Speaker 1: All right, welcome back in Our guest is ken Block,
Speaker 1: and the book is Disproven, my unbiased search for voter
Speaker 1: fraud and the Trump campaign the data that shows why
Speaker 1: he lost and how we can improve our elections. And
Speaker 1: we're going to spend a lot of time on election reform,
Speaker 1: not so much about litigating twenty twenty. He's got a
Speaker 1: lot to say. How did he get involved in this, Well,
Speaker 1: he is president of a software systems company, Simpatico, software
Speaker 1: engineer and entrepreneur specializes in database technologies and groundbreaking projects,
Speaker 1: such as the country's first statewide debit card benefits system
Speaker 1: in Texas. He saved them billion dollars off of the
Speaker 1: fraud and waste and their snap programs. But as he said,
Speaker 1: he wasn't really interested in getting involved in politics. But
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes we find that politics is interested in us.
Speaker 1: In the past decade, he's analyzed voter data from more
Speaker 1: than forty states. The few that he has yet to
Speaker 1: analyze do not provide their data to the public. He
Speaker 1: has served as an expert and legal challenges that involve
Speaker 1: voting data, voter fraud, and election integrity. So we'll talk
Speaker 1: to him about all of these things and about what
Speaker 1: he has learned as he investigates us, what can we
Speaker 1: do to make sure that we have honest elections that
Speaker 1: are not going to be contested. Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2: Sir, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: It's very important because we've got a lot of people
Speaker 1: are very concerned about this, and rightfully so, a lot
Speaker 1: of people are ready to have a revolution if the
Speaker 1: candidate that they think should win does not win, and
Speaker 1: in a equally divided country like this, half the people
Speaker 1: are pretty much feeling that way. I saw that your
Speaker 1: forward was written by Brad Raffensberger, the Georgia Secretary of State.
Speaker 1: That again over the weekend. I talked about this. At
Speaker 1: the beginning of the program. Trump was furious at Governor Kemp.
Speaker 1: He talk about Raffensberger, but they have in the past,
Speaker 1: and so you know he is and I said this
Speaker 1: about him. I said, it's unfortunate that he is so
Speaker 1: focused on revenge that he can't be focused on even winning,
Speaker 1: let alone on reform. And so I want to talk
Speaker 1: about that. But before we get into what we can
Speaker 1: do for reform, tell us a little bit about your
Speaker 1: take on what happened in Georgia where you investigated.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the idea that in states that are whisker close,
Speaker 3: and we have a bunch of them, we have Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
Speaker 3: Michigan is not really whisker close, but close enough Nevada.
Speaker 3: The idea that if the election goes one way as
Speaker 3: opposed to another, that the only explanation for it must
Speaker 3: have been fraud is not an accurate way to depict
Speaker 3: what happened in these elections, And in Georgia in twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: there are there's a ready explanation for what happened, and
Speaker 3: Georgia is maybe in a lot of ways the closest
Speaker 3: state that we have in terms of being evenly divided
Speaker 3: between Democrats and Republicans. The results of the twenty twenty
Speaker 3: election have been gone up and down and backwards and
Speaker 3: votes and sideways, and there really hasn't surfaced any credible
Speaker 3: claim of voter fraud that could be proven.
Speaker 2: And in my work for the.
Speaker 4: Trump campaign, I was hired very specifically to do data
Speaker 4: analytics that would stand up in a court of law.
Speaker 4: My job was to find enough voter fraud to matter
Speaker 4: in one of the swing states documented and have it
Speaker 4: be so rock solid that when it got taken to court,
Speaker 4: the other side's experts wouldn't be able to tear it apart.
Speaker 2: That's sort of the gold.
Speaker 4: Standard when you're dealing with legal challenges to elections. You
Speaker 4: have to have have a foundation of fact in which
Speaker 4: to be successful in court. And the simple fact of
Speaker 4: the matter is whether it was Georgia or any of
Speaker 4: the other swing states. While we found some voter fraud,
Speaker 4: we didn't find nearly enough to cover the margin of victory.
Speaker 2: And the margin of victory in Georgia.
Speaker 4: Was roughly twelve thousand votes, It was roughly eleven thousand
Speaker 4: votes in Arizona, roughly ninety thousand votes in Pennsylvania. And
Speaker 4: in none of those states did we find enough voter
Speaker 4: fraud to cover what those margins were. And that's just
Speaker 4: a plain statement of fact. And there were so many
Speaker 4: election challenges that failed in the court system because the
Speaker 4: nature of their proof wasn't acceptable proof in courts.
Speaker 1: Of law, right, And that's just sort of a talk
Speaker 1: about them taking their findings. I know that you were
Speaker 1: there to prepare the findings that they would use argue
Speaker 1: the case, but did they ever talk about taking the
Speaker 1: case instead of to a court to the legislature, because
Speaker 1: I know for these razor thin margin victory for a
Speaker 1: Biden for these states had Republican legislatures were they were
Speaker 1: talking about presenting a case to the legislature to get
Speaker 1: them to acknowledge a Republican slate of electors officially, and
Speaker 1: then you would have had, as Thomas Massey talked about,
Speaker 1: as Pence talked about, as JD. Vance recently talked about,
Speaker 1: to have then a court case as to who gets
Speaker 1: to decide who the electors are. Is it going to
Speaker 1: be the governor and the executive branch? Is it going
Speaker 1: to be the legislative branch. Was there every any talk
Speaker 1: about taking the case to the legislatures?
Speaker 4: So I wasn't part of any strategy meetings inside the campaign.
Speaker 4: My job was incredibly focused and I had thirty days
Speaker 4: to do what amounted to about a year's.
Speaker 2: Worth of work.
Speaker 4: So I was highly occupied and segmented away from everything
Speaker 4: else that was swirling around the campaign at the time.
Speaker 4: What I would say in general is that legislatures probably
Speaker 4: are not the best body to try to ascertain a
Speaker 4: very technical determination, which was did fraud occur and how
Speaker 4: did it occur? You know, many members of legislators don't
Speaker 4: have that in their background, So it would be my
Speaker 4: preference that if it's going to be contested, that it
Speaker 4: gets contested in a venue where they can handle highly
Speaker 4: technical presentations and digest the facts.
Speaker 2: And our court system does that all the time.
Speaker 4: Legislatures typically don't. So that's just from a process perspective.
Speaker 4: That's kind of where I'm at in Georgia. There are
Speaker 4: three different data points that really helped document what really
Speaker 4: happened in Georgia, and I know that in a lot
Speaker 4: of conservative circles, Secretary of Raethlisberger is not well liked.
