B (2:46)

I'm glad to be back. Thanks for having.

A (2:49)

The floor is yours. Give us your update of what's going on. You're about to testify at the Arizona hearing here in Phoenix. What have you been discovering with the important work you've been doing with the Voter Integrity Project?

B (3:02)

Well, we wrapped up most of the investigation work and analysis late last week, and the conclusion I reached that I shared is that based solely on our data, not on anybody else's data or theories or not even on other analyses that was done using our data, we concluded that the winner of the presidential election cannot be determined. There are enough questionable ballots to put that into doubt. And this has been an issue in several elections in the past. States and municipalities. We can say fairly conclusively is that the actual winner of this election is unclear because of how many illegal ballots, how many ballots we strongly believe were illegal have been cast in some of the pivotal states. Because we cannot say with confidence that Joe Biden won the state of Wisconsin, Georgia or Arizona on the basis of our findings. And without those, he doesn't become the president. He's not rightfully elected president because were Trump to have won those states, they would go to the House of Representatives and then he would be reelected. Because of the way the elections work, you know, when state delegations get to choose essentially the next president. So based on our findings, we can't say conclusively that Biden won. He, he may have won, Trump may have won. But again, just on our narrow analysis, where we have names, addresses, phone numbers of people who should not have cast ballots, didn't meet residency requirements, et cetera, or said that they didn't vote even though a ballot was cast in their name, we are able to reach basically the numbers of the margins in those three states.

A (4:36)

Well, I first want to compliment you because you guys have been relentless. You have been focused, and you've really been effective in what you've been doing. I have a lot of questions for you, but I want to start with one that has kind of been breaking. Reports are showing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation contacted you for some of your data. Is this true, and can you add some context to that?

B (4:59)

I made a tweet saying that the FBI reached out to us proactively, although we were intending to share everything with them anyway. And I have nothing more to say about it.

A (5:09)

Okay, that's fair enough. And I appreciate that. I think everybody listening knows exactly what that means. Can you share some specifics about what you have been finding? I have been reading a lot of your tweets and your information. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're finding that a lot of people are registering to vote at mailboxes or postal service locations. Is that correct? Can you help explain that for us?

B (5:36)

Sure. That's one of the phenomenon that we didn't set out to study, but we ended up discovering it thanks to the work of one of our satellite teams led by Justin. And so I have to give him a shout out. But when you register to vote, you actually have to put where you live, where you physically live, reside. And, you know, if you're homeless, it can be a park or a homeless shelter or a church or something like that. Or if you live in your car, you know, down, down on your luck, that's fine. You can list wherever you park or whatever. It has to be where you actually reside. What we found in large numbers in Philadelphia or Pennsylvania and in Georgia, and we're actually finding similar numbers now in Michigan, is a lot of people, they register their physical location at this. That looks like 1, 2, 3, Happy Lane, apartment 12. But it turns out 123 Happy Lane is a postal facility, and there's no apartment 12. It's P.O. box 12. So not only are these not valid addresses to register, it seems that there was an intent to disguise a PO Box as a residential address. And we've discovered a tremendous amount of these. And there's. The thing about this is that there's no doubt that these are not legitimate, legitimately registered voters. And these aren't just people who founded the registered voter list. These are people who cast ballots and interestingly enough, overwhelmingly cast them via mail. Not showing up in person, but by mail. They voted by mail. And not only is this. I mean, the Postal service gives a list of all of its leased locations. You can pull any of these up on Google and see, oh, that's a UPS store, FedEx store, or postal facility. So that's public. And that matches exactly with so many people on the voter list who are not just on the voter list, but voted. And beyond that, though, the way they registered themselves or whoever registered them, they. They registered as apartment or suite or unit number, not PO Box number. Why? Because if you put PO Box number, it bounces you out of the system because it's not legitimate. So this is a certain level of deceptiveness that we stumbled onto and it's a significant number of people in Georgia.

