
results of a national election. That'swhat the Trump campaign asked my company to
do, and we had all ofthirty five days to do it. Because
what a lot of people don't understandis that the legal window to contest an
election result starts on election night andit ends the day each state certifies its
election results, and most states havecertified their results by the end of the
(19:52):
first week of December. So thatwith that deadline, how much of a
problem is that, Well, it'sa substantial challenge. And to really do
the analysis the justice that it deserves, you can't start working on it the
day after the election, like Iwas asked to do. You really need
(20:15):
to have an operation that's done allkinds of work months ahead of the head
of election day so that you havea big head of esteem grow going.
You know exactly all the data you'regoing to be looking at, and you
can save weeks of effort by doinga lot of work in advance. We
didn't have that luxury that I didn'tget the phone call until the day after
the election, and so we basicallyjumped in hard and it was an insane
(20:42):
thirty five days. It hada beeneven from the start, because you got
chain of custody issues right off thebat, don't you. So we took
all of the voter data directly fromthe Republican National Committee's data They called it.
A data lake is a big computerwith lots of data in it,
and all of the files that welooked at came directly from state or county
(21:07):
governments. So from a chain ofcustody perspective, I was pretty comfortable that
the data that we had was whatit needed to be. I've looked at
most states data in the past.The data looked the same for all the
different data that we looked at fromthe six states of interest that we looked,
and it probably warrants saying the namesGeorgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin,
(21:32):
Michigan, Pennsylvania, states right exactly, yep, the swing states.
So you know, the chain ofchain of custody was solid. I mean,
there's there's so there were so manychallenges in just getting into it and
getting going and then on top ofthat, so I was contractually obligated to
do our own digging for fraud.And the day after I signed the contract,
(21:57):
the lawyer I reported to. Hisname was Alex Cannon. He loved
We talked first thing in the morningoften, and you know, I'm talking
like six am, five point thirtysometimes. And I got the early morning
phone call from Alex, my firstof what turned out to be many and
he said, hey, I've gota claim in Pennsylvania where they have a
(22:18):
spreadsheet of one hundred names. Theyclaim we're dead voters. Can you tell
me what's going on with that?So that was the first request, and
what he was asking me to do, just so everybody is clear, he
was asking me to perform due diligenceon the claim because what he was asked
to do was take this claim tocourt if the claim was valid, and
(22:40):
he was asking me to do hisdue diligence, vet the file and tell
him if it was a good resultor a bad result. And he brought
me fifteen twenty claims over the courseof those thirty days, most of them
on an emergency basis, drop everythingyou're doing and look at this. We
have to file a lawsuit tomorrow ifit's true. And I was able to
(23:00):
look at them and unfortunately tell himtime after time after time after time,
Nope, this one is wrong.Here's why this one is wrong. Here's
why this one is wrong. Andthe way our interactions went, the early
requests were tell me whether this oneis right or wrong. By the end
of the whole thing, he wasjust saying, tell me why this one
(23:21):
is wrong. Because everybody were makingmistakes. A lot of people were well
intentioned, a lot of people.But by the way, I wanted to
be the person to find massive fraudif it existed, right, I mean,
you know, if we have abig time problem with our elections,
I wanted to be the guy toto unearth it. It simply wasn't there
(23:42):
in terms of findings that would havestood up in court and survived legal scrutiny.
And this is the whole key toall of the talking that we do
as a nation about our elections.Only conversations that are worth having about voter
fraud are the provable claims that willstand up in court because any other claim
(24:06):
doesn't matter. It can't ever impactwhat the results of the election were.
So that's the long and the shortof it. That's why when the last
of the swing states certified their results, my job was over. There was
no role for me at that pointbecause there was no hope of being successful
in court. Well of all thethings that were questioned, you know,
(24:30):
you run into the mathematical calculus thatsays one hundred votes, Well you lost
by twelve thousand, so what youknow? And you know, so now
you're kind of like Don Quixote chasingwindmills because unless you can get the mother
load and demonstrate that there were,you know, hundreds of thousands of votes
(24:52):
that are involved here. I mean, you've got I think there were like
something like I thought there was athous I think at one time there were
one thousand sworn affidavits from pole watcherssaying, hey, there's a problem here
in River City. I don't understand. I'll swear to it that the whole
truth, nothing but that this iswhat I observed. And that number since
(25:14):
has risen to seven thousand. Soyou get into the perception versus reality issue
here. But I can see,I can see in some cases where if
you're talking one hundred votes, dig, go up, it doesn't matter.
