| WE NEED TO KNOW THE TRUTH Overview of the evidence: Thousands of Biden-only ballots were brought in truck at 4:30am and triple-counted; overvotes of 200% in some precincts; Democrat voters allowed to “cure” their defective ballots but not Republicans; in person voters found someone had previously filled absentee ballots in their name; backdated ballots; people were trained to cheat: not to look for deficiencies in ballots, not to ask for photo ID, not to check signatures, etc. All come from affidavits signed under penalty of perjury. Trump’s legal team held a press conference yesterday in D.C. They gave an overview of the evidence of massive election fraud that they have uncovered so far and that they will present in court. Below is a transcript of what Rudy Giuliani presented. |
| Other video sources: here. |
| RUSH TRANSCRIPT: RUDY GIULIANI, Nov. 19, 2020: “Well, this is representative of our legal team. We’re representing President Trump and we’re representing the Trump campaign. When I finish, Sidney Powell and then Jenna Ellis will follow me. And we will present in brief the evidence that we’ve collected over the last — I guess it is two weeks. Also, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing are here with me. There are a lot more lawyers working on this, but we’re the — I guess we’re the senior lawyers. And Boris Epshteyn.
So I guess the best way to describe this is, when we began our representation of the president, we certainly were confronted with a very anomalous set of results. The president way ahead on election night, seven or 800,000 in Pennsylvania, somehow he lost Pennsylvania. We have statisticians willing to testify that that’s almost statistically impossible to have happened in the period of time that it happened. But, of course, that’s just speculation. As we started investigating, both our investigations and the very patriotic and brave American citizens that have come forward are extraordinary, extraordinary number of people, extraordinary number of witnesses. And what emerged very quickly is this is not a singular voter fraud in one state. This pattern repeats itself in a number of states, almost exactly the same pattern, which to any experienced investigator, prosecutor would suggest that there was a plan from a centralized place to execute these various acts of voter fraud, specifically focused on big cities, and specifically focused on, as you would imagine, big cities controlled by Democrats. And particularly focused on big cities that have a long history of corruption. The number of voter fraud cases in Philadelphia could fill a library. Just a few weeks ago there was a conviction for voter fraud and one 2 weeks before that. And I’ve often said, I guess sarcastically, but it’s true, the only surprise I would have found in this is if Philadelphia hadn’t cheated in this election; because for the last 60 years they’ve cheated in just about every single election. You could say the same thing about Detroit. [2:39] Each one of these cities are cities that are controlled by Democrats, which means they can get away with anything they want to do. It means they have a certain degree of control over — certainly control the election board completely. And they control law enforcement and, unfortunately, they have some friendly judges that will issue ridiculously irrational opinions just to come out in their favor. So let’s start with the specifics. [3:06] Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the margin of victory now for Biden, which is not a victory; it’s a fraud — is 69,140 votes. The reality is that we are now at a count of 682,770 ballots for which we have affidavits that there was no inspection of that ballot at the time that it was entered in the vote. It was a mail ballot. Mail ballots are particularly prone to fraud. We were warned about that by Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter and Secretary Baker in a report about a dozen years ago in which they said that mail balloting is particularly susceptible of fraud, that we should very carefully consider ever doing it and that it can be taken advantage of. [4:05] Justice Souter warned us of the same thing in a comment in an election law case. And even the New York Times wrote articles about how dangerous mail voting, mail-in voting was. And this is the first time we ever did it en masse. And I think we proved that all three are prophets. It’s not only susceptible to fraud, it is easily susceptible to fraud, particularly if you have a plan or scheme which sounds eerily similar to what Joe Biden told us a few days before the election that he had the best voter fraud team in the world. But they were good. I don’t know that they were that good because they made significant mistakes, like all crooks do, and we caught ’em. One of them was pushing out Republican inspectors. Every state, almost every civilized country, even Tanzania and places that you wouldn’t think of have rules about inspectors, particularly for mail-in ballots. And why particularly for mail-in ballots? Because they can more easily be defrauded and you can’t check on it. [5:22] People