Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Chuck Mooth, president of the Citizen
Outreach Foundation, a Nevada elections integrity watchdog. They are definitely
watching and it's an overtime job for sure. Chuck, Welcome
to the Federalist Radio. Thanks for being here.
Speaker 2: Oh, Matt, thank you so much for having me on.
I appreciate the opportunity. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: We've talked on a number of occasions on what's happening
in Nevada, key critical swing state in this election. Give
us a sense before we get into some of the litigation,
what's going on in the ground in Nevada in terms
of election integrity.
Speaker 2: Now, well, the big thing is what our organization has
been focusing on, are the voting roles themselves. Nevada is
an extremely transient state. We've got people moving in and
out all the time, and unfortunately the elections departments in
the various there's seventeen counties and seventeen counties have a
difficult time keeping up with it. And so we decided
to get involved about a year and a half, almost
two years ago, to provide some assistance to the county
clerks using technology that is available now that may not
be available to them, or if it is available, they
have not chosen to use it yet. Because if you
don't now that. Nevada, in twenty twenty one, the legislature
made us an automatic all mail in election, so every
active voter automatically gets a ballot. So that made it
extremely important to make sure we have the best, cleanest
voter files possible to avoid even the potential of voting
fraud ac current.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely when that happened, and of course all of
this was in the wake of COVID, where we saw
so much erosion of election integrity despite the usual suspects
in the accomplice media and the election experts. And how
many times have we been burned by the so called
experts over the last several years in this country but
there are problems, you know, and when you go to
a universal male ballot situation, well that raises some questions
and concerns. So what have you been seeing happening in
counties across the state on that front.
Speaker 2: Well, I think probably the most interesting part of me
starting to look into this issue is it really is
like healing an onion. Just when you think you figured
one aspect of it out, the monkey wrench gets thrown in.
You learn something else and oh no, we can't do
it that way. We have to do it this way.
It's part of the reason why after the twenty twenty
election and the Trump campaign in Nevada and Novata Republican Party,
after the election was over, they started questioning and leveling allegations,
but they really hadn't looked closely into the laws and
the processes and the procedures that were necessary in order
to make a valid plane that there was something wrong.
So I'll tell you the first six to eight months,
Matt I spent most of my time on this project
just trying to learn learn all the ins and outs
of the laws. Nevada has very complicated laws, very restrictive,
and so it's been all right, Well, let's try this,
and then we get slapped down and said, no, you
can't do it that way, you have to do it
this way. But we finally beginning of this year, I
think we really started the narrow down. We're using official
government data. We're only using the election departments voter registration data,
we're only using the post offices national change of address data,
so no one can say that we're using third party data.
But we still we wanted to make sure that what
we were looking at was accurate. So instead of just
assuming that the data was accurate, we actually sent boots
on the ground. We sent volunteers out the people's homes
where we suspected a voter no longer lived. The current
resident would verify no, mister Jones no longer lives here.
He hasn't been here for two years, and we had
them sign an official non resident report attesting to that fact.
So I think we're using the write data, we're following
the right procedures, and we've confirmed the data to make
sure that it's reliable. So I think we've done this
in a very responsible manner.
Speaker 1: I think you've met with some success. If I'm not mistaken,
how many of these old addresses, These voters who should
no longer be on the voter rolls because again you're
using multiple sources to find out that they're not at
that address, they're not in that area. In fact, many
of these folks have moved out of state. They shouldn't
be in the voter roles to begin with, How many
have you found and what's been the response from the
local elections officials thus far.
Speaker 2: Initially we started working with the Clark County Election Department.
That's the largest county in Nevada, that's where Las Vegas is.
Three quarters of our voting population is in Clark County,
and I got to say that working with them, the
Clark County Register our voters, they were very helpful. They
understood what we were doing, they knew we were doing
it in a nonpartisan fact and when we had questions,
they very quickly answered them. If we were doing something incorrectly,
they showed us how to do it correctly. So we
didn't really have a problem working with the local elections officials. Now,
we started filing those non resident reports back in January February,
and we're able to verify that it was a couple
hundred that we filed with the Election Department. They put
those in their system when they did their routine list
maintenance mailing in July. I think it was a late
June July, and they were removed from the voter roles.
