Kerry Lake's bombshell election case goes bust following a judge's ruling that baffles legal experts while China's zero covid policy ushers in a post pandemic pandemic that highlights why one party communist governments can. finally, the US Supreme Court upholds Title 42 in response to the chaos on the border that now threatens to go full. Karen crazy. All these topics and more on the next episode of The Good Fight. I'm your host, Marc Thielman. Please stay with us. Well, hello and welcome to The Good Fight. I am your host, Marc Thielman. That's Marc with a C. C Stands for Conservative, and we have got a fascinating holiday, if you will, post Christmas analysis of what could potentially be one of the most historic election challenges in recent history, at least since the Gore. Hanging Shad debacle in Florida back in 2000. Yes. Kerry Lake, candidate for Governor Republican, challenging. Katie Hobbs, secretary of State. Also running for governor as a Democrat. 17,000 votes separated them and Carrie Lake had submitted, as I have said in previous episodes, a pretty credible complaint, if you will, into the courts. And as you can imagine, the shock of Katie Hobbs and her team when the judge allowed at least a sizable portion of that case to go to trial. Yes. It was no dismissal. That is what the judge said to Katie Hobbs, because why? Probably not because the judge wanted to allow it to go to trial, but mainly because the Republican majority. in the Arizona legislature following the 2020 election passed a law that said any elector, which means anyone who votes, may challenge the validity of an election. And what it meant was that that judges had to use and apply a certain set of criteria so that they couldn't just arbitrarily dismiss every single election challenge like we saw happen. In the, uh, 2020 election. Now, I do want people to understand that judges are human beings and they're under tremendous pressure, especially as things have become so politicized in, blue states like California, Oregon, and Washington. Republicans and members of the political minority, if you will, have turned to the courts to try to get check and balance. Well, Kerry Lake did the same along with, secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem. I wanted to highlight a little bit. because if you watch mainstream media, basically they're like, oh, please, Carrie Lake should be sanctioned. She's a threat to democracy. I mean, that's literally how they're reporting. This is if Carrie Lake didn't have a point. Now a couple of things that were interest. First the judge said, yeah, we're gonna go to trial. And then everybody showed up for trial and the judge said, yeah, but yeah, you can't get to talk about that, but you gotta talk about this. So basically you can tell the judge is under pressure, because the judge had to allow the issue of the ballots being misprinted and the issue of the chaos that those misprinted ballots, caused at certain precinct locations for people wanting to vote in. On election day, so that was the gist where the judge said clearly this is an issue. Clearly it was widely report. even, Katie Hobbs teams admitted that there were problems. Well, we had a couple problems, but there were nobody's fault, your Honor. I mean, after all mistakes happen, but none of it could have affected the election. So the judge basically said, okay, fine. I really gotta let this go through, or I will lose all credibility, so I'm gonna allow a two day. kind of a limited trial. In other words, there's a tool that judges can use where they can say, well, we'll just kind of go through the exercise of a trial, but we'll put some parameters on it so that we still get the outcome we want. Now remember, this is a partisan judge. However, the judge also is concerned about his, you know, their reputation, so, so you can see that the judge said, I know how to handle. We're gonna allow it to go to trial, but I'm going to say what the person has to prove. Now, here's the comedy of it. If you apply the Arizona statute, and it is a statute that, again, was recently passed and it had almost zero coverage, if you will. Zero that is, in the mainstream media. And what's baffling about it is it was really only until, the case was allowed to go to trial that lawyers, legal scholars, people who have, you know, decades worth of, legal training and work came in to say, Hey, that's kinda weird that the judge set that criteria because this Arizona law is so clear. And now just for those of you who might wanna look this law up, it's a r s 16 dash 6 72. Section a subsection one, so I'll go through it real fast. A RS 16 dash 6 72 a one for challenging an election, and basically it says, that, any miscue that could potentially be misconduct and that included things like malfeasance. Misfeasance and Non Feasance. Now, for those who aren't legal scholars, I'm here to help. That's why we have the good fight. The good fight is a show. If you're new designed to arm you, the listener with all the tools you need to have. Truly credible, intellectual, reasonable conversations, informed conversations in particular with your loved ones on the left, so that we might help bring them back to common sense so that they might live their day. In a thing called reality rather than getting on the trolley like Mr. Rogers used to take so many children to in the 1960s and seventies. Hey, let's go to the land and make believe you know