Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:02.100]  I'm Dave Champion.
[00:02.100 --> 00:08.040]  Do you know that most, we call them high-power attorneys who handle significant civil cases,
[00:08.040 --> 00:13.620]  have someone like me who does research?
[00:13.620 --> 00:16.120]  On the criminal side, they call them investigators.
[00:16.120 --> 00:19.680]  They're often called research assistants, research contractors, and so forth on the
[00:19.680 --> 00:21.200]  civil side.
[00:21.200 --> 00:26.120]  And here's the purpose for an attorney to have somebody like me under contract when
[00:26.120 --> 00:30.400]  they're looking at a significant civil matter.
[00:30.400 --> 00:34.800]  There are such things in the laws, I'm sure you know, expert witnesses.
[00:34.800 --> 00:41.500]  So we'll say we've got Attorney Smith, and he represents the plaintiff.
[00:41.500 --> 00:47.240]  The plaintiff comes to Attorney Smith and says, hey, I want you to pursue this particular
[00:47.240 --> 00:49.280]  controversy, this matter.
[00:49.280 --> 00:51.240]  This is the outcome I'm looking for.
[00:51.240 --> 00:58.640]  And I'm going to provide you with these 20 experts, whatever that might happen to mean
[00:58.640 --> 01:00.340]  to the client, right?
[01:00.340 --> 01:06.280]  So then Attorney Smith, he says, okay, great, you've got 20 experts, let's take a look and
[01:06.280 --> 01:07.280]  see what they've got.
[01:07.280 --> 01:09.840]  Now, why doesn't Attorney Smith just take that at face value?
[01:09.840 --> 01:12.640]  Well, first of all, attorneys think most of their clients are idiots, and they're not
[01:12.640 --> 01:14.960]  exactly wrong.
[01:14.960 --> 01:16.860]  The client certainly doesn't understand the law.
[01:16.860 --> 01:21.100]  But more importantly, civil suits involve, almost always, any significant civil suit
[01:21.100 --> 01:22.640]  involves depositions.
[01:22.640 --> 01:28.540]  Each side questions in advance of the trial, under oath, the people from the other side.
[01:28.540 --> 01:30.020]  They both do this, right?
[01:30.020 --> 01:34.180]  So everybody's cards are on the table before they ever walk into the courtroom.
[01:34.180 --> 01:39.340]  The purpose of that is so that if one side or the other discovers they have a completely
[01:39.340 --> 01:44.460]  losing case, then they can go ahead and settle out of court or dismiss the action or whatever
[01:44.460 --> 01:45.960]  they're going to do.
[01:46.060 --> 01:54.080]  So because both sides know the other side's cards, Attorney Smith knows that the other
[01:54.080 --> 02:02.520]  attorney representing the defendant is going to do his best to disprove or tear down or
[02:02.520 --> 02:10.720]  make non-credible the presentation, the evidence, the testimony of these 20 witnesses provided
[02:10.720 --> 02:14.680]  to the plaintiff's attorney by the client.
[02:14.680 --> 02:22.240]  So in other words, Attorney Smith is trying to find out if those experts are credible
[02:22.240 --> 02:26.880]  before he walks into court and finds out they're not and gets his ass handed to him.
[02:33.880 --> 02:35.640]  What I just described only makes sense, right?
[02:35.640 --> 02:40.760]  If you are Attorney Smith, you would want somebody like me, who's a bang-up researcher,
[02:40.840 --> 02:48.240]  to go look at the underlying arguments, the underlying data, the underlying facts that
[02:48.240 --> 02:52.840]  the client just gave you and said, yeah, this is real, these are factual.
[02:52.840 --> 02:55.840]  Before you went to court and found out you're making a complete ass of yourself, you would
[02:55.840 --> 02:58.600]  want to know whether that information is credible, right?
[02:58.600 --> 03:04.120]  The next thing I want to share with you is attorneys, again, will you say for the plaintiff,
[03:04.120 --> 03:06.200]  don't go out and find experts.
[03:06.200 --> 03:08.320]  That's up to the client to do.