Speaker 4: But the data that he brought forward and can document,
Speaker 4: has documented and it's hard proof. He showed that about
Speaker 4: thirty thousand GOP presidential primary voters in Georgia in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty took a pass on the general election. Those are
Speaker 4: lost presidential votes for President Trump, and he lost by
Speaker 4: fewer than twelve thousand votes. Now, those thirty thousand votes
Speaker 4: were probably moderate Republicans call um Rhinos whatever you want
Speaker 4: to call him, who probably voted against Trump in the
Speaker 4: primary and then decided they couldn't they couldn't bear to
Speaker 4: vote in the general election. And there was another thirty
Speaker 4: thousand votes that Raefensberger brought forward and has the proof
Speaker 4: for that showed that the presidential selection was left blank,
Speaker 4: but all the down ticket Republicans received votes, and again
Speaker 4: that's a sort of symbolic protest votes by very likely
Speaker 4: middle of the road Republicans who liked down ticket but
Speaker 4: didn't like what was at the top of the ticket.
Speaker 4: And that's hard evidence to overcome. And there's really no
Speaker 4: credible fraud that you can look at that comes close
Speaker 4: to having the solidity of the numbers that Raffensberger brought
Speaker 4: forward that matches with my nationwide findings are and those
Speaker 4: are basically that Trump lost about two and a half
Speaker 4: percent support across the board everywhere in twenty twenty relative
Speaker 4: to twenty sixteen. And those are the rhinos. I'm pretty
Speaker 4: sure those are the rhinos who took a hike and left.
Speaker 4: It's not a lot of voters, but in a whisker
Speaker 4: close election, it was enough.
Speaker 1: Well, it's probably people who were not too happy with
Speaker 1: what had happened the first part of twenty twenty. Let
Speaker 1: me ask you, you know, with the lockdowns and things
Speaker 1: like that, that kind of soured a lot of us
Speaker 1: on what was going on. But let me ask you
Speaker 1: about the vote by mail thing, because that was a
Speaker 1: function of the lockdown as well, and we'd never do
Speaker 1: that before. How did you audit or how did you
Speaker 1: view the vote by mail stuff?
Speaker 4: So we looked at the mail ballots, not so much
Speaker 4: from the process of mail ballots, were their changes to
Speaker 4: rules made to allow mail ballots to be changed, how
Speaker 4: mail ballots were used. My role in looking at them
Speaker 4: was did we're dead votes cast by mail? Did people
Speaker 4: who voted by mail vote twice in two different places?
Speaker 4: It was the nature of what I was looking at
Speaker 4: was those sorts of things.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: It was really a remarkable period of time in a
Speaker 4: lot of different ways. And and honestly, I think maybe
Speaker 4: had the had we not had COVID, I actually believe
Speaker 4: there was a better than even money chance that President
Speaker 4: Trump would still be President Trump right now. I think
Speaker 4: COVID cost him dearly in this election action. Did mail
Speaker 4: ballot use tip the balance? I don't think so, because
Speaker 4: I think anybody who was motivated to vote would have
Speaker 4: figured out how to vote one way or the other.
Speaker 4: The presumption is, were mail ballots used for in some
Speaker 4: nefarious way to were's massive mail ballot fraud happening and
Speaker 4: I didn't see evidence of that. I mean, to commit
Speaker 4: mail ballot fraud, you're either going to steal someone's identity
Speaker 4: and vote as somebody else, or you're going to steal
Speaker 4: a deceased person's identity and do that.
Speaker 2: And we found a couple a dozen dead votes in
Speaker 2: most of the swing states.
Speaker 4: We found a couple one hundred duplicate votes across the
Speaker 4: swing states, and the campaign spared no expense on this.
Speaker 4: We exhaustively looked at every single mail ballot to ensure
Speaker 4: that the person in whose name that mail ballot was
Speaker 4: cast was among the living.
Speaker 1: So what did they do to cast about? Do they
Speaker 1: have to request it and is it mailed to them
Speaker 1: at an address or something? They just pick it up
Speaker 1: and then mail it in themselves.
Speaker 4: How did that So.
Speaker 2: What's really frustrating is it's different from state to state
Speaker 2: to state, and we're going to get into that down
Speaker 2: the line.
Speaker 4: In many states, you have to fill out a mail
Speaker 4: ballot application, mail it in, they verify your signature, and
Speaker 4: then when the time is right, they'll mail you a
Speaker 4: ballot that you then return.
Speaker 1: That's like the absentee ballot process that we've had for
Speaker 1: a very long time.
Speaker 4: Right right, Yeah, a few states and this goes this
Speaker 4: happened before. COVID states like California and Oregon and Colorado interestingly,
Speaker 4: have moved to.
Speaker 2: Entirely conducting their elections by mail.
Speaker 4: They send out mail ballots to everybody, and if you
Speaker 4: don't want to vote by mail, you have to take
Speaker 4: extraordinary actions to opt out of voting by mail and
Speaker 4: instead to vote in a different way.
Speaker 2: So we had a mix of those different things.
Speaker 4: Many states made voting by mail easy year in twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: The hardest state in the country to vote by mail
Speaker 4: is I believe it's Louisiana.
Speaker 2: That has a very strict usage in terms of who
Speaker 2: can use it and under what circumstances.
Speaker 4: So it's all over the map. I didn't see any
Speaker 4: artisan slant to the mail ballot fraud that we did find.
Speaker 4: It was pretty evenly divided by Democrats, Republicans, independents, and
Speaker 4: that's been the case of all the voter fraud I've
Speaker 4: documented over the years. I have yet to find a
Speaker 4: form of voter fraud where when it happens, it's just
Speaker 4: sort of a bipartisan activity.
Speaker 1: How would you audit a situation to find out if
Speaker 1: somebody was voting for dead person? And I asked, because
Speaker 1: a friend of my brother in laws in twenty twelve
Speaker 1: in North Carolina, they have at least at that time,
Speaker 1: they had the longest voting period of any state, and
Speaker 1: there was no picture ID, so you could just walk
Speaker 1: in and give them. You could vote early, and when
Speaker 1: you went to vote, you just give them a name
Speaker 1: and address. And there was no validation of that with
Speaker 1: even a driver's license. And so on election day, this
Speaker 1: friend of my brothers brother in law goes in and
Speaker 1: to regually gives them his name and address. And he said,
Speaker 1: you've already voted, and so is this other person that
Speaker 1: you're address And he said, well, that's my mom. She's
Speaker 1: been dead for several years. So how do you audit
Speaker 1: that to know if that is happening in Georgia for example.
Speaker 4: Well, so in twenty twenty, the Trump campaign had us
Speaker 4: process every single mail ballot voter in the Swing States.
