Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL - Uncensored: YouTube BANS Judicial Watch Video After They Call out Dirty Voter Rolls And CA Government Demands It w/Tom Fitton

Episode Date: January 31, 2022

Join the Timcast team, with Seamus from FreedomToons, as they host Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch for our members-only segment, normally exclusively available at Timcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over in Wisconsin, the state assembly, I believe it was, voted to withdraw their electors. We have a story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. They say it's just plain unconstitutional. Wisconsin GOP leaders again reject resolution to pull back 2020 electoral votes. They say assembly leaders for the second time have rejected a proposal from a Republican lawmaker to pull back Wisconsin's electoral votes cast in the 2020 election, which is illegal. So what's going around on a lot of these Trump forums is that I think there were like 10 Republicans who voted to do it. But ultimately, it keeps getting rejected. Now, this is based upon a lot of what was going on in obviously with the 2020 election being under dispute.

But, you know, Tom, you're with Judicial Watch. You guys know a lot about these court cases. Do you know anything specifically about Wisconsin which could lead to this controversy or just the election in general? We can talk about it. Look, generally speaking, this is my view on the election. Trump won on Election Day and the results of that election victory, so to speak, was changed as a result of unprecedented and arguably unlawful voting that took place or counting that took place after election day. And some of the votes that were counted were counted as a result of changes in

Wisconsin that were controversial and arguably unconstitutional. So that, in my view, is a dispute about Wisconsin and some of these other states. And I think what they're doing here, and I don't think it's inappropriate, you know, I'm not a lawyer, but, you know, sometimes in court, it's like, well, what can you do? You were wrong, but what is it you want me to do? And the court can say, well, I can say you were wronged and issue a declaratory judgment that what happened was wrong. And it may have no effect beyond giving you this piece of paper that says you're right. And because practically speaking, Joe Biden is president of the United States. He was appointed

lawfully. You know, there were opportunities to change that outcome. And the process resulted in him being appointed president of the United States. So now people are saying, well, that was wrong. And these are ways of people saying, hey, yeah, we were right. I think the simplest way for anybody to actually challenge in these states, we have the Constitution prescribes one election day, correct? That's right. And it was before and after. So this whole fucking election was just weird as shit. Well, you know, the federal on the presidential side, federal law prescribes that you have to choose the electors. You have to figure out who won on election day. I don't know the exact language.

And of course, you know, I raised that and people go crazy because it's like, well, yeah, that's what it says, but we can't do it that way. Well, it's like, well, that's what the law requires. And so we've had this process that, you know, I say the left ruined the election. They really did. And they don't like elections. And virtually all their changes are designed to end campaigns and elections generally. I mean, they want to change elections from a day to weeks to months. And that's not an election. That's a rolling survey. So I don't like the fraud narrative. I'm not a big fan. We had the audit in Arizona.

And when the audit comes out, I'm like, we're going to look into this story when it drops, and we'll definitely cover whatever is relevant news. And now the firm is closed, and nothing's come out. Data, for the most part, on whatever was supposed to come out, nothing happens. I talked to Steve Bannon. I talked to Matt Brainerd. And it's always like, just wait and see. And I'm like, I don't like the fraud narrative. But I'll tell you this, on a constitutional narrative, on a procedural narrative, on a court narrative, I have serious questions about what happened in 2020. Yeah, I don't think you need to prove fraud. I think you need to prove that

the process was such that fraud almost likely occurred or you can't have confidence in the results. If you go to a bank and they're blacking out all the cameras and they don't keep records and there are no rules, an auditor presumes something went on. But I don't even think that's relevant. It's simple. The Constitution says there is one day for the election. We had early voting. We had universal mail-in voting. We had rules being changed across the board. And then we had late counting. We're like, oh, we didn't count these on election day.

We waited till tomorrow. It's like, well, that's not in the fucking constitution. It's an abomination. It's an abomination for clean and fair elections. And, you know, and so when California says we have, you know, it's easier to vote by mail in California than in Delaware. I'm like, well, why is that a positive? I mean, we should be ending mail-in balloting. The left hates it when I say it. It's incompatible with secure elections. It's incompatible.