where all the woke people live. Here's what I want people to understand, the legislature had an intent with this law that said, we're gonna allow for challenges. Any elector can challenge. They're not gonna be ridiculed, they're not gonna be called election deniers. And the judge must apply a set of criteria for evaluating. whether or not, it has standing, to go to trial, or to some kind of hearing. So, what's interesting is it says here that the challenging election for misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties or state or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvas. For a state election, this is what I want people to understand. That is kind of like, Grandma's night shirt. A statement like that basically says it covers everything, right? Just like grandma's night shirt covers everything right up, right up to the years, all the way down to the tippy toes, you can't see anything. It's covered. So that means that Katie Hobbs, the Secretary of State, or the lowly precinct poll worker, any agent, if you will, any officer, any supervisor. who might commit a malfeasant action? In other words, may not follow the rules or might do something, eh, a little nefarious now, even if they didn't mean to. Okay. That's what misfeasance is. We were told to put all the ballots in this box and mix'em in with already counted ballots and, uh, not all of'em got. But don't worry, it wasn't 17,000, it couldn't have been enough to affect the outcome of the election. Now, that actually was an actual argument from the, uh, secretary of State Katie Hobbs team. So the, the humor of it is, even in the sense of non feasance, where a person thinks that they're doing what they're told, and turns out that they made it even worse. If that non feasance affects the outcome of the election or disenfranchised voters or even more so, creates a chaotic situation where people might drive up, see the long line, and never even come in and check in, say, screw that. That's called non feasance. It's, it's called voter suppress. So the humor of it is, the Carry Lake team went to trial with the belief that the judge would focus on the statute, a r s 16 dash 6 72 A one, and that broad base. statement, the grandma's night shirt statement that basically says, at any level, any significant malfeasance, which means purposely screwing things up. Like, I was too tired to lock the, uh, the belly box. You know what I'm saying? Now, that could be a situation that under this law would allow an elector to challenge the outcome of the election because they would say, Hey, you didn't follow a chain of custody, and these are the four issues. but the judge swung for the cheap seats. He said to Carrie Lake, look, you need to show, two illegal tabulator configurations, so that she had to prove that the, um, ballots that were set to what's called shrink to fit for her screen, which is a 19. View instead of the 20 inch view that were supposed to be printed on the ballot cards. So the ballot was slightly smaller probably, you know, to the average election worker looked legit. They handed tons of them out. Guess what? They couldn't tabulate them. It caused a huge backup. Major chaos, right? Long lines, et cetera. So he said, you have to have these configurations and you have to identify the malfeasant person and the printer malfunction, must cause enough lost votes for the candidate to affect the election, and those votes would have. affected the election to the point that is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt, if you will. and then the fourth one was, she also had to show that there were significant and consistent issues regarding chain of custody. Now, what's interesting about that is that this Arizona law, does not require the key word, consistent chain of custody issues. It says inconsistent, including inconsistent chain of custody issues, especially in a large county. Like Maricopa County. So I really want everyone to hear this because what you're hearing in this podcast is not what the mainstream media is out saying. What they're doing is they're going, oh, please, Gary Lake. Oh, she cares about, it's her own reputation. I mean, that's literally what they're saying. They're literally saying that she's an idiot, that she's an election denier, that she's a bad person. When in reality, any credible legal expert that doesn't have a dog in the fight. And this is why so many out-of-state, nationally recognized legal experts have come in to kind of chime in and say, Hey, hey, wait a minute. there's some issues here. I don't want to go too much into detail about the legal mumble jumbo so what I have done is I have applied my woke Bain fueled mind. Yes. My woke Bain mug had an elixir in it, shall we say, some holiday cheer in which I took a sip of. It tasted just like eggnog except water down with milk. It's a long story. I gotta count my calories, but as I sip, Tasty Holiday brew, I must say that common sense filled my cranium and it allowed me to assess several of these analyses and to bring you the main points of which I'm going to roll off in order. So number one, you can't just say there was an estimation of this many people disenfranchised. You must prove that the people who came to. couldn't vote. Now, the only way to do that is there were a series of people, a few hundred people who came to the precinct polling station. They checked in, they waited in line till they couldn't stand