who have never done a mail-in ballot, I’m going to show you why it is so easy. Well, you fill out an envelope like this. You put your — usually in New York, it would be your assembly district and precinct in which you’re voting. You fill out your name and your address and you sign it. You then use an inner envelope, and you put the ballot inside the inner envelope. You seal it all and you send it in. When it’s being counted, almost invariably in the United States up until the mass cheating that went on in this election, a Republican and a Democrat inspector, as well as others if there are other parties, is allowed to watch the unsealing of this ballot. It used to go on all over America when we conducted honest elections. Because the only time you can ever find out if it’s a fraudulent ballot is when it is looked at. The minute you approve this, it’s thrown away, gone for eternity. The only thing left is the vote. That could have been Mickey Mouse. That could have been a dead person. That could have been not filled out properly. That could have been the same person 30 times. And all these things have happened, by the way. That could have been nothing filled out. We’d never know. [6:54] So, for example, the recount being done in Georgia will tell us nothing because these fraudulent ballots will just be counted again because they wouldn’t supply the signatures to match the ballots. So, it means nothing to have counted these ballots, because for example, in Pennsylvania where we have probably our most precise evidence, 682,770 of these ballots were cast, put in, and they weren’t inspected, which renders them ballots that are null and void. Cannot be counted, have to be removed from the vote. Why? For several reasons, not the least of which is, that was basically only one of two places in the state where it was done. So in the other parts of the state there was a legitimate inspection of the ballots. So if you have two different standards in different parts of the state, one favoring one part of the state, the other disfavoring the other part of the state, that’s a classic violation of equal-protection clause of the United States Constitution, Bush v. Gore being the most recent case that teaches that. [8:12] That’s not the only fraud that went on in Pennsylvania. All of the other frauds carried out in the other states by the Democrat bosses happened there as well. For example, if you’ve made a mistake in that ballot and you lived in Philadelphia or in Pittsburgh, you were allowed to fix the mistake. But if you lived in what would be considered more Republican or Trump parts of the state, you were given no such right. One of our plaintiffs, Mr. Henry, cast an absentee ballot and he failed to put it in the secure envelope inside. He just put it in open, naked. That ballot was cast aside because it was invalid, because that breaks the privacy of the vote. In Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, if they noticed that there wasn’t an inner envelope, they’d contact the voter and allow ’em to vote again, or if you didn’t fill it out completely or if he made a mistake and didn’t sign his full name, he was allowed to cure it. There is no such provision under the law of Pennsylvania. The Democrat secretary of state made that up in order to maximize the votes in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and to minimize the votes in the other parts of the state. Clearly illegal, clearly voter fraud, easily provable, hundreds of witnesses, maybe thousands. [9:55] To give you another example. We have 17,000 provisional ballots cast in Pittsburgh. Do you know what a provisional ballot is? Provisional ballot usually happens this way, and about 15 of the 17,000 happened this way. You walked in and you say, “I’m here to vote today.” “Oh, Mr. Giuliani, you already voted.” “I did? I don’t remember voting.” “Oh, yes, yes, you cast an absentee ballot.” “No, I didn’t.” “Yes, you did.” “No, I didn’t.” “Yes, you did.” So why did that happen 17,000 times in Pittsburgh? People walked in thinking — actually 15,000, to be precise. Why did it happen 15,000 times that people in Pittsburgh walked in to vote and they had already voted, according to the Democrat election machine? Did they forget? That many people with bad memories in Pittsburgh? Or is the following correct? That as witnesses will testify, they were instructed by the Democrat bosses, when they had a ballot in which there was no one registered, just assign it to somebody. Just assign it to Rudy Giuliani. And maybe Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t show up to vote. And if he does show up to vote, we’ll give him a provisional ballot. That is what we call circumstantial evidence of the fraud. The direct evidence of the fraud are the people who will testify that in fact that’s what happened to them. As well as the 50 to 60 witnesses we have for the way they were treated and not allowed to inspect the ballots. They weren’t just not allowed to do it. They were pushed. A few cases they were assaulted. In all cases they were put in a corral so far away — probably the closest they got is from here to back of that room. We could do like a — Did you all watch ‘My Cousin Vinny?’ Do you know the movie? It’s one of my favorite law movies because he comes from Brookln. And when, the nice lady who said she saw, and then he says to her, “How many fingers do I got up?” She says, “3.” Well, she was too far away to see it was only 2. These people were further away than My Cousin Vinnie was from the witness. They couldn’t see a thing. Now, I don’t know, you’re going to tell that 60 people are lying? They didn’t just tell me this. They swore under penalty of perjury which is something no Democrat has ever done. You don’t even ask Biden about this! You don’t put him under penalty of perjury. He doesn’t even get asked questions about it. He doesn’t get asked questions about all the evidence of the crimes that he committed. These people are under the penalty of perjury, their names are on an affidavit. They swear that they weren’t allowed to carry out their functions as inspectors. And it’s not just a technical thing. There is a reason they did it. Why would you not allow people to carry out the function they’ve been allowed to do for 50 years, 60 years? Why wouldn’t you allow inspections of those ballots? Because you knew you were going to use those ballots to catch Biden up. And you had a big road ahead of you. You had to catch him up for 700,000 to 800,000 votes that he was behind. And the only way you were going to do it was with the mail-in ballots. You couldn’t have a Democrat and Republican inspector around. They don’t even have Democrats watching because they’d be afraid that they’d be honest Democrats who would say, “You’re cheating!” [14:02] So, that takes us to Michigan where there was an honest Democrat who said they were cheating. And we’ll show you her affidavit because I know you keep reporting falsely that we have no evidence. That we have no specific acts of fraud. That’s because the coverage of this has been almost as dishonest as the scheme itself. The American people are entitled to know this. You don’t have a right to keep it from them. You don’t have a right to lie about it and you are. I mean, you don’t report to them that a citizen of this country, a very fine woman who is willing to allow me to give you her name. I can’t give you all these affidavits because if I do, these people will be harassed. They’ll be threatened. They may lose their job. They will lose their friends. We’ve lost lawyers in this case because they’ve been threatened. We’ve had lawyers that need protection. What’s going on in this country is horrible. And the censorship that you are imposing is making it worse. [15:14] But Jesse Jacob is an adult citizen, a resident of the state of Michigan. She’s been an employee of the city of Detroit for decades. I know her age but — she can tell you her age. She was assigned to voting duties in September and she was trained by the city of Detroit in the state of Michigan. She was basically trained to cheat. She said that, “I was instructed by my supervisor to adjust the mailing date of these absentee ballot packages to be dated earlier than when they were actually sent in. The supervisor made that announcement for all workers to engage in that fraudulent practice.” That is not me saying that. That’s just an American citizen saying that under oath. I don’t know. Maybe you could say she is lying but you can’t say there’s no evidence. This is what we call evidence. This is direct evidence, not circumstantial. I tried many, many cases as did all my colleagues here. You put a witness on a witness stand. Witness is testifying to their own knowledge. This witness goes on the witness stand and she will say, “I was told to adjust the date on the absentee ballots. I witness election workers and employees going over to the voting booth with voters in order to watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote.” Completely illegal. She will testify to that. I don’t know. Biden’s people can cross-examine her, but you can’t just throw it away. “Gee, there’s no evidence.” Next time you say that, you’ll be lying, because there is evidence. By the way, this is public. You can all get it. It’s attached to the complaint in Costantino v. The City of Detroit. Then she “was instructed by my supervisor not to ask for a driver’s license or any photo ID when a person was trying to vote.“ Don’t ask for identification? Why would you not ask for identification? Because you knew that a lot of people not entitled to vote are gonna come in and early vote. Because you knew that illegal immigrants were gonna be allowed to vote. You knew, if you lived in Philadelphia, unless you’re stunod — that’s an Italian expression for stupid — unless you’re stupid, you knew a lot of people were coming over from Camden to vote. They do every year. Happens all the time in Philly. It’s about as frequent as getting beaten up at a Philadelphia Eagles basketball — football game. Happens all the time. All the time. [18:10] And it is allowed to happen because it is a Democrat, corrupt city. And it has been for years, many, many years. And they carried it out in places they could get away