Search Posts

>> A total disgrace, but so let me get back, should we get back to post office stuff now? >> Absolutely. >> That's a good. >> The US Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don't win in these November elections they were rigged, he said it in the State of the Union. You are being used as part of a much bigger story that this president is trying to play out where he does not believe elections that he loses are valid elections. He's willing to do just about anything to show that he's actually a big winner no matter what he does. And I just ask you as a professional, as someone who's done serious things in your life, please push back on being a pawn in this authoritarian playbook. The Postal Service is one of the most important institutions in our country. Don't taint it with the obsession of this one man. Please push back. >> You know, one of the things about politics that's different in the business is there's a lot of people who love to talk, talk, talk here. When I came in, it was interesting, I had this, my team put together this very fancy binder, it was about post office reform. But the hearing has turned into a mail-in balloting conversation and principles of the Constitution, which is very, very heartwarming to somebody who swore an oath to the Constitution when I became a U.S. citizen when I was 18. So are you familiar by any chance, don't expect you to, but just in case, there was a bill that the Democrats brought up during the Biden administration. And as you know, bills are numbered. So bill number one is the first one they do. And then I think we're now in bill number 5,000. But it's called HR1. And then there was also S1. So meaning it was the number one priority of Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate. Do you remember what that bill is about? >> I don't. >> You wouldn't. No, I wouldn't expect you to. I was like, you're a business guy that pays attention to all this stuff. It was called the For the People Act. The Democrats have phenomenal false advertising. So what the For the People did is it basically nationalized our elections. So this bill that they had that was their number one priority was about nationalizing the elections. So I know that we live in a world where there's supreme hypocrisy, but the idea that Democrat witness after Democrat witness, instead of talking about how to fix the post office, we're talking about the scandalous idea that somehow states' rights were being violated. And yet three years ago, they wanted to take over the entire election system for the United States of America, not to give it more voter integrity, but to diminish voter integrity, universal mail out ballots, unsolicited ballots that would go out, automatic voter registration, regardless of whether there's a test to see that person is a citizen. And then, and Mr. Chairman, you were here, you'll remember, they couldn't get it passed because of course here you have to get 60 votes, right? We have to get 60 votes. So what did the Democrats advocate for? What did they fight for to get this passed? They want to get rid of the filibuster. They want to get rid of the filibuster so that they could pass the nationalized elections. Three years later, all of them are testifying to say, it's outrageous. President Trump's trying to nationalize our election. He's not. He's trying to get rid of voter fraud. How dare you guys talk about getting rid of the filibuster? If it wasn't for Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, that would have happened. They would have made DC and Puerto Rico a state. They would have packed our Supreme Court, but now all of a sudden they dug up from their bottom desk drawer, the United States constitution, and they're appalled as they're here talking to you. It's a total disgrace. But somebody get back, should we get back to post office stuff now? Absolutely. That's a good idea. Let's talk about the post office. If the post office inspector were to look at unsolicited mail and mail out ballots where you go to an apartment complex and one unit is receiving six ballots, that's a problem, right? If there's only one human being that lives in that apartment and that one human being is receiving six ballots, none of which are in their name because they've been turned over movement. You wouldn't just suggest, and my Democrat colleagues have left Elvis has left the building here, but you would not suggest that that one person receive ballots that they didn't ask for that aren't even in their name. You would then go, wow, this is a problem, correct? That's what our postal inspection service is there for, is to look for those type of situations. And, you know, we don't open mail. We don't stop the delivery of mail, but we can certainly go to other agencies from a law enforcement point of view. Yeah, and say, hey, this is a problem. We're seeing this potentially illegal activity. Yeah. No, I totally understand. You know, I just want to give a quick anecdote. I was asked by the government to go down to where I was born, Columbia, South America, and monitor the election down there. They don't allow mail-in balloting. And I asked the registrar, I said, well, why don't you allow people to vote by mail? There's some people who can't get to the polling locations, et cetera. And obviously we're in Columbia, so we're speaking Spanish. He turned to his aide and said, I don't think the senator is saying the right words. I'm not understanding his question. So I repeated it and he looked at me quizzically and he said, well, if you just mailed somebody a ballot without knowing who they were or who's receiving it, that would open the door to massive fraud. You'd have to be totally and completely insane to run an election that way. This is a country with the GDP of the size of L.A., lecturing the United States of America on why our elections should be run better, and I think we should look at that as a moment of opportunity.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