anymore, and then they left. So there are several hundred people that, that they could prove. Did that. But after all, only a few hundred mine that's not 17,000. Now the humor of it is, under the Arizona. all you have to show is a significant delay that might cause people to drive by and never check in at all. Now it's very humorous because there have been several election challenges over the years on multiple continents, but especially in the United States that, strangely the judge, uh, paid no attention to. I mean, it's, it seems to be an interesting phenomena. There are several cases, for example, my favorite one was the one in Germany where on they had a similar law to the Arizona law. And all the elector did was say the lines were so long that a lot of people just turned around and never checked in at all. And guess what? Because that judge in Germany was focusing on the statute, the judge said, Nope, that qualifies re. New election so the humor of it is, this judge said, nope. you've got to show this really high bar. And the thing is it's really inappropriate for the judge to have set that. you know what's interesting? It's almost like the judge, in my opinion, Had the outcome in mind prior to the exercise of the trial because the judge also allowed all kinds of, defense, Katie Hobbs', uh, secretary of State defense teams to bring in all kinds of things that normally wouldn't meet the evidentiary threshold, which is usually a sign that you have a biased. You know what I'm saying? It's like the time I was in court for a traffic ticket and, uh, I brought in like weather maps and, and temperatures and pictures of the road and, you know, testimony from a radar expert who said you can't use a mobile radar on a, on a four-lane highway with a double lane median in it. And, the manufacturer didn't recommend that I brought in all this evidence into traffic court. What did the officer bring? He read a. That was written by the county, council. but he had no way of proving anything he said. Basically he was saying, it's my word against Mr. Thiel Man's and all of this evidence from experts and weather and, and all these things that affect a radar outcome., and then he conceded to all of my evidence, most of which this judge wouldn't allow in. It was fascinating. I. Well, your Honor, you know, this is a preponderance of evidence, but what I learned later was that because I'm a politically active guy and I had been critical of the county here in Lane County, it did c give me pause when the judge acted one, like she knew me and made a statement, well, Mr. Thorman, were aware. Of your perspective. So at the very end of the case, I said to the honor, I said, your Honor, is this not a preponderance of evidence where it's 50 plus one, right? She said, yeah. And I said, well, then how come the, the officer has no evidence. I've submitted all this evidence, half of which you didn't even allow me to submit and witness testimony, et cetera. 30 year record of no speeding tickets. Um, help me with this. And then she said, rule against you, Mr. Thalman. Yes. This is what I'm talking about. If you cannot go to court and have a judge follow the strict criteria, in my case it was preponderance of Evidence, but what this judge said was you have to prove, in other words, plaintiff, the burden of proof is on you, not on the Secretary of State. to prove otherwise. That is weird. It is baffling. And that is what these legal analyses, have really been focusing on. They're all like, what? What? But. What, so in reality, unbeknownst to the general media consumer, the consensus is that Carrie Lakes team did a pretty darn good job of meeting those standards, but those standards, could not be met. However, the standards set by the statute. Were clearly met. The judge said Lake would need to show for count two legal tabulator configurations. The mal fees in person, the printer malfunction. And that votes, would've affected the election count, along with the chain of custody. So the issue according to this attorney was that, when Lake's attorneys were able to show three of those elements, he said that voter suppression alone should have been actionable for the court, but the, the judge instead, and now this is important, should have been actual for the court based on. The motivating statute, but the judge wanted those three actions proven, and that is bizarre. I cannot stress this enough. Listen, this is why we have to fight the good fight. We cannot allow judges to not be held accountable. To the law. That is what judges are for. They have a constitution and they have statutes. Those are the issues that they follow. So it goes in this order, constitution, then statute, then quote rules that enforce statutes. Those are the orders that they have to apply. And when the statute limits the judge to applying certain criteria, which means the bar was set very low for the lakeside, all they had to say. There's a whole bunch of, of a muckety muck here, your honor. And clearly it's gonna have an impact on voter suppression on the outcome of the election. Not to mention the inconsistent following of chain of custody, along with clear malfeasance on the part of me, Maricopa County officials. And by the way that the statute, criteria are applied, Carrie Lake should have got a ruling in her favor, and the judge should have come down and said, look, just for, for people's confidence, based on the statute's, parameters of