Attorney's Brilliant Solution to Rigged Elections

[00:00:00]We are in a situation where there is such a not just practical but moral imperative that we I mean for the survival of our republic that we have senators who will pass election integrity reform, the Save America Act, that if there's a candidate who's willing to pass that, great. We have 4 months left until we are at risk of losing the chance to ever pass election integrity.

[00:00:23]>> But I have another idea, which I haven't seen too many people talk about, which is we just have Mike Johnson's house refuse to seat members of the California delegation who were not ahead on election day.

[00:00:34]>> The Democrats have stolen an election again. We're supposed to sit here and just believe that Nithya Raman got twice the percentage of votes in late mail-in ballots as she did on election day.

[00:00:52]And that that has nothing to do with Gavin Newsom's break-the-glass scenario.

[00:00:56]We're going to do everything possible, he said, to make sure that that Republicans don't win.

[00:01:01]We have an attorney with us today who can point authorities to exactly where they should start investigating in order to identify who knew because whenever there's a crime, someone always knows. There's someone out there who knows the information that we need to know. And we have an attorney today who knows where to point authorities to identify who knew about this rigging of the mayoral election in Los Angeles before it happened. Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article 3 Project, joins us now. Will, thanks for being here.

[00:01:33]>> Thanks for having me, Liz.

[00:01:34]>> Okay, well, um, how do we identify the people who knew? You had, I think, one of the best leads for investigators on where they can start to identify the people behind this.

[00:01:46]>> Well, I mean, if I were investigating, I'd start with the prediction markets where kind of early pretty pretty early on on election day, well before there was any sort of public indication that uh votes were going to start going Nithya Raman's way uh so dramatically with late mail-ins. There was a big boost in her She was She was getting way ahead in her uh in her prediction market odds, even though she was still She was down massively in the count at that point. Uh so, I think that's that's the first place you start. I think where some Somebody was my you know, honestly, I do think that somebody you know, somebody somehow was aware that a bunch of ballots were going to start coming in for Raman. And I don't in And one of the things I I think is important in this whole thing is I I don't have any particular theory of how that happened. I have some guesses as to possibilities that may have been may have explained it, but you start with the assumption that the California's election laws are so frivolous. They lack so They lack integrity to such a degree that there are a myriad number of ways in which cheating could have happened.

[00:02:43]And therefore, there's no reason to pick one and say, "Well, this is the most likely." You You just don't even have to. Basically, think about it this way.

[00:02:49]If you were the state If the State Department looks at like a third-world country's elections that are just ridiculous and obviously low integrity and the result is preposterous.

[00:02:58]Are they asked, "How do you think the African dictator stole the election? Do you have evidence of the way in which he stole the election?"

[00:03:05]That's not what the State Department says. The State Department says, "These are frivolous. Your election results are toilet paper. You are not legitimate."

[00:03:11]The end. And no one asked them to No one expects that No one calls them a conspiracy theorist. They're not even proffering a theory. They're just like, "These are This is toilet paper. We're not We're not treating it with any seriousness." And I think that's the right attitude here, right? Like the As you say, I don't The distinction between Bass Democrats and Raman Democrats seems frivolous to me in the context of late mail-in ballots. There's no good reason for it. Um you know, I I like I I buy the general idea that Democrats are more likely to use mail than Republicans. I think that's been borne out pretty clearly over the last 5 years or so, but I don't I don't buy any sort of within Democrats that there's some clear distinction between how socialists respond and how normal liberals respond with mail. I think they both like mail.

[00:03:52]>> And Karen Bass, by the way, is so radical. Like, in a sense, she and Nithya Raman are a difference without a distinction. This is >> They're different varieties of communists. Like, one's an older communist and the other one's a newer communist.

[00:04:02]>> Yes.

[00:04:03]>> Right. Like, one was in the Venceremos Brigade that went to Cuba in the '70s, and the other is in DSA, which is the current, you know, current formulation of communism.

[00:04:11]>> the way, DSA and that brigade are actually like funded by the same place now.

[00:04:15]>> Right.

[00:04:16]>> Like, the the these women are are Like, the biggest difference is probably age.

[00:04:20]I don't even know or that >> Yeah.

[00:04:21]>> they don't like each other. Like, their policy-wise, they're not that different.

[00:04:23]And yet, Nithya Raman doubled from 22% to 44%, and Karen Bass doubled by 4%. That is just patently unbelievable to me. Um, so, the Cauchy thing, I think is really the the prediction markets. The one I saw going around in X was um Cauchy specifically. This is interesting to me because we saw this happen just what, like a month and a half ago, 2 months ago, um when there was an enormous bet placed on the probability that the Trump administration would attack Iran by I think it was like the next night or 2 nights later.

[00:04:55]>> I think it was Venezuela. It was I'm not sure if it was Venezuela. It like there were so many who got indicted for it.

[00:04:59]Right, there was like one of the Delta Force guys who got indicted for it or like a Delta Force support person.

[00:05:04]Right, it got indicted for making a big bet on we're going to go after Maduro right before it happened. So, I I mean, I I think that's a place to start.