Were tracking it. We're making sure that once we follow
report that they are getting processed, and they are, and
when I say removed, I should qualify that they're not
removed from the voting roles. They're put from active status
into inactive status, which means they won't automatically be mailed
to ballot. If they do show up to vote, then
they're going to have to prove that they are in
fact eligible to vote and that they and confirm their
residency right now.
Speaker 1: You've had obviously some resistance, which is not unusual, certainly
in the swing states and certainly in states where you
have leftist elections officials. Quite frankly, as we've seen up
and down the line between Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania,
North Carolina. But recently because of some apparent stonewalling, you
have had to file some complaints. This from my colleague
Sean Fleetwood at the Federalists several Nevada clerks are failing
to undertake their legally required duty to process citizen led
challenges potentially ineligible voters on the state's registration list. A
lawsuit filed by you folks at the Citizen Outreach Foundation
and the project that you've been working on, the pig
Pen project. This is in, as I understand it, Carson
City and Story County. Tell us what's going on there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this again gets to the how complicated and confusing
this can be. In Nevada, there are two different statutes
that allow a citizen to challenge a voter. The one
is called Section five forty seven, and the big difference
with those challenges is that they have to be filed
only thirty days before an election. It has to be
filed by someone living in the same precinct as the
challenged voter, and you have to have personal knowledge that
the voter has moved. So we filed a dozen test
cases under that section before the June eleventh primary. They
were rejected, primarily because they said that we didn't have
personal knowledge of the voter, which they considered you have
to have first person knowledge and if we were the
current resis and we said, oh, well, you know that
person moved out, they don't live here anymore. That's considered
in this statute personal knowledge. So once those were rejected,
we went back and looked at the statutes deeper and
the second potential for filing a challenge is under section
five thirty five, and the wording is different in that
any voter can challenge any voter in the state. It
can be done at any time, not just thirty days
before an election. And the definition of personal knowledge is different.
In the earlier challenges that said you had to have
personal knowledge of the voter, but in section five thirty
five it said you had to have personal knowledge of
the facts that the challenge is based on. Well, the
fact is the official government database says that this person
moved and so that's the challenges that we filed, and
we filed just under four thousand I think it was
three nine hundred and ninety five or ninety eight on
July the twenty ninth, And this is where things got
really really interesting. Some of the counties, about a half
a dozen of the counties that we filed challenges with
processed the challenges and what that involves is they mail
a confirmation letter to the voter asking them to confirm
do you still live at this address or have you moved?
And if you've moved within the state of Nevada or
within the same county, wants your new address so they
could update the records. So that was fine. Some of
the counties didn't respond, so three weeks later we filed
a public records request with each of the counties that
hadn't responded, asking did you send out the confirmation letters.
A couple of days later, unbeknownst to us, the Secretary
of State had issued a memorandum to all seventeen of
the county clerks and registrars of voters advising them directing
them to reject our challenges based on his contention that
we don't have the personal knowledge necessary.
Speaker 1: That's very interesting, and I think this is probably a
question that's best for the legislature. But why do we
have two conflicting laws on this front? Seems rather confusing.
And you guys are getting to be expert in this area,
but you know, you said there's a learning curve. The
average citizen would not know this and might feel, you know,
like they couldn't go on. At that point, after the
first challenge was rejected, but can you answer that. I mean,
what are you hearing from folks there? Why we have
two distinct different ideas here in the law, and now
you have a Secretary of State, a Democrat by the way,
who has said, no, we're going to go with the
first interpretation.
Speaker 2: Basically, well, Matt, you were so right. No citizens should
have to do what I've had to do to be
able to understand these laws. The biggest difference between the
two challenge statutes is that in the first one, you
can only file it thirty days before an election. And
the reason there is when you get that close to
an election, there's an enhanced timeline for processing such challenges.
They have to mail them out within five days and
the voter only has fourteen days to respond, and the
district attorney for the county is automatically notified to begin
a process of proceeding with that challenge. If it's deemed
legitimate or something worth pursuing, then they have to file
in court to have that challenge upheld in the court.