It's incompatible with the Constitution. I would agree. There's an election day. Well, that's a federal law. An election day, you know, it depends on how it's interpreted. So the courts have interpreted it oddly. I know. Yeah, I agree. I agree.

On the presidential side, you can't be counting ballots after Election Day. But I think, you know, when it comes to – it will be interesting to see, you know, Wisconsin, obviously, they keep trying to do this. I think the fraud narrative is Trump being Trump. You know, it's the easiest way to say he won. And it's the least complicated way. And I just don't think it's true. I think they didn't need to do any of these things that have been claimed when they did voter in the park. That was overt.

There was no secret fraud. When they're caught by Project Veritas ballot harvesting, you know, the woman going to the old ladies and that's overt they're doing it in public when they change the rules the republicans in pennsylvania changed the rules a year in advance before covet for universal mail-in voting i'm like the rules were just all changed to heavily favor democrats but if they were changed in a way that was violative of the law then it was fraud it was election fraud whatever the word isative of the law. Then it was fraud. It was election fraud. Whatever the word is you want to use. Not voter fraud.

It was not a valid. It was not a lawful election result. And my view is Biden's installation as president didn't reflect the lawful election results. Well, on the day of the election when it was. Trump won on the day of the election. And the result was changed as a result in my view of improper counting and unprecedented counting after elections. It's never happened before in American history like that.

Do you think that those votes were fraudulent though? Like the... I don't think we... I think the mistake that Trump supporters have made is they feel the need to prove that they don't need to. They were unlawful votes. Unlawfully counted. This is why i

i think the narrative on fraud is wrong i think it's both um strategically wrong i think it's factually wrong i think if you look at the time magazine article the shadow campaign to to save the election they just admit what they did they you know when these lawsuits came this is the crazy thing to the left will deny this the liberals will deny this. The courts never actually heard any of the merits, save for that one lower court Pennsylvania judge who said, I think on the merits you'll win this case. It was – whose lawsuit was that? It was Sean Parnell and the other guy. In Pennsylvania. Yeah, in Pennsylvania.

And then the higher court in Pennsylvania was like, we're not going to rule on the merits. You're too late. You have no standing. If you sue before the election, the court said it was too soon. And if you sue after the election, it's too late. The courts failed the American people in that regard. And, you know, the funny thing is the left was doing everything they accused the right of doing. Because I read in the New York Times, and I'm presuming that was an accurate report, that they were wargaming. John Podesta and the gang were wargaming, putting forward alternative slates of electors if Trump won,

and they were going to threaten secession by certain states unless those electors were counted. That's hilarious. So they're planning secession and the potential for civil war if Trump won. And they knew, and as the Time Magazine article points out, they didn't need to do that because they had the rubric of victory for Biden. So there's a real risk moving forward with the elections based on just practical policy and procedure. But we'll get into the stuff you're doing. But the first thing I'll ask you because you mentioned it is where do you think we are in terms of a potential civil war in this country? The left is not opposed to secession and civil war. I mean, I don't think the right is. Look,

the right isn't organized in a way to destroy the country. The left is. You know, we had a fight in Hawaii a few years ago. The Supreme Court of the United States came in and we challenged an election in Hawaii. They wanted a race-based election in Hawaii, part of a secessionist movement in Hawaii. You can imagine where all that's coming from. And it was like, this is wildly illegal. And so we went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court stopped the election from happening. And I talked about the secession movement that they were planning in case Trump won. So there's this revolutionary movement, call it secessionist what you will. The left has no compunction about overturning our republic.

I agree. I think that's what they want. I think a lot of these far left activists want the system to be destroyed completely so they can create their new utopia or whatever. That would look very much like the Chaz. They would kill some kids. They want to radically change it. I think the intention is not destruction necessarily for the foot soldiers, but radical alteration. And from an outside perspective, it seems like the group of us at least seem to kind of think that probably will destroy it if you do that too far,

too fast. It's going to be an implosion, an unwinding. Like if you got rid of the Republic and it's just direct. It's going to be an implosion, an unwinding. Like if you got rid of the republic and it just directly – it would be fucking chaos like you said on the show earlier. Right, right, right. But I don't think their intention is destruction. I think it's just to change it fast. No, they – On the left?

