The greatest one hit wonders of all time at US ones, you definitely remember
six and ones that'll make you say, oh yeah. Just opened the free
iHeartRadio app search one hit wonders and listen now commercial free free never sounded so
good. Now your chance to win a thousand dollars entered this nationwide keyword on
our website. Fun, that's fun. Enter it now. I Bill Cunningham,
the great American of Courson, has many issues and so full of time
that Trump jury matter continues unobated. Can you get a fair and impartial jury
in Manhattan? Can you get a fair and impartial jury in nineteen fifty three
in the him Attil case. I kind of doubt it. The jury's kind
of concocted, the way it is with NPR listeners. They could have moved
the case out of New York City to a fifty to fifty Republican Democrat.
They didn't do that. They could have moved the case to Staten Island,
its own county, which voted for Trump. They're in a jurisdiction, we're
ninety percent of the voters. I think Trump is the devil incarnate. So
to have twelve jurors find them not guilty will be next to impossible, but
nonetheless, my guest deals with that along with many other issues. Michael O'Neill
is a living legend when it comes to matters of stopping illegal voting, is
with a federal society, also a devotee of Ronald Reagan. He's a fellow
attorney and Michael O'Neill welcome, I think, for the first time to the
Bill Cunningham Show. And first of all, when I have on guests,
especially from blue cities and blue states, the stopping illegal voting is a big
deal. Now we're told repeatedly that you can't prove any of this because,
after all, by the time candidates have been ordained to have been elected in
November, it's too late to file lawsuits. An issue won't be ripe until
the Secretary of State determines who won the election, and then by the time
it's ripe and sometime in December becomes moot because you can't give the relief sought
by January the twentieth. So can you give the American people some overall of
the jury system that we have today when it comes to illegal voting, especially
in restoring faith. They're in because the jurors are drawn from the voting roles,
and if the voting roles are filled with illegal aliens, such as in
California and Nevada, you never get to the point of having a fair jury,
much less a fair voting system. So Michael and Ale to deal with
the voting system restoring faith give us a thirty thousand viewpoint of where we are
today. Right. The problem here is what you have to do to ensure
fair and open election integrity is ensure that the voting roles, in other words,
the roles that utilize to determine who's eligible voters are accurate, are up
to date and accurate. Now, there's a federal law on the board that
obligates registrars of voters election officials in other words, to spot check, to
check and determine that the individual names that appear on the voter rolls are actually
eligible to vote. So that means if you pass, if you die,
the Social Security Administration is obligated to inform the registrar voters that a person has
died and that name is removed from the voter rules. When we know that
that doesn't occur. Well, there is no specific federal obligation under that law,
under the National Voter Registration Act, to identify and remove non citizens from
voting. Now that should be done. You would think that that would make
sense that we know that they by law, non citizens are not eligible to
vote. A lot of states have constitutional provisions in their state constitutions stating that
the individual that if you are not a citizen, you are ineligible to vote.
So it would be just common sense would dictate that data is shared.
And when you're talking about jury pool you're talking about jury duties and jury pools,
we know that that's a good indicator that there are non citizens on the
voter rules. For example, if you go to if you talk to courthouses
in this country, you will find that when individuals show up to serve on
jury duty, oftentimes I shouldn't say oftentimes, but sometimes that they will exempt
themselves from jury duty by asserting that they are non citizen. I'm ineligible to
serve on this duty on this jury because I'm a non citizen. Well what
would make sense there, Well, if you take that individual's name and you
know, they just say they just a test that they are a non citizen,
will take that name and send it over to the registrar voters to say,
well are you on the voting wall and if you are removed that person
from the voting wall, Well, that's the problem here is data isn't shared.
And this is what we talked about a little bit last week with what
Speaker Johnson and that former President Trump talked about. What's necessary is that there
needs to be sharing of data to make sure that the voter roles are accurate
and to the extent at which non citizens' names appear on these voter rolls,
they're identified and removed. Therefore, we never get into the situation where those
votes are illicitly cast, illegally cast, and pervert the outcome of the election.
So that's really the first thing that needs to be done, and that's
probably the most important thing to ensure that vote that our elections have are fair
and open, is to make sure that the voter roles are accurate and up
to date, and that means identifying the extent which non citizens are on these
roles and removing them. Michael O'Neil I live in a functional part of the
contrary Ohio. All of Kentucky, Indiana requires voter ID requires a photograph that
requires a signature. Now let's jump out to California, Nevada. I understand
in about sixteen states, including those two, which are generally blue cities,
blue states, that when you get a driver's license, which anybody, if
your name is Tony Bender from Guatemala, you can show up in Sacramento,
show up in some county seat and say I want a driver's license. They
do not inquire by state law as to your eligibility to vote, because,
after all, you're an alien. There's a federal hall that says you can't
do it. But when you get your driver's license, they don't inquire whether
you're a citizen or not. They give you the driver's license, and then
the Secretary of State is mandated to send you at ballot explain that process exactly.