[00:05:11]>> We are in a situation where there is such a not just practical but moral imperative that we, I mean, for the survival of our republic, not to be hyperbolic, quite literally, that we have senators who will pass election integrity reform, the Save America Act, that if there's a candidate who's willing to pass that, great. We have 4 months left until we are at risk of losing the chance to ever pass election integrity. If we don't have candidates willing to actually acknowledge that in a moment like this, then I mean, the Republican Party is really no better than the Democrats.

[00:05:44]>> an An solution to this problem. I haven't seen many top people talk this, but you know, people have talked a lot about the Save America Act. I mean, I I don't think we can pass it. We just don't have the votes, right? We got like some recalcitrant senators. I don't think we I don't think we could even reach 50.

[00:05:57]Um but I have another idea, which I haven't seen too many people talk about, which is uh we just have Mike Johnson's House refuse to seat members of the California delegation who were not ahead on uh in November.

[00:06:10]Right? Like we basically have you know, and that's understand Article 1 Section 5 says each house is the judge of the qualifications of its own members. Which mean and this is just not a reviewable question for the courts. The only thing they can review is whether there was individualized process. So what Here's my basic idea is Mike Johnson in the House when it comes time to actually seat the representatives from California, any representative who wasn't ahead on election day, you don't even you don't provisionally seat them and you send them you refer them to I I forget the name of the committee, but there's a committee that evaluates these things.

[00:06:40]Um and then you do individualized process and they have to show up and prove that they won legitimately. Uh and if they can't do that, then they don't get seat sat and California can go back and do a special election again.

[00:06:51]Um >> That's actually so interesting because Congress has the authority to do that and it's a way of auditing, you could say, the election integrity laws of states when the federal Congress like the Save America Act directly, even if it passed, you know, the voter ID provisions wouldn't apply to a local election in California, right? Like California could say, "Oh, you don't need voter ID to vote in the mayoral election even if you need it even if Congress says you need it to vote in a federal election." But that would be a very interesting way for Congress to say, "Well, maybe we don't have authority, but we do have authority."

[00:07:25]>> We I mean, we have the authority to determine who sits here and really I mean, the the federal question for California especially like Senate doesn't really matter, right? This Democrats are always going to get the two senators out of California. I don't think anybody really Everybody sort of takes that for granted and nobody really thinks we'll ever win a statewide Senate race in California in in 50 years. Uh but it's those house races, right? Much closer contested house races that, you know, and especially I mean if you remember the last few cycles, we've had these extremely tight house races where it's the late mail-in ballots again that get the Democrat across the finish line.

[00:07:55]Well, you know, if Republicans simply say, "You know what? Like we weren't able to pass some the Senate won't let us pass legislation forcing you to have this specific election regime. Fine.

[00:08:03]Okay. But your election regime is still frivolous. And again, we we treat your election results we think your election results are toilet paper. And we're the judge of our own members. So we're just not going to seat you. Like up to you guys if you want to change how your election process is working in the next 6 months, do it or don't. But if you don't and you want us to seat people who then win in this bizarre and manner, well, we're just not going to do it. And we're going to send them back to you for a special election. And we're just going to keep doing that because this is a this actually it's a bigger democracy than just California actually.

[00:08:32]And it's the entire country. And this is the democratic will of the House imposing its will on saying California is like you just you guys just don't get to be an aberration like this and and let us seat you. And I think this avoids the whole Senate filibuster problem entire it avoids the Senate entirely.

[00:08:48]It's just a house it's just the house majority saying no.

[00:08:50]Um so I think it's I think it's a much more productive thing than I feel like honestly we've just been sitting here like beating up on John Thune when it's not even John Thune's fault because he's got a bunch of senators >> Collins' fault.

[00:09:02]>> It's it's it's Tom Tillis and it's Bill Cassidy and it's it's uh uh you know, it's uh Murkowski. Like our majority is not big enough majority like we we don't really have a majority. We have like a quasi majority >> Have you proposed this idea to Speaker Johnson?

[00:09:15]>> I've just floated it. I'm going to throw I'll throw it his way see if he can do it. I mean the house seems a lot more amenable to doing this kind of stuff.

[00:09:21]Like they've the house when it needs to get together actually does do stuff.

[00:09:24]>> Listen, I will say I have been critical of Mike Johnson in the past over the FISA stuff um because he changed his mind on FISA reform after seeing you know, they he was shown something by the intel community and then he came out of the skiff and changed his mind on it. And I didn't like that, and I've been critical of him because of that. Um, I will tell you, if Mike Johnson does what you propose, >> Yeah.

[00:09:44]>> I will be his loudest cheerleader. This would be the most legacy-establishing-based, actually saving America move that we will have, I think, ever seen from a Speaker of the House. If he does this, um, like I said, I will take back all my criticism of him on everything else, because this will redeem him in the eyes of even people who have been like hurt by FISA. This would be the most badass thing that he could possibly do. I would be, um, so proud of him if he did this.