[03:08.320 --> 03:13.040]  So when the client comes in and says to the attorney they want to hire, hey man, this
[03:13.040 --> 03:17.360]  is my objective, this is what I want to accomplish in the courtroom.
[03:17.360 --> 03:21.800]  The attorney is going to say, and your information that you have to share with me so that I can
[03:21.800 --> 03:24.400]  create that for you is what?
[03:24.400 --> 03:27.280]  It's up to the client to provide the information.
[03:27.280 --> 03:32.400]  And this brings me to the Donald Trump and surrogate lawsuit.
[03:32.400 --> 03:35.960]  Just bear with me for a moment, I'm going someplace beyond that, I just want to touch
[03:35.960 --> 03:37.200]  base on this quickly.
[03:37.360 --> 03:40.200]  All right, so I use the phrase Trump and surrogates.
[03:40.200 --> 03:46.520]  What I mean by that is Donald Trump, the Trump campaign, or those filing suit in the interest
[03:46.520 --> 03:47.520]  of Trump.
[03:47.520 --> 03:49.960]  In other words, they want him to be president.
[03:49.960 --> 03:56.840]  So they're bringing an argument that is related to allegations of election fraud for the purpose
[03:56.840 --> 04:00.040]  of changing the vote up so that Donald Trump can be president.
[04:00.040 --> 04:04.560]  So when I use the term Trump and surrogates, that's the picture I'm painting.
[04:04.560 --> 04:14.760]  To date, Trump and surrogates have brought and lost 54 separate cases.
[04:14.760 --> 04:15.920]  There are two more pending.
[04:15.920 --> 04:19.800]  There's one pending in a state court in Georgia and there's one pending in the Fulton County
[04:19.800 --> 04:22.120]  Court in Georgia.
[04:22.120 --> 04:25.240]  Those are going to be dismissed lickety-split here in the next week or so.
[04:25.240 --> 04:29.040]  So that'll be 56 lawsuits lost.
[04:29.040 --> 04:33.000]  Now, some of them were dismissed out of hand because they lack standing and things like
[04:33.000 --> 04:34.000]  that.
[04:34.000 --> 04:38.200]  There were legal arguments, but the vast majority of them were dismissed for lack of evidence.
[04:38.200 --> 04:44.120]  And that ties back to the earlier part of the discussion where it is the client's responsibility
[04:44.120 --> 04:51.400]  to bring credible experts, credible data, credible evidence to counsel and say, here.
[04:51.400 --> 04:56.440]  So you can imagine if you were a high up monkey muck in the Trump campaign, you were hiring
[04:56.440 --> 05:03.080]  a law firm to go out and challenge election fraud, then you would go to that attorney,
[05:03.080 --> 05:06.480]  whoever the attorney for the firm is designated to handle your case, you would go to them
[05:06.480 --> 05:09.240]  and say, look, man, I got all this stuff.
[05:09.240 --> 05:14.280]  The very first thing the attorney would do is take that stuff and hand it to their researcher
[05:14.280 --> 05:16.880]  and say, let me know if it's credible.
[05:16.880 --> 05:22.840]  So what is the, of that process, what has the outcome been in the 54 cases where we
[05:22.840 --> 05:27.740]  have a known established outcome?
[05:27.740 --> 05:35.060]  In all 54 cases, not a shred of evidence was brought into court by the attorney.
[05:35.060 --> 05:44.460]  So what that means is the attorney's researchers came back to the attorney and said, no, man,
[05:44.460 --> 05:46.740]  don't even think about using this information.
[05:46.740 --> 05:51.620]  If you use this information, the opposition is going to mop up the floor with you.
[05:51.620 --> 05:53.060]  It's not credible.
[05:53.060 --> 05:56.500]  And therefore the attorneys went to court and filed a petition that made various claims
[05:56.500 --> 06:01.620]  and when the judge said, okay, now back your claims up with evidence, they were like, no
[06:01.620 --> 06:02.620]  evidence.
[06:02.620 --> 06:07.740]  So where is all this evidence that Trump loyalists rely on?
[06:07.740 --> 06:10.140]  Yeah, social media.
[06:10.140 --> 06:14.500]  And what do you think the people from, say, the Trump campaign brought to counsel and
[06:14.500 --> 06:15.740]  said, here's the evidence.