with it. They didn’t carry it out in neutral places. They didn’t carry it out in Republican places. They didn’t carry it out where the law is respected. They carry it out in corrupt — a corrupt city where the district attorney releases criminals en masse, which is why it has so much crime. [18:42] She also said, “I observed a large number of people who came to the satellite location to vote in person. But they had already applied for and submitted an absentee ballot.” So she observed a lot of people voting twice. Again, this Jesse Jacob, not me. “I was instructed not to invalidate any ballots and not to look for any deficiency in the ballots.” Why would you do that? Because you’re cheating, on purpose cheating, intentionally cheating. You’re cheating as an institution. This is an instruction from the election commissioner or the employer to the worker. “Don’t look for any deficiencies in the ballots.” “I was instructed not to look at any of the signatures on the absentee ballots.” If she was instructed not to look for any of the signatures on the absentee ballots, why the heck do you sign it in the first place? In order to identify it. She was instructed not to do that because many of the absentee ballots were fraudulent. They knew that. And they didn’t want to have account of that. [20:02] “On November 4, 2020, I was instructed to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots when the receipt date was actually after November 3rd, 2020.” Now, this is really significant because Justice Alito of the Supreme Court instructed Pennsylvania that any ballot that comes in after 8 o’clock on November 3rd, 2020, had to be put aside and not opened. Because there’s a question as to its legality and its constitutionality. What she’s telling you is that they blatantly disregarded that order, that they took ballots that were marked the 4th, and the 5th, and the 6th, and they marked it down for the 3rd in blatant disregard of the order of the United States Supreme Court. This is, this is — I don’t know if she’s a Democrat or a Republican. I assume that if she’s working, if she’s working for the — I assume if she’s working for the city of Detroit that she’s a Democrat. I assume but I may be wrong. She’s a citizen. I’ve never met her, never coached her. And I’d like you to know that it is signed under penalties of perjury. [21:25] We have 100 more of these. I can’t show them to you because those people don’t want to be harassed. They don’t want to be — have their lives torn apart by the goons on the other side. We don’t do that to them. They’ve done that to a lot of our people. They’ve done it for 4 years and it’s outrageous that it’s tolerated. And it’s tolerated because you condone it in the press, you don’t cover it, and you don’t condemn it. And it shouldn’t happen to a Republican or a Democrat. A lawyer shouldn’t have to withdraw from a case because he’s representing the President of the United States. There are many more affidavits here. I’d like to read them all, but I don’t have the time. You should have had the time and energy to go look for them. That’s your job — like it’s my job to defend the president and to represent the president. It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence. Do you know how many affidavits we have in the Michigan case? 220 affidavits. They’re not all public, but 8 of them are. Four affiants here — those are people who give affidavits — report an incident that, under any other circumstances, would have been on the front page of all your newspapers if it didn’t involve the hatred that you have, irrational, pathological hatred that you have for the president. [22:52 ] What they swear to is that at 4:30 in the morning, a truck pulled up to the Detroit center where they were counting ballots. The people thought it was food, so they all ran to the truck. Wasn’t food. It was thousands and thousands of ballots and the ballots were in garbage cans, they were in paper bags, they were in cardboard boxes, and they were taken into the center. They were put on a number of tables. At that time, they thought all the Republican inspectors had left, all but two had and an employee of Dominion who we will address a little bit later, Dominion. [23:40] Here’s what they jointly swear to, that every ballot that they could see, everything they could hear, these were ballots for Biden. When they saw a ballot, these were ballots ONLY for Biden, meaning there was no down-ticket. Just Biden. Many of them didn’t have anything on the outer envelope because these ballots were produced very quickly, very swiftly. And there are estimated to be a minimum of 60,000, maximum of 100,000. Many of them were triple-counted, which means they were put into the counting machine this way. Once, twice, three times. I didn’t see that. I don’t know that but for the fact that three American citizens are willing to swear to it. We’re not going to let them go to court and do that? We’re going to let this election go by when there are in this case 60 witnesses that can prove what I’m saying to you and other acts of fraud in Michigan? I mean, what’s happened to this country if