Well, you're right. So thiswas in Pennsylvania, where the margin of
victory was ninety thousand votes. ButI looked at them and it turned out
(25:37):
that the person who had done theanalysis made a bunch of mistakes. Almost
all of the votes that were identifiedwere in twenty twenty. In Pennsylvania,
it was legal. The vote wasallowed to be counted if you voted early
and then unfortunately died before the election. Almost all of the one hundred votes
were either legally valid vote because thevoter cast the vote while alive but then
(26:04):
died before election day, or insome circumstances, the person didn't understand that
you can have two people with thesame name and same date to birth,
It doesn't mean they're the same person. Usually means it's somebody else. So
that's another classic mistake that I sawover and over and over again. But
we found one out of one hundredthat was actually questionable because the date of
(26:29):
birth and the receipt by the board, by the Board of Elections of that
mail ballot overlap by only like aday, so you know, it could
have been fraud. It could havebeen that it is an allowable vote.
There was no smoking gun with thatone. You mentioned one hundred thousand or
more votes. I got one claimlike that. This one is by far
my favorite claim to talk about beforewe do. Let me do this because
(26:56):
I got to remind everybody, youknow, we're talking to the world famous
block. He's becoming world famous now. A race car driver by as we
say so, he's an expert invoter data, a technology entrepreneur, two
time candidate for governor, advocate forgood government, and founder of the Centrist
political Party. Author of the bookDisprove and my unbiased search for voter fraud
(27:21):
and the Trump campaign the data thatshows why he lost and how we can
improve our elections. All right,so let's pick out the story. Talk
about your favorite one hundred thousand votestory. Yeah, it was actually seven
hundred and forty thousand votes. WHOAok. Yeah. In early December,
Alex called me and said, checkyour email, I got I got one.
(27:44):
You have to tell me why it'swrong. There were some folks in
Wisconsin who had done their own analysisand determined that seven hundred and forty thousand
Wisconsin voters had voted twice. Theycouldn't make the numbers add up of what
they had done with what the Secretaryof State was announcing for the total number
of votes cast. They came upseven hundred and forty thousand votes short.
(28:07):
Assumed it must be because of duplicatevotes. They wanted the Department of Justice
to come in. They took theirfindings to a friend of theirs who played
golf, who brought it to themanager of a Trump golf course, who
brought it to Eric Trump, whobrought it to the Oval Office, who
gave it to Alex Cannon, whogave it to me and said, you
need to tell me why it's wrong. And quickly I understood almost immediately the
(28:33):
mistake that they had made. Theydidn't they the file of data they were
looking at only had mail ballots init and didn't have in person votes cast
votes by people who went on electiondata vote and the number of votes that
they were off by was basically thenumber of in person votes that were cast
in Wisconsin. And you know,I was able to that was probably the
easiest one that I had to disprove. And then that was it, you
(28:59):
know, but it was People getreally excited when it comes to trying to
provide the proof to back up theclaim that voter fraud surrounds us everywhere.
