Calling in The U.S. Constitution

It’s Rainmaking Time!®
Calling in The U.S. Constitution — Dr. Edwin Vieira
Host & Interviewer: Kim Greenhouse

Intro 1: Due to massive censorship, Kim had to create 2 intros to get this interview through to the public.

Kim: My name is Kim Greenhouse, the producer and host of It’s Rainmaking Time. And I’m bringing you Calling in The U.S. Constitution. Before we begin, I want you to know a few things. First of all, it was a labor of love. I spent $6,000 on this. I was so excited to bring it to the American people post 2020 election. And it was so contentious. The conditions were so bad. There was so much vitriol.

Kim: It was very difficult to get this seen, let alone distributed. I experienced direct online censorship on all of the known channels and ecosystems. I literally watched Twitter shadow ban the trailer for this. I was angry. I was upset. I was sad. I was shook up too. I couldn’t believe that I had so much difficulty.

Kim: I even had resistance in Virginia when I tried to get and rent the space to shoot this. People were drilling me. What is it about? You know, what are you going to say about the constitution? Almost like I had to do it. I had to shoot it and give them talking points before they would even rent me a space to have the conversation. That’s how polarizing it was. I couldn’t believe what I went through to even find a place to have the conversation.

Kim: So it’s almost 2023 and I decided that you need to hear this and though I’m much heavier than I am now physically and though men and women are very, very tough on women on camera, you know what? This is so important. I’m going to have to just deal with it.

Kim: What I want you to pay attention to at the beginning is you’re going to see a very unusual introduction. You’re going to see a voice introduction with a picture, and then you’re going to move into a scroll with my voice reading off the scroll, and then it cuts right in. In order to avoid censorship, I thought I’d cut out my on-camera introduction of the guest and the subject. I used the scroll.

Kim: But I put something in front of the scroll to try to avoid censorship. So it got all chopped up. And I want you to see the lengths I went to, to try to subvert this. I mean, Facebook was censoring me. Twitter was shadow banning everything I put on there in terms of trailers. I don’t even need to talk about the mysterious and very interesting algorithms on YouTube. I think we all know what’s going on there. The point of the matter is this is so important.

Kim: So if you can get through the first four to five minutes, and they’re important by the way, if you can get through that, this thing that you’re going to observe and that you’re going to take part of is truly an initiation because you are with a master of the realm. And when he goes, this whole thing goes at the level at which he’s got the comprehension, the visceral understanding, the energy of it.

Kim: He lives it, breathes it. It is my great pleasure to bring you in the end of 2022, Calling in The U.S. Constitution. Enjoy it, sit back. And for those of you that would like to contribute financing to help pay for this one, even though it’s already paid for, or if you would like to finance the next one and make contributions, I’m very happy to receive it. And it’s a labor of love and I think that it’s so important that for those of you who can contribute, it would be great. Thank you so much. Enjoy the show. It’s Rainmaking Time. I’m Kim Greenhouse. Here we go.

Intro 2:

Kim: Before we begin this special segment of It’s Rainmaking Time, Calling in The U.S. Constitution, it’s important that you know that this was recorded in December after the 2020 U.S. election. Our guest, Dr. Edwin Vieira, is a renowned author of over 10 major blockbuster books. He’s one of the most important minds that understands and has possession of the scope and depth and trajectory and meanings of the US Constitution. It’s Rainmaking Time has never been a political show and avoided for all the years I’ve been doing this getting into any kind of politics. For me, the US Constitution is not about politics. It’s about the blueprint for freedom that’s so unique about the United States of America and the US Republic. Enjoy the show and thank you for listening. This is Kim Greenhouse and it’s Rainmaking Time.

Kim: The founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution pioneered a document that was to serve as the foundation to ensure the protection against mob rule and tyranny. This unique document only exists if it is applied as it’s written in order to prevent and to circumvent tyranny from posing as leadership. Were it such a time in history where personal liberty and life itself is being attacked, defiled, and voices censored. America has always been a unique country which has survived so many others without an observable dictatorship. If we allow this foundational blueprint to be usurped and manipulated, she will not only become an unrecognizable place of mass suffering, sickness, and slavery. But she will cease to exist as a free nation, where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is even possible for the many. It’s up to all of us to show up for this divine appointment, an occasion that the U.S. Constitution is, and was always meant to be. It’s a marvel to behold.

Kim: I’m Kim Greenhouse and I want to welcome you all to this segment of It’s Rainmaking Time.

Kim: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to It’s Rainmaking Time, a show about ancient knowledge, new knowledge, discovery, breakthroughs, and the wonder and marvel of the human spirit. Welcome to It’s Rainmaking Time. It’s my pleasure to be with you. I feel that I’m talking to a giant who was before his time and is now really should be received at this time, most critically. This is really it for the United States of America. Do you agree?

Edwin: Well, I think that’s right. We’re in a very serious situation, much more so than I’ve ever seen in those 47 years that I’ve been in the judicial process, at least, because we have, should I put it, crises at every level of the system, from the electoral system to the COVID-19 problem that’s now going on, to international relations with the Chinese and others. I mean, this is just a first-class mess.

Kim: In many ways. One of the great difficulties is that there are constitutional principles that are involved in everything we’re talking about that most people don’t understand. That’s why you’re here, actually. But I’d like you to first distinguish out, for those of us who are unfamiliar with, a kind of resonant background rumbling, which is many are gathering together and saying that the Constitution is a living, breathing entity document that really should be able to be modified to quote modern times. And it sounds okay. It sounds like it’s reasonable, but it has totally different meaning in terms of what was really laid out in the Constitution. Am I right or am I wrong?

Edwin: Oh, you’re right as to the latter part. It’s totally unreasonable as a theory for a number of reasons. First, if you look at the Constitution itself, there is a specific provision for amendment. And if you had what they call today a living Constitution, which changes its effects, they don’t change the words, but they change the meanings or the applications, depending on what the legislator may want to do, particularly the judiciary may want to do, then you wouldn’t need a specific provision for amendment. The amendments could be made essentially automatically in the course of social evolution or however you want to define that process. Secondly, if you look back historically and ask yourself this, if someone lay the Constitution in front of you and said, what this means now, it might not mean a week from now. It might not mean a month from now. It might not mean a year from now because it’s a living document and it depends on people’s attitudes as time goes by. Would you sign on to any document of that nature? No, because it’s a morphing. You wouldn’t know what you were doing. All right. So the principle is non-rational. Number one. And number two, it really contradicts the structure of the Constitution itself. Now, that doesn’t mean there isn’t some living aspect to the Constitution.

Kim: Give me the example.

Edwin: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Let’s leave out the other parts of it. Well, what was commerce in the days when the Constitution was written? Well, it was business transactions that were being conducted in certain ways. And especially if you take transportation, what were they using? Sailboats, canals, ox carts. Horses. Horses, of course. All right. Those methodologies have changed. And so we can look at today and say, well, now we have railroads, have automobiles and so forth and so on. Those are methodologies of commerce. We haven’t changed the constitution by saying Congress can regulate those methodologies. There’s the difference. So you can have expansions in terms of what the constitution applies to because technological and sociological conditions change. But we don’t change the meaning of that basic word commerce. It still requires certain elements of traffic and transportation and purchasing and so forth and so on. And then the limitation on it, which is one of the limitations among the several states, not within a particular state. So there’s the distinction. So you can have a living constitution in that sense of the application of a particular term to new circumstances, but not in the sense of changing the meaning of that term.

Kim: Okay, I think that’s where a lot of people get confused. That’s where people that are looking at this get confused. Because if I didn’t know what you just said, I would have said, oh, yeah, of course it’s a living breathing thing, right? It’s alive. But really that whole portal is meant to alter and make it malleable in a way that changes the fundamental structure. Is that what you’re saying?

Edwin: Exactly right. The living constitution theorists don’t want to recognize that there are limitations beyond which they can’t go unless they amend the Constitution. That’s the secret behind what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to evade the amendment process primarily because I think if they put the amendment that they want before the people it wouldn’t pass.

Kim: So, do you feel right now that the Constitution is being honored in this country, in America?

Edwin: Oh no, absolutely not. In so many different ways, it’s not.

Kim: Give us a few examples.

Edwin: Well, let’s take the example that we’re facing right now of the COVID-19 lockdowns, for instance. And really what it seems, the reluctance of the judiciary to step in on this. If you look at the basic constitutional limitation, and there are many more besides this, that no governmental body can deprive an individual of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That’s the general limitation. Well, what is liberty? Liberty is the ability to go about your normal affairs, your business, go out, leave your home, whatever. If you’re locked in your home pursuant to some edict or dictate that’s given by a public health official or governor or whatever it is, you have a liberty problem. Did he do that with due process of law. And who’s supposed to determine that? Well, the courts are supposed to determine that. They’re not supposed to simply roll over and say, well, some public health official came up with the determination because there are other public health officials or at least other people practicing in that field who come up with a different perspective on that problem. You can find plenty of information that says that these lockdowns have been far more detrimental for other reasons than they have been beneficial because they kept people away from each other during the so-called pandemic situation.

Edwin: Well, why hasn’t that been settled in a court of law the way we’d settle all other questions? You might have experts that would have to testify about it, but we have experts testifying every day. Patent cases, automobile accident cases, medical malpractice cases. This is no different from the run-of-the-mill expertise, testimony, and usage used in complex judicial cases. But the judiciary seems to have backed off from it.

Kim: When you say the judiciary, explain what you mean to the public. What does that mean? Does that mean the courts? Does that mean the judges? Are you speaking of the judges specifically or the governors or the mayors?

Edwin: It’s the judiciary in the sense, number one, of the courts. Someone’s coming to the courts. Well, who’s coming to the courts? It could be public officials on the one hand. It could be private parties or private organizations on the other hand. You could have criminal cases. You could have civil cases, a whole series of things that could be done. And I look at some of these situations with, let’s take those states in which the governors and public health officials have said, send the COVID patients into the nursing homes.

Kim: I’m sorry, I’m laughing. It’s really not funny.

Edwin: Not funny because how many people were killed by the process? All right. Now, immediately I look at that and I say, well, there are several implications there from the people who die. There are states at least, their families. There are criminal implications as well. Was this done by these public health officials outside of their authority with knowledge or foreknowledge or failure to delve sufficiently into the facts?