Yeah, I think the – from now, Klaus Schwab wants the American system gone so he can run the world. But these people – They burn down cities. Yeah, their goal is destruction. Yeah, yeah, destroying to get their message. I don't think they're not trying to destroy America. They're destroying buildings to get their change in this political structure. They want to burn it down so from the ashes of the old they can build anew.

Exactly. Honestly, I don't even know if they're interested in building anew. I think building anew is just a pretext to destroy everything. These aren't balanced people. It's a problem. I think Teddy Roosevelt said complaining without offering a solution is called whining. That's a good one. I think Teddy Roosevelt said complaining without offering a solution is called whining. Yeah. It's true. That's a good one.

It's true. Yeah, that's what they do, but they whine in the form of throwing molotovs at buildings and shooting people and burning shit down. What do you think about this Dominion? So we're talking about fraud. We're talking about voter fraud or voter misrepresentation or something. But when Dominion is counting votes in secret, a proprietary software, and then telling us what our own results are, and we are unable to verify, it sounds like it violates your code of ethic that was like, if we don't know how the vote's being tallied, then we can't, it's not secure. Whether we can, if we can't verify if it's secure or insecure, it may as well

be insecure. It doesn't, you know, it's not like I have to know anything specific about Dominion. The question is, are we allowed to ask questions about how election systems are run? Yes. Are we allowed to ask a question about a computer system that probably is eminently hackable? And is it secure enough to run an election? And are we allowed to ask a question about like a computer system or a program that was used in Venezuela? It's pretty widely understood that the system was easily manipulated by Chavez in Venezuela and then say, well, do we have a similar system that's easily manipulated

here in the United States? And should we like that? And now we have Dominion suing the heck of people who objected to Dominion and raised questions about Dominion. And they're kind of pushing this agenda that you're not allowed to talk about the elections, which is partisan. So my view is Dominion should have no business in elections because they've proven themselves to be one on one side of a major public policy divide about election security. We that is a great point, actually. I i think even beyond that we shouldn't have proprietary private election systems it should be open source code if we're gonna have so there's a story i mentioned this every time he brings up the code stuff there was this famous story in illinois a guy gets a speeding ticket cop pulls him over says i clocked you going you know 10 over whatever so the guy when he goes to court to fight the ticket he said your honor i need the source code of the radar gun because for all for

all we know and for all you know and for all the jury know or the court knows it's a random number generator and the judge said you're right ordered the company to produce the source code for the for the radar gun to prove it was actually tracking the speed it claimed it was tracking interesting so i think if we're going to deal with elections, Dominion's code should be publicly available so that anyone can read it and know how it's operating. Companies that have a significant financial interest in securing data have trouble and difficulty doing it.

And let's not pretend that these government contractors that are dealing with really the bottom of the barrel in terms of administration. Generally, state elections are terribly administered. It's just it's just there's a good reason people don't have confidence in the way things are being. Oh, yeah. And many of them.

I mean, look, it's the fact that we're not allowed to discuss it. If you want to make people feel very suspicious about election, and this isn't me asserting one way or another, whether there was fraud, but to make people suspicious about an election, what you do is you stop the counting in the middle of the night. Then the results change when you start counting again. Then you tell people they're not allowed to point out that there's something fishy about that.

You start deleting people's accounts from the internet so that they can't talk about it. Then you start saying that the following election might have problems so we need to make sure it's extra secure because that's what biden is saying right now it's like you're telling me we just had the most secure election in all of american history where you got 80 million votes and this next at the same time this next election is at risk of being compromised it's like well why aren't we using the same system we used last time yes and that's what Donald Trump said.

