Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:02.280] I'm Dave Champion. [00:02.280 --> 00:13.240] In the wake of the November 3rd election, there are allegations, claims of voter fraud [00:13.240 --> 00:19.080] and overall election fraud, including the people who count the votes, that I have never [00:19.080 --> 00:20.080] seen. [00:20.080 --> 00:26.000] I'm 61 years old as I'm sitting here talking to you and I have never seen the kinds of [00:27.000 --> 00:30.320] or the volume of claims that these things have been occurring. [00:30.320 --> 00:35.920] The lion's share of these claims, of course, being made by, oh, those who have a vested [00:35.920 --> 00:42.280] interest in making them or those who get excited when they see them or hear them or read them [00:42.280 --> 00:47.440] and want to spread them around, which is all well and good, I suppose, except the question [00:47.440 --> 00:52.640] is, are these claims factual? [00:56.000 --> 01:04.760] I want to tackle this question from three different angles today. [01:04.760 --> 01:06.760] Number one, context. [01:06.760 --> 01:10.520] I think some context is missing. [01:10.520 --> 01:13.760] Number two, I want to share with you some of the remarks made by the gentleman who's [01:13.760 --> 01:18.400] in charge of vote-telling, vote-counting in Philadelphia. [01:18.400 --> 01:22.520] And lastly, I want to talk about a court case that's ongoing in Arizona. [01:26.520 --> 01:33.120] Voter fraud, election fraud, does it happen? [01:33.120 --> 01:35.760] Well, sure. [01:35.760 --> 01:39.280] It happens in virtually every single election and, of course, when we're having a national [01:39.280 --> 01:44.200] election where hundreds of millions of people come out to vote, there's going to be a tiny, [01:44.200 --> 01:49.200] tiny, tiny percentage of criminal conduct, because that's what it is, criminal conduct [01:49.200 --> 01:55.280] by people who are voting or voting on behalf of somebody else, perhaps, or there's going [01:55.280 --> 02:01.160] to be a slight degree of criminal conduct by people who are counting the ballots. [02:01.160 --> 02:06.600] As long as there have been elections, those things have been going on. [02:06.600 --> 02:13.800] So it's really weird that suddenly in 2020, the accusations have exploded. [02:13.800 --> 02:18.800] I started with the premise that, yes, there is always some small degree of criminal conduct [02:18.800 --> 02:23.680] involving elections, always has been, and moving forward, always will be. [02:23.680 --> 02:26.280] But this is where the context thing comes in. [02:26.280 --> 02:29.920] Let's say in a county, of course, you've got candidate A, candidate B. I don't want to [02:29.920 --> 02:34.280] use any names from this election because that just inflames people because their passions [02:34.280 --> 02:36.400] control them, not their brains. [02:36.400 --> 02:37.400] Okay. [02:37.400 --> 02:42.440] So you've got candidate A and candidate B. So let's say candidate B, when the county [02:42.440 --> 02:49.960] is done counting the votes, candidate B is leading by 19,000 votes. [02:49.960 --> 02:57.560] And poll workers and election counters have turned over a small amount of suspected cases [02:57.560 --> 03:00.760] of illegal conduct to local law enforcement. [03:00.760 --> 03:05.340] And local law enforcement, working with local prosecutors, working with election officials, [03:05.340 --> 03:16.320] have determined that these criminal acts resulted in 67 votes, 67, 67 votes being attributed [03:16.320 --> 03:20.040] wrongly from one candidate to the other. [03:20.040 --> 03:25.440] But the candidate that won, won by 19,000 votes. [03:25.440 --> 03:36.960] So if you've got 66, 67, 102, 104 votes affected, does it impact the outcome of the election? [03:36.960 --> 03:39.520] Does it impact the outcome of the election? [03:39.520 --> 03:45.280] And in the overwhelming majority of the counties where the voting is taking place, the little [03:45.720 --> 03:51.360] amount of criminal conduct is not affecting the outcome of the election. [03:51.360 --> 03:58.400] For criminal conduct to impact the outcome of the election would require massive voter [03:58.400 --> 03:59.400] fraud. [03:59.400 --> 04:09.480] And that is what zero evidence exists to support. [04:09.480 --> 04:14.280] Earlier today, I was watching an official, the official who's in charge of vote counting [04:14.280 --> 04:19.760] in Philadelphia, talk with the press about what's been going on in Philadelphia. [04:19.760 --> 04:23.920] He said they had come across just a couple of cases that might be some sort of voter [04:23.920 --> 04:25.640] fraud, and he turned that over to law enforcement. [04:25.640 --> 04:35.360] He said, but other than that, there's zero evidence of voter fraud or ballot counting [04:35.360 --> 04:37.440] fraud in Philadelphia. [04:37.440 --> 04:42.240] Apparently, there was something going around on social media in the Philadelphia area that [04:42.240 --> 04:50.400] had itemized all of these people by name who were dead, had voted, of course, for Joe [04:50.400 --> 04:51.920] Biden, right? [04:51.920 --> 04:57.560] So this gentleman said that his staff took their time away from what they're actually [04:57.560 --> 05:02.840] there to do, which is to count the votes which appear on ballots which people are legally [05:02.840 --> 05:07.960] entitled to cast and make sure that ballots of people are not legally entitled to cast [05:07.960 --> 05:08.960] get rejected. [05:08.960 --> 05:09.960] He said, that's what we're here to do. [05:09.960 --> 05:15.160] So we took our time away from that to go down this list that was going around on social [05:15.160 --> 05:20.720] media saying in Philadelphia, these dead people voted for Joe Biden. [05:20.720 --> 05:21.720] He said we went down the list. [05:21.720 --> 05:25.880] We took our time away from what we should be doing to go down this list of social media [05:25.880 --> 05:27.600] nonsense. [05:27.600 --> 05:36.280] He said not one, not one of the people on that list circulating on social media, those [05:36.280 --> 05:39.840] dead people, had cast a vote in Philadelphia. [05:40.720 --> 05:51.040] It was totally made-up crap and I can almost imagine right now some of you who are extremely [05:51.040 --> 05:55.600] pro-Trump and have bought into this whole massive voter fraud thing, you're probably [05:55.600 --> 06:00.800] screaming at your computer, screaming at your phone right now, but you can't trust that [06:00.800 --> 06:06.640] Democrat who's in charge of vote counting in Philadelphia, except he's a Republican. [06:10.560 --> 06:15.560] The Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee, and the Republican Party of Arizona [06:15.560 --> 06:21.920] have sued the Arizona Secretary of State and various officials in the county of Maricopa, [06:21.920 --> 06:33.920] which is where Phoenix is, claiming that irregularities resulted in thousands of ballots being miscounted. [06:33.920 --> 06:38.640] Something called tabulation over vote, which I'm not going to get into here. [06:39.440 --> 06:45.160] While the plaintiffs have made that allegation, the defendants, especially the Maricopa County [06:45.160 --> 06:50.680] officials, they are the ones that are hands on with the ballot counting, have said it [06:50.680 --> 06:56.200] could not possibly be thousands and thousands of ballots because the tabulation overwrite [06:56.200 --> 07:03.280] process is computer controlled and if the computer perceives it overwrite, it kicks [07:03.280 --> 07:07.200] it out to have it manually inspected by one of the employees. [07:07.200 --> 07:14.280] They said the number of ballots that were kicked out potentially by the computer, potentially [07:14.280 --> 07:18.440] due to an overwrite, I say potentially because the computer is not the final say. [07:18.440 --> 07:22.160] The person who reviews the ballot has the final say. [07:22.160 --> 07:28.720] There were potential overwrite ballots that got kicked out to be inspected by live people, [07:28.720 --> 07:31.000] 180. [07:31.000 --> 07:38.320] Making this even more odd is that the plaintiff, let's say candidate Trump, candidate Trump, [07:38.320 --> 07:45.120] the plaintiff has requested that the evidence it's going to submit in the case be sealed. [07:45.120 --> 07:51.840] In other words, the press, you and I, we can't see the evidence they're submitting. [07:51.840 --> 07:57.880] Now what makes that unusual is that is often done, by the way, in election cases, sealing [07:57.880 --> 08:00.280] the evidence so the public can't see it. [08:00.280 --> 08:03.600] But what makes it odd in this case is being done by the candidate plaintiff. [08:03.600 --> 08:10.520] Normally, this is, that request comes from the county defendant who's trying to protect [08:10.520 --> 08:15.600] voter identification, things like names and social security numbers that if they have [08:15.600 --> 08:18.220] to bring evidence into court, they want to protect that. [08:18.220 --> 08:23.120] So it's the county, it's the election officials that are requesting that the evidence be sealed [08:23.120 --> 08:27.920] to protect information that's not disclosable under law. [08:27.920 --> 08:33.320] It's unheard of for the plaintiff to request that the evidence be sealed. [08:33.320 --> 08:39.240] The explanation for this weird approach by the plaintiff is that they have