A (7:37)

And so incredibly, wouldn't the Secretary of State's office, they would be tasked with proving the authenticity of the integrity of people that register to vote. I mean, call me old school, but even when I registered to vote in the corrupt state of Illinois, I had to register to vote with a voter id. Now, I didn't have to vote with a voter id, but when I had to register, I had to at least prove that I was living where I was registering to vote. How is it possible in a Republican state, Georgia, I'm just asking, is just to be curious that you could register as basically on the side of a barn door, right?

B (8:10)

That's a great question. And our plan is, as we ramp this project up, as we've kind of finished our investigation, is we're going to be putting together a FedEx pack for each of the six states that we've investigated and addressing one to the attorney General of each state and the Board of Elections or Secretary of State, whoever's most in charge. We're going to drop the documents and, and a USB jump drive with all the names, all the data on it and tell them they, they've got to investigate this. And we're going to be counting on people like you and people on Twitter, etc. To tell, to get people to call those secretary states, call those attorney attorney generals to turn up the heat and say, okay, here's evidence, go do your job.

A (8:50)

And what you're saying is that you have, you have enough evidence to show that this is now clouded, it's tampered, it's tainted, it is unknown. Right. And that's a very important distinction. Right. Because if the Federalist Papers talk about this, the House of Representatives should then remedy anything that cannot be conclusively determined who is the winner.

B (9:14)

That's correct. And you know what's interesting is this used to be a big issue on the left. They used to make a lot of noise about the problems of potential mail in ballots because historically it was Republicans who voted overwhelmingly with mail in ballots. It's not no longer the case. Right, right. So here's, and I just want to quote to you in New York, this is the New York Times said voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner. And now we're in that situation with the presidency and suddenly this stuff I Don't know. They don't know what? No one wants to talk to me anymore, so.

A (9:51)

Well, we do. And so can you give us some idea as you're in the green room right now about to testify in front of the nation? By the way, we're streaming live on all of our platforms. We have about 20,000 people watching just on our platforms. No pressure, but also, it's millions of people watching this. What are you gonna say at this hearing? Can you give us some insight?

B (10:11)

Yeah, I'm going to review the findings of our analyses in Arizona, and if they have questions about other states, and I'm actually going to have a little audio visual element. I've got recordings of people our call center call telling are people that they did not cast the ballot or that they did not request an absentee ballot. Which is another huge problem is that we sort of took a shot in the dark and thought, you know, there are a lot of unreturned absentee ballots. I wonder if these people actually request them. And we found in Arizona almost half the people that we reached who got an absentee ballot but didn't return it told us that they never requested it in the first place. So who requested these absentee ballots in their names?

A (10:48)

So how big was that sample size? I'm just curious. Was it 100 people? 200? I'm sure it was significant.

B (10:55)

Well, our universe of people we were able to reach was about 2000, and about a thousand of them told us. So. Now other people have taken our data and done projections on, like, what the entire universe is. There's about a half million unreturned absentee ballots in. Now, I want to be specific. Something funny about Arizona. Unlike all the other states in Arizona, we're actually only dealing with data from Maricopa County. It's not been available for anybody else. So we're only looking at early absentee voters in Maricopa county alone. And even among them, we've shown that these tremendous numbers.

A (11:27)

And Maricopa is obviously the biggest county, the one that had the most stunning kind of turn of events. It's traditionally a Republican county, but I guarantee you, if you looked into Pima county, which is a traditional Democrat stronghold, you'd find the same sort of irregularities in the state of Arizona. So what you're telling me is that you did a 2000 person universe and 1000 out of the 2000 were shown to be. They said, I did not request a ballot or I did not vote by mail. Is that correct?

B (11:57)

I'm pulling the numbers up Here. So we reached 2044 people, 902 said we did not request. So that's, that's, that's just about 45%.

A (12:08)

All those 902 got ballots.

B (12:11)

Yes. And among this universe, this was the total universe here, was about over half a million. We were only able to match phones to about half of them. And you know how phones centers work is that you got to give them like 50,000 numbers to reach about 1,000 people. So that's kind of what we found here.