[06:15.740 --> 06:21.620]  Yeah, people talking on social media, not just, not just Joe Blow, but people who in
[06:21.620 --> 06:23.740]  theory know something.
[06:23.740 --> 06:24.740]  Yeah.
[06:24.740 --> 06:28.940]  Here, take a look at this, of which the researchers found obviously that none of it was credible
[06:28.940 --> 06:31.260]  because none of it was brought into the courtroom.
[06:31.260 --> 06:36.760]  And that brings me to the events of January 6th, the Capitol building and a violent attempted
[06:36.760 --> 06:37.760]  insurrection.
[06:37.760 --> 06:42.780]  A reporter by the name of Igor Babich was actually inside the Capitol building filming
[06:42.780 --> 06:50.780]  what was going on as the Trump loyalists were flooding into the building in order to stop
[06:51.100 --> 06:56.580]  Congress from concluding or moving forward with its constitutional duty to confirm the
[06:56.580 --> 06:58.220]  state's electoral votes.
[06:58.220 --> 07:04.180]  And Babich reports that these Trump loyalists were yelling at a Capitol police officer that
[07:04.180 --> 07:12.960]  they needed justice and the only way for them to get justice was to stop Congress from counting
[07:12.960 --> 07:15.980]  and certifying the state electoral votes.
[07:15.980 --> 07:24.380]  So if they were looking for justice, there must be some evidence that something was unjust,
[07:24.380 --> 07:26.380]  right?
[07:26.380 --> 07:27.380]  Except no.
[07:27.380 --> 07:31.220]  It's all just people doing this on social media.
[07:31.220 --> 07:37.700]  Because when the clients went to the counsel they were hiring and said, hey, check it out,
[07:37.700 --> 07:38.700]  all the evidence.
[07:38.700 --> 07:39.700]  It wasn't evidence.
[07:39.700 --> 07:43.300]  If it had actually been credible evidence, the attorneys would have brought that shit
[07:43.300 --> 07:45.580]  into court and they never did.
[07:45.580 --> 07:48.740]  Do you get it?
[07:48.740 --> 07:49.980]  This is mind boggling to me.
[07:49.980 --> 07:56.060]  I go through this, it's like putting out the same fire a thousand times.
[07:56.060 --> 08:01.260]  If the information was deemed, and remember this is the plaintiff's counsel.
[08:01.260 --> 08:02.820]  This is an attorney for the opposition.
[08:02.820 --> 08:08.140]  This is Donald Trump or Donald Trump campaign, chosen attorney, the one they're saying we're
[08:08.140 --> 08:12.420]  giving you our money, make this happen and the attorney's like, I can't take this crap
[08:12.420 --> 08:15.420]  into court because it's not credible.
[08:15.420 --> 08:21.740]  But this non-credible social media bullshit is the basis to claim that they had to engage
[08:21.740 --> 08:27.260]  in violent insurrection in order to secure justice.
[08:27.260 --> 08:32.060]  With more than a little twist of irony, what this means is those people who were there
[08:32.060 --> 08:39.660]  engaging in violent insurrection ostensibly to obtain justice, yeah, they were operating
[08:39.660 --> 08:40.660]  on fake news.
[08:41.540 --> 08:47.460]  One of the things that disturbs me most about social media is that people feel at liberty
[08:47.460 --> 08:53.300]  to say things for which zero, zero evidence exists.
[08:53.300 --> 08:56.780]  I'm not even talking about this fake news social media guys blabbing about what they
[08:56.780 --> 08:59.140]  believe happened resulting in election fraud.
[08:59.140 --> 09:00.580]  I'm not talking about that.
[09:00.580 --> 09:03.260]  At least there's somebody talking they're lying or they're mistaken, but at least there's
[09:03.260 --> 09:08.820]  somebody talking, I mean just saying absolute fucking bullshit.
[09:08.820 --> 09:12.060]  There's not a single basis in reality and they're saying it anyway.
[09:12.060 --> 09:14.260]  Let me give you a perfect example of this.