Speaker 2: There was about thirty one million of them.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 4: We process them through a data vendor who matches up
Speaker 4: the voter with their social Security number, and then using
Speaker 4: the social security number, you can look at something called
Speaker 4: the Social Security Death Master File, which is the Social
Speaker 4: Security Administration tracks everybody who dies. So we used that
Speaker 4: mechanism thirty one million times for every mail ballot that
Speaker 4: was cast.
Speaker 1: What did you find?
Speaker 2: Election?
Speaker 4: Like, I said, you know, we found a coup at
Speaker 4: most a couple a dozen in each swing state, not
Speaker 4: nearly enough to matter. I did predict, as I had
Speaker 4: done an analysis in Pennsylvania about a month before the election.
Speaker 4: I found a couple of recently registered dead voters, and
Speaker 4: I predicted that those would become mail ballot fraud and
Speaker 4: they did.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now, you you did your research, You presented your
Speaker 1: findings to the Trump campaign and who had hired you,
Speaker 1: to their attorneys, and you also reported to Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: all of your results. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: So I didn't speak directly to Mark Meadow, was the
Speaker 4: lawyer who hired me and who basically was my point
Speaker 4: person throughout this whole thing. Alex Cannon. The basic premise
Speaker 4: of what I did with two different things. I looked
Speaker 4: for duplicate votes, I looked for dead voters, and then
Speaker 4: the campaign used my company to help vet every claim
Speaker 4: of voter fraud that came their way. And there were
Speaker 4: a lot of them from outside of the campaign asking
Speaker 4: He asked us to vet them determine whether they were
Speaker 4: true or not before they would consider taking those claims
Speaker 4: into court. So they were operating in a very careful,
Speaker 4: methodical way. They asked us to review about twenty different
Speaker 4: claims of fraud. Some of them came in through folks
Speaker 4: like Sidney Powell and John Eastman. Others came through academics,
Speaker 4: just random people out there who did their own research.
Speaker 4: And every one of the twenty different claims that we
Speaker 4: looked at, we were able to show why it was wrong.
Speaker 4: When we wrapped things up towards the end of November,
Speaker 4: Canon took the summation of everything that we had done
Speaker 4: and went to Mark Meadows and told Meadows that when
Speaker 4: it came to voter fraud, we looked pretty exhaustively at it.
Speaker 4: All the claims we looked at were false and we
Speaker 4: couldn't find enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome
Speaker 4: in any election.
Speaker 1: And when did when was that presented? What was the
Speaker 1: date that roughly that you presented that stuff?
Speaker 2: Well, so I didn't do a presentation to anybody.
Speaker 4: Every one of the claims I looked at had its
Speaker 4: own email and documentation, and all that landed on Cannon's desk.
Speaker 4: Canon took that all together and went and talked to Meadows,
Speaker 4: I believe, right at the end of November, and gave
Speaker 4: him the summation of everything.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, And so it was December the fourteenth
Speaker 1: that the electoral colleges, you know, the people that were
Speaker 1: selected the elector the site of electors from each party
Speaker 1: that had won, submitted their votes on December fourteenth. January
Speaker 1: the sixth was a formal acceptance of all that stuff.
Speaker 1: But everybody presented that stuff on December fourteenth, so they
Speaker 1: knew the end of November. They knew a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks before the electoral college voted, and then again about
Speaker 1: another about I guess six weeks or so before the
Speaker 1: January the sixth thing they had those results in. What
Speaker 1: did you think about the stop the Steel stuff. You
Speaker 1: mentioned that that you debunked fraud claims while I was
Speaker 1: advancing to stop the Steel initiative. Tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, so.
Speaker 4: As I looked at everything, I wasn't aware usually of
Speaker 4: where the claims came from.
Speaker 2: I was able to piece a lot of it together afterwards.
Speaker 4: So you know, from the Sydney Pwell John Eastman perspective,
Speaker 4: I didn't know that the claims that I found were false,
Speaker 4: that they brought came from them until about a year ago.
Speaker 2: Really, so.
Speaker 4: It's you know, the whole problem would stop the steal
Speaker 4: and with a lot of So many people believe firmly
Speaker 4: that the election was stolen, but that belief is based
Speaker 4: upon a set of facts that's at best.
Speaker 2: Really really squishy, right. What I mean by that is.
Speaker 4: The facts on which the claims are being made that
Speaker 4: everybody is grabbing onto it says it was stolen can't
Speaker 4: possibly ever stand up in court, usually for a really
Speaker 4: basic reason, because that reason is it's more usually it's
Speaker 4: hearsay evidence. What I mean by that, hearsay is often
Speaker 4: defined as he said, she said type stuff, right, And
Speaker 4: our courts don't allow that kind of evidence on which
Speaker 4: to convict somebody because someone can easily be lying about
Speaker 4: that right. The court systems want to see fact based
Speaker 4: evidence that can be double and triple checked, you know,
Speaker 4: hard facts. Sure, and most of most of the evidence
Speaker 4: that people are being presented as evidence that the election
Speaker 4: was stolen is squishy evidence.
Speaker 2: It's not the kind of evidence that you could take
Speaker 2: to court and win.
Speaker 4: And that, to me is really something that I have
Speaker 4: a problem with because you.
Speaker 2: Know, I'm a data guy.
Speaker 4: I take data to court, and my data survives legal scrutiny, right,
Speaker 4: So if you can't find data that survives legal scrutiny,
Speaker 4: I think it's sketchy to start bringing forward data that
Speaker 4: can't and then using that information to really get people
Speaker 4: amped up about what happened in our election.
Speaker 2: I do not believe that.
Speaker 4: The election was stolen. I believe that the election in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty was lost.
Speaker 1: I was very skeptical of it from the very beginning. Actually,
Speaker 1: you know, when I worked at info Wars, I had
Speaker 1: a show there and two days after the election, Steve
Speaker 1: Chennick came on and said that there had that it
Speaker 1: was a sting, that they had blockchain watermark ballots that
Speaker 1: had somehow come out of the federal government at some
Speaker 1: central location. But the key thing that was obviously disprovable
Speaker 1: was he said, two days after the election, so we
Speaker 1: got twenty thousand National Guard that are out there resting
Speaker 1: these people who rig the election. Now, that obviously was true,
Speaker 1: and that wasn't going to go down that path. So
Speaker 1: we had all kinds of stuff, but it was so
Speaker 1: many people. Even weeks after that, when there was absolutely
Speaker 1: no evidence of any National Guard troops or any arrests
Speaker 1: or whatever, they were still pushing that. So I can
Speaker 1: imagine that somebody saying, yeah, we got pictures of or
Speaker 1: I know personally about somebody's stuff in a ballot box.