Kim: How come we don’t know? For example, how come we the public don’t know whether the public health officials have the authority to do what they did and we just blindly accept that they’re doing it and that’s the way it is? In other words, do they have the authority constitutionally? Any public health official across the United States? But for right now, in the US, with regard to the Constitution, in your expertise and experience, do the health officials have the constitutional authority to do what they’re doing, to establish lockdowns, to fine citizens, to keep them from going to work, keep them from going to school?

Edwin: Oh, I would say the short answer to that is it’s highly problematical that they do.

Kim: Is that a yes or a no? I’m not clear.

Edwin: Well, because you have different cases. You have the case where what they’re really attempting to do is to set up a quarantine of people who are sick. And that has generally been recognized as legitimate. If someone is sick, then action can be taken against that person that would tend to limit that person’s liberty. Or perhaps they might be taking actions against the nursing homes, telling the nursing homes, you can’t take people in who test positive. So, there are some things that they might be able to do. So the first thing you have to look at is, well, what is their statutory authority?

Kim: And please explain what a statute is, because most of us don’t know.

Edwin: Well, it’s a law that’s passed by whatever the legislature may be. So, you could have a statute at the local level.

Kim: And, when you say legislature, define that too.

Edwin: Well, the legislature is that group of people who have been selected, usually by election, to enact laws.

Kim: So would we say a governor or a mayor is a part of the legislature?

Edwin: No, those are executive officials. They don’t have the power to make laws.

Kim: OK.

Edwin: They may have the power to take certain actions pursuant to laws. They execute the laws. So, a legislature might give a governor the ability to take action to quarantine nursing homes that have been tested for COVID-19. All right. So that would be the trail. But that legislative authority at the beginning has to have some constitutional basis. And that brings you into the general due process question. Life, liberty, or property, has this been done with due process of law in terms of the legislature’s power? The legislature can’t grant powers to the executive, and the executive can’t take powers for itself, or himself, as it were, that aren’t justified within the Constitution. And, certainly these administrative officials are at even a lower level because they are not elected. They’re appointed by somebody. Usually it’s the executive branch that determines that.

Edwin: So there’s a kind of a double delegation of power. The legislature passes some statute. They give some authority to the executive. The executive turns over some of that authority to these administrators. And then the administrators, on the basis of their so-called expertise, come up with, we would hope, recommendations. But now they’re coming up with dictates. They’re saying this has to be done. And then the executive turns around and says, I’m going to use my police powers to enforce this, either through arrest, fines, whatever it might be. And the whole question is in that chain of events, are there places where these various people have overstepped their constitutional limitations? And the answer is on the face of it, in many instances, they certainly have.

Kim: Do you think that the public knew before this all happened, like everybody in their own states, that the governor and the mayors could literally shut the whole place down?

Edwin: No.

Kim: How come we weren’t taught this in school? I never knew this. My family didn’t know this. Friends of mine didn’t know this. I think millions of people are in shock that a governor and a mayor, and probably more, I don’t know who else, can just shut down a state, a county, shut down all the restaurants, shut down all the businesses, bankrupt the entire state. How can they do it?

Edwin: Well, you see, you use the word can, and that’s the question. It really may not. Do they have the authority to do it? They’ve asserted this authority. And in our system, any assertion of authority by some public official is always, should always be subject to some kind of judicial challenge and test of the legality of that determination or dictate or whatever that comes out with. Now the problem with public education is exactly that. It’s public education. The public educational system, for reasons we might go into, has been loath to educate students about the real structure of our Constitution, especially the concept that the Constitution is a limitation on government. It’s not only a grant of governmental authority, but it’s a limitation on that authority. Simply by a provision in the Constitution that spells out what the power of a legislature is in some respect. Power of Congress. You have the power to regulate commerce among the several states. That’s also a definitional limitation. Your power goes among the several states and it has to be commerce, not something else. And then we add to that a provision such as the Fifth Amendment applicable to Congress. Well, you can’t exercise that power in a way that would deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So, there’s like a double limitation built in there. And the limitations are the most important part of the whole system, because otherwise you have, by hypothesis, what’s called a totalitarian system. Government has total power.

Kim: That’s what it feels like right now.

Edwin: That’s what’s happening. That’s the way they’re operating.

Kim: So, talk about, I want you to, for those of us who are unfamiliar, and I mean myself included, I want you to talk about what treason is. And, I want to go back to the totalitarian part. I want you to describe not treason as it was defined by the English many, many years ago, but the constitutional translation of treason.

Edwin: Well, I just happen to have brought along the thing that does that for you.

Kim: I don’t even know how you read that. I would need a magnifying glass.

Edwin: This is the United States Constitution. Article 3, okay. Article 3 deals primarily with the judiciary, but then they put in because they wanted to limit this to a judicial situation. “Article 3, Section 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them.” Stop right there. Bring troops into the field, create a conspiracy to arm men and overturn the government, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. So that depends upon who your enemies are, how you define that, and what is giving them aid and comfort. But the important part here is, besides that definition, which is, of course, a limitation now, if you look at the English law of treason at the time that the Constitution was written, it was very broad. It was kind of a political crime. It was something the king could charge his enemies with and as a result maintain political control. So the Constitution is very careful to limit the definition of treason, to get away from its use or misuse in that way. And then it says, no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. And then we bring the judiciary into this. Congress can pass statutes because the next section says Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason. But what happens? Congress passes those statutes and then when those statutes are applied by whom? The executive branch, the prosecutors, right? Get an indictment for treason. It goes into the courts and then the courts are going to the Constitution. There have to be two witnesses to the same overt act or the defendant has to confess in court. So we have a whole series of limitations built in. First there’s the definition, then the power of Congress to declare the punishment of treason, but not something else, and then the way the procedure works to have treason adjudicated.

Kim: So I want to go back to the part about treason in that I’m not saying the public, I think I’ve mistranslated it. I always assumed when someone says, so-and-so is treasonous, that they’re doing something against their country. And I always associated that with a military person. I never thought of it as a civilian person except for a spy. Do you know what I’m saying? Like somebody who’s doing something that’s really hurting their country for another country. That’s the only two examples that I’ve ever understood. Give me another example or two.

Edwin: Well, you’ve just touched on the second aspect of the definition. Adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Well, that’s what espionage is all about, right? Spying on behalf of some foreign country that’s considered to be an enemy of the United States. And that could be someone in the military, could be someone in civilian life, in government or outside of government, could be almost anyone that was engaged in that type of activity. If you talk about levying war against the United States, that’s the process of actually trying to bring armed people into the field. So, it could be a military operation, take a military coup, for instance, where one branch of the military comes out and attempts to overthrow the government. But, it’s not limited to that. I mean, theoretically, this definition could apply to anyone who performs those prohibited acts.

Kim: I’m going to cut right into the election space. And I want to say a few things that I know for sure. One is, ever since 2001, when the electronic voting machines were installed as part of the process or the body of the elections. They have never been able to be secured. Not a single vote has been able to be secured ever due to Man In The Middle technology. All of the people who were involved in the creation of the electronic voting machines knew that. And, the people in IT at the highest level know that.

Kim: And so, my question is, and what I’ve been screaming about for years to the people that I know is, how come 20 years later, even though they were installed in 2001 where everything changed, Homeland Security and all this electronic voting, the people that put them into the space knew that you couldn’t secure a single vote and they were hackable. And yet, it’s been used for elections in this country for 20 years. Why?

Edwin: Someone wanted to take advantage of the ability of those machines to defraud the electorate. Why else would you put a machine into operation that could defraud the electorate when you knew that that was the capability of the machine?

Kim: How come the public, how come you feel the public doesn’t know this? And I learned it in 2014, late in my life.

Edwin: Well, because the watchdogs in public office didn’t inform the public. And that can include the media as well. I mean, obviously, media people that could have gotten a handle on what was going on here.

Kim: So how come Homeland Security or the election version of that can go on the air and say it was an integral election space? You can’t. How can you do it? How can you say with Man In The Middle technology, okay, Steven Spoonamore, do you know who he is? He went all over the country trying to tell the United States citizens. You cannot secure a single vote. And after 10 years, he said, I’ve had enough. I had a conversation with him before I went to live in Europe. I wanted to interview him so bad, because he knew one thing I love about him. He said, I’m a Republican, but I’ll tell you what. I do not want to win by theft. I want an honest election more than I want my Republican party to win.

Kim: And until more people are there, you’re not going to get an honest election. You’re not going to get integrity in the election. So it’s like wag the dog. The media and these entity bodies within the government are telling you and me and the public that this is handled when it’s not handled. Man In The Middle technology, ladies and gentlemen, Man In The Middle technology, you can’t secure a single vote. And yet we’re expected to believe this. And so my question to you is if there’s no chain of custody, there’s obviously no chain of custody in the electronic voting machines. I don’t care what you call them, Dominion, Schminion, whatever is their name, there’s no chain of custody that’s transparent. So now, when you get to the ballots, how come the public didn’t know? I had no idea. All of these chain links, all of these steps that go on. I mean, there’s more people involved in a process to vote. And the more people you involve, the more you have an opening of vulnerability. There’s no transparent chain of custody. Why do we accept that even with the ballots?

Edwin: Well, I’m not sure why we accept it other than to say that there hasn’t been in the past an exposure of this problem. It’s coming out now because of the massive nature of the vote fraud claims that are being made. But obviously this has been going on at a lesser scale in the past. And we know that before the machine showed up, there was ballot fraud of one kind or another, dead people voting, absentee ballots, whatever it was. Election fraud is something that didn’t happen just in 2020. Right. And to a large extent, I think many Americans have simply shrugged their shoulders and say, well, that’s the way things go. You know, they’ve stuffed ballots in Tammany Hall and these historic events. Now, all of a sudden, it’s become apparent that any election can be rigged.

Edwin: Especially if you’re talking about the president they can get away with it at the presidential level, what else can they do? And so people’s eyes have suddenly been opened. Unfortunately it may be a little late in the game. You see, this should have been looked at beforehand of course when these machines first came out. Somebody in the Department of Justice and the FBI that have units that deal specifically with election tampering and election fraud, they should have said to themselves, wait a minute, we have to do some behind the scenes investigation on this to make sure that we’re not going to find ourselves in a situation three, four, five years from now where we’re going to have a massive investigatory problem to deal with. We have to correct this if it needs correction initially. Well, they didn’t do that. And then now what do you see happening? You have Department of Justice Attorney General Barr coming out the other day and saying, well, you know, we don’t really need to investigate this. We can’t find any massive… Please.