He said, wow, so Joe Biden thinks that the past election may have been fraudulent. That's crazy. Also, I'll say this. I think the way the laws had been set up in advance, the shadow campaign, whatever you want to call it, the rules were changed. It greatly benefited Democrats. I think Democrats used the new rules to win. I think Trump lost both from a practical culture war standpoint. He is not the president. Joe Biden is. And every stupid line from all of

those people saying March 3rd will be the day he's actually put in and April 7th. I know, dude, so many different dates were used. Trump Trump lost. He didn't get the votes. I think Biden, I legitimately believe Biden got 80 plus million votes i really really do i told this to steve bannon you've got some of the stupidest people in the world sports are taken away entertainment is taken away they're locked down in a pandemic for a year they don't know what's going on or why and cnn just cranks the volume to 11 screaming trump's fault and i i people in my life and this is why I say it's anecdotal, but I told this to Ben, people I know who have no business in politics,

who are dumb as a sack of rocks, were filming themselves dropping off their Biden votes. And I'm like, so why was it that Biden wins, but down ballot Democrats weren't winning? Because stupid people who don't know better were voting for Biden and not knowing anything else. Yeah. I mean, that's a distinct possibility.

And that's why even though 80 million votes seems very strange, I definitely understand where you're coming from, because this was an election where people really felt that their livelihood was directly at stake. So the alternative is more understandable than any other. But it's just like Joe Biden, 80 million. It's bizarre. No, come on. At the least, it's bizarre.

The alternative is that, what, six? How many votes did Hillary get? 64 million? Well, are we going to say that 16 million fraudulent votes had been created? No, that's not what I'm saying. And I'm not even, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying the Democrats changed the rules. Republicans also helped them change the rules. Yeah, exactly. The courts refused to review any of it. The whole system was fucking weird. Yeah. But I genuinely think people voted for Biden. I just think that if we had election, the election on election day as the Constitution prescribes, Trump would have won outright.

Well, I think the rules in the states that decided the election were changed in a way that made the results in favor of Biden suspect. Yeah. So, like I said, if a bank operates in a way where they don't want anyone to see how they're counting the money, there are no checks in place, they don't write anything down. Sounds like the Federal Reserve. You just presume, well, we can't rely on those numbers. And I just want to say. I think that's the presumption in these states. And, you know, it may be a semantic difference between fraud versus, well, a system that invited fraud and needs to be rejected out of hand. And that's my view about what the state

should have done was that, look, we screwed up this system. Either we're going to run a new election in the state or have an alternative slate. Yeah. My point also with pointing out the number of votes is not to point to a smoking gun. And I even said explicitly not to come down on one side or the other here. But my point was that if you want people to think an election is fraudulent, all of these things happen. And then you tell them you don't get to talk about this. I think that's the big reason why people have been very suspicious. As soon as you tell someone they can't talk about something, they're going to start to think it's because you're trying to hide the truth. I criticize mail-in balloting. We've always been criticizing it.

The Supreme Court has highlighted how it's the way of voting that's most susceptible to fraud. Yeah. And the left always agreed with that until because Republicans used to vote by mail because it was elderly. And then they decided it was useful. Yeah. And then the California Secretary of State, we sued LA to clean up their rolls.

Federal lawsuit. They settled with us. 1.6 million names. So I'm talking about all that. They call YouTube and they say, take the video down. And they did. Oh, fuck that. Hold on, hold on.

They actually called YouTube? Yeah, we have the email showing the community. Well, let's start from the beginning. So you guys are doing work to try and— We are election integrity experts. We have lawyers who are former civil rights attorneys, worked in the civil division of the Justice Department on voting rights. I've been doing this stuff for 23 years. I know what we're talking about. We are experts in election law and election processes. So when we say vote by mail is not as secure as it should be, mailing 100 million ballots and ballot applications out is a recipe for disaster, I shouldn't be deleted. And in fact, when I start talking about a

settlement that requires LA County to remove up to 1.6 million names from rolls, names that lists that they haven't cleaned up in 20 years, And then that same group goes into YouTube and says you should take Fitment's video down and Judicial Watch's video down. And they do. That's why I talk about the fraud. They're lying. They're not doing it based on some algorithm that's neutral. It's political. They're lying. So let's explain to people why removing names from voter rolls is important. Because dirty voting rolls are a pool from which dirty votes can be obtained. And the courts have found, again,

you don't need to prove fraud, but if you've got a system in place that kind of breaks confidence in voting, there's a state interest in ensuring confidence in elections. And that's why federal law requires that states take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls. So we've got lawsuits in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Colorado.