the statute, we're gonna go ahead and have another. He could have done that, but the judge didn't. And that's what's bizarre in this case. When you get down to the, to the nitty gritty, the defense, for example, brought in Dr. Kenneth Mayer as a professional of political science. Now you'll notice a trend. The same thing happened here in Oregon with the Tim Sipple case, where the Secretary of State teams representing the government bring in professors. So they bring in this guy from the University of Wisconsin Madison as a witness however, the concerned attorney says, and I quote that, the problem with mayor's t. Which was based on data the county gave him, is he never addressed. The people who didn't get as far as checking in to the polling place since they saw the line lines or checked the website, listing significant wait times and decided not to go in and vote at all or. the people that saw all that coverage, like the long lines or drove by and thought, well carry lake's clearly gonna win this cuz look at the lines are super long cuz they may not have been aware of some of the polling problems. So all of these things are evidentiary if you're trying to prove voter suppression. You've done it. That's all you have to do. However, the judge did not, allow that. Instead, this mayor guy says that there was only 170 vote difference between people who checked in and cast a ballot, so only 170 of those several hundred people didn't know. One vote is voter suppression. I mean, isn't that what our woke friends are always saying, our nuclear Karens on the left with their bulging eyes always going. We can't have a single vote Suppressed however, when it works for the left, it works for the left. So basically he, he gets down and he goes through this weird, kind of new math, and, and his conclusion was that only about 13 people were actually suppressed. So it's only 13 people, your honor, and they don't matter. And, fascinating if you really think about it. So, the comedy of it is, you know, you got senior citizens, you got people who can't wait in line, and what caused the weights and lines? Well, it was the screwed up tabulators. It was the screwed up, printed ballots. It was the quote, malfeasance of multiple officials and then the steps those officials took to deal with and address the long lines. Led to even more potential votes not being counted. All of that met the threshold of the Arizona statute. It is bizarre, if you will, this judge ruled not only as quickly as the judge ruled, but it was almost like the ruling was written prior to the trial because so much of the actual trial wasn't in the ruling. matter of fact, I think it was less than six pages, which is even more bizarre. My favorite is, Canadian lawyer who goes by the name Viva Fry. Observed that mayor, this is somebody from out of the country kind of chimes in and says, Hey, actually, uh, this guy from Wisconsin, he's a biased woke. quote, sharing a screenshot of a tweet that mayor had since deleted, cuz that's what screenshots do. So this mayor guy knows he's going to, to Arizona. He runs all his tweets to private deletes a bunch of them because he doesn't wanna be, cross-examined as being biased. So The Tweet says now this president has incited a violent insurrection in coup attempt, in an effort to remain in power it resulted in the murder of Capitol police officer in the desecration of the US Capitol. Now, this is fascinating because that would've been really helpful for Carrie Lake's lawyer to cross-examine and say, dude, you're partisan. You're, you're not objective. You're not an objective expert. It's not like we're, we're both staring at the same, situation here and, and we're both applying the same objective criteria. Dude, you've got an extra grind ready. This expert had an agenda So when we think about. and I don't wanna believe the point, but I mean, this is a guy who said in a different tweet, according to this fried person, we must choose democracy or Trump. Now, what's really baffling is, is if we take this information and we apply all of the revelations that have come out from the Twitter files in which multiple government agencies actively worked and even compensated Twitter employees and other social media platforms. in the tune of taxpayer dollars. In other words, your money that pays for the FBI went from the f FBI to Twitter to suppress democracy. We're talking about multiple government agencies who took taxpayer funds and use them to suppress. The process of democracy in which we have an informed electorate making informed decisions based on real news that is rooted in fact not make believe, but none of that is allowed anymore, especially in these blue states. The woke sense of democracy is based on one party rule. And. Communist China has had two years of zero. Covid for you. The problem is, is that China, as Dr. Fauci often said, I'm really impressed with how China has just been a label to maneuver real quickly. Basically, dog whistling that what we need is a dictator in America. The problem is, it's fascinating that Dr. Fauci said that for so long, when you see the effects of suppressing, natural covid spread, China is now the only major industrialized power in which the population did not get adequately immunized, not with a shot, but through exposure to covid in its multiple variants over. So you know, they're always saying you can get Covid more than once. Yeah. And you can recover