Edwin: That’s not what happens in a proper investigation. You don’t come out at the beginning and say, we haven’t found anything, so we’re going to stop. And the question is, why weren’t you looking at this for the past four years? Why weren’t you looking at it for eight years? Well, how many years should we go back? And, I think it’s really because there are people in the system that want this capability.

Kim: I agree.

Edwin: And so they don’t want you to know that they have this capability.

Kim: I agree with you. And that’s why 90% of the public doesn’t know what Man In The Middle is, what it means. 90% of the public, maybe more, has no clue and had no clue. And probably the difficult part of this is that if my team wins, I don’t care. If your team wins, you don’t care. I mean, that’s the kind of ethos out there. It’s like, if my guy wins, okay, so whatever happens, happens. And that’s where we’re at. We’re at the anything goes society. As long as my team wins, we don’t need to look at it.

Kim: We do need to look at it. And the fact that the media is going on there telling everybody this is an integral election space is a farce. It’s a slap in the face to the American people. And by the way, any other culture that’s using this, I want you to describe for the audience what is plausible deniability, because this is the key to me as to why electronic voting machines are being used.

Edwin: Well, plausible deniability is rather a broad term. They use it in order to enable some governmental body, especially something like the CIA, for instance, to be able to say, to present a line to the public that will cause the public to believe that this agency wasn’t involved in some nefarious activity. They’re trying to prevent people from realizing the extent to which some public officials have been engaged in some sort of illegal activity.

Edwin: So, they create a legend, as they call it in the spy game, right? This story out there that’s broadcast to the people, maybe through friendly agents that you have in the media, that gives the, puts the agency in the position where it can deny its involvement in a plausible fashion, right? We weren’t involved in this because of A, B, and C. Now, of course, A, B, and C may not be true. And you, the public, are not capable of getting behind A, B, and C, but, on the face of it, it seems plausible. Right?

Kim: Just like the electronic voting machines, okay, to use them knowing that you have Man In The Middle technology that has 24-7 capability as an intercept, that can change whatever’s going on, is a form of plausible deniability. Because, if I’m running a machine, I can always say China did it, Russia did it, this one did it, that one did it.

Edwin: I didn’t know, right? I’m running the machine, but I had no way of knowing. I’m not an IT expert. So, when I was told to put these cards in there to run the machine, I didn’t know what was happening. I didn’t realize that all those votes were going to be sent to Barcelona to be manipulated or Frankfurt or wherever they say these votes were sent. So, you can have a whole chain of, when they talk about a conspiracy, people always say, well, in a huge conspiracy, someone would always talk. That’s not true, because in a huge enough conspiracy, there are people in the middle that don’t realize they’re part of the conspiracy. All right? People operate on a need-to-know basis. You’re given this little card, and your supervisor says, plug that into the machine. You don’t know why, but that was a key element in the conspiracy to move those votes from one candidate to the other candidate. Maybe even your supervisor didn’t know, because it was somebody else who told him to do that.

Kim: You said a very important thing besides the whole thing that you just said. You said need to know. Through compartmentalization, which is the key you’re really talking about, the need to know, you can take a project. You only have your part of a greater whole. You don’t even know what the next person’s doing or what they’re accountable to or what their instructions are or what their orders have been. And, if you compartmentalize enough elements in the project, you have an opening for total malfeasance.

Edwin: Right.

Kim: And you also have people that don’t know what’s going on. They only know their part. Now, I do feel at a feeling level that a lot of people who were involved, and I’m not saying it didn’t happen in other elections, but we’re talking about this one right now. A lot of people had animus one way or the other. It’s a highly polarized scenario. A lot of people did have animus who were, happened to be volunteers. There’s also a lot of great, incredible, honorable people that were doing what they were supposed to do and were doing a duty and making contribution to the country. But this need to know is very important and how everything was compartmentalized. And I think that until you have a fully transparent process from beginning to end, given what’s happened, you have no real election, you have a kangaroo election. And I don’t care how you dress it.

Edwin: That’s exactly right. And, it has to be set up in such a way that it can be audited afterwards. Not simply recounting the illegal ballots, but auditing which ballots are legal and which are illegal.

Kim: By the way, that’s another point that keeps happening on television, which I don’t watch. I watch excerpts of things online. But the re-auditing of something that didn’t happen properly, or where there was malfeasance, is just the regurgitation of that.

Edwin: The recounting. Yes. See, in an audit, you would go through and say, here’s an absentee ballot and we can check the signature with the signature of the registered voter. Oh, the signatures don’t match. Or perhaps there’s no signature. Or perhaps the address is wrong. I can find all sorts of reasons to audit this and say, this ballot is no good. Now, on the other hand, if all I do is count all the ballots that have come in, what happens? This fraudulent ballot, this illegal ballot, still is counted. We haven’t performed an audit. So, an audit is different from a recount.

Kim: So why is it that the media keeps 24-7 talking about so-and-so recounted and everything is fine? Do they think that the people of this country are stupid? What do they think?

Edwin: Oh, for sure. Oh, for sure.

Kim: Well, it was recounted. You know, probably years ago, someone said, well, we did a recount. Because if you don’t know the interior of the process, where there’s signatures, there’s ballots, there’s matchups, there’s a way of bringing the integrity into form. Who would know? Somebody like me would say, well, they recounted, but they didn’t audit, yes?

Edwin: I have a stack here of thousand-dollar bills. And I can count those and I say, there are 20 of them. That’s a count. That’s a recount. I can do that 100 times, 1,000 times, get the same result. An audit would be, let’s check which ones of these are counterfeit and pull them out. All right, let’s do another test, not simply the counting. Let’s do some other test to verify that these things should be in the batch that’s going to be counted. Now the media simply thinks the average person can be deceived by wordplay. That when they hear about a recount, the average person thinks to himself without really having a basis for it, that all sorts of security provisions, if you will, are being put into play. It’s not simply the mechanical. Or maybe some people think that that’s all that has to be done. It’s simply the mechanical recounting of a stack of ballots. But the media is playing that game, because the difference, I think, is obvious to anyone who knows audit versus recount.

Kim: The distinction.

Edwin: Audit vs. Recount. Why would they be using the same terminological approach unless they were trying to deceive you?

Kim: Look, the public and myself included doesn’t know the distinction between electors, legislators, electors. This whole domain is very obscured. I hope I’m not imposing this on anybody listening, but I feel that many of us are in the total dark. Who’s appointing what? What is this certification about? How do you certify something that’s been recounted when you haven’t done a signature match, when you haven’t really done a proper audit? How can you verify anything?

Edwin: Well, if we start off with, I think, a basic misunderstanding people have of the presidential election. By the U.S. Constitution, the presidential election is not required to be a plebiscite.

Kim: I don’t know what that means.

Edwin: A vote of everybody.

Kim: OK.

Edwin: OK? The presidential election, the so-called electors who go to the electoral college, they could be selected by the legislatures of the states.

Kim: And who are they?

Edwin: Those are the people whom you and I elect to become representatives and senators if you have a two-house legislature.

Kim: So, is a governor an elector? Okay, senator?

Edwin: No. The legislature is, if you have a two-house legislature, you have the representatives and then you have the senators, just like Congress. That’s a legislature. The president is an executive. So, the Constitution of the United States provides that ultimately the legislatures of the states can determine who the electors are. So, you’ve got all sorts of different procedures that have been used throughout American history. This idea of the plebiscite is probably the most recent one, because they had some in earlier times, and it’s become the most popular one. So, we use all of that. But if you look at the Constitution, if there were, a legislature would come in now in one of these disputed states and say, we’ve looked at this election and there were so many questions of potential fraud that we are not going to allow this plebiscite to determine the electors. We, the legislature, will step in and we will determine who the electors are.

Kim: So, what’s happening now in the U.S. right now?

Edwin: Well, what’s happening now in some of the states, the Republicans, of course, Trump’s people, are going to the legislatures, which are in those states, Republicans, saying, you have to step in because these elections, the plebiscites, were so tainted by fraud or other questions that they’re really not valid. We can’t depend upon those as the means for selecting the electors. The legislators have to step in. And that would not be unconstitutional. I think it would be highly unpopular. You’d have a huge number of people screaming about that. But that’s one thing people don’t understand, that the electoral process for the president is a very special kind of process. And the reason for that was, essentially twofold, well, the states initially, before the Constitution, were independent political entities. Declaration of Independence calls them free and independent states. And they had certain powers. They could make treaties, potentially. They had their own armies, potentially.

Kim: Each state?

Edwin: Each state, okay, because they were independent states. They form the Articles of Confederation and they limit themselves to a certain extent there. And then they create the Constitution of the United States and limit themselves even more. And in two places, the states limited themselves. First, they can’t make treaties, period. No state can make a treaty with a foreign country. And, no state can have its own army without the consent of Congress. So, they’re limited. Well, who ends up making treaties under the Constitution of the United States? It’s the President of the United States. So, he’s taken over that very important power from the states.

Edwin: Who was the commander in chief of the army? The President of the United States. He’s taken over that power. And even the militia of the states, which is separate from the army, if the militia is called up by Congress, the president becomes commander in chief. So, you can see why the states, when the Constitution was written, why they were very concerned about having a special role in electing the president. Because he was going to exercise these powers that the states previously had, and were very important powers of sovereignty. They were giving up sovereign powers under this system. So, that’s why this peculiar electoral process is built into the Constitution. And there’s a famous case, MacPherson versus Blackmer, I believe it was 1892, that goes into the complete history of all this, the Supreme Court decision, lays it all out.

Edwin: They were doing this and then went to this and they changed this and back and forth. You’ve had all these different procedures for electing the president. But, when it comes right down to it, the ultimate power is in the legislatures of the states. So, we’re beginning to see that now. And of course, that’s some of these lawsuits that are going on, the one in Texas versus the other states and so forth. This all is percolating to the surface. What’s interesting though is it’s percolating to the surface for the first time in many, many years or decades of American history. The average American is looking to say, what’s going on? I’ve never heard of any of this before.