A (12:27)

But that's not 50, it's not 100. That's a very serious sample size. And I want to compliment you because for our listeners right now that are just kind of, I could just envision a lot of our listeners, they're like, well, why do you have to do this? It's because you're a citizen patriot who is rising up and doing this type of work. And quite honestly, this is what the bureau should be doing, right? This is what the DOJ should be doing. And so that's just Arizona. Did you find that kind of irregularity of ballots not being sent in Georgia and Pennsylvania as well?

B (13:02)

We found it a phenomenon in all six of the states that we investigated. In all of them, as many as usually as low as 18% of the people who received advocacy ballots who didn't request them. I mean, sorry, who didn't return them. So that's already kind of an artificial number because we're only talking people who the state said they sent a ballot but didn't get one back from them. And then even among those who did request the ballot, many of them said they sent them back, which is a phenomenon, its own people sending their ballots back saying we never got them. And that was, that's also significant in all these states, statistically significant. So actually, you know, in Michigan, for example, we actually decided to do a supplemental program just reaching out to everybody who got an apesity bout whether they returned it or not. Everybody in Michigan. And we found that 13% of them never requested it or told us they never requested it. So, you know, the numbers can be much higher because, you know, talking to a stranger on a phone, kind of some people a little bit cautious about that.

A (14:02)

That is absolutely incredible. So I know you have to testify shortly. What do you think then is the proper path forward based on your evidentiary findings for state legislatures? How should they act based on your findings?

B (14:16)

You know, that's my lane is developing this data and presenting it and making it understandable, accessible. It's really up to the lawyers, the Judges and the legislatures decide what the curative action is here. But it's somebody, somebody told me, you know, what if I gave you a million bucks and a bunch of FBI agents, could you actually figure out who really won this election? The truth is I can't. So the only theoretical solution, I'm not proposing this, but in my mind you'd have to basically spend about three months cleaning the state's voter lists and then have a new election. And we both know that's fantasy, so.

A (14:53)

Yeah, but it's not fantasy to all of a sudden say we are gonna push this to the House of Representatives if the election is tainted, which based on all of your findings, it very much shows that it is. So how can people find your data? Are you going to make this publicly available?

B (15:12)

I'm putting together a white paper that's going to have as much of this available as possible. One of the challenges I have as I've gone through this, I've realized is that originally what my plan was to just put all the data out there, right? Of all the names of all the people we found, etc. The problem is that if I do that, my means of distributing it, primarily Twitter and some other social networks would actually delete my account because that in their book is doc sync. Even though it's all public information, you're well familiar with this. So what I've done doing instead is I'm providing the raw data to law enforcement agencies, to attorneys who are going into court where it's, it makes sense, and then providing a very information rich white paper. I also have journalists coming over to my, my headquarters sitting next to me saying where I can visually show it to them so they can kind of verify that I'm not, you know, making all this stuff up.

A (15:59)

Well, I'd be happy to do that

B (16:00)

with you if we have time this evening.

A (16:01)

I would love to. Yeah, just text, I mean just text me. Because we're both kind of in the same place here and we've been kind of manning the battleship here. I'd love to go through this and be able to kind of take eyes on it. So I just wanna compliment you. I know you have to go testify here. Matt and I wanted to do this kind of quick interview. We'll post it immediately because it takes a lot of guts and it takes a lot of perseverance to go through it. Cuz I'm sure you receive your fair share of backlash and people trying to demean your efforts. So how can people get behind you and support what you're doing well.

B (16:33)

First I have to thank my team. I couldn't have done this without them. We've got a lot of very experienced people and also we had nearly 9,000 donors step forward to fund this thing with 5, 10, $15 contributions. So I want to thank everyone. We've got more down. We've got stuff coming, big things coming in the next couple of weeks and in the beginning of the new year. So just follow me on Twitter. That's probably the best or gab or parler. I'm on all the platforms so just find me there. Follow me and I'll keep you and all of your viewers in the loop.

A (17:02)

Keep up the great work. Matt, thank you for joining us and good luck testifying.

B (17:06)

Thank you.

A (17:07)

Talk to you soon. Thanks. Thanks for listening everybody. Please consider supporting us@charliekirk.com support email us your questions freedom charliekirk.com thanks for listening. We are on top of the story. We're going to keep on diving deeper. Thanks so much. Talk to you soon.