And that's what happens is in certain jurisdictions, particularly California, as you
just indicated, a lot of the guard rails, the inherent protections, have
been removed. So if you go as you just said, if you if
you go and obtain a driver's license, there's an automatic there's an automatic foot
of registration that occurs. You can your driver's license. Well if nobody ever
asks you whether you're a citizen, and the only thing you're obligated to do
is a reverse checkop say, well, check here if you're not a citizen,
and you miss that, and we know it's missed. Again, as
I told you about the jury duty, the jury duty, there's no protections
in place. DMB officials in California are specifically directed not to inquire about the
citizenship citizenship status of individuals applying for driver's licenses, all the while knowing that
once you register for a driver's license, you're going to be automatically and you're
going to be automatically registered to vote. What else is problematic here is California
mails every single name on its voting roles a ballot, whether you indicate you
want to vote by mail or not. So again, in some states you
have to affirmatively indicate, you have to go down to the registrar's office,
you have to sign some document, you have to affirmatively indicate that you want
to vote by mail. You have to take some steps. Well, in
California, every single name on those voter rolls gets a ballot via mail ballot.
So ossensibly you have the situation in place where you have non citizens on
the voting roles, getting vote, getting ballots, and possibly casting votes.
Now what happens to here is the left is always saying, well, you
can't prove it, you can't prove it. Well, of course you can't
prove it. It's impossible. Think about this. If Mike O'Neill is not
a citizen, and I receive a vote by mail ballot, and I get
that ballot and I execute it, I've committed a felony. I placed myself
in legal jeopardy. But then I go drop that in a mail in a
ballot box, or I go drop that in or I drop it in the
mail because the postage has been prepaid. It comes into it comes into a
registrar's office or an election's office with thousands and thousands of other ballots. There's
no way to identify pull that specific ballot out and say, oh, that
one was improperly cast or that was cast by a non citizen. Once it
enters into the stream of commerce, it's virtually impossible to segment and segregate those
out, those improperly cast ballots out, Because there again we're talking anywhere from
dozens, hundreds, thousands in voting pools of millions of vote by mail ballots.
So there's a probability across the country hundreds of thousands or millions of votes
or illegally count it because the system is not set up to pull out those
that are voting illegally. And the in fact, this system is set up
to make sure that illegals do vote, because there's no segregation of their ballots
from those others, because there's no indication that they're illegal in the first place.
And so how do you respond to the argument used by the radical left?
And after all, the Trump appointed judges, they Clinton appointed judges,
the Obama appointed judges, no one ever found massive voter fraud enough to overturn
an election. How would you explain that non sequitor? Well, again,
it goes back to the point is judges are loath to overturn the outcomes of
election after the fact. You have to put protections in place in before this
happens, and in the process, it's important that the process itself be protected.
That means having well trained election officials who actually engage in to the extent
there is voter mail, vote vote by mail. And again I'm a proponent
of in person voting on election day, but to the extent that there is
instituted widespread vote by mail, you need to have again, you need to
have here it and upddate voter roles with eligible voters, and there needs to
be some due diligence to ensure that the names appearing on your lists are eligible
to vote next on election day, when or on the during the process when
those votes are actually counted, you need to have significant signature verification. That
means you need to have well trained people actually verifying that the attestation signed on
the envelope the outside of an envelope of a mail ballot is the actual signature
on record in the voter registration office. That means you have to have real
signatures in the voter registration office. It's imperative that the process is protected and
that they're competent, trained individuals that are exercising due diligence because as I said,
and as we've seen and experience is born this out, we know that
post election lawsuits challenging the over asking, requesting the over the rerunning of an
election, over the overturning of the election are very rarely succeeded because it takes
weeks and weeks and weeks for the military ballots, and for the absentee ballots,
and for the ballots put off to the side, provisional ballots, and
the system is overwhelmed. And so you said, there come the first week
in December, three weeks after the election, you still haven't open up all
the ballots. You have, all the contests, or all this ballot overseas
was prostmarked at the right time. So by the time the election officials have
to answer questions how many illegal people have voted, the judges say, look,
the issue is not ripe yet because the winner's not been determined. Once
the winner is determined, maybe the first or second week in December, then
it's ripe. However, the relief sought is either a trial, which is
putting depositions, requests for documents, witnesses on the stand. That'll take years.