Kim: I never even heard that the secretary of state in each state is the one to certify an election. Is that true?

Edwin: Well, it depends upon what the legislature says. But, even that certification, here you run into a problem. What good is a certification if it’s predicated on fraud? Fraud vitiates anything along that line. And a legislature could certainly come in and say, oh, we have a certification from this executive official, but we have the ultimate power — the legislators have the ultimate power to determine who the electors are. And, we’re simply going to throw that out.

Kim: I want to talk to you about the Equal Protection Clause, which is being kind of circulated heavily in the election space. And, I don’t understand it. When I hear it, all I think about are people should be able to see and witness the votes. But I think it has to do with something bigger than that, does it?

Edwin: Well, if we’re talking about an election situation, we’re talking about the laws of the particular state applying equally to everyone who’s entitled to vote. And, it comes up in Article 14, the 14th Amendment. It says, no state shall make or enforce any law which will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Well, stop right there. Voting in a federal election is a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States. So, no state can make or enforce any law of its own that will abridge that federal right. Then it goes on to say, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, which we talked about. That’s the general limitation. Then we come to the Equal Protection Clause.

Edwin: Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So, if I have an electoral system in state X, that allows everyone to vote and then counts everyone’s vote for whoever the officers are — representative, senator, governor — then, I have to provide equal protection, equal benefit, if you will, of that law to everyone. I can’t engage in suppressing someone’s vote by tearing up their ballot, keeping them from the polling place, putting a false ballot in, diluting their vote by putting in false ballots. There’s a whole series of things that would fall under electoral fraud that would come potentially under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, provided that it’s some state official that’s doing it. As it says, no state shall do that. If we’re talking about some private individual that’s stuffing ballots secretly, then you have another question. It’s a criminal law problem that deals with that.

Edwin: So if you look at the situations going on now and you say, all right, these states were engaged, some of the states were engaged in procedures which the state officials knew, or they were recklessly indifferent to the fact that these procedures could deny certain segments of the electorate the full value of those people’s votes, then you have an equal protection problem.

Kim: So, right now, the word in the media is that POTUS is not accepting defeat. Everything is okay. The integrity of the election has been maintained. All is well. And he’s lost X number of civil cases. And that’s it. It doesn’t matter. Where are you at about that?

Edwin: The only thing that’s right in that sequence is the first thing, that he’s not accepting the result of this election. All the rest of it is argumentative. And I would say, if they’re not looking at the evidence — you have a lot to look at. Evidence is not something that’s determined when a complaint is filed in a court. You make allegations. You say, I think I can prove this. The proof then comes up later, typically speaking. It might come up through affidavits being provided, a procedure called summary judgment. Typically, in the long run, it comes up through a trial where a witness has testified before a jury. None of that has happened. So far, all these cases, as far as I can tell, complaints have been filed, which is the very first step. Sometimes they’ve attached to these complaints affidavits from potential witnesses to bolster the allegations that are made in the complaint, although that may not be necessary unless you’re alleging actual fraud. And then the judges on some theory of their own have said, well, there’s really no evidence. I’m just going to throw this out.

Kim: Can they do that?

Edwin: Can they? Yeah, they can do essentially anything they want.

Kim: Is that constitutionally acceptable?

Edwin: No, no, no, no.

Kim: Why?

Edwin: Well, because the procedures that we have in the judicial system — you make a charge in a complaint. You say, these are the alleged facts. I think this, this, this, and this happened. And if all these things are true, then there are certain legal consequences, which is I win and you lose. And then there will be some remedy — you’ll pay a fine or you’ll pay me damages or an injunction, some remedy. So, at that first step in the case, typically speaking, all the judges look at is the allegations and say, well, if these were true — and we’re saying, as a matter of speculation — if these were true, would there be a legal claim that the courts could enforce? That’s what they’re supposed to do at that stage. They are not at that stage to determine whether these allegations are true or not. It’s only if they are true. Now some allegations might be so incredulous that a judge would say, well, I’m not going to accept this at all. Allegations like the moon is made of green cheese, therefore I win the case. That allegation is no good.

Kim: How can they be thrown out is my question?

Edwin: Well, they can’t be thrown out. That’s what I’m trying to explain to you. The procedures don’t allow them to be thrown out. They have to go to the next step.

Kim: But it’s reported that they are throwing them out.

Edwin: Well, judges are making it up as they go. They don’t want to create some kind of real Constitutional Crisis. We’ve seen this before. There was a story, I don’t know how true it is, but this is a story that was reported in the Kennedy-Nixon election in 1960. There were claims that there was massive electoral fraud in Illinois, and there was electoral fraud in Texas. And supposedly some of Nixon’s advisors said, you need to challenge this. It’s close enough so that you might be able to win if we challenge it. And Nixon said, with a kind of patriotic attitude, he said, no, I don’t want to do that because that would cause a Constitutional Crisis. People would lose confidence in our system.

Kim: Do you think he believed that or do you think he was ordered to speak?

Edwin: Well, I don’t know, but that’s the story. Just leave it at that. And I would have said to him, Mr. Nixon, the Constitutional Crisis is letting someone be elected president on the basis of fraudulent votes. That’s the Constitutional Crisis, because we’ll see that done again and again and again. If you don’t stop it the first time that we have sufficient evidence, then it will be a “precedent” that others will use. And so now we have this situation and I’m fairly sure that at least some of these people in the judiciary are looking at this and saying, oh, if we open up this Pandora’s box, if we open up this can of worms, there will be all sorts of political consequences which we can’t control. We can’t even predict.

Edwin: And therefore, we’re going to put the lid on it. Well, they’ll be burning the cities down. And, we can’t control that. This is the whole point. We the judges, we can give a determination that the state of X conducted a fraudulent election and therefore certain consequences with respect to electors. But what then happens politically? What then happens socially? We can’t control that. So better for us to sit back and just leave the lid on.

Kim: So, like in finance and banking, it’s like kicking the can down the road in the economy.

Edwin: That’s the reason that they never challenge the Federal Reserve System, in fact, making an aside. Because they could come in, the judges could come in at the level of the Supreme Court, let’s say, and say, oh, this provision of the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional, but now what? They can’t tell Congress how to correct it. They can’t tell how the markets are to respond to that decision. They can’t tell international finance what to do when the Federal Reserve Note is a world reserve currency, but the Supreme Court of the United States is saying part of the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional. So, the judges will say, my goodness, we can create havoc if we decide this case. Therefore, we’re not going to decide the case. We’re going to evade it in some way.

Kim: Hold your horses. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re going to take a quick break and we’ll be right back with Dr. Edwin Vieira on It’s Rainmaking Time! Thanks so much.

[Sponsor Break — Patrick McKeown / Buteyko Institute]
We’re living in such a difficult time all over the world. Many, many people are scrambling for what to do, how to make life better, how to enhance our immunity, how to increase our sense of well-being. And, for months I’ve been studying the Buteyko Institute. Mr. Patrick McKeown’s work — he is without a doubt one of the most erudite people when it comes to understanding every molecule when it comes to the science of breathing. There are very few people like him on earth. And what he’s introducing is how to nose breathe, which fills your nasal cavity and your sinuses with nitric oxide and sanitizes the air that has come in from outside as it makes its way to your lungs. This would help so many people who have to mask — only breathe through their nose — and also be able to increase their lung capacity at such a time where people are very scared of what’s going on. So, I want you all to look up Patrick McKeown and listen to his videos, buy his books. He’s one of the greats, legends of our time in the area of the science of breathing. It’s Rainmaking Time! is going to have him on this year, stay tuned for that. And also, I wanted to introduce you all to a book that has been banned that is so important in releasing your fears about viruses. It’s called The Contagion Myth by Dr. Thomas Cowan and Sally Fallone Morell. The Contagion Myth: Why Viruses Are Not the Cause of Disease. And, it explains beautifully the distinction between the germ theory of infectious disease and the terrain theory of infectious disease. And thanks to my parents, Lloyd and Joanne Greenhouse from heaven for sponsoring this segment of It’s Rainmaking Time! I love you. I feel you. I’m still with you. And, back to the show.

Kim: You were speaking about the weak link in the judiciary.

Edwin: Well, the judiciary being the weak link in the system of constitutional control. Because there are some circumstances that will come in front of the judiciary where, yes, they can make a determination on the particular question that the litigants have presented, but then that determination will have consequences that they can’t control. So, they might declare a particular statute unconstitutional. But they can’t tell Congress how to remedy that, how to write a constitutional statute. They can’t order Congress to do that. So, you see, especially in the area of banking and finance, money in general, that the courts have been loath to get involved in constitutional questions dealing with the Federal Reserve. Because they might declare part of the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional, but then what happens? How do the markets react domestically, internationally? What would Congress do? Would it pass the right statute the next time? Or maybe it would be stuck for a year, not pass any statute at all.

Edwin: So, I think judges look at these situations and say, wait a minute, we can only go so far before we open Pandora’s box. And as a result, if we take one of these cases where we find that we’re confronted with that, then we get rid of it on some other ground. We don’t lay that landmine there for the country to step on. So, you look at this electoral problem that we have now. And that’s the one thing that concerns me, that that’s exactly what they will say. This is such a big problem that anything we say could potentially cause a politically chaotic, socially chaotic situation, which we cannot control.

Kim: But, what if it happens? So what? Maybe it’s needed.

Edwin: I understand that, but the natural inclination of people is not to do that. And to take that burden on themselves, saying, oh yes, I can press this button and there could be horrific consequences which I can’t control, but for which I will be blamed.

Kim: That’s — I actually thought of that even with the Supreme Court.

Edwin: I can be blamed for this.

Kim: The people will be blamed for shifting the election, animus.

Edwin: And let’s go to the next step. This happened under Roosevelt and it’s been proposed under Biden, the so-called court packing scheme. Biden has been talking about expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, maybe causing them to resign at a certain age, whatever. Roosevelt had that same problem — why? Because the Supreme Court at the time was ruling against some of his pet legislation. And the consequence then from the Supreme Court being, let’s say, bold in its determinations was a Constitutional Crisis occurred — Roosevelt wanted to pack the court. Now at that point in time even some of the Democratic Party leaders said no, this is going too far, and they talked him out of it. But, you could see that situation. And then what happened — a number of judges resigned and Roosevelt appointed his own people. They began finding his legislation constitutional and the problem was solved, politically speaking. And that’s the history of this, I think. In many instances the courts have wanted to back away from putting themselves and the rest of the country into some kind of potentially calamitous situation which they could not foresee and they could not control.