To begin today with breaking news, a major legal battle involving Mike Lindell has come to an end. The voting technology company formerly known as Dominion Voting Systems, now operating as Liberty Vote, has agreed to dismiss a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell and MyPillow. Court filings show both sides agreed to drop all claims with prejudice. That means the case cannot be refiled. The lawsuit stemmed from Mike's repeated claims that Dominion helped rig the 2020 presidential election. Allegations the company strongly denied. The dismissal marks a significant end to one of the most closely watched election-related lawsuits stemming from the 2020 presidential race. I am just celebrating the good news coming out of this. Tell us about this legal case and what the latest is. Well, here it is everybody. This is the second one now. Remember the evidence, the $5 million challenge got overturned last summer and they said Mike was right. This is all about the voting machine evidence and now yesterday, if you don't see in the news, they did one article out there from law and crime. Dominion dropped the lawsuit against Mike Lindell and MyPillow and that was yesterday. I just want everybody to know it doesn't mean anything that I'm going to stop fighting these voting machine companies. It was a nice gesture, but we're all in to get rid of them, get to paper ballots, hand count it and here I'm going to announce right now it should be within the next half hour. We're going to be posting on Lindell TV, everybody. It's 800 page historical drop of the voting machine evidence. This has never been seen before. A lot of it, a lot of it you might have, we have bits and pieces were out there. This has been compiled over the last five years. This will be right here on Lindell TV. It'll be posted, like I say, in about 20 minutes. We're doing a press release on it and anyone that ever tells you then, Vanessa, that ever says, "Oh, there's no evidence, there's no evidence." This is like a library. It's a historical library with 500 and some articles and 100% evidence that back each thing up. This was actually part of this given to the president when he walked off that reporter a few weeks ago and he re-truth it. So it's a very exciting day. We're going to tie in all this stuff going on. It is a relief for me that my pillow, which never did anything when Dominion sued them for $1.3 billion with a B, everybody, and my employees had to sit and worry about that because their CEO is out there practicing his free speech. This is a big relief. So we got one, two down. We are also appealing. The appeal just went out. It'll actually go out today. The Colorado case, that my pillow won a year ago. Vanessa, you were there. My pillow won and this is the last piece of that where we're putting in the appeal and hopefully they rule on that very fast. It seems like the voting machine companies are falling like dominoes here. Then we have the last one you'll see in the newest Smartmatic here in Minneapolis. That's like a parked car. It's sitting there because if everybody remembers the judge made a ruling before even going to trial that I defamed them and then a week later it came out that Smartmatic is in fact committing crimes with their company, with their voting machines and against other countries and a lot of that will be coming out too. But that was funny with that one because they're going, I'm going okay. A week after this judge makes this ruling here in Minneapolis, it all comes out that yes, this is a criminal organization basically. It's like I defamed the mafia, right? I figured it'd be like my cousin Vinny going, okay, in light of the new evidence, he's dismissed. But according to my lawyers, that's now how it is. It can just sit there like a parked car and judges can sit on it as long as they want.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

You know, President Trump takes a lot of heat. They claim he's doing these horrendous things. Horrendous things to government, to the culture, horrendous things to the Constitution. All lies. I tell you this from a historical and legal perspective. In fact, it is they, his opposition, the abuse of power, the Department of Justice, the prosecutors, the indictments, the different jurisdictions, the abuse of the 14th Amendment to keep them off the ballot and over and over and on and on. Two unconstitutional impeachments, already plotting another impeachment, already plotting to destroy the independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, to stack the Senate, to stack the House of Representatives, and God knows what else they have in store for us. How dare they point a finger at him or any of us, what it is they who are tyrannical and have a totalitarian mindset. And look what they're doing in New York City, destroying it, absolutely destroying it. And in fact, the blue states are depopulating. People are trying to get out of