[00:10:14]>> Yeah, and that's that's sort of my attitude. Like, I mean, why why do we need to keep seating the California delegation if they're going to do this stuff? Like, and I think the threat of that is sufficient to like get some, you know, basically, I think that that would put, you know, there's there would be kind of a negotiation between the Republican House and the California state government, where it's sort of like, "If you don't give us any say, then we're not going to seat you." And maybe then the California government does some things to like improve. Like, and maybe the Supreme Court also could solve this problem by saying that election day means election day. Solve some of the problem, rather, by >> they will, by the way? That's I know that they're like that's under consideration.

[00:10:48]>> You do?

[00:10:49]>> Yeah, I absolutely think they will. Uh, I think, I mean, especially given the stuff. You have elections like this, and you see that, and it's like this is exactly why we have an election day.

[00:10:56]It's exactly why we have an election day. You know, the California is not just abnormal, it's like the the an outlier in terms of the 50 states, it's an outlier in terms of western >> the the, you know, the western world.

[00:11:08]>> I mean, it's an outlier even like compared to third world countries. Like, >> Yeah, no, third world dictators would blush at that.

[00:11:12]>> What did uh, over 90% of like 27 million votes in like 12 hours following their election, and we're like weeks after a mayoral election and statewide elections in California that can't even count 10 million. It's actually like embarrassing.

[00:11:26]>> And they want to lecture us. Like, this is the thing I just get so offended by this. Like, these people, you know, these Democrats like flout every election integrity measure that the Western world uses everywhere else and then lecture Republicans on how dare you, you know, cast doubt on our election processes. Like how dare you Well, screw you, actually. How dare you not make your Because here's the difference, for example.

[00:11:50]They're basically they're saying you must trust us. It's like we don't expect you to trust us. Here's how Here's how that works, right? In Florida, for example, Democrats don't trust Ron DeSantis. I don't blame him. That's fine. Like you're not You're entitled not to trust the people of the opposing party. They hate him, for sure.

[00:12:04]Is there any Democrat who really is going to get up and say that the Florida elections have any room for cheating?

[00:12:10]Like that that the Republicans are stealing those elections. They're not.

[00:12:12]They can't They can't. It's not possible, right? Like they count all the votes within 2 hours of polls closing and publish the results. Everybody has to show up with an ID. Like there's there's so many different layers of protection that are all there. And it's What it's basically saying is like look, you can think we're corrupt knaves, but like our hands are open. Like you can see everything we're doing. There's no way we're cheating.

[00:12:32]And from our perspective, it's like Democrats like instead of being that transparent are completely the opposite.

[00:12:38]They're like no, we're just going to spit in the face of every election integrity measure and then lecture you on how you still need to trust us. No, screw you, actually, right? And And that's what I mean that's what I think the the Johnson option is. The Johnson option is no, screw you. Your Your elections are bogus and we're not going to treat them as serious. We're treating you like a third world dictatorship, right? If If And you don't have to be like you don't have to say the entire House delegation of California doesn't get sat, but you just look you're saying like look, we don't anything that happens after election day is something we don't trust. So, if your guy wasn't leading on election day, then basically he's not getting sat and he gets referred to an individualized hearing where he can try and prove that he actually won.

[00:13:16]And that's how it works.

[00:13:17]>> It would be like I said, it would be the most base badass thing. Like we are literally at this crisis point in our nation where we have to be we have to think about the ramifications of I mean, let me read your tweet. Your tweet is actually you can say it better than I can. This is what you put on X.

[00:13:31]You said universal vote by mail plus mail ballots to every registered voter without request plus ancient voter rolls plus accepting ballots 7 days after election day equal cheating is obviously both possible and undetectable and so you should presume there is cheating.

[00:13:46]>> Yes.

[00:13:47]And while being completely agnostic as to how the cheating happened, right?

[00:13:50]That's the thing like, you know, I have you know, there's things I could say to Bill Essayli and be like, "Hey, you should start here. This would be probably be a good place to start investigating."

[00:13:56]>> attorney, yeah.

[00:13:57]>> Right. But to be totally agnostic. Like I don't know. You know, and I can just think of a a number of different interests who for whatever reason would want Nithya Raman to be in second place, right? But Spencer Pratt was spending his entire campaign creating viral videos about how Los Angeles and various NGOs were ripping off taxpayers. If I were one of those NGOs, I'd want the Pratt campaign to be over. Right?

[00:14:19]Simple. Uh if I were a Nithya Raman supporter or DSA, I'd want DSA to have more governing power.

[00:14:24]Duh, right? Like I can think of basically people People will put out the theory and they'll say things like, "So are you saying Karen Bass rigged the election?" I'm like, "I didn't say that.

[00:14:32]I don't think she I don't think Karen Bass personally would want to be against Nithya Raman. I think she'll she knows she'll beat Spencer Pratt if or would beat Spencer Pratt if she was, you know, head-to-head with him in LA.

[00:14:43]But I can think of a lot of people who would really want Nithya Raman to be in second. Um that aren't And the thing about California's election processes is it's not about I don't I doubt that the fraud is occurring at the actual vote counting center. I doubt it. I think the fraud is occurring when the votes are being put in the mail. That's where I That's what I think. That's my guess.