So that's the real main difference. The Section five point
thirty five challenges again can be filed any time. Actually
that would be preferable I think for us and for
the county clerks because it would give them more time
to try to resolve hundreds or thousands of challenges within
a fourteen day period two weeks before an election is
really really a bear. But that's what has occurred because
they've changed the law to have all It wasn't a
problem when people were requesting a mail in ballot, but
now that people are automatically getting one, it's made this
problem so much worse. And this is why I think
you're right, Matt. Absolutely, this needs to be addressed by
the legislature next year in session. There's so many problems
that they need to fix. But in the meantime, once
the Secretary of State advised the county clerks not to
do their job and process these challenges, he really left
us with no choice but to go to court and
have the court weigh in. We think we've got a
strong case that we've met the statutory requirement for personal knowledge.
There's case history dating that you can review records as
long as the records are from a trustworthy source, and
that that review of records constitutes personal knowledge. The Secretary
of State disagrees with that, and the only way we're
going to get resolved was to go to court, So
you know, that's the main thing. It probably won't fix
a whole lot before November the fifth, but hopefully it
will set the precedent and put us on the right
path for doing this in the future, because we've got
a long way to go to fix these voter files
in Nevada. It won't be done this year. Yeah, no
doubt about it.
Speaker 1: And I was going to ask you that you answered
that question, is there any hope that this thing could
be resolved on an expedited path so that you know,
we are now within just weeks of the election. Anyway
that this gets resolved and in your favor, you know,
at least in time for election day.
Speaker 2: Well, the good news, well, the bad news is the
courts will not be able to weigh in before the
mail in ballots go out. The mail in ballots should
go out next week sometimes, so there's no way we'll
have a court decision before that. The good news is
that it's possible that we could get, if we get
a favorable court decision, that that could be rendered before
election day. And if so, all of these challenges that
we sent out, we've now done this before the election
rather than after the election, so we're not doing it
after the horse has already gotten out of the barn door.
So if the court rules in our favor, then the
challenges that we've filed, when those ballots come in or
those voters attempt to show up at the polls, if
they're shown that hey, you've been challenged, then that ballot
envelope can't be opened until the challenge is resolved. So
it's still possible that we could have an effect on this.
I don't know that we'll get as many challenges in
as we wanted. We are filing some new Section five
forty seven challenges. We've got volunteers all over the state
who will be filing them next week and that will
start the fourteen day clock. Again. They'll probably be rejected,
but at least we'll be on record that we have
challenged those voters, and then if those voters passed a
ballot or mail in a ballot, then we'll have grounds
to be able to go back to court and say, hey,
this race was decided by three votes. We've got fifteen
challenges here. We need to take a look at what
to do with this race.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, very interesting.
Speaker 3: Right now is Kamala trying to earn the dumb vote.
The Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet. Kamala Harris is
pitching twenty five thousand dollars for first time home buyers
while trying to build millions of new homes with government funds,
all while using small businesses as straw men. Whether it's
happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Chuck Mooth, president of the Citizen Outreach Foundation, a Nevada
elections integrity watchdog, as you just heard lots of volunteers
around the state, and Chuck, I was going to ask
you that, I mean, this is not something that you
can do alone. This is very involved, very time intensive.
How many people around Nevada, citizens, good citizens concerned about
their elections are involved in tracking this information.
Speaker 2: We have fortunately an absolutely fantastic field director. Her name
is Iris Stone. She's been active in doing precinct organization
and precinct work for years, and she was very interested
in the project when she learned about it and decided
to get involved. And she's just terrific. She's great at
recruiting the volunteers. She's great at doing the training. It's
very important that we do everything by the book because
we know that we're being watched. So she develops the
right scripts and the right procedures and she's probably got
statewide now i'd say a little over two hundred volunteers
and we're able to give them the direction. The other
key to this whole project is our data analyst, Dan Burtish.
He's also our chief operations officer, and he's a numbers guy.
I'm a wordsmith, he's a numbers guy. When I get
confused with the numbers, I just turned to Dan. But
he's able to say, Okay, we're going to work in
this particular county, in this particular district on Saturday. And
he's able to lay out the mapping in the precinct
so that people aren't driving all over creation. They're able
to go from A to B to C to D
and it's made it a heck of a lot easier
for our volunteers to actually do this door to door work.
So you know, without Dan and Iris, this project never
would be where it is today.