Kim: So, let’s bring it in further. The courts could say or could find that there’s been fraud, too much fraud to even be able to deal with it. So, they could declare that there was massive fraud, or in certain states, certain amounts of fraud, but they will not provide a remedy for it. The remedy goes up to what? The Congress for a remedy? Who gets the option to make a remedy?

Edwin: Well, they might have the option to prepare a remedy. Let’s say they said that in this particular state, the fraud was involved in bringing in ballots and counting ballots after election day. So, the ballots that came in were dated after election day — they were invalid — which would mean that the remedy would be you go back to election day, midnight, 59 minutes, right? The last minute of election day. And only those ballots that came in then should be counted.

Kim: How would you know?

Edwin: Well, the ones that come in with post-dates of later dates, they go. The ones that come in with no postmarks, you don’t know, they go. I mean, you could come up with a theory of how you do it.

Kim: Even though a certain amount of the postmarks were shifted. Now, I heard that. I don’t know if it’s true.

Edwin: That’s why it gets complicated. But I’m saying in principle, that could be done. And then they would say, all right, this state then gets to determine its electors on the basis of those votes. Or it might say, well, these particular states are so confused that those elections are simply going to be invalid. Or it could say those states are so confused that it falls back to the power of the state legislators to come up with the election.

Kim: Because to me, this is so complicated right now. And it’s so hard to deal with. And the public is so stressed out about it.

Edwin: And let’s go one more step. None of this really has to be decided, even up to the 20th of January. Because on the 20th of January, if you read the 20th Amendment, on the 20th of January, if a president and vice president have not qualified — which is all the things we’re talking about back here through the election — if it’s still indeterminate, what happens? The Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes the acting president until a president qualifies. So, you could imagine that this litigation might — no, you could imagine this litigation would go on for a year. It’s not as if we’re asked to stop by the 20th. It could be processing over here and going on. We get to the 20th. No one has qualified because all these questions are still open. We don’t have a majority in the electoral college. I guess it’s Nancy Pelosi. She’s the one who’s going to be elected. Nancy Pelosi becomes the acting president. Meanwhile, the litigation goes on and it could be six months, eight months, a year. The litigation finally determines who’s qualified to be president. That person becomes president. Nancy Pelosi goes back to the House of Representatives.

Kim: Could this be why some of the judges are slow-walking decisions, or why certain people are slow-walking certification, or not certifying, or certifying quickly?

Edwin: No, they didn’t think that through. The judges just want to get this out of their courtrooms for the reasons we’ve stated.

Kim: So where does any president — let’s take Donald Trump out of it — where does any president who is amassing this amount of malfeasance, physical, in-your-face malfeasance, through the election process — what is their remedy? What would you advise them to do? Again, it’s not just about Donald Trump, anybody in this position.

Edwin: Well, leaving aside — a lot of things he should have done beforehand with respect to this. We’ve been talking about voting machines, for instance, which everybody knows have a problem. And there are things he could have done then, but leave that aside. Now, he is really stuck with two courses of action. First, investigation of the fraud. That should be done by the government, not by people like Sidney Powell and other private individuals, because they don’t have the resources.

Kim: Who in the government?

Edwin: Well, there we go — it’s the FBI. And the FBI’s not going to do it. So he’s caught there on that side.

Kim: Caught or stuck?

Edwin: He’s not stuck, because there’s another process he can use — the frightening process. The other alternative is to go into the courts. He can go into the court as himself, Donald Trump — he’s been deprived of his own constitutional and civil rights through a fraudulent election. He can go in the way that Texas is doing and get some states that are favorable to him. Apparently there are like seven states that are in. He needs only one. They can go directly into the Supreme Court and start a process there. So, he has those two routes to go. And actually, he could sue those states that Texas is suing.

Kim: As a person, as commander in chief?

Edwin: As Donald Trump, candidate for president of the United States, because the original jurisdiction requires that a state is a party, not that there be two parties of states — that a state be a party. Typically, it’s states on both sides, boundary problems and that type of thing, water rights or whatever. So, there are states on both sides. But it’s conceivable that it could be Donald Trump, President of the United States, in his official individual capacity versus the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

Kim: Now is that a civil case or is that a criminal case?

Edwin: Oh, these are civil cases. And the difficulty here, of course, is the evidence. Because in the criminal case, how do you get evidence? You get a search warrant. You get some affidavits from people saying that there’s evidence of a certain kind that relates to a potential crime or a crime that has been committed. You get a search warrant. And, of course they have a lot of affidavits dealing with these election machines. And what do you do with the search warrant? You simply go in and take the machines.

Kim: I’ve been wondering why don’t they go in and take the machines?

Edwin: Because, they haven’t followed the correct procedure here. The correct procedure is a criminal investigation. Look, every one of these vote fraud situations involves criminal behavior at both the federal and the state level. You’ll find statutes that make these kinds of events — ballots stuffing, false recordings, whatever — a whole list of these things. Every one of them is a criminal violation. So, at the federal level, you would have the FBI investigating these matters. Now, if the evidence is supposedly within the Dominion Voting Machines, that’s one of the instrumentalities of the fraud. What do you do? You seize the machine.

Kim: Who seizes them?

Edwin: The FBI seizes them. In the normal course of events, somebody comes to the FBI.

Edwin: Says, I think that there was a fraud committed in this election. I have an affidavit from a bunch of IT experts that say it’s tied into this Dominion system, among other ways of fraud. And the FBI takes that information to a judge or a magistrate and gets a search warrant because this is a potential criminal case. Takes that search warrant, goes down to wherever these machines are, and simply seizes them. Doesn’t ask for permission, it simply seizes them. Now, the Dominion corporate headquarters, whether they’re in Colorado or someplace.

Kim: Colorado or Canada?

Edwin: Whatever it is, I don’t know. There’s supposedly one here in the United States. That’s the same thing. Oh, Dominion was involved in this. We have reason to believe that, etc., etc., about Dominion. We go to the corporate headquarters. We get every email, we get every text message, we get every piece of paper that’s in there. We get everything on their computers. That’s the way you conduct an investigation, a criminal investigation. You simply seize stuff based on probable cause, which is based on affidavits of people who may be potential witnesses.

Edwin: Now, in a civil case, the problem you have is, I sue you, and now I think that you have particular information that I want to get that’s useful to me. I have to go to you and ask for a request to produce documents or tangible things. So, I give you a request — produce those computers. You then go to the judge and say, that’s irrelevant, that won’t prove anything. So, we argue back and forth for a month. And finally, the judge says, well, it may have some relevance. So yes, you have to turn those over in the presence of some IT forensic people so they can be looked at. Now, that’s wasted how much time?

Kim: Right. I mean, all of this is slow-walking everything.

Edwin: It’s wasted a lot of time. And that’s the civil suits which are going on now. So, they’re desperately trying to get this information or these tangible things, the computers, through that normal process, which has a lot of hurdles that you have to go through procedurally simply because that’s the way it’s set up. On the criminal side it’s quite different. As soon as you have the people who are willing to give the sworn statements to back up your search warrant, you get the search warrant, three o’clock in the morning, you go and you collect the information. So, the very fact that this hasn’t been done.

Kim: I think the head of the FBI said, I think it was a few weeks ago, we’ll take a look at it.

Kim: Will you? Please.

Edwin: Well, you see, here you go back to Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, which says the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is the head of this whole process. The Department of Justice, the FBI — they’re there to enable him to perform this constitutional function. Congress cannot take that constitutional function away from him and neither can these agencies. Congress can’t say, oh, well, the Department of Justice is independent. They don’t have to listen to the president. Oh, the FBI is independent. They don’t have to conduct an investigation if the president tells them to do so. That’s exactly the opposite of the constitutional proposition. They are there to perform those functions so that he can perform his constitutional duty.

Kim: And if they don’t?

Edwin: And if they don’t, well, then he should bring somebody in there to make them do it. I mean, he goes down, he finds out that somebody in the investigative department isn’t doing this. Let’s get the special agents from Boise in here. Let’s find someone in this agency that will perform this function. And he should have been doing that months ago. But let’s go to another step, which is a higher level here of “schrecklichkeit,” as the Germans would say, frightfulness. This is Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 253. People can read this — Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 253. It says that whenever a combination or conspiracy or insurrection — a whole list of things, but let’s say a combination or conspiracy — electoral fraud, occurs in a state and the state officials fail or refuse to take appropriate action to deal with this, and as a result of that, some portion of the citizenry of that state is denied its rights under federal law, which is what happens in electoral fraud — we deny my right to vote and have it counted properly.

Edwin: Then the President of the United States can, by using the militia or the armed forces or any other means that he considers necessary, come in and deal with that problem.

Kim: And when you say the armed forces, you mean the military, or you mean the National Guard?

Edwin: The militia, the armed forces — the National Guard is part of the armed forces — or any other means. This thing is extremely broad. And why is it that way? Because it was written to deal with the Ku Klux Klan.

Kim: Before you get to that, I want you to explain something to the public. I believe — and I could be wrong — that when the public hears the word militia, they’re thinking of like anti-government, anti-system people with guns and anarchists, crazy, whatever, fringe. What is the militia, before you get to the Ku Klux Klan piece you were going to make?

Edwin: Well, there are 50 of them. There’s one in each state. The Constitution calls it the militia of the several states. They’re the bodies that are created outside of the normal military and made up of ordinary citizens. Take Virginia. In Virginia, there is a so-called unorganized militia — it is everyone, every resident from 16 to 55 years of age. Now most people don’t even realize they’re part of this organization because it really does nothing. It just kind of sits there. But in Virginia, if I were from 16 to 55 years of age, I would be a compulsory member of the militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia by statute.

Edwin: And I can be called forth — because it goes on in the statutes — to perform certain functions when the governor calls me out. And when he does that, I have to come. It’s a compulsory organization. It goes all the way back in American history to the colonial period. But the point is this statute provides for the president to call forth a militia, which is anyone in Virginia from 16 to 55 that he might want to use.

Kim: Glad I missed that one.