You know, I am probably theonly person in this country who predicted mail
ballot fraud before it happened in thewell Jimmy Carter, excuse me, back
(29:23):
in the eighties, nineteen and whatwas in nineteen eighty nine, He and
who was the senator, the twoman commission that they led, said mail
in balloting was going to be anightmare. It was a way for voter
fraud. Yeah. Well, itturns out I was doing a court case
(29:44):
in September October November of twenty twentyin Pennsylvania, and as I was looking
at the voter rolls and we werelooking for evidence of deceased voters on the
rolls, and I had discovered abouttwenty one thousand of them. One of
them in particular caught my eye becausethis woman had registered to vote in September
(30:04):
of twenty twenty. She had diedin twenty thirteen. And I looked at
that and I said, the timingof that registration and the whole thing about
this, you watch, this willbecome a fraudulent deceased vote. That prediction
found its way into the court recordin the court case, and it turns
(30:26):
out that on the day it wentinto the record, the mail ballot had
been cast in that dead woman's nameby her I believe it was her widowed
husband, and he subsided that thevote ridiculously counted in that election. Even
though election workers were aware this hadbeen identified as a likely fraudulent vote,
(30:48):
they didn't do anything about it.It was a vote that was counted after
the election. The guy's name wasPresto. He was arrested charge and he
pled guilty to committing voter fraud.So you know there are anybody who says
there's no such thing a voter fraudhas is wrong and has been wrong for
(31:11):
as long as we've had computerized recordsthat research. Yeah, even before then,
Ken, I was looking back,and I mean going back to seventeen
hundred, there was indication of voterfraud taking away when there's something about the
human condition, you know, itjust somehow we haven't bred in us that
it's acceptable to cheat, even ingolf. But that's a whole other story,
(31:33):
you know, you know, justto talk to that point, people
will cheat if they believe they canget away with it. If it's a
low risk crime, they're much morelikely to do it than if it's a
high risk crime. Right, andvoter fraud used to be a low risk
crime. It was very difficult todo the kind of analysis. It still
(31:56):
remains difficult doing the kind of stuffI'm talking about, but people are doing
it now. We have done it, and states, even though I understand
the reasons for your listeners who areaware of those who aren't, there's this
thing called Eric capital Eric and withoutgetting in, deep, deep, deep
(32:19):
into the mess, that that thingis what they're trying to do is very
important. The different states who aremembers pool their data together, trying to
identify people who are registered to votein different states, because since each state
manages its own voter data, it'svery hard without something like ERIC in the
middle to determine if somebody has multiplevoter registrations and multiple states. ERIC was
(32:44):
became very political all the way.It was political from the day it got
started. There needs to be somethingelse to replace it. Frankly, I
think that the Election Assistance Commission,which is a federal nonpartisan organization, should
do that function so there's no partisanshipto it. There's nothing to it other
(33:07):
than helping states get their data clean. It's hard to have integrity in our
elections when the data that sits underneaththose elections is dirty. Exact, man,
we have dirty data. Now,dirty data doesn't mean fraud is happening
everywhere. Okay, Voter fraud isa five year prison term felony on top
(33:31):
of a ten thousand dollars fine.It used to be you could do it.
No one was even aware that youwere doing it. Who cares?
Now there's lots of people watching,and I believe that's driven down the number
of people willing to risk committing afelony moving forward. But let's talk.
(33:52):
Your listeners will love this. Soin New Jersey, and I got to
say before I say this, it'snot evidence of voter fraud. It's sloppy
data, but not voter fraud.There are twenty five thousand registered voters in
New Jersey with a year of birthof eighteen hundred. Eight thousand of them
(34:13):
voted in twenty twenty. Okay,but it's not fraud. That's election workers
not cleaning up the fact that thosevoters registration records didn't have a date of
birth. If eight thousand people arevoting with a year of eighteen hundred,
you can get their year of birthfrom them, right, You can get
it by who gave them that birthday. So that's what the default in their
(34:37):
computer system is if it doesn't poseright. So, same problem in New
York. In fact, New Yorkhas some of the worst data that I've
ever seen ever. Right, Sothere are lots of things that we should
be doing to clean up the data, but that also doesn't stop a small
(34:59):
amount of vote or fraud from happening. Right, wrapping up my engagement with
the Trump campaign. Every claim theybrought to me, I was able to
show them why it was false,including claims brought by college professors PhDs using
really complicated mathematical theories to prove thatvoter fraud was everywhere in Pennsylvania for example,
(35:22):
Right, exactly, I had twentyfour hours to prove them wrong,
and I did, and it doesn't. It wasn't. And it wasn't so
much that you were trying to provethem wrong. You were just trying to
just do the analysis, right.I mean, I want people to understand.