And we just looked at the data, and they've removed in New York City, I think, 10 names from the rolls over the last four years. Hundreds of thousands of names should have been removed. So I think one way to make an analogy would be like you leave your door wide open at night. You're living in the city. And every day when you wake up, the food you brought from the grocery store is gone so it's not that you're going to prove someone came and stole it someone could just say to you well your food's gone the door is open maybe it's possible so how about we just close the door and lock it and the person who the democrat roommate goes my roommate probably just ate all the food. And you're like,

yeah, yeah, maybe. Maybe your roommate just ate all the food. We should lock the door anyway. Can you explain to me what voter rolls? I'm a noob here. So when you go to vote, in many places you have to be already on the registration rolls. So when you go up and say, in theory

they're supposed to, if there's voter ID, say, what's your name? I'm Tom Fitton. And they say, okay, you're on the roll here. And what it's designed to do is to make sure that eligible people are voting, that you live in the area, you're voting in the right precinct, because depending on where you live, you get a different ballot because you're voting for a different group of people locally or at the federal level. And so the states, what happened was in the 80s, 90s really, under Bill Clinton,

they had the motor voter law. It was very controversial because it required government offices to register people to vote. So the danger of that is, well, everybody and their mother gets registered three times. So the concurrent law was they got to take reasonable steps to clean up the rolls. And the left didn't want to do that. And so Judicial Watch came in and filed the first private lawsuits, the four sat to happen, and they went crazy. But we won.

The Supreme Court upheld our theory, upheld our settlements. California settled. And now we're going to be pushing harder Because however much I don't like it Voting by mail is going to be around for a bit And the least we can do Is making sure that it's not going to people Who have moved away

Okay, so that's what was happening These 1.6 million people Had either left the country or died or something They're gone In New York you said they only removed eight names Yeah, ten names Ten names Now, you know, it doesn't mean They don't remove other names, but there should be tens of thousands of names they're removing.

It's pretty easy to remove dead people, believe it or not. It's people who move away. I mean, think of everyone who left New York in the last four years. Half a million. Their names are still on the rolls. Yep. And so what happens is they mail the ballots, and the person who lives there. Oh, wow.

Could fill it out and send it back. I think it was 2018. Whoa. I think it may have been 2018. It may have been. I think it was 2018. No, I think it was 2020. It might have been the primaries.

I got mail-in ballots sent to my house when I was in the South New Jersey area that were to people who didn't live there anymore. And I didn't know what to do with them. I'm like, what am I supposed to do? What do i do with someone else's election mail i can't open it it's not mine i can't destroy it it's not mine so what do i do you can do return to sender and if you're really activist you can call up the election board and said i got two misnamed you know miss mailed materials here but that's an example of why we need to clean up the list and they don't want to do it. I mean,

my view is when you oppose voter ID, cleaning up the voter rolls, certifying citizenship before, uh, uh, voter registration, meaning that you got to prove your citizen before you registered the vote. Why else would you want to do that other than you want to be able to steal an

election? And that goes to the point of what happened in 2020. When you set up the rules the way they did, I mean, that just makes a mockery of the system. They didn't fool me. It's like a new guy moves to your neighborhood and he walks up and he's wearing, you know, like a dark hoodie with the hood up and he's like,

hey, neighbor, why don't you open all your windows and doors tonight? And you're like, why should I do that? Why not? What are you afraid of? You have the securest house in history. Yeah.

There's no evidence of a robbery in this neighborhood. So open up your windows. Enjoy the air. I mean, and the other big thing they want to do is this ballot harvesting. Yeah. Where that guy says, I'll take your ballot. I'll take your ballot. I'll take it. You have any other ballots you want to give me? I'll take your ballot. I'll take your ballot. I'll take it.

Do you have any other ballots you want to give me? I'll bring it to the voting place for you. Well, Veritas caught that guy driving in his car, remember? Yeah. And he's like, I got all these ballots. I'm getting paid. And then they lied about him. So the voting rights bill that was just killed by—

You mean the voter suppression bill? Right. The voter suppression bill. That would have nationalized ballot harvesting as a requirement. Oh, wow. How does that work? Well, ballot harvesting typically is allowing someone you don't know to take your ballot and deliver it. That's so insane.

