TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @AbsoluteWithE
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm sharing that Berkey Water Filters is suing the EPA for restricting access to clean water. This action follows the EPA's sudden change in interpreting its own regulations. I had a discussion with owner Jim Shepherd and lawyer W. Norred about this issue.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
Berkey Water Filters is suing the EPA after it began blocking millions of people from having access to clean water. The EPA did this after they decided to suddenly change their interpretation of their own regulations. Berkey Water Filters (NMCL) owner Jim Shepherd and lawyer @WNorred join @EmeraldRobinson to discuss.
Video Transcript AI Summary
About 2,000,000,000 people around the world do not have access to clean and safe drinking water, and nearly 60,000,000 here in the United States are exposed to unsafe tap water each year. The EPA is focusing its efforts on Berkey Water Filters, a long‑time provider of safe water. The agency may be overreaching by demanding Berkey filters be treated as a pesticide rather than water filters. The EPA suddenly launched its attack after Berkey had been providing its clean water alternative for over a quarter of a century, and because of the EPA's decision to treat these filters as pesticides, the company is unable to sell its products. The new interpretation of its regulations could also result in the layoffs of over 500 employees. Berkey Water Filters filed a lawsuit against the EPA. The lawsuit calls out the agency because it has never sought to force registration of mechanical type water filters as pesticides until late last year. 'as this is pending litigation, EPA has nothing to add.' The court is asked to put an injunction on the stop sale order so Berkey can continue manufacturing while the fight goes on. 'we're gonna go the whole way.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: About 2,000,000,000 people around the world do not have access to clean and safe drinking water, and nearly 60,000,000 here in The United States are being exposed to unsafe tap water each year. But the EPA is focusing its efforts on targeting a company that is looking to help these people obtain safe drinking water. The company named Berkey Water Filter Filters is extremely popular throughout The United States. Many households, including my own, use them as their lifeline to provide their families with safe and clean drinking water. But the EPA is blocking that.
The agency may be overreaching by demanding Berkey water filters to be treated as a pesticide rather than water filters. The EPA suddenly launched its attack on the filter company after the company's been providing its clean water alternative for over a quarter of a century. And because of the EPA's decision to treat these filters as pesticides, the company is unable to sell its products. Now if you go to their website, you'll notice everything is unavailable. The new interpretation of its regulations could also result in the layoffs of over 500 employees.
The Berkey Water Filters is fighting back. They filed a lawsuit against the EPA. The lawsuit calls out the agency because it has never sought to force registration of mechanical type water filters as pesticides until late last year. Now we reached out to the EPA to get their side in all this, and, of course, the agency decided to hide behind the pending lawsuit by saying, quote, as this is pending litigation, EPA has nothing to add. Now please welcome in the owner of Berkey Water Filters, Jim Shepherd.
Jim joins us by phone and his lawyer Walter Norred of NORD Law. Thank you both for being here. Jim, I was really sad to learn about what the EPA has put you through. I I was telling you before we started the segment, my Berkey water filter sits right beside our sink. It's a staple in our household, and it provides my family with clean drinking water.
I love it. It's one of those must have items for us, and we'll take it if there's, you know and now we know we have to take it if there's in the house. Right? You have to run out with the Berkey because it's hard to replace it. So tell us tell us, your filters are so good that even the media has been promoting your products.
One outlet says your filters are one of the few that can filter out cesium one thirty seven, which is one of the most dangerous contaminants following a nuclear event. So what's going on here, Jim? Why is the the EPA suddenly coming after you and saying you have to it should be considered part of pesticides instead of water filters?
Speaker 1: Well, it's nice to talk with you, Emerald, and it's kind of an interesting story. We I was talking with my EPA consultant last year in May, and he told me that the EPA was because of COVID nineteen, they were considering reinterpreting their regulations and making water filters that are capable of removing virus pesticides. And so I asked him. I said, well, what kind of guidance are they giving us about it? You know?
Because we, you know, we we don't know what, you know, you know, what we need to do in a situation like this. And he goes, well, they're being very tight lipped and they're giving absolutely no guidance. And then about the same time, we got confirmation from the EPA that we were an exempt device. And so we really didn't think too much about it. And then all of a sudden in December, the EPA started issuing stop sale orders to our dealers, then they went to our manufacturers and vendors and understand it.
But because of the threat of COVID nineteen being in the water, they want to make water filters that remove virus unavailable to the American people, and that's kinda where we stand.
Speaker 0: Warren, this seems like a stretch to me, the explanation for categorizing these filters as as pesticides to me. What do you make of the government's argument, Warren?
Speaker 2: The government has latched on to, the the presence of silver, which is part of the product that's used to protect the filters and not used as a pesticide. And they said since silver is sometimes used as a pesticide and since silver is mentioned as protecting the filter, we're going to add these things together, and we're gonna say, poof, you're a pesticide. Now the funny part about this, of course, is that the FIFRA, which is a federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act, FIFRA, since 1947, it and it defines pesticide as, requiring a sense that's used to kill pests. And so and we all know what a pesticide is. Right?
Pesticide is you know, they're they're Mhmm. They're just lots of pesticides that we can all name, and I I didn't wanna didn't wanna name one. But, and but they all require chemicals that are used to kill pests, and we don't use that. And so since the very beginning of time, 1947, FIFRA, the actual law and your previous guest talked about this a little bit too. The law has said that you have to have a substance.
The EPA then puts together a bunch of rules to enforce the law, but they're not laws. So you have to go through a process to make these rules. And they've said, if you make pesticidal claims, then you are a pesticide. But then they realized, Noel, that's gonna catch all of these filters, so then they made an exception. And so until last year, that exception was was held.
And so you have a lot of filters out there, some better than others. Of course, our Burkey's is the best. But there are many filters out there. None of them are registered as pesticides, and they're all available. And they all use something to protect them where they don't last very long.
And so I think that I think that the EPA said, you know, we like control over all of the things. We 've got a hook. We've got this foreign website out there. Even though it says that the silver is in the is present to protect the filters, we're gonna latch onto that, and we're gonna call this a pesticide. But they've never had the notice and rule making procedure that they're supposed to do, and that's the real problem is that we don't we're not you know, Berkey filter elements are not pesticides, simply not pesticides underneath the the the law.
And if they're gonna change their rules, they're supposed to go through a process and haven't done that. But they're saying that they're not they don't need to because of the silver. And so that's what the fight's about is can you put shut down an attire, the number one market leader, because you grab on to something that's unsupportable and then use that to hang your enforcement hook on that. That's where we are.
Speaker 0: Jim, have you ever had the government come after you in such a way before? And then secondly, you employ a lot of people. You you have a strong company history. How long can you survive this fight with the government?
Speaker 1: Well, great question. Well, with respect to how long can we, you know, fight the government, you know, we're gonna we're gonna go the whole way. You know, our position is is that, look. Under the federal guidelines, if you're gonna change or reinterpret, okay, your rules, okay, and apply them just Berkey. Okay?
There's no other outdoor camping or water filters that are involved in this. They just went after the leader. And and so if you're gonna reinterpret your rules, you really have to go through this process where you get the public input on it, and then it's And to to then
Speaker 0: then
Speaker 1: happened. And so now, you know, we're, you know, we're asking the court to put an injunction on the stop sale order so that we can continue, you know, manufacturing our Berkey filters while we fight this in court. And Emerald, as you know, when you're in a court case like a federal court case, oh, it can drag on for years. And so if without that injunction, then the, you know, the answer to your question is it's gonna be a it's gonna be a difficult battle, you know, but we do wanna fight it. And then you asked one other question, and can you refresh my memory on that one?
Speaker 0: I was just I just asked, you ever had an instance, an interaction like this with the government before in all your years doing this?
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Yeah. No. As a matter of fact, we work with government agencies all over the world. Our Berkey is is able to, you know, filter outdoor raw untreated water.
And so it's really a favorite when there's a crisis around the world. And so we've worked with governments around the world, you know, providing Berkey's in times of crisis. And so I'm I'm really shocked that that the drums are being beat in the EPA, you know, to shut us down. I mean, we have a twenty five year track record. We've had you know, we've never had we've never harmed anybody.
We've we've gotten a lot of reports from people that were in life and death situations, and their burpee saved their life. And and so I've always been very proud of our our product. I you know? And and I I, like you, use a Berkey every day. I've got one in my kitchen, and it's been in there for twenty five years.
And and I love it too. It's just simple. It's just very easy to use, and I don't have to worry about changing under the sink filters every six months and all that kind of stuff. It's just
Speaker 0: ive relief. We hope they do because your product's great and it helps a lot of people and this just is extremely unfortunate. Now we do know people who have had the government come after like this and won, so we'll be, you know, watching and praying and hoping the best for for you and your company. And we thank you both, Jim and Warren, for joining us to share the story because it's important for the American people to know what their government's doing.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Emil. It's been a pleasure being on your show, and thank you so much for taking interest in this issue. I really do appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Absolutely. Thanks. We'll see you soon when we have more news to share with our audience. Thank you both.
reSee.it AI Summary
The report on errors in the 2020 presidential election in Fulton Co. will be discussed at the May 7th State Election Board meeting. Violations were found in both the hand audit and machine count, as per citizen investigator Joe Rossi. #ElectionErrors #InvestigationResults
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
BREAKING: The long awaited report from an investigation (SEB2023-25) into errors found in both the hand count & a machine count from the 2020 presidential election in Fulton Co. is officially on the agenda for a May 7th State Election Board meeting! The investigation found violations into both the hand audit and machine count according to citizen investigator Joe Rossi.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the upcoming May 7th state election board hearing regarding the investigation into the 2020 election count in Fulton County, Georgia. They touch on the board's authority to investigate the secretary of state and express a desire to meet with Gabriel Sterling to discuss recount errors. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability in election processes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We started our show today with some important breaking developments in a Georgia state election board investigation, SEB 2023 dash 025, otherwise known as the machine count 2 investigation. You might recall that originally a report of the findings from said investigation was set to be revealed at the December 19th meeting of the board late last year, but the board punted the agenda item last minute. However, it looks like a new subpoena to the secretary of state's office as part of the Fani Willis Rico case might just force the board's hand. And here to give us all the details is the source of these developments, mister Joe Rossi, who is concerned citizen investigator who prompted the investigation into the discrepancies in the 2020 election count in Fulton County, Georgia. Joe, it's good to see you.
Tell us what you're learning.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sure. Thanks again for having me on. It's good to keep this in front of people. But regarding the 25 case, I have information that, one of the legal cases has subpoenaed the so called completed report from the secretary of state's office, the investigators.
And as of last night, I also learned that it is now going to be on the agenda for for the May 7th state election board hearing. As you may recall, as you mentioned, it got pulled at the last minute. It was noted as complete with violations found. It was pulled at the last minute before the December 19th hearing. And then for reasons I don't know why, it never got put on the February hearing.