there if they can get new jobs. Many people, they feel they can't leave. They have a generational attachment. But the only states that are actually growing, and I don't mean with illegal aliens, I mean with American citizens and naturalized citizens, are red states. Are red states. And there's a reason for that. There's a reason why the Democrats want to take over the whole country. So there's no escape. No matter what state you go to, the iron fist of centralized big government will be thrown at you. President Trump has a very small, small majority in the House and the Senate, and he's trying to get things done as fast as he can because he knows that there's a midterm election. We pray that we win, but we don't know. And he knows he has less than three years left in his presidency, and he's a doer, and he wants to get things done, and he's reaching into the culture, not just politics, to try and reform and protect and defend this nation. And people say, "Look at this. He knocked off a senator from Louisiana. He knocked off a senator from Texas. He knocked off this crazy congressman from Kentucky. Who does that?" A little bit of history. FDR tried to do that. The great FDR, according to the Democrats, greater than George Washington, greater than Abraham Lincoln combined. Nobody liked FDR. Why? Because he was a big socialist. That's why. But that for another day. Our friends at TeachingAmericanHistory.org, frustrated by the setbacks that his administration encountered in its second term, President Franklin Roosevelt took the bold step of intervening in the 1938 Democratic primaries. His targets were conservative Democrats, mostly Southerners, who had joined Republicans in opposing New Deal measures. In races across the country, he stumped from liberal candidates and denounced conservative incumbents as traitors to the cause of his reform. He explained his efforts in a speech, a fireside speech, that he gave on June 24, 1938. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but let me give you a taste of it. He said, "After the election of 1936, I was told, and Congress was told by an increasing number of politically and worldly-wise people, that I should coast along and join easy presidency for four years and not take the Democratic platform too seriously. They told me that the people were getting weary of reform through political effort and would no longer oppose that small minority which, in spite of its own disastrous leadership in 1929, is always eager to resume its control over the government of the United States. Never in our lifetime has such a concerted campaign of defeatism been thrown at the heads of the President and the Senators and Congressmen as in the case of this 75th Congress." He had gotten a lot of his new deal through, once he threatened the Supreme Court and many of the senior members started retiring, replaced with his appointees, but he was now being blocked by several of the more moderate Senators, Democrats in Congress, who said, "We understand why you're trying to address the Depression, but we're not all in for this socialist stuff." He says, "Never before have so many copperheads." That's a copperhead. During the Civil War, these were Northern Democrats who sided with, not the South, but with bringing the Civil War to a quick conclusion. They opposed war. They were anti-war. They opposed the warmongers who were trying to win the Civil War, and they turned on Lincoln, and they wanted to negotiate peace with the confederacy. See, we've been through a lot of these things before, whether it's World War II, the Civil War, and now the war with Iran. We've had the so-called anti-war types who don't want victory, and so you don't get victory. He complains about them. He says, "This Congress has ended on the side of the people. My faith in the American people and their faith in themselves have been justified, and I congratulate the Congress and the leadership thereof, and I congratulate the American people on their own staying power." So he slaps them around and then pats them on the head. He does this in a lot of his speeches. He goes on, "Following out this line of thought, I want to say a few words about the coming political primaries." Here we get to the gist of it. "Fifty years ago, party nominations were generally made in conventions, a system typified in the public imagination by a little group in smoke-filled room who made out the party states. The direct primary was invented to make the nominating process a more democratic one, to give the party voters themselves a chance to pick their party candidates." He goes on, "An election cannot give the country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and names as peas in the same pod." In other words, the UNI party. The radicals always talk about the UNI party, whether they're the Woke Right, REICH, the Islamists or the Marxists, or Jess Kooks. "In the coming primaries, all parties, there will be many clashes between two schools of thought, generally classified as liberal and conservative. Roughly speaking, the liberal school of thought recognizes the new conditions throughout the world and they call for new remedies." And of course, the conservatives, Jess, the old school, you know, big business, big government, all the Bernie Sanders claptrap. But he says later, "With the head of the Democrat party charged with the responsibility of carrying out the definitely liberal declaration of principles set forth in the 1936 