Speaker 1: That's going to be much more believable than the other
Speaker 1: stuff that people were fighting about and willing to go
Speaker 1: to the mat to say, yes, there is some secret
Speaker 1: war that is going on, maybe in Germany, maybe some
Speaker 1: places in the United States where people are actually, you know,
Speaker 1: fighting and going to war over this. It really was.
Speaker 1: It's a strange situation. One more thing I'd like to
Speaker 1: talk about before we start talking about how to reform
Speaker 1: this stuff, and that is the exit polls, which have
Speaker 1: kind of come in to play again with this Venezuelan election.
Speaker 1: The State Department has always used Edison Research, which is
Speaker 1: the exit polling organization here in the United States, and
Speaker 1: they say that and they use them in other countries
Speaker 1: as well, and they say that if the difference between
Speaker 1: Edison researches exit polls and the official results are more
Speaker 1: than five points away from each other. That looks like
Speaker 1: it's a rigged election. Now it's just one particular company,
Speaker 1: and of course that company can be rigged as well.
Speaker 1: We don't know about their integrity, but it is the
Speaker 1: company that is used for the exit polls by all
Speaker 1: of the media organizations in the United States. They typically
Speaker 1: don't give us. I've never seen them give us a
Speaker 1: total and say, well, here's what they say the total is,
Speaker 1: and compare that to what the reported votes were. They'll
Speaker 1: give you demographic cross tabulations, how many men or how
Speaker 1: many women, or this or that voted for this candidate.
Speaker 1: But was there ever any talk about looking at the
Speaker 1: exit polls anything about that.
Speaker 4: So I didn't know it at the time, but I
Speaker 4: learned of this about a year and a half ago.
Speaker 4: The Trump campaign commissioned their top polster to conduct exit
Speaker 4: polls in the twenty twenty election in the Swing States.
Speaker 4: That pollster's name is Tony Fabrizio. And just to be
Speaker 4: fully transparent, I'm a two time candidate for governor here
Speaker 4: in Rhode Island, and in my run in twenty fourteen
Speaker 4: as a Republican, Fabrizio was my pollster as well, so
Speaker 4: I just like to put that out there because I'm
Speaker 4: talking about him, and I just didn't want to.
Speaker 2: Do that without disclosing that.
Speaker 4: Fabrizio conducted a thirty thousand interview exit poll across all
Speaker 4: the swing states, and he created an internal campaign document
Speaker 4: that leaked, and that document made its way to politico
Speaker 4: dot com, so anyone can find it there. But what
Speaker 4: he determined was that one out of six votes voters
Speaker 4: that they spoke with were disaffected Republicans who chose to
Speaker 4: vote against Trump in that twenty twenty race. Another one
Speaker 4: out of six voters were brand new voters motivated to
Speaker 4: vote against Trump because of COVID. So that's a full
Speaker 4: third of the voters that they had identified were strongly
Speaker 4: against Trump for different sets of reasons.
Speaker 2: So exit polls are typically take it to the.
Speaker 4: Bank type things, right, They're usually considered to be pretty accurate,
Speaker 4: and I've not ever heard of somebody manipulating the results
Speaker 4: of an exit pole. I don't know much, hardly anything
Speaker 4: at all about what's going on down invent In, Venezuela
Speaker 4: right now, other than it's a mess.
Speaker 1: So it's another one of these things, right, So that
Speaker 1: kind of gives us a lead into some of the
Speaker 1: things that we do about how to how to fix
Speaker 1: this based on your insights. But I think that's very important.
Speaker 1: I think that's very interesting that the Trump campaign did
Speaker 1: its own exit polls and they didn't present that data,
Speaker 1: so presumably that data was not favorable to them, didn't
Speaker 1: Didn't you? Am I mistaken? Did you debate Lindell on this,
Speaker 1: Mike Lindell?
Speaker 2: I did?
Speaker 4: He and I appeared on a YouTube channel about a
Speaker 4: month ago and with a host named David Pacman, and yeah,
Speaker 4: we had about a forty five minute conversation about voter
Speaker 4: fraud and what is there, what's not there, and even
Speaker 4: we got into a little bit the things that we
Speaker 4: need to do to fix things.
Speaker 1: And I know that he held a press conference at
Speaker 1: one point in time and Steve Bannon was there, a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of people, and Steve Bannon was just fed up.
Speaker 1: He said, well, we were told that he had receipts,
Speaker 1: and he goes, he didn't have any receipts truly, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Does he have any receipts yet?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: This evidence free, right, That's very interesting. It really is
Speaker 1: sad to see. But let's talk about what we can
Speaker 1: do to fix the election system based on what you
Speaker 1: have seen and your opinions about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I think this is the most important thing
Speaker 4: to talk about. I mean, twenty twenty is long gone
Speaker 4: and it's in the rear mirror. There's nothing that we
Speaker 4: can do at this point to alter the course of
Speaker 4: what's going to happen in twenty twenty four. It's going
Speaker 4: to be very very similar, I believe, to what we
Speaker 4: experienced in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: It may be almost virtually identical.
Speaker 4: I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome is exactly the same,
Speaker 4: because the basic same.
Speaker 2: Setup is there that we had four years ago.
Speaker 4: The way we conduct our elections in this country is
Speaker 4: the way we've done it for hundreds of years, and
Speaker 4: it no longer makes any sense, and it causes us
Speaker 4: some real problems. And the biggest set of problems that
Speaker 4: we have is that different states, and many times different
Speaker 4: counties in the same state, conduct the same election differently.
Speaker 4: They have different rules, they have different regulations, they have
Speaker 4: different hardware. And I'll give you just a simple example
Speaker 4: of how these differences can actually affect the outcome of
Speaker 4: a specific vote. What do you think happens if you
Speaker 4: vote early but then die before election day? Does your
Speaker 4: vote count or does your vote not count?
Speaker 1: I would think that it would count.
Speaker 2: Depends on where you live.
Speaker 1: Depends.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, So in Michigan it does not count.
Speaker 4: And in twenty twenty, the state of Michigan invalidated about
Speaker 4: thirty five hundred votes by voters who voted early and
Speaker 4: then passed away before election day.
Speaker 2: In Pennsylvania, if you.
Speaker 4: Vote early then pass away before the election, your vote
Speaker 4: does count. So some of the votes that people identified
Speaker 4: as to seized votes actually counted because in Pennsylvania that's
Speaker 4: not an illegal situation as long as.
Speaker 2: You cast the vote while you're alive.