Edwin: The armed forces, and any other means. And this statute says when these circumstances obtain — when the state officials are refusing or neglecting to perform their function, denying some portion of their citizenry these rights — it is to be treated as an equal protection of the law violation by the statute. Now this all ties together. Now this goes back to the Ku Klux Klan. When the Ku Klux Klan was out riding at night, some of those Klan members were actually public officials — justices of the peace, mayors, or whatever. They’d be public officials during the day and they’d be with the Klan at night. So clearly, they were not going to take the appropriate action to suppress the Klan, this combination or conspiracy. The Klan was then engaged in suppressing the rights of the so-called freed men, the former slaves, and then any Republicans who happened to be in those primarily southern states. So that’s why this statute was passed.

Edwin: Well, it fits this situation exactly, except this is an electoral situation. It’s not people riding with white hoods. It would have fit the riots perfectly because instead of people riding with white hoods, you had the Antifa people dressed in black, and the local officials were looking the other way while buildings were being burned, while livelihoods were being destroyed, denying the rights of their own citizens. And at that point, the president should have stepped in through the use of the militia — could have used the local militia. He could have used the armed forces, which would be the National Guard or the Army, if necessary.

Kim: Who was sent in? What group was sent in, for example, in Portland? Was that the National Guard?

Edwin: I think they sent some National Guard people in to defend the courthouse, the federal courthouse. But this statute doesn’t apply simply to federal properties. It applies to any person. All of those people had a little bodega someplace that was going to be burned down or was burned down. They were people that were suffering under this statute. So, you had a series of events when the president could have begun making it clear to people, wait a minute, I have this reserved authority here, and if this goes much further, I’m going to use it. Oh, and by the way, this also would apply to voter fraud. Because that’s a denial of rights of people — no question about that. This also applies to voter fraud. And if the states don’t deal with the voter fraud problem, which people are predicting will occur, then I may have to deal with it. So that’s where he is now.

Edwin: It’s a little bit behind the eight ball, because when the Department of Justice and the FBI said, well, we might look into this if somebody tells us, if somebody brings us all the evidence we might look into it, maybe, no guarantee — how does he deal with the lack of investigatory personnel? Well, the statute tells him, by any other means, start calling people up from the militia who have investigatory skills — people who have been former prosecutors, people who are criminal defense attorneys, people who have experience in the police. In fact, under the various statutes I’ve looked at, he could call actual policemen up as part of the militia. They don’t have exemptions in Virginia for him. He could call police investigators, forensic people up and say, I want you here in Washington and we’re going to conduct these investigations wherever it may be.

Kim: So, in a sense, am I hearing correctly that in the way that you’re describing this, President Donald Trump could bypass the FBI and establish or call upon the militia in these different areas to function as an investigatory power?

Edwin: That’s right. Absolutely.

Kim: How come he doesn’t know it? It depends who’s advising him.

Edwin: Well, it’s a problem. I guess his advisors haven’t noticed this. I wrote a number of articles going back to the time of the riots and saying, well, this is a way to solve the riot problem. It’s very simple. In fact, this statute was written for that purpose.

Kim: Describe it. Literally, the militia goes in. Is called in.

Edwin: Yeah. Well, actually, he’s got a lot of people there who are members of the local police. And I would bet in those places that the local police are not exempted from the militia. So, he could simply call them forth as part of the militia. There are all sorts of options. It depends upon what the local militia statutes say. But he didn’t do it. That was my point. He didn’t do it during the riots, for which the statute applies historically when you were dealing with violence, KKK. And he’s not doing it now. And now he finds himself in the position where, number one, the FBI is not helping him. They should have been conducting rather vigorous investigations here and obtaining this evidence. And obviously the state investigatory people are not doing it either.

Kim: What does that tell you?

Edwin: They’re all in it together.

Kim: It’s a concert of cooperation.

Edwin: Yeah. And that’s the combination or conspiracy under 10 USC Section 253. Any combination or conspiracy.

Kim: Because you know how it looks. And, with the media, it looks like egoed-out Trump. He’s just not accepting this loss. He’s a narcissist. He’s having a tantrum. He’s not going to concede. And even, I think, a year or two before this election, certain people, public figures were saying he will never concede. Well, I think a lot of this was being preceded — this conversation, this construct.

Kim: I want to now go to the Supreme Court matter.

Edwin: Oh, yes.

Kim: We have to talk about this because I know that President Trump had talked about this will go to the Supreme Court. But if these cases go to the Supreme Court where the states sue different states, correct?

Edwin: You mean the Texas type litigation?

Kim: Yes, like the Texas type scenario. And this goes to the Supreme Court. And if Texas wins or is successful in this, what is the translation of that? What does it mean?

Edwin: Depends what they ask for.

Kim: Well, obviously, if they’re going to do it, they’re going to ask for a certain kind of remedy or for the fraud to be discounted.

Edwin: Well, that’s what I’m getting at. And we went back to the point that was made earlier. You can say that there was electoral fraud because they counted ballots that came in too late. And then the remedy there would be, let’s only count the ballots that came in on time.

Kim: But who’s making that decision? You’re going back to the same group.

Edwin: Well, the Supreme Court would give that order. And then they would probably put some safeguards in there to make sure that it was monitored correctly. And those people who were doing it would be subject to contempt of court if they stepped outside of the limitations that the Supreme Court had set on the process. So that’s one possibility. So you go back and you determine that these particular states — yes, someone did win the election, we can actually determine that. Then it’s also possible to say the election is so fouled up that this state can’t determine that anyone won, so it doesn’t qualify to send electors.

Edwin: So, there are more than one possibility. And it depends upon what’s proven in each instance. Now the problem with the Supreme Court procedure is, in original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court takes the position that they don’t have to hear the case — which is wrong, but I’ll leave that aside. Assuming that they take the case, they’re not going to act as the trial court. They’re not going to act as the court that determines what the evidence is initially — here are the witnesses, deals with the discovery questions. They farm that out to somebody else. In general terms, we call it a Special Master.

Kim: See, most of us don’t know that.

Edwin: Well, they farm it out. But meanwhile, the case is percolating. Somebody is looking at the evidence.

Kim: Who’s the somebody?

Edwin: Whoever they appoint.

Kim: Well, they could be people with animus.

Edwin: We don’t know. We’ll assume it’s someone who’s legitimate. Someone’s going to look at this fairly. They appointed to it might be two or three people — appointed to that Special Master. And then that Special Master acts the way a trial court does, collects the evidence, and eventually writes some kind of report that comes to the Supreme Court saying, we had this evidence, here’s what I think the conclusions are. This actually happens in the normal course of litigation. Sometimes a trial court will say, I’m too busy to have a trial. Will you lawyers agree to a Special Master? And then he’ll make a report to me. And that often happens because a case is complex or whatever. Then this case comes back to the Supreme Court on the basis of that record that has been made, the factual record, and the Supreme Court compares the factual record to the legal questions that are presented and then the legal arguments that are made fore and aft, pro and con, and it comes up with a decision. And let’s assume the decision is in favor of Texas in this case. It will then give a remedy with respect to the particular defendant state’s circumstance of what has to be done.

Kim: How fast can this happen?

Edwin: Not very fast. I would think that the collection of the evidence — because they’ll be yelling and screaming back and forth about what evidence is relevant, what evidence can’t be used, whatever. Discovery — can we get these documents that are held someplace by Dominion? How can we get these? That type of thing. But, I come back to the 20th Amendment. The 20th Amendment says, on January the 20th, you’re going to inaugurate a president if one is qualified. How does a president become qualified? Well, there’s this procedure for election. And we’re now adding to that procedure for election this super procedure of judicial investigation. So, we’re not going to know on the scenario we’re talking about — we’re not going to know who is qualified until this judicial procedure is over with. And that might come after the 20th of January. But the 20th Amendment says, if no one is qualified as president or vice president on the 20th of January, the government doesn’t just stop. The Speaker of the House of Representatives then acts as president until someone is qualified. The Speaker of the House of Representatives doesn’t become the president — simply acts as the president until someone is qualified.

Edwin: So, you can imagine this whole process, if the Supreme Court actually takes the case and says, we’re going to look into this and makes a decision — that could go on for, I don’t know, let’s say it goes on for six months. So from January the 20th until July —

Kim: That’s a very vulnerable position for the country.

Edwin: Sure, it would be, but that’s what would happen. From January to July, Nancy Pelosi would be — I assume she’s going to be the Speaker — Nancy Pelosi would be the president of the United States, acting president. So that would go on until, let’s say July, and the Supreme Court finally decides all of this. It gets sorted out. They apply the Supreme Court procedures to determine what’s correct and what’s incorrect. And they say, okay, now we know what the electoral vote is, and whichever one wins, Trump or Biden, wins — and then that person qualifies as president and takes over at that point, takes the oath and so forth. So there actually is a procedure. This isn’t as wild as some people say, you know, we don’t know what would happen. We know what would happen.

Kim: Has it ever happened in history?

Edwin: No.

Kim: God help us.

Edwin: No. God help us. And we’ve had very few impeachments too. How many impeachments can you think of?

Kim: What happens to, in this case, President Trump and Vice President Pence in this context? Where do they go? Are they escorted back to their respective homes? What happens to all of the administration staff? Are they cleaned out?

Edwin: No, well, actually — Trump has not qualified. He was a candidate, but he’s not qualified as president. And Pence — he was a candidate for vice president, but he has not qualified. And Biden and Harris, they have not qualified. They’re the only four that we know of. It’s pretty sure that if there was a Libertarian running or the Green Party running, they haven’t qualified — they certainly haven’t got a majority of electoral votes. So, no one is qualified. Trump and Pence are no longer president and vice president. I guess he goes back to Mar-a-Lago or wherever he would go. But, what about the whole staff? Are they all fired? Those people stay there until what happens? Until Nancy Pelosi, acting as president, comes in and says, I don’t want you. I want your resignation. The acting president can do whatever a president can do, within constitutional limits — we’re always talking about constitutional limits. But yes, she could, and probably would, want to overturn all of those people in high appointments as acting president. And then that, of course, would go back to the Senate. And so, you go into the circle, because it goes back to the Senate who have to confirm these people. And if the Senate is controlled by the Republicans — which depends upon the two Georgia elections — then the Senate could hold up these confirmations of Nancy Pelosi’s appointees.