Democratic platform, I feel that I have every right to speak in those few instances where there may be a clear-cut issue between candidates for a democratic nomination involving these principles or involving a clear misuse of my own name." So he goes out and he campaigns to actually help pick candidates to take on these more conservative candidates. He's wildly popular, FDR won a landslide, but in every case where he tried to knock off a more conservative or moderate Democrat, his candidate lost except one in New York. Every other case, FDR's candidate lost. And it set back his administration. The party was angry. If he had won, they wouldn't be so angry, but he lost. Every one but won. He lost Walter George, a senator in Georgia, George won. Miller Tidings in Maryland won. FDR lost. Ellison Smith in South Carolina won. FDR lost. But he won this chairman of the House Rules Committee in New York, John O'Connor. He defeated him, but that's it. He didn't defeat anybody else. I want you to compare that to Donald Trump. Again, you got a couple vote majority in the House and you got guys like Massey who represent one small congressional district who are trying to undermine the president's landslide victory. One congressman, maybe two or three, because the majority is so tight. So they're trying to take his mandate and destroy it. And the president knows, President Trump, I got to get my agenda through. And I have a few of these senators who do the same thing. I got one senator who actually voted a removal from office in the second impeachment when I already was a private citizen. And he expects me to be supporting him in a Republican primary. What Donald Trump has done is what FDR tried to do, but failed. Not only that in Donald Trump's case, it's not only Louisiana, it's not only state senators in Indiana. It's not only Massey in Kentucky. It's not only the Senate race in Georgia with this Raffensperger. It's not only Cornyn in Texas, but before that, the president got involved in all these primaries in his first term. I don't think he's lost one. Maybe it's one or two, but whatever it is, it's inconsequential. So for those people who say, you know, Donald Trump's lost a step. You know, MAGA's divided. You know, MAGA's tiny, tiny thing that just represents Mark Levin. These are fools and buffoons. MAGA is as strong as ever. In fact, the Republican Party is MAGA. And MAGA is Donald Trump's movement. And we've got the general election. Everything will be put to the test come November. But those are the facts.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

So tell me if I have my legal bearings correct here. The president has immunity for his actions while president, not afterwards or not before, but while president. Somebody like Joe Biden does not have immunity and he was involved in this. Somebody like Hillary Clinton, of course, does not have immunity. She was never president, never will be. So you could see potentially some very big names brought down in this. Is that correct, Mike? Yes. And presidential immunity applies to your official acts. If you investigate Barack Obama, he can litigate whether it is an official act for him to set loose the Democrat National Committee, the Steele dossier, to work with his Justice Department, with his FBI, with the CIA to orchestrate the biggest scandal in American history, to use your law enforcement and intel agencies to help a presidential candidate of Hillary Clinton and hurt a presidential campaign of Donald Trump. And that's exactly what they did. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Clapper, Brennan. There were so many bad actors in this. And the law fair against President Trump to take him out afterwards with the prosecutions, poor prosecutions for non-crime. Non-crime is trying to bankrupt Trump for non-fraud several times, trying to take him off the ballot unconstitutionally. And several states tried to take off his head by underfunding a secret service protection. And Biden saying Trump was a fascist and the gravest threat to democracy and to put a bullseye on. These law fair Democrats must be held accountable. So this never happens again. If they're not held accountable, it's going to be very ugly the next time they're back in the White House and they run the Justice Department and the CIA. So, hold on, Mike. I have to dig down on that answer. So you're telling me that Barack Obama's actions, even as president, if they were illegal, it could still be charged. So Barack Obama could potentially be charged here as well? Presidential immunity is an affirmative defense. You can charge him, even charge him as an unindicted co-conspirator. I'd charge him, but I'm a little bit more bold and fearless than most. But then you let Barack Obama litigate whether he has presidential immunity. Barack Obama is the most demonic force in American politics in decades. He is an evil man who is a Marxist Trojan horse who was the worst actor in politicizing and weaponizing our intelligences and law enforcement to go after your political enemies. This guy is a fraud. He is a Marxist, and he is subversive. He's the Trojan horse for the Marxists. And he absolutely was and is trying to destroy America from within. He tried to create so many racial grievances, racial tensions, sicking the intel agencies and the FBI, the Justice Department, after your political enemies. monster and he has to be held accountable.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.