Speaker 4: If you happen to then pass away before election day,
Speaker 4: in Pennsylvania, the vote still counts. So it becomes you
Speaker 4: can see how just that one scenario causes a voter
Speaker 4: that we imagine is in this situation to have a
Speaker 4: very different experience as a dead voter in Michigan as
Speaker 4: it does opposed to Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: We want me ask you this question before we move on,
Speaker 1: because when you get these ballots in, I mean, what
Speaker 1: kind of records do you have to look at a
Speaker 1: vote an early vote by mail ballot to know that
Speaker 1: this person voted that ballot and voted it at that date.
Speaker 1: You know, if they're going to count it if the
Speaker 1: person is now dead, but they you know, to know
Speaker 1: that the person and made this a vote before they died.
Speaker 1: How do you do you have How do you audit that?
Speaker 1: What kind of information do they have in terms of auditability?
Speaker 1: Do they know the postmark date and the person's name
Speaker 1: on the ballot.
Speaker 2: So they had postmark dates?
Speaker 4: They have names and addresses on the ballot application, which
Speaker 4: also goes on to the envelope that your mail ballot
Speaker 4: gets put into as you mail it back. In The
Speaker 4: trick is getting that information and being able to determine
Speaker 4: with certainty whether or not that voter is dead and
Speaker 4: live or live. And most people who do these analysis
Speaker 4: aren't able to arrive at an answer that is rock
Speaker 4: solid for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a big problem Pennsylvania. You know where it's that
Speaker 1: it's okay if they did it and then died. How
Speaker 1: do you determine that? That's tough? Right?
Speaker 2: Right? Well?
Speaker 4: I pointed out to the state of Pennsylvania through lawyers
Speaker 4: I was doing some work for in October of twenty
Speaker 4: twenty two registered voters who were dead, clearly deceased, identified
Speaker 4: them and because they had registered in the last month
Speaker 4: back in September of twenty twenty, I said, these will
Speaker 4: become very likely fraudulent votes. The state didn't do anything
Speaker 4: about those voters. They did, in fact vote by mail
Speaker 4: as deceased voters, and it was only after the election
Speaker 4: that the people behind those votes were contacted, arrested, and
Speaker 4: they pled guilty to election crimes for casting fraudual votes.
Speaker 4: It's really hard, in fact, it's so hard to identify
Speaker 4: whether or not someone is living or dead. I think
Speaker 4: that the only reasonable thing to do is to probably
Speaker 4: allow the votes as long as you're alive when you
Speaker 4: cast the vote. I think that the vote should count
Speaker 4: because it's just so hard for state to determine otherwise
Speaker 4: inside a crazy window of time where they're trying to
Speaker 4: do a lot of other things, you know. And again,
Speaker 4: we only were able to do what we did in
Speaker 4: terms of identifying deceased registered voters because the Trump campaign
Speaker 4: basically provided an unlimited pile of money that we were
Speaker 4: able to spend to do so accurately.
Speaker 1: I guess that's really the issue, you know, in terms
Speaker 1: of how do you validate that and I guess the
Speaker 1: key issue is that people have to have trust in
Speaker 1: the election, and so it seems to me like there
Speaker 1: needs to be different ways that they can have either
Speaker 1: transparency and have the ballots retained. I know that in
Speaker 1: Texas it was kind of a standard procedure, even though
Speaker 1: it was in the constitution that a fact simile image
Speaker 1: of the ballot had to be retained. You had the
Speaker 1: guy who was in charge of the Board of Elections
Speaker 1: would send out a statement to all of the counties
Speaker 1: saying you don't have to retain it, and they would
Speaker 1: not retain it in a lot of these counties, and
Speaker 1: so that made the auditing process really difficult. But I
Speaker 1: think maybe you know a lot of people who are
Speaker 1: looking at let's just go simple, let's go to hand
Speaker 1: counted ballots. We know that people can always stuff stuff,
Speaker 1: but if you've got handcounted balancy and you got observers
Speaker 1: from both sides, it seems to me like you need
Speaker 1: to have something like that where people can have some
Speaker 1: confidence that you know, the fraud has been kept to
Speaker 1: a minimum, that there's been eyes on this, that they
Speaker 1: have have done that. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: What are your recommendations in terms of paper ballots. I
Speaker 1: know that's a big paper chase, But what would you
Speaker 1: say about that?
Speaker 2: Well, I think, for sure, when you vote, the vote
Speaker 2: should be on a paper ballot so that you have
Speaker 2: a physical representation of what happened, so that you can
Speaker 2: go back and analyze.
Speaker 4: Any machine that allows you to vote electronically without paper
Speaker 4: ballot backup, I think is a terrible idea and we
Speaker 4: shouldn't be there for sure.
Speaker 2: Let's use Maricopa County, Arizona is.
Speaker 4: Sort of approving ground for whether or not it's reasonable
Speaker 4: to count by hand all the ballots.
Speaker 2: So Maricopa has.
Speaker 4: Roughly one and a half million voters that vote in
Speaker 4: its elections. On your typical Maricopa County ballot, there's anywhere
Speaker 4: between twenty and thirty different races on that ballot.
Speaker 2: It just depends on.
Speaker 4: The year and where you are in the cycle of
Speaker 4: different things, which means that in your typical election year Americopa,
Speaker 4: you have to if you're going to count by hand,
Speaker 4: you have to tally up twenty to thirty million different
Speaker 4: distinct votes across all the different races that are there.
Speaker 4: That is a phenomenally large amount of votes, and no
Speaker 4: human counting effort will ever be anywhere near as accurate
Speaker 4: as a machine count can be. The problem and the
Speaker 4: worry about the machines is that they can be act,
Speaker 4: that they can be programmed maliciously before the election, that
Speaker 4: kind of thing. And I look at what the casino industry.
Speaker 2: Does and brought them in my background. I've done a
Speaker 2: lot of work in the gaming industry over the years.
Speaker 4: Many many, many casino management systems have defensive software built
Speaker 4: into every one of those slot machines so that they
Speaker 4: know if the software deviates from what it should be.
Speaker 4: And I won't get into the technical details of it,
Speaker 4: but it's something that you can absolutely do, and it's
Speaker 4: something that you can absolutely bring forward into the election
Speaker 4: machine software. We have the ability to know with confidence
Speaker 4: what software is running on those machines, and we should
Speaker 4: be using it. And as I said to Mike Lindell,
Speaker 4: is one of the big, big pushers of we.
Speaker 2: Need to be counting by hand. We need to be
Speaker 2: counting by hand.
Speaker 4: And what I'll say is, first of all, there's just
Speaker 4: no way that you can count thirty million votes accurately
Speaker 4: by hand. First of all, it would take forever to
Speaker 4: do that, right you would need an army of people
Speaker 4: conducting the count, and then you know, human beings make
Speaker 4: mistakes in that whole thing.