Speaker 1: The voter rolls, despite the protestations of your Secretary of
State and those engaged in leftist lawfare, and we'll get
to that topic in just a moment, but the voter
rolls in't about it just just a mess. If they
weren't a mess, you wouldn't be doing what you're doing.
I know that you're very familiar with the Public Interest
Legal Foundation. They too have been involved in Nevada as
elsewhere dealing with these dirty voter rolls. They have found
a lot of people claiming or at least they have
claimed to live at commercial addresses, registering under commercial addresses
like casinos and bars and strip clubs. And just like
your organization, the folks from PILF actually, you know, hit
the ground and knocked on doors and they got some
very strange looks, as you might understand, from people at
these casinos and bars and other commercial locations said no,
Jim Jones doesn't live here. This is a business. And
I know they've had, you know, some court challenges. They've
had to seek rid of mandamus in particular cases, how
dirty are these voter roles when we see, you know,
things like this happening.
Speaker 2: Well, let me get back to Christian Adams and Pilf
in a second. But when you ask about how bad
this is, a lot of people say that, you know,
the counties and the Secretary of State aren't doing their
job under the National Voter Registration Act the NVR. That's
not accurate. They are doing the bare minimum required by
the NVR. What they're doing is when they mail out
ballots to voters. If the post office returns those ballots
is undeliverable, then they switch their status from active to
inactive for future elections. So they are doing the bare
minimum to comply with the NVR. What they're not doing
is the kind of research that we're doing because the
post office, the letter carriage at the local post office,
they miss a lot of these because if a person
puts a change of address in usually it's only good
for six months. So unless the election mail comes within
those six months, then the mail is delivered to whoever
the now new current resident is. So back in August,
after they did their routine list maintenance, the election departments
around the state, I think removed somewhere in the neighborhood
of one hundred and forty thousand bad addresses. So that's good.
I mean, we've raised this issue, we put it out there,
and they're doing more, I think, than what they have
done in the past. But what we found out was
even after they removed one hundred and forty thousand, we
still found another thirty three thousand who had been missed,
and that was the source of our challenges that we
started filing in July and August, the first ones and
this is what I consider the low hanging fruit. We
filed again just under four thousand challenges. These weren't just
voters who were listed on the National Change of Address Stateabase.
We have access to the registration databases in fifteen other
states and we found of those four thousand, they had
not only moved, but they had re registered in their
new state and in on one hundred and three cases,
we found that they had actually voted in their other state.
So there's absolutely no way that those folks should still
be on the Vada voter rolls. And so yeah, even
with what they're doing, you know, if they're complying with
the law, but they're only doing the bare minimum, and
that's why we think that they need to go steps further. Now.
Pilf and Christian Adams, again, I have so much respect
for them because again they did it right. You don't
just assume that people are living at a commercial address
and file a challenge or a list maintenance request. They
actually sent someone out with a camera and documented the
fact that these folks don't live at this commercial address.
The other thing that they did was they acknowledged, they
recognize the fact that there are possibilities that a voter
could be registered at what is listed as a commercial
address and still be legally eligible to vote because maybe
there's a second floor apartment above a retail store. So
you've got to do your homework. You can't just assume things.
You've got to dig down deep. And Pills did that,
and they documented that. They went into casinos they asked people, hey,
does this person live here, and and the bar owners said, no,
this is a bar, what are you talking about. Because
they did such a great job at documenting it. When
they went to court, the court looked at well, actually
they never even went to court. Clark County realized, okay, yeah,
you got us here. We really do need to do
this type of work and process these challenges, and so
Clark County decided that they were going to process the
challenges that the Public Interest Legal Foundation had filed. So
we're kind of going in the same direction we've I
think we've documented everything that we're doing to the extent
that the court can look at it and find it
credible and reasonable and reliable, and so we file the
same similar writ We're not asking for anything more than
for the county clerks and the registrars of voters to
do their job as dictated by the batter revis Statutes.
Speaker 1: Well as an old investigative journalist emphasis on old we appreciate.
We appreciate nothing more than excellent documentation. And I know
that that's how you feel in your election intiquity investigations
as well. You've certainly had some significant resistance against you.