And the swearing in is January the twentieth, or January the first or
elected officials. So there the issue becomes moot. One case, you haven't
declared running yet, we can't look into it. Once the winner is declared,
well, we can't give you the relief you seek because the swearing is
too tight. Do I have it correct right? And I would yes,
you do. And I would also add that judges are low just and this
is probably a good thing is they don't want to perceived as interfering in the
electoral process. You don't want to have the allegation that the judge, you
know, oh, the judge picked the candidate here well, and they opened
themselves up to that. So therefore they're going to be very, very reluctant,
and they're going to look for every single exit opportunity to get this case
off their docket, if that means graining a motion to dismiss because of an
of a failure to allegen the injury in fact what you're talking about, or
mootness or any of these procedural hurdles, they're going to exercise that they want
to get these off their doctac They don't want to be perceived as interfering with
the election process. Now, Secondly, the US Constitution says the state legislatures
set the time, manner, and means of an election, which means the
state of Pennsylvania, State of Ohio through the legislature, State of California,
through the legislature determines how elections are conducted in many states like Pennsylvania. Each
county elects its own election supervisor. So obviously in blue blue counties they select
liberal Democrats to administer their elections. Which so in the last election you in
Pennsylvania county registrars far leftists who had drop boxes, no signature of verification,
They had very liberal laws, the whole deal, and they determined how the
election was conducted. Wasn't that fundamentally unconstitutional? Certainly? And what's important here
is although the states have the role as you're dictating, there is a role
for Congress, and there is a federal role here. We are dealing with
federal elections. So again, if you have a federal cause of action,
there is a federal cause of it. There is a private cause of action
that allows individuals to challenge the accuracy of the voter roles under the National Voting
Registration Act if there was a if there was a cause of action that allowed
if there was a reasonable certainty or a premifession case that non citizens are non
citizens were appearing on a voter role, and there is an obligation under a
statute, a legal obligation that those individuals are identified and removed. Now,
look, let me be clear here. I'm not saying that you should go
out and prosecute these cases, or you should go up and there should be
penalties. Actors. Here are the election officials who are tasked with ensuring the
accuracy and up to date nos primacy of their voter rolls. The obligation is
on them to identify and remove. Now I don't whether there's a penalty for
name appearing. I'm not concerned about that. What I'm concerned with is maintaining
the accuracy and up to date on the voter rolls so that eligible voters are
either sent ballots or can appear in person and vote on election. Here we
said in April of twenty twenty four, we have the leading candidate for the
presidency on trial in a blue county and a blue city about to be I
think rail rode it in Manhattan, and he can't campaign right now because he's
in trial. You've been, and I've been, in lengthy trials in which
two to three hours ahead of time, at six o'clock in the morning,
you meet with your client, you prepare the day, then you're in trial
until four o'clock, five o'clock in the afternoon. Then you meet with your
client back in your office those six or seven o'clock at night, and then
you prepare the next morning. You get getting up at six o'clock in the
morning. Try to do that for eight weeks to see what shape you're in.
If you're a seventy seven year old man and so at this point,
I don't care if you're a marathon runner and your life, your life's on
the line, and you're looking at life imprisonment in front of a judge Marshawn
who made financial contributions to President Joe Biden and whose daughter. I thought the
daughter might have been a fourteen year old teenage girl with braces. It turns
out to me that his daughter is forty years old and she's raised about one
hundred million dollars for Adam Schiff and for Joe Biden. Kamala Harris, she's
a Democratic, progressive activist. And so you're in front of that jury.
Is it fair to have a jury in which ninety percent have voted for the
other guy? This whole jury system in Manhattan is unique in the history of
the world. It reminds me of the m Maatil jury. The nineteen fifties
in Mississippi, they set free three white guys for killing em Attill, and
so can Donald Trump. Since this is my last question, this is off
scare. Can he get a fair trial in Manhattan? Absolutely not, And
that's why they have changed a venue. Motions that are that are granted.
If it's if you can establish that it is impossible for your client to receive
a fair and impartial to obtain a fair and impartial jury, then you can
change. You can move to change venue. Of course, that didn't get
them anywhere in New York, but there is there. Ostensibly there is a
release style for this so that this trial should never occur to Manhattan, occurring
an area where you are at least increasing the likelihood that you have impartial jurors.
Now, the lack of impartiality is going to result in a tainted trial.
But I don't know how the extent to which the entire process, again,
this entire prosecution in this particular case. We can spend hours talking about
each individual case, but we're talking about events that occurred before the twenty sixteen
election. The federal government actually tried a case similar to this with John Edwards,
and they lost so there really is no federal case here. The import
they used the statuteal limitations has passed, that they used a felon a boot
a bootstrapped a misdemeanor into a felony charge for something that Department of Justice again
never prosecuted. So there's just so many problems with this issue in this trial.
And again not to mention the fact that you pointed out just a minute
ago, the fact that this is going to be an enormous distraction. But
this is again part of the law there, part of to settle this issue,
in other words, who's going to be the next president of the United
States not at the ballot box, but instead in the courtroom. And this
is the problem. Michael O'Neill Esquire, Federal Society Member. More information Landmark
Legal Foundation dot com, Landmark Legal Foundation dot com. Michael O'Neill, you're
a great American and for us setting us straight on this and once again thank
you for coming on the Bill Cunningham Show. Thank you, Michael, Thank
you. Bill. Have a great tax God bless America. There you have
it. What chance does the Trumpster have none? And you n n none.
Let's continue. Bill Cunningham News Radio seven hundred, you, l of
you, Nothing compares to coming home to a healthy lawn by lawn plus,
But a healthy lawn doesn't mean you're la