[09:14.260 --> 09:23.820]  I posted this picture on the Dr. Reality page yesterday and I was shocked to see literally,
[09:23.820 --> 09:30.100]  I'm not exaggerating, hundreds of comments saying he's Antifa.
[09:30.100 --> 09:31.900]  Why?
[09:31.900 --> 09:34.140]  Is there any evidence he's Antifa now?
[09:34.140 --> 09:36.020]  Quite the opposite but I'll get to that in a minute.
[09:36.060 --> 09:40.220]  What they wanted to do was that they are Trump supporters, Trump loyalists, whatever you
[09:40.220 --> 09:45.860]  want to call it, right wingers, whatever title you want to put and they simply don't want
[09:45.860 --> 09:51.540]  to admit that one of their own was engaged in, whether you want to call it looting or
[09:51.540 --> 09:52.540]  vandalism.
[09:52.540 --> 09:54.780]  Somebody who's not looting hasn't left the building yet.
[09:54.780 --> 09:58.740]  Yeah, no, I'm sure he just, he's an interior designer and he thought where it was placed
[09:58.740 --> 10:00.820]  was aesthetically wrong, right?
[10:00.820 --> 10:04.620]  So it turns out somebody I know knows him.
[10:04.620 --> 10:05.980]  No, he's not Antifa.
[10:05.980 --> 10:06.980]  He's a Trump supporter.
[10:06.980 --> 10:11.300]  However, I always say in situations like this, don't believe me or in this case don't believe
[10:11.300 --> 10:14.420]  my friend and you don't have to.
[10:14.420 --> 10:15.780]  That's the great news about this.
[10:15.780 --> 10:19.980]  It was funny, on my personal Facebook page I said, you know, if you think this thing
[10:19.980 --> 10:24.500]  was really nifty that happened, this violent insurrection and you're celebrating the people
[10:24.500 --> 10:28.780]  who are involved, enjoy it while it lasts because a lot of them are going to go to jail
[10:28.780 --> 10:31.780]  and somebody's like, no, nobody's going to jail.
[10:31.780 --> 10:37.100]  So yeah, the FBI has already stated plainly that as soon as things were under control,
[10:37.100 --> 10:40.780]  they started pulling in all the footage, they're running their facial recognition software,
[10:40.780 --> 10:43.820]  they're reaching out to the public to find out who these people are so that they can
[10:43.820 --> 10:44.820]  file charges.
[10:44.820 --> 10:49.700]  Okay, so this isn't supposition, these people, not all of them, of course.
[10:49.700 --> 10:53.500]  Certain people who committed certain acts, which I'm going to guess is probably going
[10:53.500 --> 11:00.780]  to be measured in at least dozens, yeah, they're going to be prosecuted for federal crimes.
[11:00.780 --> 11:04.940]  My point being, whatever the FBI comes up with as far as identifying these people, when
[11:04.940 --> 11:10.180]  they seek an indictment or if it's a lesser charge, they simply bring charges, they have
[11:10.180 --> 11:12.220]  to disclose publicly all the information they have.
[11:12.220 --> 11:16.600]  So you don't have to believe me or my friend that that fellow was actually a Trump supporter
[11:16.600 --> 11:19.500]  because you're going to know his name and you're going to be able to look it up for
[11:19.500 --> 11:20.500]  yourself.
[11:20.500 --> 11:27.160]  You know, the part that I guess is perhaps equally as disturbing as people just making
[11:27.160 --> 11:29.940]  boneheaded claims like he's antifa, you know, okay.
[11:29.940 --> 11:39.140]  So with zero evidence that that's true is that when the FBI identifies him and releases
[11:39.140 --> 11:43.260]  his identity, and anybody and everybody can go on social media and take a look at this
[11:43.260 --> 11:47.880]  guy's page here, his profile there and find out, no, he's a crazy Trump supporter.
[11:47.880 --> 11:55.100]  No one's going to come back on that threat and say, hey man, you know, I was wrong.
[11:55.100 --> 11:57.500]  Isn't that what a mature person would do?
[11:57.500 --> 11:58.840]  Yeah.
[11:58.840 --> 12:01.720]  So how many mature people do we have in America at this time?