It wasn't like you were sitting therelike you you had skin in the
game one way or another. Imean you you went and approached this from,
(35:43):
you know, an objective viewpoint.I you know, I sense,
right. So what I was doingwas the due diligence that the lawyers that
I reported to asked me to do. They didn't want to walk a claim
into court that was false, exactly. So, my Joe, you know
what happened to some attorneys that didthat, correct, It didn't fare well
(36:07):
for them. They're terribly So.My job, when I was asked to
evaluate all these claims of voter fraudwas to protect the lawyers who were going
to bring the claim into court,because the only thing there's nothing worse than
filing a lawsuit that has at itsfoundation false data and the other side's experts
pointed out and blow you out ofthe water. It's humiliating, exactly.
(36:30):
My job was to prevent the humiliation. And like I said, it doesn't
give me great glee to say it, but the cold truth is that none
of the claims that was given tome to evaluate pass muster. None of
them would have survived their day incourt. Right. Well, I do
want to clear up something I saidnineteen eighty nine. It was actually two
(36:51):
thousand and five and it was JamesBaker and President Carter that did the investigation
into mail end voting and their conclusionwas that that mail in voting was ripe
with potential fraud. So here itis, so everything that you did mathematically,
that your company analyzed, and youknow the bottom line was you could
(37:12):
not see and discern and conclude anywholesale voter fraud. However, Ken,
after everything is all said and done, why is it? And I don't
believe it's just because Donald Trump.I mean, the mainstream media want to
say, well, because Donald Trumpkeeps beating the drum of you know,
voter fraud. I mean Stacy Abramsbeat that drum forever. You know,
(37:34):
she lost by eighty thousand votes,and I think she still beats that drum,
but nobody believes her. But forDonald Trump. You know, these
numbers, like I mentioned when wefirst started talking, you got over eighty
percent of Republicans not having their faithin the twenty twenty election, sixty one
independent, sixty one percent, overfifty percent now of Democrats. So we've
(37:58):
got a disconnect between I mean,you know, perception and reality. You
know, I would say that.You know, my wife and I were
traveling across country. We went throughtwelve states in October leading into the election.
And you know, I've been amarketing guy all my life, and
I have a sense for momentum.And you know, I saw this happen
(38:22):
with Barack Obama, for example.You know his campaign. You said,
Wow, this guy's got such youknow, such wind at his back,
and he's just you know, he'sgot a lot of momentum in his campaign.
And this is the same thing thatI witnessed with Donald Trump. You
know, going into the twenty twentyelection. I went through twelve states and
(38:42):
I saw Trump signs, Trump Pennsigns everywhere I went, and I counted,
just out of curiosity, I said, I got to make a note
and guess how many signs for BidenHarris? I saw through twelve states?
And we're not just going through youknow, through states. I mean we're
we're going through you know, mostlyblue states, including Los Angeles. And
(39:07):
asked me how many how many signsfor Biden Harris that I saw going through
twelve states? Right? I sawthree? I believe, Yeah, I
saw three. So so the perceptionof momentum and all that's going on,
and then you have the president,even with the count, getting ten million
(39:28):
more votes than he got previously,which is unheard of. I've never heard
of president getting ten million, theincumbent president getting ten million more votes,
but losing by a record number froma politician, you know, by comparison,
Barack Obama didn't even get those numbers, you know. So this so
there's a there's a very there's avery interesting document on the website politico dot
(39:53):
com. And Trump's polster is aguy named Tony for Ezio, and I
know Tony. Tony did my pollingin twenty fourteen last time I talked to
him. As twenty sixteen or so, he was asked by the Trump campaign
to do exit polling in all theswing states in twenty twenty. And what
(40:15):
an as a pole is is theyhave workers standing outside the polling places interviewing
people as they leave the polling place. We will vote for why did you
vote that way? Blah blah blah, and Farrazio in an internal campaign document
that was leaked came up with thefollowing findings. So this comes directly from
(40:38):
Trump's pollster. It's not my data, it's no one else's data. It's
very expensive data that came right fromthe guy he won. Out of six
voters that they interviewed, out ofthirty thousand voters that they interviewed across the
swing states, one out of sixwere first time voters who came out to
(40:58):
vote against isident Trump. And thereason they did so to me is bonkers.