But now it looks like, between the subpoena or other pressures, it looks like it's gonna finally be on the agenda, or at least we hope so, for the May 7th SEB hearing. So that's
Speaker 0: the status of And just to remind our our viewers, now we're talking about defendants in the Fannie Rico Willis Rico case. There were, 18 defendants along with Donald j Trump. We don't know which one of those defendants has subpoenaed the secretary of state's office, but, look, it's relevant. This report is relevant to pretty much every defendant's case, who has not yet, you know, plead guilty or done some kind of deal with the county. And, this machine count, that shows there's the the the the count cannot be reconciled with the recount on December 3rd.
And and you know, you had heard before before the meeting was scheduled in December that there was it shows that there were errors, and it points to errors, lies, and a cover up. Correct?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's where that title came from. But the initial report was sent over to the state election board into the 3rd most serious category, which is errors violations found to be referred off to the AG's office for further action. But then again, there was a pre meeting with the state election board. Apparently, there were questions asked that the investigators were not gonna be able to answer, and at the last minute, it got pulled, from that hearing.
Speaker 0: Hopefully, it really will be on that May 7th agenda and we'll keep following that as soon as we see the schedule for the agenda. We will definitely let our audience know this is one of the most important investigations, and and they know it well, and they're very interested in how that develops. But you've also been pushing for the board to open an investigation directly into the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger himself. That had been something the legislature was supposed to answer in the in the last session, but, the board of the legislature appear to keep going around in circles over the board's authority to do so after the legislature, as we've reported, fell to answer the direct question of authority, which, as I said, we covered in-depth. You reached out to the speaker's office, speaker Burns, John Burns, in Georgia, his office this week for supposed to directly answer the question, was amended by the house and sent back to the senate for final approval.
And considering it was a major, you know, change in the language, it appears they never took action for final approval. He said that, you know, he went on to say a little bit more and he's but the last line is the important line in this original email. The SEB is still free to take action should they choose. But then the next day, Joe, you received this follow-up email, which appears to backtrack on, Tuesday's statement saying that or you received this on Wednesday saying that the response was not to be interpreted as being an answer to former chairman Matt Bashburn's questions as to the SEB having authority to investigate the secretary of state. It was meant to confirm they have the authority to take any actions in general under current law as they and their counsel interpret.
And he said, just to be clear, he isn't stating that the answer, the answer former chairman's questions saying he said he didn't have the authority nor legal ability to answer the question of the letter, and he apologized for clearing that up and so and so and so. So I I guess it's very confusing to me. What does this mean? What are we supposed to make of this, Joe?
Speaker 1: Well, just to remind people, this complaint was filed 3 years ago, March 21, 20 22. And, no. 2020 yeah. 2022. I'm sorry.
So, it it went to the house per Mashburn's letter on January 11th of 24 requesting that they rule on authority. They went back and forth on 3 or 4 different bills, the house and the senate, and ultimately ended up with no bill answering the master question of authority. So I followed up with the speaker's office and the lieutenant governor's office and just said, okay. Just to be clear, before I go back to the state election board, I wanna be sure that you guys have not ruled on this and specifically asked them, does that mean the board, can make the decision on their own? So I got the initial response from the speaker's office saying that, yeah, you're right.
These bills didn't pass. But the choice is in the hands of the state election board. So I wrote that night an email to the state election board saying, okay. It looks like it's back in your guy's court. And I copied the speaker's office and the lieutenant governor's office on that email because I wanted them to know that I was gonna continue to pursue it.
And very early the next day, I got that clarification note from the speaker's office. And it was really strange because I read it and my friend attorney Jack James read it. And it was a clarification note that basically said the same thing, which said they they have their own they can make their own decision based on their legal counsel. So I'm not really I guess he just wanted to emphasize that they weren't authorizing it, which I understood from the first email, but that's where it lies. It just
Speaker 0: But the board can investigate. At the end of the day, it says the board can choose themselves to investigate.
Speaker 1: They have the choice is what that email says. And so I emailed the board after I got the second letter from the speaker's house, and it said, okay. It sounds like this is in your guys' court. And I urge them to take this to vote again on May 7th as to whether they have the authority. The one thing that I did ask them to reconsider, there was a lot of constitutional questions brought up during this whole debate, and I don't agree with them.
I do think they have the authority to investigate the secretary of state. Nevertheless, to take that out of the picture, I recommended that they use the the hood language, which was that the board could investigate the election division of the secretary of state's office. And, so there should be no argument constitutionally that an elected board can invest can't investigate or I'm sorry. An appointed board can investigate an elected official. That takes that whole argument out of the picture.
So there should be no reason why the board shouldn't bring this to vote and say we can investigate. I call it 160, Emerald, because there's a 159 counties in Georgia. Each of them has has, election officials. And every one of them, from Nadine Williams in Fulton County to Deborah Presswood in my house and county, is subject to an investigation by the state election board. So why shouldn't the 100 and 60th election office, which resides in the secretary of state's office, why shouldn't they be subject to the same scrutiny?
It just seems high highly unfair to those 159 counties that, that it wouldn't be equal.
Speaker 0: Makes sense. And and speaking of the elections office, you're not just talking about secretary of state. You also have questions for his support staff, particularly, one, Gabriel Sterling. You publicly and privately offered to sit down with the Georgia election worker. Why do you want a 1 on 1 with Sterling and and and who has not responded, by the way?
And what specifically do you wanna ask of him?
Speaker 1: I'd love to meet with Gabe. First of all, he was at the time, his title was the elections implementation officer and or or manager or director. So he was knee deep with that elections board, and he is not an elected official. So there should be no questions of constitutionality. And the reason I'd like to meet with him is because he's the first person that I started corresponding with when I started finding all these errors in the recount efforts.
And, like I said, eventually, he admitted to the errors, but pushed him off on Fulton County. And he's he's come out pretty strongly numerous times behind his ex post or Twitter account saying that those after the December 19th hearing, that those that are bringing up this factual data are lying or conspiracy theorist. And I I just wanna respectfully sit down with them for 1 hour, and I'd say, Gabe, if you're seeing this, it's time to come out of your hole, and let's just sit down respectfully and go through the data I have. And I guarantee, if he sits down with me for 1 hour, he will come out of that meeting agreeing with the governor, which is that his recount efforts, at least for Fulton County, were sloppy, inconsistent, and don't build public confidence.
Speaker 0: Well, you might have more faith in mister Jerley than I do. We'll see if he takes you up on your friendly and, I think, very generous offer, and we'll see how May 7th goes. I'm sure we'll talk to you before then, though.
Speaker 1: Good to see you, Joe. Alright. Take care, Emeril.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
EXCLUSIVE: Dr. John Eastman responds to a CA judge's recommendation to disbar him, plus reacts to the on-going DC disbarment trial of @JeffClarkUS. https://t.co/32tMKKC7xP
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Eastman discusses his disbarment in California, emphasizing the disagreement on election facts and constitutional interpretation. He criticizes the double standard in his case and mentions the Capitol Police subpoena. He also comments on Jeff Clark's trial and the evidence of election fraud. Dr. Eastman urges support on his legal defense fund site. The interviewer praises his knowledge and perseverance, highlighting the importance of helping him fight.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Where we go from here. Doctor Eastman, thank you so much for joining us. Just your thoughts. I mean, we talked to you during the you know, as the trial was going on. And now that it has reached its conclusion and the California bar has decided to revoke your license, How are you feeling?
Speaker 1: Well, look, let me let me just kinda give an update. The California Bar Court hearing judge has recommended that I be disbarred. That can that action can only be taken if it's ratified by the California Supreme Court and there's a lot of water to go under the bridge yet before we get there, but but the immediate effect of the recommendation for disbarment is that I'm I'm placed on what's called involuntary inactive enrollment status, which means that my California license is in in in the interim suspended while I pursue the appeal of this decision.
Speaker 0: So there's still a chance that you might yet prevail or
Speaker 1: Well, look. I've I've said it often. If if the law is faithfully followed, this case should never have been brought in the first place. We we have a disagreement on the facts of the 20 20 election and we have a disagreement on constitutional interpretation on issues that have never been settled. That has never been the basis for disciplinary action.
Look, I mean, Thurgood Marshall actually pursued litigation that was directly contrary to controlling supreme court precedent and he did it for for years, and we got Brown versus Board of Education as a result of of his tenacity. This is what the lawyers are expected to do if there's a colorable argument to be made and there certainly was in my case as well. The notion that that is subject not only to discipline, but but actual disbarment really, is aimed at destroying our adversarial system of justice.
Speaker 0: And doctor Eastman, as you said, you know, it's never been used for the case for disbarment before, and I thought an Arizona Sun Times article summed up your situation rather well. It's written by our friend who's covered your case extensively, Rachel Alexander. She wrote that the premise of the state bar's charge against you, which rests on these and other similar statements, has an Orwellian cast to it. The government has spoken, and if you disagree, then you must be lying. 2 +2 equals 5 after all if the government says so.
You must not only repeat the lie, but you must come to believe it as well. And she also noted that allegations of illegal conduct and fraud in elections have become the staple of our political contest. Right? We've seen in 2000 in 2016, and she goes on to to note that that didn't result in the disbarment of your predecessors on on such questions. And our own rebrander tweeted, I'd like to add my name because Eastman was behaving as an attorney repping his client.
It's exactly what Ron Klain, who became the first chief of staff for Joe Biden, did for Al Gore in 2000. Klayn Klayn was venerated. Remember the 2008 film recount? And given the White House chief of staff job for Joe Biden, Eastman, however, was screwed over.
Speaker 1: Well, look. Yeah. The double standard is is manifest. Look, I mean, in in the closing argument brief that the bar lawyers filed against me back in December, they made a material misrepresentation. They claimed that a court had ruled that the electoral count act, was constitutional.
That was kind of a central piece in my advice. That was false. They doctored the quotation from the court. The opinion had nothing to do with the electoral count act, and then the judge repeated that doctored quotation in her opinion against me last week. That's that's a blatant misrepresentation to a court.
The very kind of things that they are falsely accusing me of doing that should lead to my disbarment, they actually did in the the the briefing in this case, and and with no consequences whatsoever. The double standard is palpable and we really need to push back against it. I've listed in my in my title there, give send go.com/easement. That's our legal defense fund site. People can go there.
They can send support or prayers, but we also use that as a way to keep people updated on the latest developments of what we're dealing with.
Speaker 0: And look, it's not just the California disbar disbarment case that you're dealing with. It's also what's going on in Georgia. And then there's political reporting that Jack Smith, the federal prosecutor in the Trump document case and the j 6 related indictment is also, sniffing around your disbarment case. Does that concern you, doctor Eastman?
Speaker 1: Well, all of these things concern me because we don't seem to have any notion of actually pursuing the truth in these criminal matters. It's gotcha on your political opponents and anything that they think will advance their agenda to get Trump and prevent him from being reelected, is is fodder for the for the, the mill. This this is what they're doing and if they think by by targeting me further, that will help them with their case against Trump, then they will do it. I just got a subpoena served on us last week, by, by the Capitol Police officers, seeking everything I all of my communications with the president and anybody else. I mean, they they've they've completely blown through attorney client privilege.
As we see in the Jeff Clark matter and the Peter Navarro matters, they've completely blown through long standing executive privilege, a a central necessity for protecting separation of powers. These guys don't care about any of the norms, constitutional requirements, or whatever as long as they can get Trump. Anything is fair game in their view.