we’re going to let that happen? What happened to this country if we’re going to cover that up? We let Al Gore carry on an election dispute longer than this one has been going on for 1 state and for chads. This happened in Pennsylvania, it happened in Michigan. Michigan probably right now, if I count up the affidavits, just one case alone, Trump v. Benson, a case that we dismissed today because that case was attempting to get the Wayne County Board of Supervisors to de-certify. Well they did. They de-certified. That case has 100 affidavits and the 100 affidavits show essentially what I’ve talked to you about. [25:42] Counting ballots improperly, counting them three and four times, having people vote three and four times, changing and backdating ballots to the point of at least 300,000 illegitimate ballots that we can specifically identify. The margin in Michigan is 146,121 and these ballots were all cast basically in Detroit that Biden won 80-20. So you see it changes the result of the election in Michigan if you take out Wayne County. So it’s a very significant case. That is being raised in the case of Costantino v. The City of Detroit. Not by us, but by an individual plaintiff. We are helping and assisting in that case however and you can find all the affidavits that you want filed in that case. You can find out they’re not just allegations, they’re allegations supported by sworn testimony which is a lot better than Joe Biden has ever done on anything. He doesn’t answer questions, much less give you sworn affidavits. [26:49] Wisconsin. Wisconsin had a very small margin, 20,544 last time I looked. In Wisconsin, without going into great detail, very similar plan. Republicans shut out in the City of Milwaukee and also in Madison. Republicans almost uniformly shut out from the absentee process. Not allowed to inspect, not allowed to look at the ballots. We have in Milwaukee and in the state of Wisconsin a much stricter law. Wisconsin doesn’t allow mail-in ballots. They didn’t buy into the big mail-in ballot situation. Wisconsin, when you look at their constitution, almost seems to not like absentee ballots. They state it’s not a right, a privilege, and they have very, very strict procedures and the strict procedure says that you can’t be given an absentee ballot, you have to personally apply for it. It’s illegal basically to solicit a vote and they have actually many reasons for it that probably goes back to their progressive days, when I say progressive, I mean late 19th century early 20th century progressive, when that really meant progressive, not retrogressive. [28:12] So there are 60,000 ballots in Milwaukee County and 40,000 ballots in Madison that as far as we can tell and this is why we are auditing because we have very good information that numbers are going to come out about here that don’t have applications. Under the law of the State of Wisconsin, already decided, if there’s no application for an absentee ballot, the absentee ballot is thrown away. This all happened in two places in Wisconsin. Didn’t happen in Northern Wisconsin. Didn’t happen in Republican Wisconsin. Didn’t happen in neutral Wisconsin, where there are equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, it happened in a place where the vote was 75% – 80% for the Democrat. You take away any number of those and that 20,000 lead disappears. In other words, if you count the lawful votes, Trump won Wisconsin by a good margin. Indeed, if you count the lawful votes in Pennsylvania, he won it by about 300,000 votes. [29:23] Also in the lawsuit filed in Wisconsin which is really a petition because of their procedures, there were no inspectors provided for the count of the illegal ballots. There were numerous backdated ballots, we’re just counting them now. Run over into the 1000s and there were many precincts in which there was an overvote. Now let me explain to you what an overvote is, which is something you should have explained to the American people because it’s about the clearest circumstantial evidence of massive fraud that you can have. An overvote is if 200% of the people who are registered in a district vote. Think about that. 200% of the registered voters in a district vote. What does that mean? That means somebody voted twice, that means somebody who’s not entitled to vote voted, an illegal, a person from another city or state, a person who’s not registered, but what it means is that those are illegitimate votes. You don’t have an overvote of 200% or 300%. You don’t have an overvote of 100%. Most precincts don’t have 100% turnout. In fact, classically it’s considered to be an overvote if you go over 80%. Well in Michigan and Wisconsin, we have overvotes in numerous precincts, of 150%, 200%, and 300%. [31:02] One of the reasons why the two Republicans did not certify in Wayne, Michigan, Wayne County, Michigan is because the overvote was so high. Monstrously high in about two-thirds of the precincts in the city of Detroit. Which means magically 2 and 3 times the number of registered voters turned out to vote. In fact we have precincts in which 2 times the number of people who live