They would have required all states to do it because most states think that's completely at odds with election security. Well, it's pretty split, I'm pretty sure, like half states or something like that. No, California is the only one that allows it in the aggressive way that we're talking about i mean there are exceptions where a spouse can bring something in for a sick spouse but to have a stranger knocking on doors yeah because the stranger collecting ballots and then go outside and like look through for all the donald trump ballots and then go throw them in the trash can and they also knows yeah they initially had tried to lower the voting age to what 16 they were trying to lower the vote Go outside and look through for all the Donald Trump ballots and then go throw them in the trash can. And they also – They initially had tried to lower the voting age to, what, 16?

They were trying to lower the voting age to 16? And it's – I mean, I've said this on the show before, but earlier in American history, the voting age was 21. And at this time, you'd been on your own since you were 16, basically. Now the voting age is 18, and most people aren't even on their own paying their own rent until they're in their early to mid-20s. And so we are flooding the ballots. It's true. We're flooding the ballots in the booths with completely uninformed voters. This is my opinion. It's very controversial.

I don't expect anyone here to agree with this. In my ideal world, I know there isn't necessarily precedence for this, but I would drastically either A, limit the franchise, or B, I would just expand it outwards to give more voting privileges to people with more life experience. So for example, if you have children and you're taking care of them, I would give each person with a child they're taking care of an extra vote. If they're actually providing for them, I, I, I, I got a better idea. Abolish voting. I just get to pick who the president is. I like that. No, but I mean, that's the left's approach, right? But that's literally it. But, But I just, I honestly, going through school, you hear all the pro-democracy arguments,

and I get it. It's like the worst system that's ever been tried, except for all the other ones in the words of Churchill. But I can't wrap my head around this idea that the best possible thing we can do with respect to how we should structure our government is give every single person in the country an equal say regardless of their level of investment in the system. I really think that people who have families should be privileged in the voting booth. What about landowners? I know that's-

That used to be the old way of doing it. But you know why that was, right? That we didn't have IDs. So how do you prove you're a member of the community? You own land in that community. And by the way, what I'm saying, I understand this is like a pipe dream right now. There's no precedence for this. But in my ideal world, I don't see why a married couple who have five or six kids and have been working their whole lives and contributing to the system, why they should have their votes canceled out by two art students who are 18 years old.

The left is in favor of weighted voting. You know, what's really interesting is the attack. You know, we talk about we're winning. You know, we're we're being censored online because we're winning online. Right. Yeah, that's true. And the reason they're attacking elections is because, you know, the left would have you believe that the demographics is inevitably going to result in leftists being elected. Well, if they believe that, secure elections wouldn't be objectionable to them. That's why they're attacking secure elections because the demographics are,

our country is aging, and an aging country generally is a more conservative Republican country, and they see where things are going electoral wise. Hence the attack on the, the election system. I do appreciate your optimism. Yeah. Yeah.

And I think that's true as well. Well, I mean, I know, I mean, I'm afraid they're going to still win, you know, by breaking, breaking the system. But, you know, it's, it's, you know, and there is a certain, you know, the Joker mentality. They like breaking stuff because they like breaking stuff. But in this case, they're breaking stuff in large measure because it's getting in the way of their success. And elections are in the way of their success. If they thought elections were going to turn out well for them, they wouldn't be arguing with us on this.

So how do you – how old is Judicial Watch, the work you guys do? We're founded in 94, so 20— Almost 30. Have you always been there since the beginning? I've been there since 98, so a long time. Yeah. I was counting ballots in 2000, and this is, I think, my fifth presidency. So unfortunately, a lot of things don't change. They get a little bit worse.

Man, you must have been pissed as shit in 2020. Like, after going through all this work and all the work you did in the previous presidential elections, and now here you are in 2020 with all the bullshit going on. Yeah, I saw what was going to happen. And what was frustrating about the Trump administration is a lot of good things could have happened, but it was thwarted by um by his own appointees you know i remember talking to someone in the white house and uh they said fit and you know we're going to get you your documents and i can't get you your documents and we can't get the jerusalem we can't get the embassy moved

to jerusalem those are the two big issues well they got the embassy moved to jerusalem but we still didn't get the documents. I mean, that shows you how crazy things are in this town. What documents? Everything. You know, we were suing for everything. We uncovered the Clinton emails. Benghazi came out because of us. We basically shut Mueller down as a result of our educating people about what was going on and the truth about Russiagate. I mean, we're now doing Fauci and everything. And, you know, things haven't changed in terms of this.