Speaker 0: So Capitol Police subpoena, Jude, this is separate from any of the congressional committees?
Speaker 1: This is separate. There's a lawsuit by several members of the Capitol Police claiming that Trump is the one that caused their injuries, and now they've subpoenaed me for all of my communications for a year, with clients, anything referencing the election. Of course, it has nothing to do with whatever injuries they suffered and will be objecting, but but it's it's still these things are time consuming and costly to deal with, but that's part of the game. If they keep us tied up spending our resources on defense against these things, then those are resources and time and talent that cannot be deployed in in furthering elections, for people that are sensible and are gonna get our country back on track.
Speaker 0: That's right. And as you noted, it's financially crippling. And I'll remind our audience, your, gifts and go information is in, at the bottom of the screen. I so you touched on Jeff Clark, and I did wanna ask your perspective on his ongoing disbarment trial. How is it similar or different?
What outcome do you see with Jeff Clark in the d with the DC bar?
Speaker 1: Well, it should be the same outcome that should have happened in my bar. If the faith the law is faithfully applied, the the charges should never been brought and he should not be having to go through a trial any more than I did. I expect, his trial will be significantly shorter, than mine was because they made mine about the election integrity issues all over the country even in states I had nothing to do with. Jeff's is a very discreet thing about a memo he wrote saying that the Department of Justice is troubled by some of the things we're seeing. We encourage you to investigate.
That ought to be a fairly short, process and at the end of the day, he ought to be fully exonerated, but but it's it's hard to predict because people are looking at this through politically skewed glasses.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They absolutely are. Look, I I know your trial went on very long, but I have to say it was an education I wish every American could have watched and listened in on your trial because a, it it was just amazing to hear you and your breadth of knowledge. It really was like sitting in on a lecture part of the time, and then all the evidence that did get presented that so many Americans have not heard as the corporate media tells them. There was no evidence, of election fraud between your trial, and then there's been some great moments as we shared at the top in in Jeff Clark's trial.
Look. Anyone who watched that and didn't think there was evidence of election fraud anymore just literally wants to lie to themselves and are pointedly lying to themselves. I wish everyone
Speaker 1: Over and over again, the the evidence is coming in and confirming the things that we knew at the time and said at the time, and and and anybody that's saying otherwise. Like Bill Barr on December 1st, oh, we find no evidence of fraud significant. I mean, that was just a blatant lie. They didn't even do the investigations that he claimed they did. Garland Faberito, who was a witness at Jeff Clark's hearing last week and was a witness in my trial, I mean, they've been doing investigations and they've kind of uncovered a lot of evidence of fraud.
Michael Gableman, former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, did a massive report and investigation up there and found hundreds of thousands of ballots that were illegally cast including fraudulently cast, and in Wisconsin, the margin was just over 20,000. So anybody that says that there is an evidence of fraud and that it was an outcome determinative is lying.
Speaker 0: Yeah. They they absolutely are. And I I know for a fact, had so many frustrated Department of Justice officials telling me off the record, of course, that there was nothing being done about election fraud and that Bill Barr had no interest. He was definitely part of the cover up, and that was during the ongoing time right after the November election. Thank you so much, doctor Eastman.
I'm amazed at your perseverance as I I tell, you know, many of our brave guests that join us. And, again, you can help him fight. It is extremely expensive. It takes a lot of resources. You can help him fight at giftsandgo., dot com slash Eastman.
Thank you, doctor Eastman, for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Emerald, for
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
EXCLUSIVE: New complaint alleges @FultonCountyDA Fanni Willis received around $168k dollars in unlawful campaign funds. @PeterBernegger tells @EmeraldRobinson it's a classic case of campaign money laundering & identity theft. https://t.co/Cf46cYD4I8
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fannie Willis, a district attorney, is facing allegations of corruption and campaign finance violations. Investigative reporter James O'Keefe exposed evidence of money laundering through radical organizations. Peter Berninger, a citizen investigator, found that Willis' campaign had violated campaign finance laws by not providing names and addresses for donations and exceeding donation limits. Berninger also uncovered evidence of "Smurfing," a form of structured campaign money laundering, totaling $160,000. He filed a complaint with the Georgia State Ethics Commission, accusing Willis of using fraudulent and illegal funds for her campaigns. The hope is that she will be held accountable and potentially face arrest and indictment. Similar allegations are being made against other candidates, including Senator Warnock.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've well established that Fannie Willis is corrupt, but how corrupt is she exactly? You might recall that James O'Keefe did an expose on why spread laundering of campaign donations, allegedly being carried out by radical organizations like
Speaker 1: Lou. Did you donate 8,000 times?
Speaker 0: I cannot. Even if it works, Why is that an issue? Well, it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem possible that you donated that many times.
Speaker 0: You're right. You're right. It doesn't, so that's actually
Speaker 1: We're investigative reporters. We're just trying to figure out there's some fraud happening. Your this is your name on the FEC website.
Speaker 0: I can't imagine that I did that. That that's, like, impossible.
Speaker 1: That's impossible. Impossible. My name is James O'Keefe. Have you heard of that before?
Speaker 0: Yes. I have.
Speaker 1: You've heard of James O'Keefe?
Speaker 0: Yes. Wait.
Speaker 1: James Come in?
Speaker 0: Like, you wanna come in?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll I'd come in. Yeah. There's this data that we looked at from this man in Wisconsin who compiled all the FEC data, and your name New Jersey was the top one.
Speaker 0: And in an absolute truth exclusive. One of the tipsters behind the investigation, Peter Berninger, has uncovered more evidence of what is called Smurfs, curbs, cutouts being used to funnel illicit funds to political candidates. He has poured through Fannie Willis' nations and found evidence that these donations aren't coming from who they say they are. Like this example, from Alberta, Michigan, from a place called the Cabbage Shed. Well, there's cabbage going through there alright, but it's probably not not to Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis.
And this example from Saint Petersburg, Florida, which looks to be, as you guessed it, just a vacant lot. Pot. Now Florida senator Marco Rubio's office has taken a look at these Smurfs and has filed a complaint about ActBlue and has demanded the FEC chair and vice chair investigate the radical activist arm of the Democratic Party. In Rubio's strongly worded letter, he says, quote, recently alarming reports emerged of fraudulent donations being reported to the FEC by ActBlue. These reports indicate that numerous individuals, including senior citizens, have reportedly donated to ActBlue 1000 of times a year.
However, according to recent investigative reports, many of these individuals had no idea that their names and addresses were being used to give 1,000 of dollars in political donations with most of those donations going to act blue. It should come as no surprise that ActBlue serves as a vessel for fraud considering the intentional lack of security ingrained within their donation processes and systems. Of course, this this strongly worded letter must have gone promptly into the FEC's wastebasket because, as you might expect, no action has actually been taken against ActBlue. But there are rumblings in Georgia, that Fannie Willis is about to get her fanny booted off that Trump Rico case. So we brought Peter Berninger himself here to explain what he's found looking into Fannie's financials.
Welcome to the show, Peter Berninger. He's an investigative, a citizen investigator, a citizen journalist, and he's done amazing work into what's going on in our elections across the country. Thanks for joining us again, Peter, and tell us what you have found.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Emerald. Our team of, data experts, we have run 2 campaign cycles of reports that Fannie Willis' campaign herself filed to the state Georgia. And what we found is 3 main issues of campaign finance violations. The first one is we found 220 Nations made to her campaign, and no name or address at all was provided on the campaign finance reports.
Now we looked it up under the state, laws of Kellogg of Georgia. That is an automatic black and white violation. So there's 200 and attorney race. District attorneys typically don't have these humongous sums that you might see in a in a national type race. So the first violation is the $23,000, and that's roughly approximately 5%.
And I'll be I'm using round numbers so it's easier for everybody here today. So the second violation we found is regarding $27,000 in donations that were in excess of the $3,000 limit. So there's another, More than 5%. So we're over 10% already of her all her of her total contributions to her to hurricane 2 campaigns, are in gross violation of Georgia campaign finance law. Now here's the big one.
We have been working on The numbers earlier, that James O'Keefe was talking about in the video that you showed, we supplied those numbers, to James, and We've been working with him, across the country to expose Smurfing. Smurfing is structured campaign money laundering. It's where the bad guys wanna take a large sum of money, say $50,000,000, divvy it up into, various campaigns across the country, Including Fannie Willis', whereby they, reduced the transaction amount, contribution amounts to very small amounts from 50 cents, $3, $7, $25. But then they replicate those transactions by the tens of millions over the years. So this is now the big breaking news we are filing today,
Speaker 1: under sworn off complaint to the Georgia State Ethics Commission
Speaker 2: against Fannie to the Georgia State Ethics Commission against Fannie Willis of a $160,000 In Smurfing. This you add these numbers up and we're over 50%, at least, of all her money
Speaker 1: coming into her campaign
Speaker 2: is it was unlawful, illegally obtained, is it was unlawful, illegally obtained, and, basically, she cheated in in her elections by using That money. Now we know that there's what we call the classical Smurf, which is a senior citizen. All these Smurfs that we've been finding citizen. All these Smurfs that we've been finding have no knowledge that their name and address are being used for these contributions to these campaigns. The money isn't going through their bank accounts, but their names and addresses are being used at the places of blue, EMILY's List, the DCCC or DCN, and other similar liberal packs to launder these Large sums through these names and addresses of these unsuspecting, citizens.
Now on top of that is from Based on private investigators that we've hired based on the James O'Keefe team interviewing these people across the country based on
Speaker 1: journalists and and volunteer citizens
Speaker 2: interviewing people on camera across your citizens interviewing people on camera across the nation at their homes. We know a 100% of them so have been senior citizens over to the age of 65 and typically into the 70, eighties, and even nineties. So this is identity theft. This is elderly financial abuse, and this is criminal money laundering. And we're filing a complaint today against Fannie To Willis.
To, hold her accountable.
Speaker 0: What kind of okay. So let's talk about in in accountability. You how the com complaint what what action would you expect and hope would be taken?
Speaker 2: Well, we know that they go through a a flowchart process. They typically have a staff attorney review the clip complaint first. We provide the data, and we tell them the sources and how we came to the conclusions that this money was laundered. So all that evidence is supplied to them, and then, And, they pick it up and they decide whether there's gonna be an investigation or not.
Speaker 0: And then we would one would think you would go to investigation. So this was a total of about a $168,000 you say resulted from Smurfing. What was her what does she raise in total for that cycle? How much
Speaker 2: of a percent do you think it
Speaker 0: encompass of the total donation?
Speaker 2: The One campaign cycle was $226,000, and the second one, I don't have it I I don't have But the second the gross total. So then the second one was less than that. So you you're well over 50%, maybe 60% of all Her campaign contributions coming in with the 3 different issues that I listed. She she's using fraudulent, unlawful money To run and fund her campaigns.
Speaker 0: That is a huge percentage, Peter. Even if it was 20%, 30%. That would be a massive amount. Right? 10% would be a big a big amount, but we're talking about over 50%.
That totally propped her up.