Edwin: And what would you have? Acting people in acting positions?

Kim: Gets complicated, doesn’t it? Oh, yeah. Procedurally, it becomes very complicated. That’s why you don’t want to do it. And that’s why the courts would love to kick this can further down the road. Absolutely.

Kim: So, when is a governor and a secretary of state really doing unconstitutional things with respect to the election? Let’s take the case in Georgia.

Edwin: Well, it depends what the statutes have given them authority to do, because the legislatures have, again, going back to the presidential election situation, the legislatures have essentially plenary authority here. Now they can’t do anything to give the secretary of state or the governor authority that would violate the U.S. Constitution. So they couldn’t delegate to the governor or the secretary of state final determination on some of these questions. But other than that —

Edwin: But what you see here is in Pennsylvania, I think the big question there was the absentee ballots or the mail-in ballots. And the legislature had provided in such a way that these ballots couldn’t be legitimately counted. That was a legislative determination. And the legislature has plenary authority under the U.S. Constitution.

Kim: Plenary authority means primary?

Edwin: I have all of it. I have all of it. And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stepped in and said, oh no, we’re going to interpret this in a different way. Well, wait a minute. That’s the problem. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court doesn’t have that authority. The legislature does. And that’s actually the case that’s up in front of Alito, bouncing back and forth. And the last thing he did was the other day he said, well, I’m going to deny an injunction here, but the case is still alive. We don’t know what’s going to happen with it.

Kim: So many of us don’t know and didn’t know that every state has its own Constitution or its own Supreme Court. I didn’t know that. Am I so gapped out in my knowledge base? Am I an example of other people or am I one of the very few people that didn’t know this? I was never aware that each state had its own Constitution. I was never aware that each state had its own Supreme Court.

Edwin: Well, they do. They follow the pattern of the United States government.

Kim: So how does one obstruct the ability of — if the Supreme Court of a state, any state, denies looking at something for which there was fraud or any kind of malfeasance, let’s say criminal — how do you get something to be looked at by the Supreme Court as important as election fraud? How do you get it up there if up there is that which creates the precedent, potentially, for something?

Edwin: Well, it follows the same route in both the state and the federal courts. Either there’s a criminal prosecution, which could generally be true with electoral fraud — all violations of criminal laws that are involved — or it could be a civil litigation, as we’ve seen a lot. These things that are going on now are all civil litigation.

Kim: So what Sidney Powell’s doing is all civil litigation.

Edwin: There could be criminal prosecutions if they can pinpoint the people that they think were committing the fraud. And then what happens? You go to a trial court and then all the states have some intermediate appeal court. And then finally there’s a state Supreme Court. Now where it gets complicated is that the issues may be both state issues under state law and federal issues under federal law. And the state court will decide the state issues with finality. The Supreme Court of the United States says it can’t overturn a state court when a state court’s interpreting its own law.

Kim: See, this is what I mean by the complexity of this.

Edwin: But, if there’s a federal law that the state court decides, that case can go to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court has the ability to deal with it. And they can also say that a decision on a state law question may be simply an attempt by the state court to evade review of the case. So there are ways to get around that. But generally speaking, if it’s a state law question, the state Supreme Court decides it. Now, if there’s a federal question tied into it, even though it happens to be coming up in the state courts, then the Supreme Court could decide to rule on it. If it comes up through the federal system, then obviously that can go all the way to the Supreme Court. But the federal system sometimes can also decide state law questions. So it becomes a little bit complicated. But there’s no way that a state court can preclude the Supreme Court ultimately from deciding a federal question that’s involved in that state court case.

Kim: Okay.

Edwin: The difficulty is that when it comes to the Supreme Court, it comes usually as a petition for certiorari — a petition for writ of certiorari — which is asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. We want you to certify this case, certify the record to the Supreme Court so the Supreme Court can hear the case. They are not required to grant that. So, the vast majority of cases that go to the Supreme Court are these petitions asking the court to hear the case. And the vast majority of those, the Supreme Court simply denies — says no.

Kim: Let’s talk — we’re going to move a little bit into the Commerce Clause. One of your favorites. Can you share with the audience what is the Commerce Clause and why is it important in terms of anything that would be going on in the United States that’s of concern and value?

Edwin: Okay, the true purpose is to give Congress the ability to control international commerce. Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. And then with the Indian tribes, because at the time the Indian tribes were considered to be separate sovereignties — they were separate nations really, that’s how we dealt with them. And then among the several states, and that’s an important word — not within the states, but among the several states — because what they didn’t want to happen was for the various states to set up essentially tariff or other barriers to prevent commerce, so that we would have a nationwide commercial system. We wouldn’t have a lot of little fiefdoms where the local people would be creating barriers to entry or exit, limiting commerce. So that was the real purpose. And commerce was not simply movement. If I drive from Virginia to New York to see my sister, I’m not engaged in commerce unless I happen to be buying gasoline or something on the way. That’s a personal transaction, not a commercial one. Commerce really means business of some kind, commercial enterprise of some kind.

Kim: Who’s they?

Edwin: Congress and the courts. Primarily the courts, because Congress does things and the courts say yes or no, go along with them. Primarily the courts. The courts say, well, commerce really means like any kind of movement. If I were going to see my sister, that would be commerce to them, simply because I’m moving, I’m driving on a highway. And then the other thing is the among-the-several-states limitation — Congress is now able to inject itself into commercial transactions within a state by saying that those transactions within a state affect commerce outside of the state.

Edwin: Classic example, the famous case of Wickard versus Filburn. This dealt with agricultural limitations that were put in under the Roosevelt administration. We’re going to keep people from growing too much wheat or having too many pigs because we want to raise the prices. Keep the supply down, prices go up — end of the Depression. So, in the Wickard case, there was a limit of, I think it was so many acres of wheat that this particular farmer could grow. And he grew over the limit, maybe 10 acres or something over the limit. And they went after him for violation of this agricultural law. And he said, wait a minute, I used that grain to feed my cattle. It never left my farm. It was never in commerce. And the Supreme Court said, well, if you hadn’t grown that grain for your cows, then you would have had to buy grain in commerce. So, the fact that you grew that grain for the cows affected interstate commerce because it limited the amount of commerce that you were going to engage in. What?

Kim: So, it’s a protection mechanism.

Edwin: Well, it’s an intervention mechanism. It allows Congress to go in and regulate all sorts of activities. They could now tell me under their theory how many boxes of Wheaties I have to eat each week because the fact that I don’t eat Wheaties affects commerce because Wheaties are not coming to me in Virginia. They’re made somewhere and they’re trucked into Virginia and I don’t eat enough of them and therefore less of them would be trucked in — and on and on it goes. This is an invention, a fantastic invention. So you take the gun situation — Congress regulates guns because guns travel primarily interstate. Some states they’re made, but primarily interstate. So they say, we can do all of these things in terms of regulating firearms because those firearms have at one time been transported in interstate commerce. So even though they’re regulating something that the particular gun owner is doing within his own state — he never leaves his state — they can regulate that because that gun came through interstate commerce. So now it gives them the ability through the Commerce Clause to essentially have what they call a national police power — the ability to regulate all of these activities within various states that themselves have no direct connection to commerce. They have an indirect connection because something that they’re using or something that they’re involved with had a connection to commerce. Or in the case of Wickard versus Filburn, it had no connection to commerce at all. But they said it did because of this convoluted argument. And that’s an amazing case because the Supreme Court has never — it’s been criticized since 1937, I think it was, way back — it’s been criticized ever since then, and the Supreme Court has never said, oh, there might be a problem with this. Why? Because it gives them the ability to say that essentially anything Congress does under the Commerce Power is legitimate. This is a game they’re playing.

Kim: So how far does that extend? Does this have to do also with CO2 regulation, carbon dioxide regulation?

Edwin: Yeah, environmental effects. So, it depends upon what particular environmental effects you’re talking about.

Kim: How about under COVID-19? Under COVID-19, if you drive to New York, can New York require you to take tests?

Edwin: Well, not New York — you’re talking about Congress now. Could Congress do it? Could Congress require me, if I drove from Virginia to New York, to take a COVID-19 test at the border of New York?

Kim: I guess we can answer that, but I’m asking can the governor of, let’s say, New York — can New York State require you to take a test or ban you from entering?

Edwin: See, that’s a very interesting question because aren’t they attempting to regulate commerce? And they don’t have the power to regulate commerce among the states. By hypothesis, Congress has that power.

Kim: I have a friend of mine who lives in New Hampshire and also in North Carolina. And she’s been staying for six months because she can’t drive through to go back to her home in New Hampshire. She can’t get through New York — the quarantining, testing, the whole caboodle. What do you think of this constitutionally?

Edwin: Oh, I think it has amazing problems constitutionally. But you know, if you go back to some of the agricultural statutes that have been passed — California was one classic one where they inspect people coming in to see if they bring in certain kinds of plants, whether the plants have certain kinds of bugs on them or whatever, and then they stop them at the border because of protection of California agriculture. Some of those things have been upheld. Of course, the problem here is with the COVID business — do the tests really work? Well, that’s a whole other conversation. You look at this and you say, all right, here we have the restriction, but the restriction is predicated upon all sorts of things before we get to the ultimate power to make restrictions. Obviously, if you’re suffering from bubonic plague, they might be able to stop you from crossing in. But you’re talking about here a situation where there are a whole series of sub-steps. Well, we have to stop you at the border. Well, we have to test you with a test that doesn’t work.

Kim: Whether we have to take your temperature, whatever it is — even the test, the swab test doesn’t work. We have to test you with a test that doesn’t work. You could be a person that is asymptomatic and you can’t transmit this. You could be a person that is asymptomatic and if you went through with a mask or something we wouldn’t have to quarantine you because you’re driving through.

Kim: What about the push for vaccines — all these vaccines that are being fast-tracked and ushered in? Something that had a virus that hasn’t even been isolated.

Edwin: These vaccines that they’re talking about now probably fall into the realm of crimes against humanity. They are experimental drugs for which no recipient can give informed consent. No one knows what these drugs will actually do — not simply in the short term. Will I get a terrible reaction? Will my arms swell up like a tetanus shot? No. It’s what will happen in the long term. You see a lot of people coming out now and saying — I can’t remember which one it is, Pfizer or Moderna, maybe both of them — it’s an mRNA. The effect of this is probably going to be to sterilize people.