I'm just talking about intransigent clerks. I'm talking about leftist
lawfare groups. One name comes immediately to mind. That is
Mark Elias. For those who aren't familiar with Mark Elias's work,
his fingerprints are on all kinds of things in the
Democratic Party. A longtime Democrat Party fixer, as he's been described.
He's also the guy behind the phony Russian dos CIA
if you recall that scandal back in the first Trump administration.
And he has now branched out and opened up a
lawfare litigation group that is basically it's got untold amounts
of money and they go in and they attack efforts
like you. They've been particularly persistent in Nevada, even going
up against the reality of the documentation you have. What's
that experience been like he's been involved.
Speaker 2: You mentioned that a lot of this changed back during COVID.
There were some emergency measures put in for the primary
in twenty twenty. That was the first time we did
an all mail in ballot. It was supposed to be temporary.
Then the lawsuits came and Mark Elias got involved in him.
Then the legislation changed in the middle of the game.
He decided to make the mail in ballot apply for
the general election as well as the primary. Then, when
the Trump campaign and the the Battery Republican Party started
following their lawsuits after the twenty twenty general election, mark
Elias was involved in trying to shoot them down, and
he was successful at it, primarily because the folks on
the Republican side just didn't do their homework. They just
blew it. Frankly, they made allegations that they couldn't back up.
The only one that the allegation that they made is
kind of sad. They brought forward an individual who claimed
that someone had voted his dead wife's ballot that as
soon as he stuck his head up, meant, okay, we're
going to dig into this guy and find out. Well,
it turns out that he himself had voted his dead
wife's ballot and they were able to prove it and
he ended up getting prosecuted for it. So it really
was him handed the way they dealt with it, and
Mark Ollias was successfully able to bat it down with
our lawsuits. Again, I think we've got a pretty strong case.
I think we've done what we need to do. You
never know in a court of law, but we did
file lawsuit against two of the rural counties you mentioned,
Carson City and Story County after a couple of days afterwards,
we also filed lawsuits in Washoe County, which is Reno
and Clark County, which is the big eight hundred pound
guerrilla here. And Mark Elias represents a number of groups.
I think it was two or three, and they sought
to intervene in the lawsuits so they can participate in it.
I do not believe that we objected to it. The
court went ahead and allowed them to intervene. So we're
going up against somebody who's very experienced and very knowledgeable
in this, as well as going up against the elected
Secretary of State, the Attorney General's office, and the county
clerks in the county district attorneys. So it really is
a David and Goliath thing. And then this week also
the ACLU decided the way in they asked to intervene
in the case. I believe we are going to challenge
their effort to intervene in the case, but I don't
know how that's going to play out. And the Secretary
of State, we didn't sue him because the problem really
is that the counties have the responsibility to process the challenges.
They sought to intervene, which is understandable and natural, and
we had no objection to the Secretary of State intervening
in the case.
Speaker 1: Well, let me put it this way, Chuck, I know
that you are indeed going up against a massive machine,
a goliath, but I do believe you and your group
have the stones to combat them, and I bet that
in every sense of the word. You know, I'm going
to go back to something you talked about because this
has very much interested me, to say the least. Why
were the Republicans in twenty so sloppy? I'm in the
party attorneys. You mentioned that they didn't have the evidence,
and we all know there were mass irregularities in that election,
and how could there not be when you're dealing with
an unprecedented pandemic election in the twenty first century, for
goodness sake, Why didn't they do their homework? Did you
ever get an answer on that front?
Speaker 2: The why? I'm not sure I can answer the why.
I will say that they did blow it, though. But
when they had that primary in June of twenty twenty,
Pills who we were just talking about, Christian Adams group,
what happened in Clark County was different from the other
sixteen counties. The other sixteen counties during that primary election
in the middle of COVID only mailed to active Republican voters.
Clark County, for whatever reason, mailed to active and inactive voters.
And I believe some ninety five thousand mail in ballots
came back, and that's where you saw all the news
reports here in Nevada with ballots piled up in apartment
complex mail rooms and in dumpsters and those sorts of things.
So they did fix that in a special session in
August and said no, you only can mail to active voters.