Speaker 2: Yes. We are. And and in addition to that, since we're talking about Georgia, somebody who is probably the poster boy for this across the nation besides Joe Joe Biden is Warnock for senate. He probably is the mean, he's the number one in all the campaign candidates that we've, examined across the country. He He is by far the number one in excess Smurf, donations and will be filing a complaint against him also.
Speaker 0: When do you expect to file that complaint.
Speaker 2: Well, the Fannie Willis one is going in today, and I would imagine that, within about a week to 10 days, we'll have, we'll finish up on Warnock for senate.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the the complaint goes in day. Sometimes they can take a long time to get a response, but given that she is currently I mean, she's had she's got a lot going on right now, but she's still actively prosecuting the former president of the United States of America, which is probably one reason they wanted to prop her up. Let's be honest. How How long do you think it will take to get a response, from the board?
Speaker 2: Well, what what else we're gonna be He is, I'll be sending a copy of the complaint to some grassroots people down in Georgia and then, let them, encourage them to file with the Fulton County Sheriff.
Speaker 0: Because, technically, this would be a law enforcement issue. Right? And that's what we forget about a lot with some of these elections violations. Everyone just goes to the state board of elections. There's some kind of ceremonial investigation.
There's a slap on the wrist and nothing really happens, but one aspect that gets left out of this is that it's a violation of the law. So there is jurisdiction for county sheriffs. Correct?
Speaker 2: Of course. And and again, remember, this is identity theft. This is elderly financial abuse. This is criminal laundering. This is bank fraud, because of obviously, the transactions are going through the banks.
So, There's there's a multiple, of of, it is cheating in the election. Now I don't know what statute in Georgia that would be under, but, she cheated did an election by using this, unlawful money to run her campaigns.
Speaker 0: Real quick. We got 20 seconds. Would this be grounds for removal, or would this require some kind of impeachment from the legislature? What would you look at for in in a response from, state lawmakers.
Speaker 2: My respond I'd be looking for a response that they, go arrest her and indict her.
Speaker 0: Okay. Alright. Well, that that complaint's going in today. We'll continue to follow this story because this is a huge finding, Peter. This is massive some fraud that you have uncovered here.
We'll continue to cover the story as it develops, and hopefully, we'll hear something back from one of the entities that you provided, this report too in in your complaint. Thank you so much, Peter Berninger, for all you're and your team and give them our best.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
The reporter for @gatewaypundit who was assaulted by a federal agent has filed an official police report. @CaraCastronuova tells @EmeraldRobinson how it all went down. Will there be accountability for this attempt to intimidate a journalist? https://t.co/W7hKFxGOla
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video features an interview with Kara Castronova, a journalist who was assaulted by a federal official while asking questions about the January 6th incident at the US Capitol. Castronova explains how she was pushed by the official and expresses concern about potential retaliation. The discussion also focuses on the trial of Luke Coffey, who is accused of assaulting a police officer named Lila Morris. Castronova highlights inconsistencies in Morris' testimony and argues that Coffey is being wrongly charged. The video concludes with an advertisement for MyPillow 2.0.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To go through a press report. Who's your press person? Why did why were the police escorted so quickly out out the door? Like, why are you clearly seen beating a woman? Beating a woman.
Okay. She Do you think
Speaker 1: that Roseanne Boylan was murdered January 6?
Speaker 0: No. Do you think
Speaker 1: Lila Moore? Why are you
Speaker 0: protecting somebody that you've seen beating? I thought you were against police brutality. You're not against police brutality? No comments. Are you not against police brutality?
No common? So, Roseanne Boyland, life doesn't matter. You didn't have to answer to journalists. Do you not believe in freedom of press? No comments.
Okay. No comments. You guys, I hope that you put this together. So for your time, I'm gonna be
Speaker 2: Do you believe that Lila Morris
Speaker 1: murdered Roseanne Boylan January 6th at the US Capitol?
Speaker 0: It's a conspiracy. You're all gonna go to jail.
Speaker 2: Wow. Another day in Biden's America and another unlawful assault on not just the first The first amendment, but literally an assault on a reporter, a great journalist asking questions about January 6th. Of course, in Biden's America, we're not allowed to question the official narrative, and that's what The Gateway Pundits, Kara Castronova was doing when she was assaulted by a federal official who was walking with a January 6th prosecutor. The reason that Kara Castronova was questioning federal secutors was because they are prosecuting a man named Luke Coffey. Coffey is accused of assaulting a police officer on January 6th named Lila Morris.
Now here are pictures of Coffey from j 6. Luke Coffey is an innocent man. The young man attempted to shield another protester beaten by Capitol Police with a crutch. As you see here, he called for calm and peace. You know, feds don't care about the facts.
They want another MAGA scout for their collection. And as part of their desperation to prove their lie that January 6th was an insurrection. Lila Morris, the capitol police officer, is in fact the one who should be on trial. After viciously beating January 6th protester, Roseanne Boylan, to death with her police Baton. Morris was whisked away by her federal colleagues in court only to go from being a cop who brutalizes the public To a key witness in Luke Coffey's trial.
Her testimony could put the innocent Luke Coffey behind bars. In fact, though she should be the one behind bars, Morris claims Coffey assaulted her. Though throughout the trial presided over by judge Rudolph Contreras, that's a familiar name, has been pushing the case forward despite the fact that Coffey's attorney got Morris to admit under oath that Coffey never once assaulted her. In fact, it was officer Morris who overrides Roseanne Boylan. And joining us now is the woman who demanded answer from federal prosecutors in that clip, miss Kara Castronova, who just continued to not back down.
I I have to say I was Shocked. Even before Gateway Pendant put out the story and the specific story that they had assaulted you, I was watching it. I watched it back and forth several times Just to state that literally that man backs up and pushes you.
Speaker 3: Right. I mean, it was I'm still in shock by it. It just goes to show how little, these people think they they could get away with anything because there's a camera there, and he didn't care. He still pushed me knowing that there was someone filming it knowing that he's not going to get into trouble. Many people have encouraged me to file a police report, which you're probably going to do today, And, you know, I I was outside of the courtroom.
I had waited there. I followed the rules. That's where journalists could wait for witnesses to come out, and I wanted to ask Lila Morris some questions. Lila Morris, who you mentioned earlier, who was seen beating Roseanne Boylan with a stick before she died on January 6th. And they whisked her out the back door or out a and it actually wasn't the back door.
It was an entrance even the security guards didn't know about. I've never seen a witness be protected by federal agents like that, and I've been to a lot of these court trials? So I waited outside for her and who came out with the federal agents without her because they have put her out somewhere else. And shockingly, I mean, I wasn't shocked that they didn't answer questions that was to be expected, but I was shocked that one of them actually pushed me. So they they have no fear.
They don't think there's repercussions. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I was actually shocked. I I I've gotten, you know, gotten up to people and ask them questions? I've never had anyone do that to me. So you think you will probably file a police report?
Speaker 3: I think so. And I I saw someone send me a video change, and this happened something similar, very similar tactic. I don't know if this is a federal tactic in in Canada. A journalist was Shoved the same way. And I guess he reacted, and then they they arrested him.
So, you know, people have been writing me on, on Twitter, clear on emails saying, you know, you need to press charges against this guy. He very clearly assaulted you. And, you know, I rolled it around into my far? That we live in in America right now where when you're a journalist just doing your job and a female and you get pushed that you have to worry. Like, I'm worried, like, where are they gonna find a way to retaliate against me somehow?
It's very scary that we live in a country where you're a female journalist and you feel afraid to press charges against somebody that assaulted you because you don't because you know they're Federal agent and you know that they could, you know, try to ruin your life.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah. Look what they're doing to Steve Baker to try to imitate intimidate him into not, Reporting further on January 6th, and you've been doing some great reporting. I look. If the guy only knew who you were, he might have been a little more worried about doing that. He probably didn't know you're a boxer, but I don't wanna make light of the situation because it it is a big deal, and it is absolutely appalling.
Again, I just watched it over and over. Also appalling is what's happening inside that courtroom to mister Luke Coffey. I wanna get to some of the facts in the case. Cara, a court transcript of witness test Testimony confirms what we see in j six surveillance footage that we'll play in a moment. The witness confirming that Morris Morris murdered that Capitol police woman, Lila Morris murdered Roseanne Boyland on January 6th, saying that she did so while she was already bleeding and lying on the ground unconscious.
But it's not Lila Morris being tried in a court of law. It's actually Luke Coffey and she's one of the witnesses against him. So how important is what she did to Roseanne Boylan, which she's not being held accountable for, to mister Coffey's case?
Speaker 3: Well, she's, he's being accused of hitting her, and she actually got on the stand. And the video shows the opposite. He didn't hit her. And, you know, the the defense did a good job in getting her to say that she was never assaulted by Luke Coffey. Hopefully, that matters to the judge.
This is a bench trial. The judge is making the decision. This, Luke Coffey opted opted not to have a trial by peers because everyone knows that the DC, jury are not peers. They're actually the opposite, and everybody has been found guilty that's been before a DC jury. So he opted for a bench wild?
So Lila Morris admitted she was never hit by Lou Coffey. So that you know, they should drop that count right off of his, out of his case, and they haven't done so yet. And, Like like you you showed with the video earlier, Lou Coffey ran up to the line with his with a crutch that he found on the ground, and he held it above his head. And right after, he saw Lila Morris speeding? Roseanne Boylan.
He actually got hit as well by the stick on the arm. So Luke Koffe got hit on the arm, with Lila Morris' stick quick? That she was wielding and hitting Roseanne Boilan with, yet he's the one being charged for assaulting her when she actually assaulted him and Roseanne Boylan. So it's completely upside down. It's infuriating being in in these courtrooms.
The prosecutors are so smug and disgusting. Watching Lila Morris I was sickening as well. She barely spoke above above a whisper, which I was very surprised, and I was surprised that the judge didn't ask her to speak loudly because he always, Judges generally, when witnesses are speaking, if they have to be audible to the courtroom, and you could barely hear a word she was saying. So just watching these people get away with What they're getting away with is completely an, an utterly disgusting. And I have no choice to because I'm here to tell the truth and and documented, but it's very difficult as a human being to witness such evil?
Speaker 2: And we appreciate you for continuing to do so even in the the light of physical abuse. We'll let our viewers know that mister Anthony Salvatini, Luke Coffey's attorney, will be joining us tomorrow for more on this trial. Thank you so much, Kara. Keep us posted. General.
Up next, we're gearing up for the most important election in history, and there's still problems. We discuss after the break.
Speaker 4: Looks like you've been sleeping well.
Speaker 0: Megan, he's back, the My Pillow guy.
Speaker 4: And you're looking good.
Speaker 0: Still feeling good.
Speaker 4: Well, just when you thought it couldn't get any better, we've got the best pillow ever, MyPillow 2.0. When I invented MyPillow, it had everything you'd ever want in a pillow. Well, now there's new technology that makes it even better. MyPillow 2.0 has my patented fill combined with a cooling fabric with temperature regulating thread. MyPillow 2.0 far?
Truly the next generation of MyPillow.
Speaker 0: Now is the time to go to my pillow.com or call the number on your screen. Use the promo code to save 50% on your MyPillow 2.0? Not only that, for a limited time, your entire order ships absolutely free.