Speaker 2: It's just it is.
Speaker 4: It is too big a job I think to do it,
Speaker 4: to do it manually. And as I said to Mike,
Speaker 4: I said, Mike, the problem is you're talking about squishy
Speaker 4: reasons to count the mallets by hand, but you actually
Speaker 4: haven't pointed out something that is an actual risk that's
Speaker 4: happened that justifies making.
Speaker 2: Such a big change. So should we harden our machines
Speaker 2: one hundred percent?
Speaker 4: And we should have federal guidelines that all the machines
Speaker 4: have to adhere to so that we can have some
Speaker 4: confidence that they have not been hacked, and that the
Speaker 4: software that they're running has been vetted and is working
Speaker 4: the way it needs to, and all that kind of thing.
Speaker 2: That's technology. It's already in place. I just don't see how.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you or I were to sit down
Speaker 4: and start tallying votes on a ballot, maybe we could
Speaker 4: tally if we were working really fast, five hundred votes
Speaker 4: an hour, right, maybe? I mean, you know, and now
Speaker 4: think about thirty getting to thirty million votes five hundred
Speaker 4: votes an hour at a time this kid tells you
Speaker 4: how big the number is, the number is probably sixty
Speaker 4: thousand hours of work to get that done in Maricopa.
Speaker 4: And I don't think going back to the Stone age
Speaker 4: for how we count.
Speaker 2: Votes is going to be a workable answer for us
Speaker 2: in this modern age.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's again. You know, when we look at the
Speaker 1: electronics stuff, and I always talk about, and I've shown
Speaker 1: several times the an example, going back to the late
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties early two thousands, we have local college professors
Speaker 1: bring some kids in. They say, well, let's take over
Speaker 1: this machine here, and they put a virus on there
Speaker 1: that tilts everything according to their predetermined ratios and then
Speaker 1: erases itself. And so you know, the vulnerability there, I guess,
Speaker 1: is whether or not it's connected to the Internet and
Speaker 1: whether or not somebody can reprogram it with you know,
Speaker 1: by putting a thumb drive on there and installing some software.
Speaker 1: How do you guard against that type of thing, that
Speaker 1: kind of custody of the machine, for example, so you.
Speaker 4: Know, the physical in the same way that slot machines
Speaker 4: have tremendous physical security around them in terms of surveillance,
Speaker 4: both electronic and people watching.
Speaker 2: The same thing with voting machines.
Speaker 4: The sensitive areas of the voting machine should be in
Speaker 4: on the back of the machine where.
Speaker 2: Nobody is allowed, right. So I mean if you're putting
Speaker 2: a USB key in the front of the machine and
Speaker 2: someone could close.
Speaker 4: The the you know, they can close the curtains and
Speaker 4: then plug something in. I mean, that's that's that's a
Speaker 4: violated rule one on one.
Speaker 2: Of physical security. Uh. You know, it's it's there are
Speaker 2: for those who understand machine security and how to make
Speaker 2: sure that the software that should be in there is
Speaker 2: in there.
Speaker 4: It's all that's all a solvable problem.
Speaker 2: Uh, it really is, and.
Speaker 1: It's part of your auditing. Did you have videotapes of
Speaker 1: the physical security situation?
Speaker 4: No, No, we were strictly focused on the data the
Speaker 4: uh they wanted me on the hard data that was
Speaker 4: going uh that they were hoping was going to be
Speaker 4: able to go to court. I didn't get involved in
Speaker 4: any one specific local issue.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: And for sure I didn't get into any hearsay claims
Speaker 4: of any kind there there was there wasn't the time
Speaker 4: to get into that.
Speaker 2: You know, look, there there are.
Speaker 4: You hear a lot of people talk about election integrity,
Speaker 4: and I am a huge proponent of election integrity and
Speaker 4: making sure that the data for our elections is as
Speaker 4: clean as it can be.
Speaker 2: And one of the problems with having the states.
Speaker 4: Do their own voter registration maintaining their voter roles differently
Speaker 4: from each other is you end up with some states
Speaker 4: that do a really good job at it, and you
Speaker 4: do you have some states that do an absolutely terrible
Speaker 4: job at it, and the terrible side of things, I'm
Speaker 4: going to offer up two states, New Jersey and New York.
Speaker 4: In New Jersey in twenty twenty, there were roughly twenty
Speaker 4: five thousand voters registered who had a year of birth
Speaker 4: of eighteen hundred, which, if you do the math, you
Speaker 4: realize that there's just no way that any human being
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty had a birth date of eighteen hundred,
Speaker 4: and of those twenty five thousand registered voters with a
Speaker 4: birth date of eighteen hundred cast votes in twenty twenty. Now,
Speaker 4: some of your listeners are going to be like, holy moly,
Speaker 4: that's voter fraud. It's probably not what happens in a
Speaker 4: lot of different computer systems, and this is happening in
Speaker 4: New Jersey system if they don't have a data birth
Speaker 4: for a voter, they stick eighteen hundred in there as
Speaker 4: a placeholder.
Speaker 2: They didn't have anything else.
Speaker 4: So eight thousand voters in New Jersey cast votes in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty. That state election officials don't know when those.
Speaker 2: Voters were born.
Speaker 4: Okay, now that's a problem all by itself, and it's
Speaker 4: one that election officials in New Jersey still haven't fixed.
Speaker 4: They have really really dirty data, right, and you see
Speaker 4: all kinds of different ways that dirty data can impact
Speaker 4: registered voters and ultimately can even impact whether.
Speaker 2: People should be voting or not. Right.
Speaker 4: I think in New Jersey you might find maybe some
Speaker 4: of those eight thousand voters shouldn't have been voting for
Speaker 4: some reason.
Speaker 2: But this state can't identify who those voters are.
Speaker 4: You have to know someone's date of birth to be
Speaker 4: able to identify them using data, and New Jersey can't
Speaker 4: do that.
Speaker 2: New York has a very.
Speaker 4: Similar problem and some worse ones. And I don't want
Speaker 4: to get too far into it, but there are millions
Speaker 4: of votes that happen in New York State in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty by voters that they cannot identify because those voters
Speaker 4: don't have a social security number, of driver's license on
Speaker 4: file with election That's an extraordinary thing, and it's a
Speaker 4: huge problem for New York election officials because they can't
Speaker 4: possibly maintain the data in their system without having that information.
Speaker 4: That's just two examples. When you move from one state
Speaker 4: to another, some states are able to track down the
Speaker 4: movement and cancel the registration for when somebody moves from
Speaker 4: state to state. A lot of other states cannot, and
Speaker 4: so we end up with people with duplicate registrations. We
Speaker 4: end up sometimes with people with four or five duplicated registrations.