voluminous [08:39.240 --> 08:43.600] amounts of declarations of wrongdoing that they're going to bring into the courtroom [08:43.600 --> 08:48.000] and that this information that's going to be in these declarations contains voter names [08:48.000 --> 08:50.840] and voter social security numbers and so forth. [08:50.840 --> 08:56.600] So where normally that information is coming in from the county, now candidate Trump, the [08:56.600 --> 09:01.080] plaintiff is claiming they want to protect voter information. [09:01.080 --> 09:04.200] However, there's a problem with this. [09:04.200 --> 09:12.960] And that is that the plaintiff set up a website and said, if you believe there's been any [09:12.960 --> 09:19.160] sort of voter irregularity, voter fraud, vote counting fraud, whatever, go ahead and go [09:19.160 --> 09:21.880] to this website and make a statement. [09:22.360 --> 09:28.720] Okay, so that's not how investigations are handled, that's not how evidence is accumulated. [09:28.720 --> 09:33.000] The reason that law enforcement almost never, ever, ever, ever, ever goes out to the public [09:33.000 --> 09:37.040] and says we'd like you, if you have any evidence concerning this crime, please let us know. [09:37.040 --> 09:44.880] The reason that that probably is not done once in 250,000 cases is because of the manpower [09:44.880 --> 09:49.320] it takes to sort through the nonsense that they get. [09:49.320 --> 09:52.920] They have to bring people in normally, it's a joint task force, they have people from [09:52.920 --> 09:58.000] other agencies, maybe federal agencies, they have to pull people from other routine duties [09:58.000 --> 10:02.480] because they have to go check out all these claims of which the vast majority of them [10:02.480 --> 10:04.000] are utter nonsense. [10:04.000 --> 10:09.920] Those are cases where the people who are making these ridiculous claims aren't all fired up [10:09.920 --> 10:13.280] and passionate like they are about this past election, right? [10:13.280 --> 10:17.520] So you can imagine when the plaintiff, candidate Trump, says hey man, if you think there's [10:17.520 --> 10:21.320] been voter fraud, go to this website, man, and then explain why. [10:21.320 --> 10:26.520] Wow, with the passions and this, you can imagine, right? [10:26.520 --> 10:32.080] So the fact that the plaintiff's attorney says, you know, we have voluminous declarations, [10:32.080 --> 10:36.080] I think it's going to be interesting to see how the judge deals with the declarations [10:36.080 --> 10:41.200] because I imagine it's going to be something like judge, you know, here's 437 declarations [10:41.200 --> 10:47.440] and maybe two or three of them actually offer something of substance. [10:47.440 --> 10:54.160] I told you it's very unusual for the plaintiff candidate to want to seal the evidence. [10:54.160 --> 10:58.200] Normally it's the county that wants to seal the evidence for the reasons I already described. [10:58.200 --> 11:07.340] Now in this case, the county has taken a completely 180 different opposing view. [11:07.340 --> 11:14.380] The county has objected to sealing the plaintiff's evidence and said no, we don't want any of [11:14.380 --> 11:15.380] the evidence sealed. [11:15.380 --> 11:23.220] We want the media, we want the public to be able to see every single shred of evidence [11:23.220 --> 11:28.060] that comes into this courtroom and if we have to bring evidence in and rebuttal, we will [11:28.060 --> 11:33.540] take the time and effort to redact anything we need to redact. [11:33.540 --> 11:41.900] So why would the county take such a different perspective from what counties ordinarily do? [11:41.900 --> 11:47.260] To understand why the county has taken this different approach, let me share with you [11:47.260 --> 11:52.140] the words of Maricopa County Attorney Thomas Liddy. [11:52.140 --> 12:00.060] This case goes to the heart of election integrity and alleges widespread systemic failure by [12:00.060 --> 12:04.260] the Maricopa County defendants, their employees and their processes. [12:04.260 --> 12:09.180] And it is not just that they allege these baseless claims, it is the manner in which [12:09.180 --> 12:15.500] they alleged it so widely spread and volitionally to the press, on the internet and on plaintiffs [12:15.500 --> 12:17.620] fundraising letters. [12:17.620 --> 12:23.100] Because of that, it is not in the interest of justice to do this in secret. [12:23.100 --> 12:29.260] The public has a right to know how flimsy plaintiff's evidence actually is. [12:29.260 --> 12:35.580] Remember, in civil actions, each side has to show their hand. [12:35.580 --> 12:37.540] It's not like television, right? [12:37.540 --> 12:42.500] Where