Speaker 4: You're sleeping even better.
Speaker 0: And cooler too.
Speaker 4: And you're looking good.
Speaker 0: Feeling good.
Speaker 4: I knew you would. Marco.com.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
No actual audit, more than 40K ballots unaccounted for in 2020, and hand count not matching machine count--these are just a few of the reasons that Georgia researchers & activists @FieldSearcy , @jeffmfulgham, Sam Carnline, & Bob Coovert tell @EmeraldRobinson that @GaSecofState must be investigated.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court's decision to banish Georgia Lieutenant Governor Burr Jones has emboldened his detractors, who are now calling for an investigation into Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. The lack of an electronic equipment audit in Georgia in 2020, despite previous claims, has further fueled the calls for an investigation. Bob Kubert, along with other Georgia patriots, presented evidence at a meeting, revealing that no audit took place in the specified counties and that thousands of votes remain unaccounted for. The Georgia State Board of Elections, however, seems to lack motivation to take action. The speakers emphasize the need for civic involvement and secure elections through hand-marked paper ballots.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Colorado Supreme Court possibly provided the swampy Uniparty with yet another tool in its arsenal to rein in elected leaders who might go rogue. In a headline yesterday in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which is a go to for establishment Republicans for negative messaging on fellow party members in Georgia, the AJC reported that Georgia lieutenant governor Burr Jones detractors feel emboldened by the Colorado court's decision to banish Jones. The Report also coincidentally comes following the Georgia State Board of Elections decision to send a letter to the state legislature requesting guidance on the authority to open an inquiry in to the secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, a process in which the lieutenant governor would play a central role according to Joe Rossi.
Speaker 1: Now we go to work with the state legislature, the speaker of the house, mister Burns, the tenant governor, he's in charge of the senate, Bert Jones. And, we make our case to them, and hopefully, we will Result in something that comes back to the board and, verifies what we already know is factual because of election code, but they validate that and send it back over there. So we are not resting.
Speaker 0: New information that no electronic equipment audit in Georgia possibly occurred in Georgia in 2020 despite previous claims are Raffensperger is further fueling the calls for an investigation. Here is ride the boat's Bob Kubert explaining The situation at this week's SEB meeting.
Speaker 2: I worked with governor Kemp. I worked with Evan Myers, one of his, attorneys, I worked with the inspector general, Scott McAfee, and they tried to convince me that the Secretary of State And ProBNB told them that this audit took place. Well, I asked them, how many counties told you the audit took place? 0. We did open records request to the counties and it came back where zero Audits were done by Pro V&V.
So now, we're making decisions, our legislators are making decisions on an audit that never took place.
Speaker 0: And Bob Caffera joins us now along with 4 other of his, Georgia fellow 3 other of his fellow Georgia patriots who participated in this week's meeting. Let's welcome in also to the show, again, Georgia's Georgia's for Truth cofounders Phil Saracie and Sam Carlin, and veteran and research historian, Jeff Fulghum, who is joining us by phone. Welcome, Gentlemen gentlemen, we appreciate you being here.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Bob, I'm gonna start with you since we just played that clip. How do we know that an audit likely did not occur in Georgia. What information have you seen?
Speaker 2: Well, what I did is I did an open records request with the 6 counties that secretary Raffensperger, put in front of the United States Congress. In a letter that he sent to the United States Congress on January 6, 2021, he stated the 6 counties, Paulding, Spaulding, Cobb, and 3 others. And what I did is, I open records request to those 6 counties. And, and basically, the election Officials of those 6 counties told us that no audit took place, there's no records of an audit, there's no serial numbers of machine audited, And there's no security seals that would have had been replaced by that elections official.
Speaker 0: That's quite incredible. And let me ask you, Bob, if if there had been an audit that took place, would there have been more information? Or would it have shown Up that there was that there were missing ballot images that, you know, the the the thousands of ballots that we keep discussing?
Speaker 2: I don't know if it would have really, shown any of the the ballot issues, but one thing we could do Yes. We could Yeah. There's a, there's a perfect example of what, one of the counties sent me, And but when we compare this audit report to the one that was done in, Maricopa County, Arizona, you can definitely see That the Georgia report is empty, there's no data in it whatsoever, and the Maricopa County report Has the machines listed, the security listed, and so on.
Speaker 0: Now, Sam, you you, during the meeting, you you detail just how many ballots remain unaccounted for, despite the supposed reconciliation process that went on in the December 3rd 4th hand recount, I wanna listen to what you told the board.
Speaker 3: On December 2020, secretary of state Raffensperger ordered the supervisor of elections of Fulton County to reconcile their their totals because based on the count of physical ballots, Fulton County was 17 1,000 plus votes below the total reported on election night. This was not made public. What is clearly proven from the complaint is the recount Did not confirm the report totals from election night. The votes were simply added to batches or discovered to make up the difference. Sometimes the same ballots appear to have been added in 2 places.
With the additional 20,700 votes counted from an unidentified tabulators that had already been added to the initial count, There is no paper documentation of ballots for nearly 42,000 votes.
Speaker 0: 42,000 votes is a staggering number.
Speaker 3: That's that's right. It is. And and why doesn't it balance? If it was legitimate, would it not balance? But you know, Haldeman has said, in his report that Georgia's Voting system is in repairable, yet our legislator and our state board of elections Continue to want us to vote the same way.
We've got a big election coming up next year. We want to change the way we vote away from these It's electronic voting machines that nobody has confidence in. The the way I stated is is Georgia's electronic voting system Is Torah from the floor up?
Speaker 0: I loved what you said. You said there's There there there is plenty of trees in Grady County to print ballots. We actually played that in yesterday's show. I just thought it was along with your statement about if you can investigate the former president, you can investigate Raffensperger. You had some some real good lines in there, But you made an excellent point.
And and and here's what I've I find amazing, and you all all of you did such a good job with detailing is that all of this was made made known to Georgia officials, state officials, local officials. And you, Jeff, who is joining by phone, You you said you actually even filed a report with CISA back in 2020. You spoke to the FBI. Let's actually listen to how you described What your efforts were to the board?
Speaker 4: In December of 2021, I filed a fraud report with CISA, The cybersecurity agency of DHS concerning Fulton County 2020. I then briefed the FBI On this report on 3 occasions, what I told the FBI was that I believed that the duplicate batches that mister Rossi proved were actually entered intentionally. They had been altered and then and then duplicated. And I did 6 months of research on this.
Speaker 0: Jeff, you you have some more insight into the the force decision you think into pushing the 2023, 25 investigation report from the the docket in this week's meeting. It seems like you think that has something to do with your report that you just described there. Could you explain for our audience?
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, Emerald, thanks for having me. I believe that it is likely that one of the reasons, the primary reasons that they canceled the meeting is because as of right now, The Georgia Secretary of State is under investigation by the Inspector General from a complaint that I filed in October. And just a brief background, while mister Rossi was arguing that the batches existed, I filed a report with DHS and then briefed the FBI and told the FBI that after analyzing The way that the batches were entered, I believe they were altered and intentionally entered. And I told the FBI that I believe That the hand count was falsified to match the machine count, likely because thousands of ballots were counted twice. Well, 2 months after I spoke with the FBI, the Georgia Secretary of State himself admitted on the Brian K.
Richard Show that the full hand count had actually been off by several 1,000 because they had scanned ballots twice, But 1 month later at the Rossi hearing, the initial Rossi hearing, which was case 2021, 181, Georgia Secretary of State's investigators concealed that evidence from the board. They did not tell them that the hand count was all 5,000 and the ballots have been counted Twice, they told him otherwise everything was fine. So at that point, I filed a second fraud report with the AG who also buried the evidence And then that's why I've gone to the IG and filed a complaint with him and I'm requesting that the IG investigate them For concealing evidence and mishandling evidence from the 2020 election.
Speaker 0: All this information the board has. And, Phil, you know, this was ongoing while you and I were talking in the segment on Tuesday. And I appreciate you making yourself Available to us now between what Jeff has has testified to, between what Bob has testified to, Homage, your colleague Sam had to say. How how is it that the board seems to lack any motivation to take action?
Speaker 3: I don't
Speaker 6: I don't know what their motivation is. I mean, yesterday, we weren't there, but there were 3 more petitions that were submitted by, Garland, pay Verito, voter GA, and Coalition for Good Governance bringing more transparency to our election systems. And all 3 of those things were were denied by the board. And I
Speaker 3: don't know what it's gonna take,
Speaker 6: but we really need to get the people engaged on this. And even yesterday, Raffensperger has put out a press release calling for ranked choice voting, instant runoff.
Speaker 3: And so what they're trying to do is
Speaker 6: complexity on top of a system that's already broken, that's a secret box of a proprietary algorithm and nobody knows What's happening with this system now?
Speaker 3: It's tore up from the floor.
Speaker 0: We have a couple of minutes left. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: I just was saying, as Phil was saying, it's tore up from the floor up. We need to change the way we vote. We need to go to the hand marked paper ballots counted in the precinct on Election Day by the people that we know in our Counties and get away from the cover up, the lies, all of this that has destroyed Our republic, from the inside out. And what we need to do is, is As soon as the specials as soon as the general session opens up in January, we need to have 10,000 or more Georgians there demanding that we have Secure elections.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. We we only have about a minute left, so I I wanna hear from you again, both Bob and Jeff. And before we go, just any final final items, you know, in about 30 seconds each that you think that our audience needs to know. Because I feel like Georgia is really at the forefront of all of this. And what we see in Georgia, you can kinda extrapolate to other states.
So I think you all are doing just a really great job making the the information and the errors understandable. Bob, I'll start with you.
Speaker 2: Sure. I think every citizen in Georgia needs So reach out to their legislator and they need to make the case to them. There's a website out there, right to vote .net. The information's out there, the Evidence is out there. We need each citizen to take that to the legislator and take it to their sheriff.
And we need some changes.
Speaker 0: Jeff?
Speaker 5: Yes, Amber. I was I agree. Civic involvement is the key, And we need to continue to stay on top of the Joe Rossi case. And, for for the citizens out there in Georgia, my, IG case number is 71933c143f. And, If they will follow me on Twitter and and all the others, we will make sure that that we we keep the civic involvement going and stay focused on The cases.
Speaker 0: Excellent. And we'll continue to cover here on the absolute truth, and we'll have all you back in more in-depth in the future. I just wanted to get a touch of it so our audience could understand, you know, what you all have uncovered in a highlight, And we'll and we'll delve into it more in the future in the new year. And like you said, civic involvement is important. And as we close out, I wanna say thank you to all of you that joined us today, all you gentlemen.