They did so, they said becauseof COVID. Okay, that's I
mean, that's a big number,big percentage of the votes. They all
had the same, more or lesssame explanation for it. So they were
blaming blaming Trump for COVID. Ithink they didn't like the way the he
(41:20):
handled COVID. I don't know theparticulars of it. And like I said,
I think it's a little crazy,but voters sometimes vote for crazy reasons
anyway, right, you know,having run for office, it's so depressing
sometimes for what motivates people to vote. Not only when you run for office.
Not only do you need an attorneyan upholster, you need a therapist
(41:40):
afterwards you do. It took meout. It took me a long time
to recover from both runs. Andthat's in a small state. Another one
out of six voters were and I'mgoing to use Trump's term for them,
were Rhinos who were lifelong Republicans.They told the exit polls, but they
voted against Trump in twenty twenty.They Trump lost them. In fact,
(42:05):
Trump told him to take a hikein so many words. Right, you
know, we know that President Trumphas no love for Rhinos. So you
know that's a third of the peoplethey interviewed brand new voters and loss of
Republican support. And in Fabrizio's dialogueabout those findings, he talked about the
(42:27):
loss of Republican support as a cruciallyimportant element that contributed to the actual loss
that they experienced in the swing states. So now what And I understand that
the way I think and the wayformer President Trump thinks could be very,
very different. But if I wasin his shoes, I would try to
(42:49):
figure out how to bring those votersback. Because his own polster told him
they had such a negative impact onthe results in twenty twenty. That hasn't
happen yet. I watch pretty watchand listen pretty carefully, and I think
that's a problem that the campaign hasthat they have to resolve before election day
now. Fortunately for the Republicans,Biden has his own loss of democratic support
(43:14):
right now, and young progressives whoI guess they believe they're going to penalize
Biden for the Israel Gaza problem bynot voting for Biden and therefore in effect
casting a vote for Trump. Youknow. So it's we there's a lot
of unknowns as as we roll intothe election. And what I would just
(43:35):
ask everybody to do is take abreath. If there was that there truly
was monumental fraud, it would bedealt with, it would surface, we
would all come to an agreement.It's a problem and by the way,
things like ballot harvesting should be madeillegal across the country, no doubt about
(43:58):
it. Why how can al presidentialelections hinge on a bunch of people running
around collecting ballots. That's wrong allthe way, right, right, Jerry
Man is wrong. Right. Whenwe start new democracies around the world,
I guarantee you we don't take thepractice of jerrymandering and tell them you ought
to do this because it's good fordemocracy. Right. It's not good for
(44:20):
democracy. So there are there are. When I put my good government hat
on, it's there's like a dozenthings that I could talk that we could
talk about for changes that we shouldmake that would make our elections stronger,
fairer and a level playing fielding gettingrid of jerrymandering, getting rid of ballot
harvesting, putting a formal government databasetogether to help all the states clean up
(44:43):
their data. Right. I cango on and on and on about it.
I know the most important part ofthe book. Yeah, I know
that one of the things you talkedabout was shortening up the number of days.
I believe there should just be anational day for voting. You know,
everybody takes the day off it's afederal day off. It's one of
those federal holidays that I would agreewith. You know. You know,
(45:05):
we've got so many of our federalemployees, they had so many holidays not
even funny, but this one Iwouldn't have a big problem in adding is
that you take the day off,you have a day off, you go
ahead and vote, and then afterwardsyou come together as Americans and we celebrate
and said, hey, we didour deal. I don't care about you
voting for Republican or Democrats, justhey, look at we all got skin
in the game. We participated,we exercised our civic responsibility, and let's
(45:30):
see who the next president is.And you know what I find quite interesting,
ken is that in primaries we're ableto get this information by midnight in
all these different states. But whenit comes to a federal election, all
of a sudden, it gets socomplicated, and you know, we need
days and weeks to you know,add the numbers. What's going on.