Speaker 4: There's all a manner of stuff like that that's happening.
Speaker 4: And for me, as a technology professional, I can't stand
Speaker 4: the fact that our elections depend on data that at
Speaker 4: times can be extraordinarily dirty. And we have the technology
Speaker 4: and the means to fix this, and I think it's
Speaker 4: criminal that we don't.
Speaker 1: And of course we've got a lot of jurisdictions where
Speaker 1: they want to give the vote to even non citizens.
Speaker 1: So I mean, it's like there's this whole spectrum of
Speaker 1: what is out there. So, in your opinion, how do
Speaker 1: we what's the best way to fix this? I mean,
Speaker 1: do you have to have some kind of a national
Speaker 1: standard and some kind of inspectors. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: one of the reasons we have the kind of system
Speaker 1: that we've got is because there was an aversion to
Speaker 1: centralizing things. Because if you centralize things, now you've got
Speaker 1: one point that you can corrupt or you can infiltrate,
Speaker 1: and now you've got the entire system. So there's a
Speaker 1: danger in centralization as well. How would this work out?
Speaker 4: So, leaving any ideology out of my answer as a technologist,
Speaker 4: the only sane way to conduct our federal elections is
Speaker 4: with a federal voter registration database. If we got rid
Speaker 4: of the fifty different implementations of the voter registration.
Speaker 2: That we have right now.
Speaker 4: In fact, it's way more than fifty. Most large states
Speaker 4: make the responsibility of elections at the county level, and
Speaker 4: so in many ways we have as many as four
Speaker 4: thousand or five thousand different election systems that all do
Speaker 4: things a bit differently from each other. Technologically speaking, the
Speaker 4: right answer, and we would eliminate most of the voter
Speaker 4: integrity issues that we suffer from if we had a
Speaker 4: federalized voter registry. I understand, with states rights and a
Speaker 4: whole bunch of either ideological arguments or even the uh
Speaker 4: security argument of well, you know, if you have just one,
Speaker 4: you know what happens. I don't believe that the voting
Speaker 4: should happen on a federal level with just one system,
Speaker 4: but I do believe that the voter registration should be
Speaker 4: done that way.
Speaker 2: So if somebody hacks a voter registration system.
Speaker 4: And by the way, how many counties do you know
Speaker 4: that have high quality data employees working for them, technologists
Speaker 4: right the lower down we pushed the conduct of our elections,
Speaker 4: I believe the more likely it is that those the
Speaker 4: county level is where it's most likely that you can
Speaker 4: see successful hacking because they just don't have the technological
Speaker 4: expertise that you need.
Speaker 2: As you would as you move your you move your.
Speaker 4: Way up the chain to state level technologists and ultimately
Speaker 4: federal level technologists.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Of course we've also seen I've also seen the CIA
Speaker 1: and the NSA and the FBI and US well from
Speaker 1: the top of the bottom is vulnerable. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's a real quiet it's a real quandary.
Speaker 2: So you know, voter registration in a lot of ways
Speaker 2: is less.
Speaker 4: Uh, the danger of a hack there is lower than
Speaker 4: the danger of a hack to an actual election system
Speaker 4: that conducts the process of our election, right right, So, Uh,
Speaker 4: I don't believe I believe it would be wrong to
Speaker 4: have federalized voting. I only talk about the voter registration
Speaker 4: with an eye towards the cleanest data that we can have.
Speaker 2: Uh. You know, we live, we live in it.
Speaker 4: We live in a in a society, in an age
Speaker 4: where there probably isn't a computer system anywhere that's hardened
Speaker 4: well enough.
Speaker 2: To prevent someone who's really determined to get at it.
Speaker 2: To get at it.
Speaker 4: Uh, you have to watch it really carefully, and you
Speaker 4: have to see what. You have to have the surveillance
Speaker 4: systems employees to know when it's happening and to stop
Speaker 4: it before it goes. You can put that sort of
Speaker 4: stuff in front of a system like the If we
Speaker 4: were to do a federalized voter registration system, I think
Speaker 4: that that system should also have biometrics on it. You know,
Speaker 4: we use social security numbers as the most sensitive identifier
Speaker 4: we have. Right If you're working at a job, you
Speaker 4: have to supply your social Security number.
Speaker 2: It's how you file your taxes, all this stuff.
Speaker 4: You have to give a social Security number to any
Speaker 4: banks that you want to open up bank accounts with
Speaker 4: And the problem is hackers have every one of our
Speaker 4: social security numbers, all of them, right, They've been hacked
Speaker 4: so many times it's no longer secure. I think we
Speaker 4: should replace social security numbers with a new identifier. We're
Speaker 4: the only first world country that doesn't have a national identifier.
Speaker 1: Well, what happens if you do a biometric and somebody
Speaker 1: steals your your data base. Now they're stolen your face,
Speaker 1: what do you do? I mean, if they steal your
Speaker 1: pass code or something, you get a new one, uh,
Speaker 1: to go get plastic surgery or to vote again? What
Speaker 1: do you do with that? To me, that's that's a
Speaker 1: big issue. And of course, you know, when we look
Speaker 1: at creating, you know, a lot of us have very
Speaker 1: very strong concerns about you know, creating a centralized state
Speaker 1: where we have to have some kind of a centralized ID.
Speaker 1: You know, that kind of flows into U a CBDC
Speaker 1: type of scenario and other other concerns about a global ID.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And so that that gets a lot a lot of
Speaker 1: people to take the safety off their gun when you
Speaker 1: start talking about that type of thing.
Speaker 2: No, I get it, I get it.
Speaker 4: But if your concern is election integrity. The biggest threat
Speaker 4: to integrity is the way we currently conduct the election.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's that's just a simple statement of fact.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, and you know, as unwieldy as it is,
Speaker 1: you know, when they ran elections in Iraq, what they
Speaker 1: did was they did on one day, and you know,
Speaker 1: they couldn't tell these people are legitimate if they'd walked
Speaker 1: across the border, but they could keep them from voting
Speaker 1: multiple times. And so you would go in and you'd
Speaker 1: vote on paper, and then you would get this indelible
Speaker 1: stain on your thumb that's going to be there for
Speaker 1: the rest of the day, so you couldn't vote again.
Speaker 1: If we go ultra crude like that, I know it's
Speaker 1: a big hassle to count this stuff, but I mean,
Speaker 1: if people really wanted a system, they would invest the
Speaker 1: time in terms of maybe volunteering or something like that.