more than once. And each time you become more resistant to future variants. Yes. But in China that was not allowed. And now you have Covid Pandemic Post Pandemic. Yes. Covid Pandemic Pulse Pandemic. And it was created as a direct result. Of crappy one party communist mumbo jumble. They did nothing but give land to make believe to their people. They abused their people. And what happened is the people finally said, no way. It sparked violent, multimillion people protests in China, which the Chinese communists are now saying was the cause of this latest outbreak, not. Absolutely not true. Now, just to show you the realm of the scale of this and why government matters. Good fight. Why we have to be engaged, why we must elect truth telling leaders who want to solve problems rather than give you lip service to, we're working so hard for the last 40 years and homeless has gotten 1400 times worse, which only shows how much harder we have to work. We have to keep going. So, that was the position of the Chinese government, zero covid no matter what. And a couple of things have happened. One, foreign investment has slowed to an all-time 40 year low in China. We're talking since the late 1970s because people aren't investing in China because China's not allowing free travel. And so for an investment starting to. And then you have this massive pandemic. They've got a billion, you know, a billion and a half people in China, and they are averaging 37 million infections per day. That's the average for this last week, 37 million. Okay. That would be like everyone in California, in one day, boom, everybody's got covid. It shows you the human scale and, and how government policy and failure, like the fake vaccines, the government forced people to take the massive forced screening, the literally welding people in. And I, I reported a few podcasts back about people who burned a death in a building because they could not get out. They were locked in by their local government officials and the building caught on fire. and of course you know the cell phones being on, people could hear them, you know, burning and screaming and gagging and coughing to death. It was horrible. It's an example of why we cannot allow one party rule here in this country. We are a country built on checks and balances, which is why we have to have freedom of speech, which is why we have to be free to talk. Covid treatments, the realities of the vaccine. You know, we have these unexplained increase in deaths and I want everyone to understand, because our bad policies in this country have been bad enough, bad for children in their education. All the lies about the vaccine and their, effectiveness, the Biden administration's still saying that they're safe and affected when all of the data shows to the contrary. Matter of fact, peer-reviewed study. If you've had more than three boosters, you are now four times more likely to die in the hospital from, one of these new variants of covid. That is a fact peer-reviewed study. Even the c d C has started to back off and say, maybe we should revisit this. my favorite was the, uh, 37 year old, a abc, executive producer. Who, dropped dead of a heart attack. Perfectly healthy guy, you know, works out great health, no history of heart disease, boom, drop stiff. Unexplainable deaths is now the leading cause of death in people under the age of 65, unexplained death. That's what they're calling these potential covid deaths, unexplained deaths. So let's go roll back to China and why this is critical in China you can't have 37 million people a day down with Covid and still make iPhones or Tesla. or anything else. So get ready folks. A supply chain bottleneck is coming and economic hardship is coming, and it will be felt mostly by the poor and middle class in all of these industrialized countries, but in particular right here in the United States. Just get ready for it and we can already see the stock market shuttering a lost 1100, points. just y. and the bond interest rates on bonds had ticked up over 3%, which is gonna be potentially catastrophic. That with the Fed in interest rate increases, it's gonna be harder and harder for average people to qualify for home loans and other kinds of capital. if you have a variable credit card, et cetera, all of these things are gonna start snowballing, but, it's gonna be even worse because now we've got crazy wacko, environ. Out, attacking, transformers just right here in Oregon. Yes. Two of them, just two days ago, right here in the state of Oregon, attacked and damaged to, create power outages, This is the new theme. Okay? And then the grid's gonna be attacked. Now you can call me paranoid. All I'm doing is reporting the noose Now. since we're into chaos right now, the chaos in China, the brutal abysmal failure of their government policy. And, and now, you know, they're estimating 2.1 million people at the, much reduced covid death rates of these much, much less severe variants is still gonna kill 2.1 million people, in the next six weeks in China. So, way to go. Awoke communists. Nice job. Now the final point I wanna bring out, The Supreme Court of the United States in a split decision, and this is an unusual split, so I want to highlight it. upholds title 42, which was a Trump. Policy that said, due to the pandemic, we're gonna do a stay in Mexico, the whole nine yards. And if you get into this country and you don't have a good reason, we can