(45:52):
Right, So we're in the mostcomplicated element of election law talking about mail
ballots. One of the big problemsI think we have in our elections is
the fact that the states can toa large extent conduct the elections however they
want. And what that means inpractical terms is for the swing states in
(46:14):
twenty twenty four, the shortest mailballot window is twenty seven days. The
longest one is sixty days, right, And I look at that and as
a computer guy, I want themto all be the same number of days.
Right. We talked early on aboutdead voters, allegedly dead voters in
(46:35):
Pennsylvania and how many of them casttheir votes early and then died before election
day. Well, it turns outthat in a third of the states the
state allows those sorts of votes.In a third of the states the state
disallows those sort of votes. Andin fact, in Michigan in twenty twenty
they disallowed three five hundred votes wherethe voter voted early and then died before
(46:58):
election day. That's not a smallnumber of votes votes. And in the
out of the third of the states, there's no law about this circumstance at
all, even though it has tohappen. So that's a mess, right.
How can we have a different outcomefor these voters depending on where they
live. It should be the sameexperience for all of them. We should
either make them all count or makethem all not count for me, because
(47:23):
it's so hard to determine that avoter is deceased or not. I say
that we should let them count becausedetermining that they can't count is crazily,
crazily hard, especially if they passaway just a few days before the election.
Oh yeah, I mean so,Actually, I think here we go,
here's the first chance for a compromise. Right nationwide, make those votes
(47:46):
count. But as part of thecompromise, make sure that the mail ballot
window is only two weeks in lengthor less. Right and studying do something.
You're a technology guy, what doyou make I mean, there was
so much controversy over these voting machines. You know, I thought maybe,
as a grand experiment, maybe wehave a couple of you know, a
(48:08):
couple of states, do a dualprocess. We do the voting machines and
then we do a ballot, andthat way we could you know, have
something in which to gauge to saythat, you know, these machines are
really you know, they're viable.You know. I think the problem I
(48:29):
had was when you know, theywent to the hill. I'm talking about
dominion specifically, and they were askedwhether or not there was Internet connectivity,
and the CEO said absolutely not,and then they find a modem in the
machines. So you know, againthis is the stuff that gives people doubts
(48:50):
and you know about this whole process. So I'm going to let you address
that, summarize everything, and wrapthings up because we've got about two minutes
left, so I'm going to giveyou the floor. Okay, sure,
So, repeating what I said previously, when it comes to voter fraud,
people can often get mixed up betweenfraud and integrity issues that have dirty data
(49:15):
and other things behind them, butthey're bad, but they're not evidence of
fraud. Fraud is something that youcan verify and quantify. And unless you
can do that with some of theclaims that people are talking about, you're
really not talking about fraud. Youknow, As somebody who's run for office,
as somebody who was paid, franklya great deal of money to look
(49:38):
at the twenty twenty election and tohelp the Trump campaign. If it was
able to be done, we weren'table to do it. It was a
straight up assessment. That's what thelawyers wanted. The lawyer I reported to
accepted my evidence is true. MarkMeadows, Trump's chief of staff at the
time, accepted that as truth whenAlex Canon told him the voter fraud that
(50:04):
you know everyone wants us to findsimply isn't there exactly? Well, Ken
Block, thank you so much forbeing with us. He's the author of
disproving my unbiased search for voter fraudfor the Trump campaign, the data that
shows why he lost and how wecan improve our elections. That's you know
again, and I can't overemphasize enough. And you mentioned a Ken that your
insight and your suggestions and how toimprove our elections is a critical part of
(50:30):
this book and a must read.So again, thank you so much for
being with us. Appreciate it.Thanks, I really appreciate it. Thanks
Bill Well. It was the dayafter the twenty twenty presidential election. A
lawyer for former US President Donald Trump'scampaign called Ken Block, a registered Republican
and former good manatorial candidate for RhodeIsland, and asked if he is firm
(50:52):
Simpatico Software Systems would look for voterfraud. Block knew somebody was going to
do it, and he knew hecould do it on thoroughly and impartially so.
He took on the job and it'sall right here in this book disproven.
Thank you, Ken Block, andthank you for sharing a part of
your day with us. May Godbless you and keep you, May make
(51:14):
His face shine upon you, andmay he give you peace. Thanks again
for being with us. God bless
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.