But you have quite a bit of civic and joy engagement in Georgia. In fact, you had a lot of patriots that joined you both at the podium and in the audience in support. You took to the steps of the capitol. We have Their faces, and and we wanna recognize them as well. And, as we close out the segment, let's play the close from your press conference from Georgians for truth the other day, and then we'll be right back after the break with more on the Colorado Supreme Court decision with Katie Sullivan.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
Douglass Mackey speaks out after being released from prison while going through the appeals process. @DougMackeyCase joins @EmeraldRobinson to discuss. https://t.co/5Qz4dPOpvZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses surprise and hopefulness that their appeal was granted by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. They believe they have a strong case and are soliciting help for their legal defense. The speaker's legal team is also hopeful and optimistic about the appeal. They discuss the issue of venue and how their case was prosecuted in a different district. They argue that the prosecution's argument for universal jurisdiction is unprecedented. The speaker mentions the importance of free speech online and how certain districts may not provide a fair shake. They highlight the chilling effect on free speech and the danger of prosecuting based on intent. The speaker's case is seen as significant and they encourage support at memedefensefund.com.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Look, you have one of the most significant free speech cases facing, the court system today. Were you surprised? Because I mean, they're really going for you. Were you surprised that the 2nd circuit court of appeals granted your bond, while they while you go through the appeals process?
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. I was pleasantly surprised this kind of Appeal is not typically granted. The bipartisan it was a bipartisan panel of appellate court judges appointed by all kinds of different presidents, Trump, Biden, and Obama. So I was pleasantly surprised. However, I think we have a really strong case on the merits.
I think we have a really good chance to win this case. We can win this case. That's why I'm, I'm soliciting as much help as I can get at memedefensefund.com for my legal defense. But I was very pleasantly surprised. But at the same time, I think we could win.
Speaker 0: I think you make a very interesting point. And I actually read your substack after the I think you had you immediately put out after this decision came down and you pointed to the the 3 panel judges all all from, you know, you had Obama, Biden, and Trump. And you said this is an important step towards vindication. I you sound hopeful to me, Doug. Is your legal team also hopeful?
Speaker 1: Yes. I think we're very hopeful of a Really excellent appellate team handling everything. And we're very hopeful. We really look forward to the 2nd Circuit Resolving the issues that we're raising on appeal, which involves the first amendment and involves venue or jurisdiction, All kinds of, all kinds of other issues, including, due process as well. So we're very optimistic.
We really look forward to 2nd Circuit Court's decision.
Speaker 0: You bring up this important issue of venue because that's, you know, something that's been playing out in in other cases outside of your own, you were prosecuted in the eastern district of New York. Is that correct? Despite living out of state? How did they justify this venue?
Speaker 1: Great question. Yeah. I was living in Manhattan, Which is the southern district of New York, and they they prosecuted me in the eastern district of New York, which includes Brooklyn, Staten Island and, Queens and Long Island. So what they said was that the eastern district shares jurisdiction with the southern district. So because the tweets went over wires that went through the waters surrounding Manhattan, that they can bring this case to The Eastern District of New York, which is really sort of an unprecedented argument that they're making on this kind of a case.
Basically, they're arguing for universal jurisdiction because if they can prove that the tweets went over a wire in Wyoming or California, Then they say they have the right to bring the case like this wherever they want in the country.
Speaker 0: And, you know, that's gonna be significant for other people as head forward into 2024. Because as we've seen, there's been a major clamp down in free speech online. And there's just some districts that people have a certain political ideology are not gonna get a fair shake in, as you well know. Speaking of not getting a fair shake, I did see where you did an interview with Senator Carl And he was talking about, you know, the moment in which you posted the meme, right, which was about Hillary Clinton, it was in the 2016 election. It's memes we've seen people on the other side of the aisle or ideology post, but had not faced repercussions for it.
So I had to bring up this latest. She said you posted it because, you know, you thought it was funny, and you thought your audience was finding funny, and they did find it funny. And when you ask people about it, I know a lot of people who found it funny too. But most recently, we've seen Other case of this, where Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee ran for Houston mayor. She lost after providing voters with the wrong date for the runoff election.
Do do you think Sheila Jackson Lee will be prosecuted for sharing the wrong election date to vote?
Speaker 1: Right. Absolutely not. She's not gonna be prosecuted at all. This is very chilling for free speech because What they say is that, if you have a specific intent of disenfranchising voters that they can prosecute Now they don't ask, they don't consider whether or not you were joking, whether you actually wanted to trick people out of voting, Or whether, you know, what kind of a post it was. Whether it was satirical or whatever.
They say that they can drag you in front of a court And give the question to 12 jurors to decide whether you were joking or whether your your meme was satire. So it's really dangerous To have, it's really chilling on the first amendment. The fact that they can do this and sort of try to get in your head and see what your intent was. They're doing this also to president Trump, by the way, with his DC prosecution.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And like I said, your case is gonna have so many implications for other current defendants, or would be defendants in the future. We will be following this and we'll regularly update our audience. And as you said, look, this is a very expensive fight that you have undertaken. You didn't you didn't seek it Now they came for you, but you are on the front lines and what many of us may face in the future.
And your case could determine what may happen to some of us in the, like I said, in the future. So you can go to memedefensefund.com, memedefensefund.com to help Douglas out with his appeal, his appeals case. And, like I said, this is this is one of the most significant ones in the country right now. And
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
The letter that was used to push through the illegitimate January 6th committee was drafted up by Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, according to Steve Baker. @TPC4USA joins @EmeraldRobinson to discuss. https://t.co/R5qr69bYmh
Video Transcript AI Summary
Evidence has emerged exposing orchestrated lies about the events of January 6th. A letter circulated by Capitol press pool and Representative Jamie Raskin's office, which called for an investigation into the events, violated Capitol Police regulations. The letter was allegedly drafted by Capitol police officer Harry Dunn, with assistance from the media and Raskin's office. Dunn had disciplinary action taken against him for this matter, but his involvement was not disclosed during the Oath Keepers trial. Blaze contributor Steve Baker believes the disciplinary report should be made public to reveal the truth. Additionally, an internal Capitol Police email suggests concern about Baker's revelations of alleged lies by another officer, David Lazarus. The corruption within the Capitol Police department needs to be addressed and its leadership replaced.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: More evidence exposing the well orchestrated lies being pushed after January 6th, and it's all being unearthed by Blaze contributor, Steve Baker. Take No disappointment was the recent comments from both chambers minority leaders expressing no need for a January 6th commission. The letter goes on to lie I, by saying, quote, on January 6th, where some officers served their last day in a US Capitol uniform and not By choice, we would hope that the members whom we took an oath to protect would at the eerie minimum, the very minimum support an Investigation to get to the bottom of everyone responsible. Now this letter was reportedly circulated by Capitol press poll and representative Jamie Askin's office. Now as you can see here the letter includes the Capitol Police's letterhead.
That's very important. According to Steve Baker, This letter violated the Capitol Police employee regulations. Baker also claims, quote, the author violated many department against using USCP time and resources for political purposes, and if you're wondering who drafted this letter? Baker claims it was Capitol police officer, Harry Dunn. Baker alleges that Dunn worked with the members of the Capitol press pool in order to craft this letter.
The press. He was also reportedly assisted and encouraged by representative Jamie Raskin himself. Raskin's chief of staff then circulated the letter to members of congress. Baker also claims that officer Dunn was under investigation and had disciplinary action taken against him for this initiated matter. And joining us now to discuss is Blaze contributor Steve Baker himself.
Steve, thanks for being here. This is big. This was a report or a letter that was promoted by the media big time, and some of them it appears, according to your reporting, who helped actually craft This letter themselves, you're asking the Capitol Police to release Dunn's disciplinary report. Why do you think this report So important for the public to to see what will it reveal to the Americans.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, the most important aspect of this is the collusion between not only a high ranking, well known, House of Representatives, Congress member, Jamie Raskin, As well as the mainstream media, in keeping this letter anonymous, when all of those parties involved knew who the author of this letter was. And, of course, as we've done stories on Officer Dunn already for the last couple of months with Much more to come. There is a continuing, thread here of these orchestrated lies and Deceptions. And that's the key element that's hidden in this particular disciplinary report by the capitol why it was, spiked or hidden or or not divulged to the defense lawyers in the 1st Oathkeeper's trial, when Harry Dunn testified in that trial, obviously that was And without the defense teams being aware that he has multiple disciplinary actions against him, and when you have one that is is, overtly the result of deception, One that contains in this disciplinary report that we know, it contains the fact that he denied that he was the author of this letter. Well, in United States Capitol Police terms, that's what they call a terminal event.
In other words, he should have been fired immediately as a result of what he did in this particular action. This goes all the way back to May of 21. And the Trial for the Oath Keepers was not until October of 22. So Harry Dunn, ostensibly, a, should never have been allowed to testify in that trial. And even if he had testified, the defense teams should have known about his deceptive nature, But actions is history of telling lies so that they could bring that up in the trial before the jury.
And this was Not, revealed to them.
Speaker 0: So walk us through this, Steve. Harry Gunn Worked with members of the media, Jamie's Jamie Raskin's office in crafting this. Have a couple of questions about it. Clearly, it's on the police letterhead, did he just take that on his on a court? He did not ask for permission from a supervisor or whoever In the US, CP would be in charge of disseminating such official, I guess, communications.
Secondly, did other Capitol Police members engage with him or or or or Join in on this effort with him, or did he act alone in crafting this letter with the members of the media in Raskin's office?
Speaker 1: Here's what we know. He claims initially that he had 30 to 40 other officers that were supporting him in this effort. We also know that Jamie Eraskin encouraged him to draft this letter. So then Harry Dunn, on his own initiative, he went and found Capitol Police letterhead. He went to the, Capitol press pool.
What officer Dunn says is that He used several female members of the capitol press pool in helping him craft this letter. Now he says it was only for grammar issues, but You can tell by the wording he had significantly more sense assistance than just that. But then ultimately, he handed this letter out through, Jamie Raskin's office using her chief, his chief of staff to distribute that to other congress members. He also handed a copy to, Whitney Wilde, who is a, law enforcement reporter for CNN. And then we also know that he used his Capitol Police email.
He Used Capitol Police, copying machines. All of this was trackable. So even though he did this anonymously on May 19, 2021 And distributed. And this was published by several mainstream media sources. All female, correspondents, by the way.
And then that was That happened on May 20, 2021. And then the very next day, the Capitol Police already had him pegged as the Author and distributor of this anonymous letter. And then his investigation and disciplinary actions began at that point. But here we are two and a half years later, and nobody ever revealed no one in the mainstream press who worked with him revealed it. The Capitol Police never revealed it.
Obviously, Jamie Raskin's office never revealed it. So it was a two and a half year mystery who this person was. But as I said earlier, more importantly, the fact that this disciplinary action was spiked and hidden, from the The the vital people that needed to know about this, particularly in these, January 6 trials, that is where, we we have our Greatest problem with this particular story?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and they tried hands Steve on an internal Capitol Police email about yourself and at Capitol Police are flagging your x thread. Your thread details how Capitol Police officer David Lazarus allegedly lied also during the Oathkeeper's trial. The email highlights that you are working with congressman Loudermilk that have attained the images that prove Lazarus lied In her oath, the email admits that there aren't any current threats from your thread, but they need to keep an eye On your Twitter, were, were you provided with any additional context about this email? It doesn't seem like they're very much concerned about the fact that Lazarus lied.
What I read from that At, is that they're more concerned about you revealing that he lied.