Under Trump, things got less transparent because no one was watching the store because the appointees were so oblivious to the opportunities for transparency and using that to hold people accountable. I mean, Luke goes on and on about, or he would, about the JFK documents. He's like, there was so much that Trump promised he was going to release, he never put out. He never did that either. That's the deep state. Well, apparently the deep state is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. That's true. Yes, I did a video about this. I didn't know that.

I've been talking about it for five years.'re in trouble buddy i'm sorry to tell you i'm sorry to tell you i didn't know about the alt-right till hillary told me about it i'm thinking i thought there's an alt government the basket of deplorables well i yeah so i i did this video a little while back about um this conspiracy theory infographic made by this woman named abby richards and she sort of has like the level of conspiracy theory a person can get sucked into and at the very bottom is these are actual conspiracies which happened and of course you know she doesn't mention like russia gate or um you know the cia or fbi nsa spying on trump none of that's in there um in the next in the next one it's like we have questions and it says iran contra next to we live in a simulation because it's like we have questions and it says iran contra next to we live in a simulation because

it's like the the iran contra scandal literally happened there were hearings about it yeah and so as you go up the list these are the the further you go up the list the worse the ideas get in this researcher's mind and then at the top you have the anti-semitic point of no return which is actually what it's called and then there's the phrase that they're like, deep state, trans agenda. And they're sandwiched in with phrases like Holocaust denial. And hollow earth. And hollow earth and like flatter. If you believe that there are people who work in government

in between and throughout multiple administrations and they all know each other and they work together and have long-term plans, you are on par with people who hate Jews and believe the earth is hollow. Well, also, it's so funny because someone pointed – And the Lord of the Rings font. That was funny. I was depressed.

I didn't notice this when I was doing the video. Someone in the comment pointed out, like Ken, the comments pointed out, under true conspiracies, they mentioned that the FBI spied on JFK or the CIA, but then they have the deep state as a conspiracy theory. Oh, yeah. As an MLK. But no, because it's a nonsense phrase, right? Conspiracy theory doesn't really mean anything anymore.

The deep state. Well, the jails are full of people put there based on conspiracy theories. Also true. Conspiracy is a crime. This is why I just say. There's a seditious conspiracy charge being pursued by the Justice Department. Exactly. That's the thing.

It's a conspiracy theory. Look, my view is I know the criticism of conspiracy theory is that the truth is almost always worse than the conspiracy theory. It's always worse. So the earth isn't just hollow. There's a black hole at the center of it. It's hollow and flat. The Q stuff

was an inverse of the typical conspiracy theory because they thought things were going to work out well. Right. And I remember – I saw everything up front. I was like, oh, there's no plan. Oh, yeah. Well –

There's no plan. I mean for like the first day or two when all this information was coming out and they stopped the counting and then Trump and Giuliani were like, we got information we're going to show. I was like, interesting. Let's see. And then it was like day three of them saying we have information we're going to show. I was like, they don't's see. It was like day three of them saying we have information we're going to show. I was like, they don't have anything! I guess. We'll wrap up with the one, I think,

most important takeaway from all this. The Earth is both hollow and flat. And flat at the same time. It's a donut. Oh, boy. I'm into this hollow Earth thing. Hollow, flat Earth? I want to investigate the caves underneath. It's a donut, Ian. It's a torus? Is it really? It's truly a torus. It's a Mobus. Is it really? It's a torus.

We found out he was right. Mobius strip earth. All right. We're all living in Esher. It's been fun hanging out. Thanks for coming. Thank you for having me. It's been great.

And Seamus has stolen Luke's seat, so we'll see how that goes. Yeah, well, Luke can come back and take it if he dares. Come on, buddy. Come on down here. He's not going to watch this video. You don't think Luke is a fan? I don't even know if he has a membership. But you guys do, so thanks for being members.

Thanks for making all of this possible, and we will return once again tomorrow. We'll see y'all then. Bye.