Speaker 1: I know that's idealistic, but I mean, why not go
Speaker 1: ultra low tech one day and the purple thumb?
Speaker 4: I mean, how many elections that way? Do you hear
Speaker 4: stories about a whole bunch of ballots being stuffed anyway? Right,
Speaker 4: even people have inkstained hands. That doesn't handle the physical
Speaker 4: security of the actual ballot box sitting there. You know, Look,
Speaker 4: I live in a state where it wasn't all that
Speaker 4: long ago where some elected officials were arrested driving around
Speaker 4: with a bunch of absentee ballots in the trunks of
Speaker 4: their cars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, and we saw that going back to the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, or reports of people driving around with the
Speaker 1: voting machines in the back of their car and that
Speaker 1: type of thing. You're always going to have that, I
Speaker 1: guess the thing for me personally, and I've talked about this,
Speaker 1: I said, because what scares me about the computerized voting
Speaker 1: is that if you're able to hack the actual voting system,
Speaker 1: you know, different from the from the ID stuff, but
Speaker 1: if you're able to hack the actual voting system that
Speaker 1: gives you access from a remote area to be able
Speaker 1: to manipulate things across the country, or you can manipulate
Speaker 1: from the top of the ballot to the bottom of
Speaker 1: the ballot. I mean once you get if you get
Speaker 1: in there, the payoff is so incredibly large that it
Speaker 1: really is a big honeypot, you know for people in
Speaker 1: terms of the allure, I.
Speaker 4: Think, no, no differently than casino systems, right, and in
Speaker 4: a lot of ways. The you know, rigging a casino
Speaker 4: machine to walk out the door of a million dollars
Speaker 4: in cash in a lot of ways is probably a
Speaker 4: bigger prize and then most other things, and the industry
Speaker 4: has dealt with that threat. We can deal with the
Speaker 4: threat of the hacking and the cyber attacks on election systems.
Speaker 4: We really can. It really comes down to a question
Speaker 4: of will and money. But I don't know how we
Speaker 4: don't insist that the same protections that go into slot
Speaker 4: machines aren't already in most of the machines.
Speaker 2: That conduct our elections. I know some of the machines
Speaker 2: that conduct our elections do have this in there. They
Speaker 2: all should have it, and if we have that, I
Speaker 2: think we can all rest a bit easier about it.
Speaker 1: Well, that is a good analogy. I guess we'll end
Speaker 1: on that. I think that there's many analogies that could
Speaker 1: be drawn between the electoral system and the casino. The
Speaker 1: house always wins, I think, in both cases. But that
Speaker 1: is very interesting, And I'm sure I haven't had a
Speaker 1: chance to read your book. I didn't get a copy
Speaker 1: of it yet because I wanted to get you on quickly.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure, it is very interesting. I think people
Speaker 1: be interested to see what you found in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: that people are still talking about. And more importantly, what
Speaker 1: does that portend for the election that's coming up now
Speaker 1: and I guess maybe about ninety days or something like that,
Speaker 1: and what can we do. Certainly there's not going to
Speaker 1: be a thing that we can do to fix it
Speaker 1: between now and then, but it gives us some idea
Speaker 1: of what we can still expect. But then we really
Speaker 1: do need to take I think one thing everybody agrees
Speaker 1: that we need to do something to make the electoral
Speaker 1: system more trustworthy, that people have a confidence that their
Speaker 1: vote is counted and counted accurately. I think that is
Speaker 1: a paramount importance and so it's very I'm glad to
Speaker 1: see that you wrote a book about your experience with that.
Speaker 1: And again, the book is disproven my unbiased search for
Speaker 1: voter fraud for the Trump campaign and the data that
Speaker 1: shows why he lost and how we can improve our elections.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you can find this at kenblock
Speaker 1: dot com. There's a link there to buy the book
Speaker 1: and you can get information about it there. Anything else
Speaker 1: you'd like to tell us about the book before we
Speaker 1: run out of time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, look, the back of the book is
Speaker 4: the most important part of the book. Fixing our elections
Speaker 4: is patriotic, it's mission critical, it's the most important thing.
Speaker 4: Michael Lindell and I disagreed about the outcome of the elections,
Speaker 4: but we were in sync on the need to make
Speaker 4: changes to make things happen better. I've spoken to Republican
Speaker 4: secretaries of state. I've spoken to Democratic secretaries of state.
Speaker 4: There is a lot of over agreement, overlap in agreement
Speaker 4: on some of the things that we should be doing
Speaker 4: to make our elections better. And we need to move
Speaker 4: beyond where we're at in terms of our discussions of
Speaker 4: elections and looking backwards and dealing with whatever happens here
Speaker 4: in November.
Speaker 2: To move forward.
Speaker 4: We need to have an adult conversation about making our
Speaker 4: elections better and get in to it and taking this
Speaker 4: moment in time to really improve things.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I agree.
Speaker 1: And it's not just that we would like to get
Speaker 1: the right answers, but I mean, in this time of polarization,
Speaker 1: if we don't have trustworthy elections, I'm very concerned that
Speaker 1: the the Civil War over it or something like that.
Speaker 1: A lot of talk about that on both sides. And
Speaker 1: so it's having something that you trust that you can
Speaker 1: audit that is really key. So again you've got the
Speaker 1: second half of your book is about your recommendations for
Speaker 1: how to do that from somebody who is an expert
Speaker 1: on auditing it. And you've seen the tricks that can
Speaker 1: be pulled, and so that is no system is going
Speaker 1: to be perfect. Any system can be infiltrated and has
Speaker 1: its own flaws, and so the question is what do
Speaker 1: we do to try to minimize that and mitigate those risks.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much for the work that you do,
Speaker 1: and again you can find us at kenblock dot com.
Speaker 1: And the book is disproven. Thank you so much, sir,
Speaker 1: appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thanks. Wearing of bias and false neooze has become all
Speaker 2: too common on social first unfortunately exactly. And this is
Speaker 2: extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to
Speaker 2: our democracy.
Speaker 1: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Speaker 2: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely
Speaker 2: dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Speaker 1: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Speaker 2: This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely
Speaker 2: dangerous to our democracy.
Speaker 1: Break free from the usual script with a David Knight
Speaker 1: show a fresh perspective bringing you genuine insights on current events.
Speaker 1: But if the show is going to stay on the air,
Speaker 1: we'll need your cantinued support. Sharing the show, subscribing and
Speaker 1: even just hitting the like button all help. And if
Speaker 1: you found our show helpful, please consider donating and becoming
Speaker 1: a part of a community that values the truth because independent,
Speaker 1: listener funded news untouched by corporate globalist agendas, is extremely
Speaker 1: important to our liberties.