Speaker 1: Well, that's exactly what it is. The Capitol Police are probably very well aware by now that I have sources within the department, from all the way from private up to Much higher ranking, command level individuals that are that are feeding me this information. And as a result of that, They are watching everything that I do, everything I say, and and it's very apparent to them because I have an internal email screenshot and sent to me That they know what, what level I'm able to monitor their own communication. So the point being is is that truth's getting out Than they do about anything else. And they should be concerned because the corruption in that department goes much, much deeper.
And we are going to continue this path, and we're going to continue to reveal it until and if Congress themselves step in and take action and begin the process of not just Only, committee investigations, hearings, but real housecleaning because there needs to be basically what I call a decapitation strategy there. The leadership as it is and as it exists at the Capitol Police right now needs to be removed and replaced.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
Hunter Biden's sugar brother Kevin Morris suffered a setback in his lawsuit against @MarcoPolo501c3. Marco Polo founder Garrett Zielger joins @EmeraldRobinson to discuss. WATCH: https://t.co/KVJKrSYAHo
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hunter Biden's associate, Kevin Morris, faced a setback in his defamation lawsuit against research group Marco Polo when a judge dismissed one count. The founder of Marco Polo, Garrett Ziegler, discussed the latest development, stating that they won on the claim of doxing but have to appeal the remaining four claims. Ziegler mentioned that Morris wanted a restraining order, but Ziegler had never been near him or his family. Ziegler criticized Morris for targeting them instead of other deep-pocketed players like the New York Post. Ziegler also discussed Jeff Cooper's involvement in a remittance scheme and his connection to the Bidens. Ziegler urged supporters to visit fightbiden.org to help with their legal defense.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hunter Biden's sugar brother, Kevin Morris, suffered a setback in his defamation lawsuit against nonprofit research group Marco Polo this month when a Los Angeles District Court judge dismissed 1 count from the suit. And joining us now to give us more details on the latest development is the founder of Marco Polo, the group responsible for making the contents of the laptop from hell available to the public at bidencrimes.info. Bidencrimes.info. I mean, go check it out for yourself if you haven't done so yet. You definitely should.
And welcome back to the show, Garrett Ziegler. Garrett, you know, I know because I know you, you were probably hoping for a little more from the judge after he criticized in an earlier hearing, you criticized the lawsuit brought by Morris suggested, you know, in so many words, it's frivolous and didn't stand a chance. So tell us about this latest order from the judge, what he did dismiss and what this means going forward for you and your team.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you for having me on. Yes. Judge Epstein In the Los Angeles County Superior Court gave us a victory but another victory is needed later on. So we suffered no defeats. Along with Morris's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, The judge also tabled harassment.
The one claim that we won on is for doxing, Which again, we didn't even meet the elements of the statute, number 1. And number 2, it's a part of the Criminal code in California. So there's no private right of action. Only a DA can bring 653.2. And so what this means very simply Is we get our legal fees paid for partly.
And we have to appeal the remaining 4 claims. But motion but The motion for preliminary injunction from Morris was denied as well. Morris wanted me to stay a 100 yards away from him and his family, which is easy to do because I've never been 100 yards
Speaker 0: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: From Morris or his family. But this is the main bank roller of the president's son complaining about tweets And other posts. And again, we're the only group they're going after. You would think that They would go after the New York Post and the Murdoch Machine because they're the ones with deep pockets. But no, their focus and Denver Riggleman's focus is exclusively on us.
It's disgusting.
Speaker 0: Why is that? Is it because you're so over the target even more so than any of, I mean, look, you all have done more. And and most of the reporting out there is based on your work.
Speaker 1: True. And I think that They really were angry in my involvement in the Arkansas litigation with the mother of Hunter's child. I think that that put them over the edge and triggered them to a degree that they hadn't been before. I mean, Morris has not had any real adversity in the 21st century. He struck one lucrative deal with the creators of South Park and he's been swimming in cash ever since.
And so he looks at this like a war of attrition. We have to fundraise for the legal fees and Morris just, You know, that's like a Monday morning expense for him. And so he's gonna appeal this decision as well. But in the meantime, He pays a part of our legal fees. And again, this is all about destroying in any way possible The true threats against the Biden family.
So by definition, you asked me why. By definition, they don't look At the other players as true threats to Hunter's grift. The only question that remains about his art money laundering scam is some of the buyers. We now know 2 of the buyers, Morris himself and an appointee of Joe's. So Morris is the linchpin to all of this.
And I've talked about this on this program before. But everybody talking about Hunter Biden has to ask the question, okay, who is allowing him to live? Who is allowing him to sue me and Rudy and Robert Costello and the shop owner? None of that happens without Morris's patronage. So we've just focused on the patron.
And he's been Kicking and screaming like a little child because of that. I I
Speaker 0: I wanna get to another, Biden Emily Enabler and I wasn't familiar with his name until the news broke about Hunter Biden also having his hands in a remittance came for immigrants and sent money out of the country via a platform called EPlata. I mean, he is kinda looking like maybe the smartest guy Joe Biden knows because, I mean, they've got a lot of ways to get money and it's it's almost if it wasn't so nefarious, it's almost impressive. But you released this diagram of key players in a platter
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Following the War Room story breaking with the main guy being 1 John Cooper. Okay. I wasn't Judge. Blamed who he is and and how his involvement has helped the Bidens.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. This is a great topic. Jeff Cooper lives 45 minutes from me in Illinois. He is in suburban Saint Louis on the Illinois side, Edwardsville, Illinois to be specific. And he has known the Bidens for over a quarter century.
His wife went to high school with Hunter Biden's ex wife, Kathleen Buell. And Jeff Cooper, he was business partners with Hunter, but he knew that Beau was the Biden golden boy and Joey's favorite child and everything else. And so Jeff Cooper ran an asbestos litigation firm and ended up recovering 1,000,000,000 on behalf of these clients. And so Jeff Cooper realized that he needed to block asbestos litigation reform. And Joe Biden was the guy who did that in part because Jeff Cooper partnered with Beau Biden in the odds in Delaware For these legal cases because most of the corporations are headquartered in Delaware, they needed local counsel and so Jeff Cooper partnered with Beau And the quid pro Joe was Joe blocking asbestos litigation reform because that would turn the spigot of the gravy train on Beau Biden and Jeff Cooper's legal, shenanigans.
So Jeff Cooper is at the middle of a holding company, called Eudora and E Plata was just one subsidiary of that holding company. So Jeff Cooper can expo Biden, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, asbestos litigation corruption, and you know, Jeff Cooper was the one on Air Force 2 When Hunter was trying to shake down Miguel Aleman, he said, me and Jeff Cooper are on the plane. I want you there On the tarmac when my dad lands, I've, delivered on every single effing person that you've wanted to visit the White House. So Jeff Cooper to this day still has Aleman on his boards. And Aleman is actually in hiding in France where his mother's from on multimillion peso tax fraud.
So Jeff Cooper is a white collar criminal and he's at he's one of the real movers in the Biden, crime orbit. And so we go in go into him in our report. He absolutely hates me. I actually went to one of his divorce proceedings because he he knocked up this Brazilian girl half his age and so his wife is leaving him.
Speaker 0: I I saw the baby mama reference in the dossier, and I did laugh a little bit because you you put the wife, then you put the baby mama, and I knew there had to be another story there. Look, There's so many fascinating people as part of this, you know, Biden crime family. You can go look for yourself at self atbidencrimes.info. Garrett, again, tell our audience how they can support you because you are, you know, facing a lot of legal battles based on this information.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you very much. So Marco Polo is a c three. We have 2 revenue tracks. Substack funds The daily, monthly operations, but their whole goal is to bankrupt me personally and the group.
So the best way they can do that, the best way our supporters can defend against that rather is go to fightbiden.org. It's right it goes right to our legal defense fund. We have an attorney out in LA and then we have an attorney in Kansas City fighting Abby Lowell's request to get our c three status removed. So again Yeah. Biden fight fightbiden.org and Bidencrimes.info.
Speaker 0: Thanks so much, Gary Ziegler.
Speaker 1: Having me on.
Speaker 0: Keep fighting. We appreciate you.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
BREAKING: Steve Baker has uncovered surveillance footage that proves the DOJ put a witness on the stand that lied. This all happened during the first J6 trial for the Oath Keepers. @TPC4USA joined @EmeraldRobinson to detail his exclusive report.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Blaze Media contributor Steve Baker accuses Capitol Police Officer David Lazarus of lying during his testimony in the Oath Keepers trial. Blaze Media obtained closed-circuit surveillance footage that supports the claim. Lazarus, who was assigned to be Speaker Pelosi's security detail, testified about an encounter between Officer Harry Dunn and the Oath Keepers. However, the footage shows that Lazarus could not have witnessed the encounter as he claimed. Ken Harrelson, one of the Oath Keepers, described the events accurately, and other witnesses and video evidence corroborate his account. Despite this evidence, Harrelson and his colleagues remain in prison. The footage will be released once security concerns are addressed.