just ship you back arbitrarily. And so you got people coming in and out and if we determine you don't get asylum. And so what what's been going on, unbeknownst to most in the media is that even in California, in Arizona, in Texas, they're starting to ship people back across the border. So they come in, they get processed, they get sent back because there's just no place to put everybody. And of course the border states were saying you can't get rid of Title 42 because that's the criteria that we are safe to use to ship people back and say, hang out in Mexico or wherever. Well, this is causing a lot of pressure along the border of Mexico as well. The cartels, as you know, are making a killing in human trafficking and all of the horrible hardships that this has caused, but unbeknownst to most is the state of Arizona put. sections of the border fence that, the Trump administration had built that were missing. And things were so bad that Arizona finally said, you know what? Forget this. So they put up storage containers, like triple Story and, you know, for a couple of miles in several of these sections to connect the missing pieces of fence. And what's strange is the Biden administration has su. The state of Arizona, and they have reached a settlement, and you're gonna love this because this was not on your mainstream news. Yes, Arizona agrees to take down the storage fence, the storage containers, but here's the part that didn't get reported. The Biden administration agreed to finish putting up those sections of Porter Wall fence. You cannot make this up people. Now this highlights the pressure on the Supreme Court and there was one Justice who actually ruled against the extension of Title 42. Gorsuch, who of course was an a Trump appointee who actually cited with a couple of other liberal judges in the minor. and his statement was very prescient and it's really important. And finally, we have a conservative justice saying, this is not the purpose of the court. So basically States had gone to the Fed saying, don't get rid of Title 42. The Biden administration would not act. And of course Congress is lame duck right now and couldn't get anything together, especially with a holiday coming up. So the Biden administration was like, well let it lapse. And we don't have a problem at the border when clearly there's a huge problem at the border. Even New York State. Chicago, you know, you got Texas shipping, migrants everywhere into Washington DC So even Northern States are saying you can't get rid of Title 42. This is, you know, a strain on our, all our resources. We're talking about millions of people, not tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. pouring across the border with Fort Title 42, being removed with no way for current, border policy to ship them back. We would have to keep them all and let them in the United States and give them a thing to say, Hey, we'll come and adjudicate your, asylum claim. Even Gavin Newsom, the crazy woke nuclear Karen. Governor of California opposed the Biden administration on this one. So the Supreme Court did uphold Title 42, but the minority opinion of Gorsuch's is really prescient. He said, this court is a court of law. It is a court of analysis of the Constitution. we are here to assess the constitutionality of contested law, not to be a political, referee of last resort when the executive branch and the legislative branch can't get their crap together. Now, I'm paraphrasing. But what a great way to end a podcast. What a great way for me to reach out to you. The Good Fight family member, and to say that is history in the making. Because guess what? The majority opinion got less coverage than Gorsuch The Conservative who cited with the minority saying, I will not participate. Now, this is important Gorsuch in his own mind. He was supportive of extending Title 42. Obviously however, he came out and said, this is so ridiculous. I am not going to participate. I'm gonna side with the minority, and Gorsuch was the one that wrote the minority opinion, which is fascinating. So if you get a chance to look that up, you can Google it. kudos to Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, not for ruling against Title 42 like he did. But. Decided decide with the minority to make a statement that is so critical. In other words, he decided not to stay on the trolley to the land and make. He literally got off the trolley and said, we gotta stop playing. Make believe here. This is not the purpose of the Supreme Court. Well said, well-read and kudos to the Supreme Court for, extending Title 42, at least till the hearing in February. And this will help ease some of the pressure at the border and hopefully get fewer people trafficked and killed and fewer drugs. Rolling in through the country. God bless America. Well, good fight. It's been another amazing episode. I am way over time and I want to thank you. I hope you guys had a merry Christmas because in this family it's Merry Christmas and we're rolling it out. For those who, celebrate Hanukkah, Kwanza, whatever floats your holiday boat, if you will. But for me it's Merry Christmas and we. No, that it's our Judeo-Christian traditions that have made America the special country. It is. God bless everybody. I hope you have a Happy New Year. much more to come in the next episode of The Good Fight. I am your host, mark Fieldman. That's Mark with a C. He stands for conservative. God bless.