there, including children, voted. That’s absurd. The frustration of this is, what I’m describing to you is a massive fraud. It isn’t a little teeny one. It isn’t 100 votes switched here or there. [31:52] Georgia. We’re about to file a major lawsuit in Georgia. That’ll be filed probably tomorrow. I don’t need to go through it. Virtually the same things I’ve told you before. In the City of Atlanta, Republicans were not allowed to watch the absentee mail-in ballot process. Inspections completely cast aside. And we have numerous double voters, we have numerous out-of-state voters. And we have specific evidence of intimidation and changes of vote. That will all be in the lawsuit that comes out tomorrow. [32:30] Arizona is a state that we are looking at very, very carefully. I would say we’re probably going to bring a lawsuit in Arizona. More than probably, I think we are going to bring a lawsuit in Arizona. We’re still collecting that evidence. [32:46] And the state that we’re looking at that would surprise you is — we have very, very significant amount of fraud allegations in the state of New Mexico, and we have a significant number of allegations in the state of Virginia. I don’t know yet whether the number in Virginia will reach a number that can turn the election. In the states that we have indicated in red, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona, we more than double the number of votes needed to overturn the election in terms of provable, illegal ballots. All you got to do to find out if I’m misleading you at all is to look at the lawsuit. Look what’s alleged, look at the affidavits, maybe we can supply more affidavits. In order to do it, I have to get permission from the people but in the materials I have here there were at least 10 that come from citizens. We have a thousand at least and we’re getting more every day. And there are other aspects of this fraud that at this point I really can’t reveal. This is really enough. It’s enough to overturn any election. It’s disgraceful what happened and I’ll conclude by asking you to just think about this for a minute. [34:07] What happened on the morning of November 3rd when they were going to count this new kind of ballot, this mail-in ballot? Did every Democrat leader in Pennsylvania and in Michigan and in Wisconsin and in Georgia and in Nevada and in Arizona, they all wake up and all separately have the same idea? Did they all separately have the idea that, “We are going to — We’re going to put Republican inspectors in pens, we’re not going to let them look at mail-in or absentee ballots?” They all independently come up with that, like just by coincidence. They say, “Hey, you know, we’re going to put the Republicans in pens and corrals. We’re going to do it in Pittsburgh, we’re going to do it in Philadelphia, we’re going to do it in Detroit. We’re going to do it in Milwaukee. We’re going to do it in Las Vegas. We’re going to do it in Phoenix.” What did I miss? Oh, “we’re going to do it in Atlanta.” [35:13] Or isn’t the logical conclusion that I think any jury would accept if they heard this evidence, that somebody had this plan? Maybe that was always the plan? To do this very, very questionable form of voting, which has been criticized by President Carter, by Secretary Baker, by most experts on election reform? I think the logical conclusion is this is a common plan, a common scheme, that comes right directly from the Democrat Party and it comes from the candidate. Clearly, that’s the reason why Hillary Clinton said don’t concede even if you’re losing. That’s the reason, we had a Freudian slip by the candidate and he said he had the best voter fraud team in the country. That’s the reason why he probably didn’t have to go out and campaign. He had to have known what they were going to do. This had to be planned in advance. I’m kind of checking. Did they go to the same contractor to get the corrals to put the Republicans in? This is a disgraceful thing that was done in this country. Probably not much more disgraceful than the things these people did in office which you didn’t and don’t bother to cover and conceal from the American people. [36:37] But we let this happen, you know. We use largely a Venezuelan voting machine in essence to count our vote. We let this happen, we’re going to become Venezuela. We cannot let this happen to us. We cannot allow these crooks, because that’s what they are, to steal an election from the American people. They elected Donald Trump. They didn’t elect Joe Biden. Joe Biden is in the lead because of the fraudulent ballots, the illegal ballots, that were produced and that were allowed to be used, after the election was over. Give us an opportunity to prove it in court and we will. Now I’m going to ask Sidney Powell to describe to you what we can describe about another totally outrageous situation. I don’t think most Americans know that our ballots get calculated, many of them, outside the United States and are completely open to hacking, completely open to change, and it’s being done by a company that specializes in voter fraud. I’ll let Sidney describe that to you.” MORE |