suddenly in the middle of a case, your honor, boom, surprise witness or boom, surprise [12:42.500 --> 12:43.500] evidence. [12:43.500 --> 12:44.860] Yeah, it doesn't happen that way in real life. [12:44.860 --> 12:50.980] In a civil suit, you have to disclose to the opposition the evidence that you have well [12:50.980 --> 12:52.720] before you step into the courtroom. [12:52.720 --> 12:59.400] So the point is, the attorney for Maricopa County, Thomas Liddy, he's already looked [12:59.400 --> 13:02.260] at plaintiff's evidence. [13:02.260 --> 13:10.900] And what he's saying is, if we do this in secret, there will always be questions about [13:10.900 --> 13:16.740] was the system really non-credible? [13:16.740 --> 13:22.220] Is the election process really, truly unreliable? [13:22.220 --> 13:29.160] Could we be sowing confusion and distrust and discord about our elections? [13:29.160 --> 13:33.340] And his answer is, no, we should not be. [13:33.340 --> 13:41.340] And therefore, his position is, I've looked at plaintiff's evidence, and it's nonsensical. [13:41.340 --> 13:42.580] It's trivial. [13:42.580 --> 13:43.820] It's minuscule. [13:43.820 --> 13:44.820] It is non-persuasive. [13:44.820 --> 13:47.060] It is non-compelling. [13:47.060 --> 13:52.220] So the only way to ensure that the public understands that there is integrity in the [13:52.220 --> 13:58.120] election process is to let the public look at this and let them see how trivial and minuscule [13:58.120 --> 14:02.960] and non-compelling and non-persuasive the evidence really is. [14:02.960 --> 14:05.900] And I totally agree with Attorney Liddy. [14:05.900 --> 14:09.940] I'm a huge advocate of transparency. [14:09.940 --> 14:15.060] So while I understand why a county would normally ask to seal the evidence, I'm super, super [14:15.060 --> 14:20.140] glad that Attorney Liddy has petitioned the court not to allow that in this case. [14:20.140 --> 14:22.380] And I'm going to tell you, the judge has already agreed. [14:22.380 --> 14:27.400] The judge has already said, no, there will be no secret evidence in this case. [14:27.400 --> 14:31.520] I'm bringing this case up because we have the secrecy issue that just hit, and we just [14:31.520 --> 14:34.700] as of yesterday have the judge's opinion. [14:34.700 --> 14:40.740] However, this is going to be the case all over the United States, which brings me back [14:40.740 --> 14:43.660] to the context issue. [14:43.660 --> 14:53.340] In the plaintiff, campaign candidate Trump, can he bring in an instance of voter fraud? [14:53.340 --> 14:54.980] Yeah, almost certainly. [14:54.980 --> 14:56.640] No doubt. [14:56.640 --> 15:02.420] Can he bring up an instance of where somebody counting the ballot did something illegal? [15:02.420 --> 15:06.460] Yeah, I imagine some places across the country he can do that. [15:06.460 --> 15:13.540] But again, that example, if a candidate won by 19,000 votes and these couple of little [15:13.540 --> 15:23.260] issues produced a change in the actual vote of 11 people or 111 people or 127 people, [15:23.260 --> 15:29.340] it's not going to affect the election because the guy who won, won by 19,000 votes in that [15:29.340 --> 15:30.340] county. [15:30.340 --> 15:35.900] That's the difference between little incidental incidences of criminal conduct, which have [15:35.900 --> 15:43.860] always existed and will always exist, versus or in comparison to massive vote fraud, for [15:43.860 --> 15:48.380] which again, and I know people are going to get angry, I don't know what to tell you. [15:48.380 --> 15:50.920] You need to get connected to reality. [15:50.920 --> 15:58.780] There is zero evidence of massive vote fraud, the kind that would turn an election from [15:58.780 --> 16:01.580] one candidate to the other. [16:01.580 --> 16:07.500] Of that kind of vote fraud, there is zero evidence. [16:07.500 --> 16:12.620] One aspect of this I find fascinating is that, let's go back to 2016 when Donald Trump won [16:12.620 --> 16:20.900] the election, if Hillary's people had filed lawsuits, as we're seeing candidate Trump [16:20.900 --> 16:29.220] do now, and I don't want to call it level of evidence, the insufficiency of evidence [16:29.420 --> 16:34.900] in Hillary Clinton lawsuits was the same as the insufficiency of evidence we're seeing [16:34.900 --> 16:42.700] in Donald Trump's lawsuits, would any of the Trump supporters who are now asserting that [16:42.700 --> 16:51.420] these lawsuits by Donald Trump are somehow meaningful, that there was massive vote fraud, [16:51.420 --> 16:57.600] would they have given credibility to Hillary Clinton's lawsuits containing the same or [16:57.600 --> 17:00.200] similar insufficiency of evidence?