So that's fine, but the party at that point should
have said, hey, we've got a problem here. We need
to get ready for the general election. And even a
month before the general election, Ben Burdish again, our data
Analysty and I had been talking and he was able
to come up with anomalies that he was able to identify,
and we advised the Republican Party, hey, look at these
anomalies and here's what you need to do to verify
it before the election. They didn't do it. Donald Trump lost.
I guess they had enough money to file all these
legal challenges, but the attorneys handling the case obviously did
not look that deeply into the complicated election laws in Nevada,
and they kept getting blown out, not because so much
of the quote evidence, but they just didn't have standing
or they didn't have the documentation and the verification that
they needed. They hadn't done their homework in advance, and
I did why. I watched one of the court hearings.
I forget the name of the lawyer. I was watching
it on zoom and I'm listening to his presentation, and
I knew that he was wrong, just from what little
I had known at the time. In twenty twenty one
January twenty twenty one, little I knew even I knew
that he was wrong on the facts. He hadn't read
and understood the law as it was written. So this
was one of the reasons why we got involved. If
we allowed these folks to do this in such a
hamhanded way, the problem was never going to be fixed,
and so we thought that we could do it better.
It's taken a lot of resources and a lot of time,
but I think it's worthwhile, and I think it's necessary again,
because if we're going to have automatic mail in bouting,
then we must have the cleanest possible voting roles to
eliminate as much potential for voting fraud as humanly possible.
Speaker 1: I agreed, and I just hope the past is in
prologue for Republican legal challenges. In twenty twenty four, I'm hoping,
and we've seen a lot of legal challenges. I think
there are some very good legal challenges out there. I
just I hope they've learned their lesson from twenty twenty,
as you just.
Speaker 2: Said, and I think so they in the matter of
Republican Party they, I mean the Republican Parties filed some
other challenges since then, and I've talked with their attorney
who's handling them now. His name is Brian Hardy. He's
like me, and he's like Pilf. He doesn't want to
go to court with something that he can't back up,
something he can't prove, something that he can't verify. So
I think that they're in the Republican Parties in much
better hands because we're a nonpartisan organization, so we're not
part of what they're doing, but we do share information,
we do talk about what we're doing, so the right
hand knows what the left hand's.
Speaker 1: Doing absolutely well. Okay, final question as we close out
our conversation. You have learned a lot. It's clear you've
learned a lot by trial and error. You've learned a
lot by rejection at election offices, one thing or another.
You've learned a lot by simply doing the work, being
on the ground and going through the experience that sets
you up for elections ahead. Obviously, we're all super focused
on what's happening here in the next few weeks in
this election season. How do you feel about Nevada in
free and fair elections and transparent elections coming up for
twenty twenty four, and how do you feel about your
efforts moving forward.
Speaker 2: I'm feeling a lot better in twenty twenty four, certainly
than I did in twenty twenty. It's one of those
old sayings is you know what, why do junk yards
have dogs in them? Well, because you you know that
there's a dog in a junk yard, you're probably not
going to try to rob the place you would if
there was no dog. And I think everybody here in
Nevada knows, not just that we're out there, but there
are so many people looking at the things that were
overlooked in twenty twenty that it's going to be a
lot more difficult, I think, for the other side to
pull some of the things that they pulled in twenty twenty.
So just having the watch dogs out there and letting
folks know, hey, we've got our eye on you. Maybe
you shouldn't try that this time. I think now they
were in a better position where it's not perfect. There's
still a lot of potential up there out there for
some problems, but I think that it's been dramatically reduced
since twenty twenty because of the efforts of election integrity
individuals and organizations.
Speaker 1: Well, I think there's another quote that's apropos here too.
It's what Dylaninger used to say when they asked him,
why do you rob banks? He said, that's where the
money is. And it's just as simple as that. If
you have of massive gaps in your election integrity, there
will be people who will take advantage of that. You've
definitely seen that in Nevada. We've seen that across the country.
That's why what you do, what your organization does, and
citizens like you so absolutely important and fundamental to the
continuation of this republic. I appreciate your time and your
perspective today.
Speaker 2: My pleasure, Matt, and thank you so much for having
me on today.
Speaker 1: Absolutely thanks to my guest today, Chuck Mooth, president of
the Citizen Outreach Foundation in Nevada. You've been listening to
another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
Senior correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the
fray
Speaker 2: Heard the Fat Boys are