Full Transcript
The Department of Justice, as usual these days, has some explaining to do, and Blaze Media contributor Steve Baker is looking to hold their feet to the fire. In Baker's latest report, he calls out Capitol Police Officer David Lazarus. Officer Lazarus was assigned to be Speaker Pelosi's security detail. Officer Lazarus is now being accused of lying during his testimony in the first Oath Keepers trial. Blaze Media has obtained the Capitol closed-circuit surveillance footage, and they say it backs those claims that Lazarus lied under oath. The man that has been combing through this footage joins us now. Please welcome to the show Blaze Media contributor and our friend Steve Baker. Steve, good to see you again. This is a huge story. Thanks for having me, Emerald. I'm glad to talk about this finally. It's been a long time. I know. You have been working on this so long, and you've kept telling us, you know, you've got this big story coming, so we're glad that you're here to share it with us. I want you, Steve, to walk our audience through this. You've seen the footage that proves Officer Lazarus lied while delivering testimony at the Oath Keepers trial, so can you just explain to us the discrepancy in what he said versus what actually happened that the footage shows? It's very simple. On October 31st of last year, 2022, David Lazarus, Special Agent David Lazarus, the actual head of Nancy Pelosi's security detail, he was brought into the Oath Keepers trial to corroborate the testimony of the other officer, Harry Dunn. And Harry Dunn is the one who famously had that interaction with four Oath Keepers there in what they call the small rotunda, mini rotunda, or the speaker's lobby, just right off the great rotunda. And it was at the top of a staircase coming up from the crypt below. And this is where Harry Dunn had claimed originally in his first FBI interview that he had a reasonably good confrontation with them, and in fact, those Oath Keepers lined up between him and helped de-escalate some of the more agitated crowd members. But then Harry Dunn changed his testimony in his second FBI interview. And then Mr. Dunn said that it was nothing but a contentious interaction with the Oath Keepers at that time. So there was a little bit of a problem between these two FBI interviews and the statements that Officer Dunn had given in those. So obviously, the DOJ needed to clean that up and bring in a corroborating witness. The problem is, is that they brought in a guy who testified in the trial in very, very detailed, explicit detail, I should say, about that particular interaction between Dunn and the Oath Keepers, which David Lazarus, Special Agent David Lazarus, said that he witnessed that interaction three or four times. That's a quote from the trial transcripts. And this was happening while he was endeavoring to rescue between 11 and 12 of Nancy Pelosi's staffers out of a locked office in her office suite. The problem with his testimony is, and he gave us a clue in the trial, but nobody caught it at the time, is he said he was in the tunnels underneath where the Senate office buildings are across the street when he heard shots fired on his Capitol Police radio. That, of course, the shot was the single shot at 243-244 that killed Ashley Babbitt. And he said it was at that time that he started heading back towards the House side of the Capitol building, which is quite a long distance away. And as a matter of fact, when he emerges from the tunnels underneath the Capitol building itself, it's already 2.48 p.m. and the Oath Keeper encounter with Dunn is almost over by then. And in fact, by the time Lazarus even gets back to that area, to that actual staircase where that encounter was taking place, it had been over for quite some time, had been over for several minutes, and he just couldn't have seen it. He lied on the stand, and we were able to track him from camera to camera to camera from those tunnels through the Capitol building, the basement, the crypt, up the stairs. And we know exactly where he was at every moment of Officer Dunn and the Oath Keeper's encounter, and Agent Lazarus did not see it. He absolutely told a tall tale in that trial. Yeah, and as you noted, Officer Harry Dunn lied as well. Two of those Oath Keepers, Ken Harrelson and Kelly Meggs, as you probably know, Steve, had previously joined our show, and they both detailed how they protected Dunn that day. So I want to play for you how Ken Harrelson recalled what happened that day on our show. Take a listen. I'm standing across the hall from Dunn and the protesters, and he's standing there visibly shaking. He's got an M4 rifle in his hand. He's carrying it at the low ready. I mean, he's in a defensive posture, and these protesters are trying to go down these stairs. And they kept saying, let us get down, let us get to them. We want the politicians. And he said, no, I can't let you go down the stairs. And they said, well, we'll just drag you out and hang you with them. And when they said that, he said, I'll take as many of you out with me as I can before you get to me. And when he said that, I stepped forward and put my hand out and said, hey, hold on. What's going on? And I said, all right, man, just hold on a second. And I went and got Kelly and the rest of the guys and said, hey, we've got a situation down here. We've got to try to defuse this situation. So we went back down where he was at and formed a wall in between him and the protesters. Steve, how Ken Harrelson described his eyewitness account to the events, does that line up with the footage you've seen and with the other people you've spoken with? Yes. It not only lines up with obviously the testimonies of the other Oath Keepers. It even lines up with testimony of one of the government's own cooperating witnesses, which was an Oath Keeper by the last name of Dolan, who actually testified that those guys defused that situation. Now, Dolan was not one of the ones in the in the lineup of the four, but he witnessed it and he talked about how that one and this was a government cooperating witness who testified to this. And then, of course, we have cell phone video. We have video from a couple of other journalists that were passing by, but they didn't stop and they didn't like film the entire thing because the Oath Keepers had defused the situation to such an extent that there was really nothing for them to catch their attention and stop and cover it. So people were just walking by. So there's several quick glances. And from that, we've been able to get some screenshots. And for instance, when Ken says he's holding out his hands from the Stephen Horne video, we can see Ken's both of his arms clearly extended and holding back one of the protesters away from the Officer Dunn. And then there's another great shot. I think it's also from Horne's video of Kelly Meigs doing exactly the same. You can see him intervening between a guy, a protester trying to press towards Dunn and Dunn's back there with a wide eye just watching it. And Kelly's got his back to him and he's pushing that other guy away. I mean, this encounter and the way that Ken Harrelson just described there in your playback is exactly what happened. And as I said in Dunn's first FBI interview, he described it as a positive and helpful encounter. But he changed that. And that's why they brought in Agent Lazarus to help massage that change in the story so that they could get these convictions against these guys who actually did a good deed that day, a very good deed and maybe de-escalated a really bad situation because Harry Dunn's carrying an M4 and he was highly agitated at the time. And, you know, despite what I would call this exculpatory evidence, Kelly Meigs, Stuart Rose, and Ken Harrelson continue to sit in prison. Rose is expected, as you noticed, in the next 18 years of his life in prison in an affair society. As you just described what they were really doing that day, these men would be released. They haven't. We reached out to Ken Harrelson's wife, Angel Harrison, who's been on our show several times. She broke your story to Ken, Steve. Ken and Angel responded to your report by saying in part, quote, Ken said he is happy it has finally come out and being brought to light. He also appreciates everything Steve has been doing to investigate to get to the bottom of it and to get the truth out. The thing is, is he also stated that this is hard to read, Steve. He doesn't think it's going to do anything because of how crooked the system is. He said, I'm ready to get out of here and I've been ready. I just want to go home. Ken's lawyer, Brad Geyer, responded to your report also saying in part, this lack of access to vital evidence resulted in a distorted narrative in the Oath Keepers case where key facts were omitted and the government sponsored false testimony. Justice requires transparency and accountability in the legal process, ensuring the truth prevails. Government prosecutors and defense counsels are strongly urged to slow down the process so that the government can catch up with its obligation and duties and we can mitigate damage. This issue will be etched in history as one that challenges the fabric of our nation. Steve, your reaction to their responses to your reporting? Well, obviously my heart continues to break for Ken and Angel. And I've become close to Angel during this process over the last couple of years of not only interviewing her myself but spending a lot of time with her at the trial and elsewhere to get as much information about Ken originally as I could. I wanted to know who Ken was. Ken's just a good guy and he did a great thing that day. And I say this all the time. On January 6th, there were bad people doing bad things. But there were good people doing good things that day. And Ken was one of the good people doing a good thing that day. And he probably, it's very likely that he de-escalated Dunn and prevented a real tragedy from taking place that day. But having said that, Brad Geyer's statement is powerful, Ken's attorney, and I'm hoping that we're going to see some motions filed, some action taken, that there's going to be an acceleration maybe in these guys, at the very least in their appeals. Maybe an appeal court will look at this new information and accelerate this thing. But Ken is right. The system is entirely crooked. And we can see that right now. I mean, the Capitol Police are not responding to us. The other reporters doing stories on my story are trying to get responses from the Capitol Police. They're stonewalling us. We're not getting responses from the Department of Justice. We're not going to get responses from the mainstream media. The mainstream media are going to black this story out. Because this is a black eye for them as well. Because they had the opportunity a year ago to pick up on the clues and to listen from Lazarus's testimony that he made a mistake in the trial. I mean, he gave the game away by identifying a wrong timeline. And all of these mainstream media journalists, with all of their resources, none of them went after that discrepancy in the trial. Just me. Yeah. Well, there's stenographers, Steve. And they take their marching orders. Real quick, will you be able to release this footage or share this footage with the public in the near future? Yes, we have the footage. We have it in hand. The only reason we have not released it yet is it has to go through security concerns. And, obviously, there's been a little other event that took place in Congress this week. We'll check out that. So after we get our edits approved for security concerns, then we're going to be releasing that footage. Well, hopefully when there's a new speaker in place, speaking of the shakeup, they'll get to this very quickly, Steve, because I think it's very important for the American people to see this footage that you've described in such detail. Thank you, Steve, for joining us, and thank you for your reporting.
@AbsoluteWithE - The Absolute Truth with @EmeraldRobinson
EXCLUSIVE: @EmeraldRobinson got her hands on internal emails which prove Twitter suspended her account to run cover for @DARPA on the Covid jabs. WATCH:
Video Transcript AI Summary
Twitter censored the speaker's account in 2021 for sharing COVID vaccine-related information. Internal emails reveal that a Twitter employee named Michael Vincent Coe flagged a tweet for violating COVID misinformation policies. Coe, who has a business administration degree, dismissed the claims without providing evidence. Another Twitter employee, Joseph Guay, also flagged a tweet related to DARPA, questioning their involvement in funding vaccine research. Guay acknowledged that the article linked in the tweet discussed the topic accurately, but deemed the speaker's context as harmful and false. Both employees left Twitter around the same time. The speaker's lawyers are considering legal action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There are 2 words that Twitter did not want its users to read back in 2021 during the height of the COVID vaccine tyranny and those words were Luciferase and DARPA. How do I know? Well, because I've now obtained authentic internal emails from the Twitter files concerning me thanks to journalist Matt Taibbi and the censors who moved to restrict and ban my account in 2021 over COVID misinformation. Here's the 1st email. In this 1st email, someone named Michael Vincent Coe flagged my account saying I they violated the COVID nineteen policy misinformation with this tweet.
The tweet that says the jabs contain an enzyme luciferase that can track individuals. Now Michael goes on to claim that this has been repeatedly debunked since April, citing in the Associated Press and Reuters, you know, because we all know how credible they both turned out to be on COVID information, but here's the kicker. Michael says without any real proof that the vaccines do not contain the enzyme and that the enzyme has only been used in some COVID nineteen research. Now they decided to bounce the tweet saying it reached the threshold of spreading the conspiracy that immunization efforts are used for surveillance. Michael also determines that I will receive 2 additional strikes retroactively so that I will reach the 4 strike threshold to justify putting me in a 7 day Twitter time out.
So who exactly is this arbiter of COVID truth named Michael Vincent Co, you ask? What amazing medical ground does Michael Vincent co possess just so breezily dismiss the claims of a world famous journalist? Well, let's just take a look at his bio. It turns out that Michael Vincent has a business administration degree from the University of Michigan. Then he pops up in the Philippines working for IG for a couple of years and then he suddenly wanted the heads of censorship at Twitter working out of Singapore.
What does this guy know about COVID nineteen? Less than nothing. How do people like this get control of free speech on social media sites in America? Well, 3 hours years later, a 2nd Twitter employee named Joseph Guay who whose title at the time was senior misinformation policy specialist trust in safety chimed in from the SCICAT desk in San Francisco to add that he found another tweet of mine that violated Twitter policy. Of this one is related to DARPA, that mad scientist arm of the Department of Defense that is actually responsible for the jazz.
I simply asked the obvious question based on an article in Nanotechnology, and I tagged the DARPA Twitter account so they would know I was asking the question. I asked, if COVID was such a surprise to you, to the world, then how did you manage to fund implantable biochips to deploy Moderna's vaccine last year? So let's take a look at the second email a little more closely. This one comes from Twitter employee Joseph Quay, as I said, who says that indeed the article linked in the tweet discusses is exactly what I said it did. And that this has also been reported by 60 Minutes and others that being that being that research regarding infectious disease surveillance via subdermal implants is existed.
The context I used, however, he says is harmful and false. They don't say, however, how it's false or how it's harmful and Joe Gway should know. I mean, right? He's probably an expert of the technology, right? Aren't wrong.
Actually his resume at LinkedIn reminds me of most mid level CIA spooks pretending to be normal people in between assignments I miss the 3rd world countries at NGOs. Don't we all know guys who do internships at the State Department and then bounce around from Harvard to Nepal to Geneva at San Francisco and 2 years shifts that NGOs working on quote unquote weaponized information in the conflict and security fields. Now notice that both of these Twitter employees exited the company at about the same time. Quite a coincidence, isn't it? Needless to say, my lawyers are reviewing these emails and might be time to launch a lawsuit or two for the sake of our freedom.
And that's the absolute truth.