Edwin: Sterilize people. Where did we see that last? Wasn’t that in the German concentration camps? They were working on sterilization. Wasn’t that one of the things that they did to the Jews and others, the gypsies and others — sterilization? Wasn’t that one of the things they did? What about the Japanese, Camp 731, where they conducted these horrific medical experiments. Was that one of the things that they might have been doing there too?

Kim: Can the states mandate vaccinations and get away with it? And stop everybody from traveling, driving, doing business?

Edwin: No, no, no, no. Because eventually it comes down to a scientific determination. The state says we have power to do this because it falls within some ambit of our authority, such as quarantining a person because of bubonic plague. And if you had a court decision, they would say, well, do you have a test for bubonic plague? Oh, we certainly do. We take some sputum or something, we put it under a microscope and we can put a dye and we can see the bacillus. Okay, fine. And this particular disease is transmissible simply by someone breathing on another person — extremely dangerous, look at the dark ages, et cetera. Okay, the quarantine, fine, within your power, because we can scientifically and judicially attribute to this individual who has the disease a danger to anyone else who comes in contact with it.

Kim: I’ve never seen in my entire life everybody being tested who is not ill and then told they’re simply asymptomatic. In my life.

Edwin: This doesn’t fit. This doesn’t fit any prior analysis that would fall into the quarantine type situation.

Kim: You don’t even know if you have a cold, if you have a bacterial infection.

Edwin: You don’t even know if the test works. The man who invented the test said it shouldn’t be applied under these circumstances.

Kim: You’re talking about Dr. Kary Mullis.

Edwin: Plus, they use the test — if they cycle it too many times, they will always get a positive result. And even the CDC was telling them to cycle it too many times. So, you can’t trust the thing.

Kim: So, the question is constitutionally — can a state require me or you or anybody to take those PCR tests?

Edwin: No, I don’t think they can. Because, the simple answer is it’s non-rational. The test doesn’t give them the result they want.

Kim: But can they mandate those tests for you to enter?

Edwin: No. We keep coming back to this. Can they do something that is illegal? And the short answer is, well, no, constitutionally. And yes, if you let them get away with it.

Kim: So, if you and I drive into New York tonight, and we’re stopped at the border, and they said, well, did you have a test? Have you been tested? Do you have the card? No. No, I don’t have a card. I haven’t been tested. Well, then you can’t enter.

Edwin: Now you have a legal case. Now you have a judicial case.

Kim: So, isn’t this going to throw hundreds of millions of cases into our court system?

Edwin: Well, probably not. There will be a few. Because people need lawyers and lawyers are expensive. In a case like this, if it’s done correctly, you’re going to need expert witnesses to testify that all of this stuff that they’re requiring is not scientifically justified. Because they’re all claiming, oh, we have public health evidence that says we have to do this. This is the equivalent of the quarantine situation with a man with bubonic plague. And other scientists will come forward and say, no, it isn’t.

Kim: What about these vaccine passports that they’re talking about? Do you have your vaccine passport?

Edwin: No. I don’t have a vaccine. Well, what if you can’t get on an airplane and fly? Well, then I’ve got a lawsuit. I don’t go on airplanes. I’ve been on them for years, I used to go on them all the time until they started telling me I had to take my shoes off. And as soon as I had to take my shoes off, I said, I’m never going on a plane again. You people are fooling me. This is not how you stop terrorists. There’s something else you’re doing here. But leave that aside.

Kim: So, I guess the question is, as we are alive in the next few years and these passports are starting — it looks like they’re starting to be ushered into place this year — the airlines are starting. Do you have your passport? It’s scary.

Edwin: And maybe some big businesses will do the same thing. And it will be done on a quote-unquote voluntary basis, right? It’s not the government ordering it. It’s these people saying, we don’t want to deal with you unless you have this.

Kim: Can an airline deny your ability to get on as a citizen of the country to fly from point A to point B if you don’t have this passport? In other words, when can an airline, a business, say to human beings, we want to make sure your biology has the following substances in it — because that’s what it is. They’re saying, if you don’t have the X number of substances in it called X vaccine by so-and-so, and it’s a schedule, it’s not one, it’s a never-ending series — you’re not flying, you’re not allowed to fly. How could that be acceptable?

Edwin: No, well, they’re a common carrier, so they have limitations on their ability to exclude people. Unlike my restaurant — I could possibly say, if you don’t have the tattoo on your face saying that you’ve had the 20 shots, I’m not going to give you a pizza. I can probably exclude anyone I want on that basis. But the common carriers can’t. And so as soon as they begin going past a certain line — once again — of reasonableness.

Kim: You know how fast copycats come in. This airline’s talking about it — I think it was Qantas, some airline in Australia was talking about it. There are many airlines talking about it. Now you have to be masked up when you’re flying.

Edwin: Yeah, well, they’re going to get away with a lot of that until there’s litigation saying that these requirements that they’re putting in are arbitrary. They have no specific scientific basis.

Kim: Is there anything else that you would like to cover while you and I are here in person? Is there anything else you would like to say or address while you’re here — either to the president of the United States, to the country, to people in other countries — about your life experience and expertise and what you’re concerned about?

Edwin: Oh, my life experience is that — let’s see, when did I start going to the courts? I guess it was 1973. It has been going downhill in terms of the willingness of the judiciary actually to enforce the Constitution. And in the last three or four years, it’s going down even faster. And now it’s just like in free fall. I think this is a major problem. The check and balance system has failed. Something happens and either the judiciary or the legislature or the executive — typically it’s the judiciary that does it — simply abdicates. They won’t hear the cases. Or they decide a case the way they did with Obamacare, with this convoluted opinion which didn’t make any sense at all, just to let the thing go through because they were afraid of the political consequences.

Edwin: Well, that’s an impossible situation because the whole principle of the Constitution is checks and balances, starting off with definition of powers. Because if you define a power this far, there’s a check on that power. Outside of that definition, on either end, that power stops. Then there are specific limitations — some of them are in the body of the Constitution, things that can’t be done. A Bill of Attainder, for instance. Here’s a Bill of Attainder — you know what a Bill of Attainder is? It’s a legislative determination typically to kill somebody. In England, that was typically what happened. You’d put some nobleman who the king didn’t like on a Bill of Attainder, and when they seized him, had his head chopped off. It was a political death warrant by the legislature. Now, it says in the Constitution there shall be no Bills of Attainder, for obvious reasons. You don’t want that. You want a judicial determination before someone’s head is chopped.

Edwin: Well, what do we find in this country when Obama was president, maybe even when Bush was president? The kill list from the president of the United States. The president can sign off on anybody he wanted to kill because he said they were terrorists — could have been American citizens.

Kim: Are you speaking about the drone program in particular or just any kill list?

Edwin: Well, just anyone you want to pick. And you look at that and you say, well, what is that? Well, that’s a Bill of Attainder. Now it’s a Bill of Attainder that the president’s writing, under his theory of powers that he has been given by Congress. Well, Congress can’t delegate to the president the power of a Bill of Attainder — that the president should simply go kill somebody because he writes a name on a list. Now, if something as simple as that has escaped the notice of the judiciary, and the politicians for that matter, what’s the rest of this document worth? I take that as very simple. The president can write a list — this person’s going to be killed, this person’s going to be killed. That’s something coming out of the Middle Ages. Roman prescription lists — that’s what was done by the Roman emperors or the dictators at the time. You just write down a list of people that were dangerous to the state and have them killed. So they’re writing a prescription list, a Bill of Attainder. And that’s still in existence. Trump did not repudiate that power.

Kim: How would that be repudiated? By an executive order?

Edwin: Yeah, a number of things — executive order, proclamation. What I would do, if the statute of limitations hadn’t run, I would prosecute the people that came up with those lists, if I could prove that someone was killed as a result of it. Put the fear of God into them. This is never going to happen again. You do this and you go to prison for the rest of your life. Easy solution. He has the power. Well, to whom would he have to go to get that done?

Kim: Great question.

Edwin: The Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate and the Department of Justice to prosecute. So we’re in this vicious circle. And this is the thing I want to tell people. If you look at the Second Amendment and you look at the equivalent of that in essentially every state — Virginia has one too, very similar — Second Amendment: a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What’s that all about? Well, it’s about a free state. The thing that this is looking to protect is the thing called a free state. And then it says, well, we need security for a free state, obviously. And what’s necessary for that security is this thing called the regulated militia. And, in order to have one of those, the people have to have firearms in their possession.

Edwin: The free state is the thing that this whole document is supposed to be protecting. And you have essentially four components to the government. You have the one that everyone knows about — Congress. Another one everyone knows about — the President. Another one everyone knows about, vaguely — the Judiciary, and the thing of the Supreme Court. But there’s a fourth one. That’s the militia — in both the Constitution of the United States, the Second Amendment, and the constitutions of the various states. And who is that? Well, that’s all the people. Virginia — everyone from 16 to 55 — that’s what you used to call the body of the people, this vast mass of the population, which is organized, armed, trained in various ways to perform various functions. Typical functions at the federal constitutional level — Congress can call forth the militia to perform three functions: execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, repel invasions. Well, let’s just take the first one of those, because the other two are obvious — invasion, Chinese army or something. Execute the laws of the union. How far does that go? There’s no limit to it, is there? If you think about it, they have more power than, in a sense, maybe the President of the United States does, except the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the Militia. So, it all works together. And this is the thing that has been completely lost.

Edwin: If people recognized what their ultimate authority was in this government, we wouldn’t be putting up with this nonsense. Even if Mr. Trump recognized not his ultimate authority, but his presidential authority, he wouldn’t be putting up with this nonsense. Why? Because there’s a statute that tells him what he could have done and on whom he would have been calling. Who is the militia? It’s this vast mass of people. He’d be calling on the people themselves. And nobody seems to have pointed this out to him.

Edwin: I remember Franklin D. Roosevelt. What was the first unique thing that he did when he became president, right after he was inaugurated? It’s 1933, he’s inaugurated in March. And there has been a banking crisis since 1929, let’s say — 29, 30, 31 under Hoover. And the banks are closing and there are long lines of people around the block waiting to get their deposits out — bank runs, they used to call these things. Roosevelt realizes he has a way to speak directly to the American people that has never been used before — the radio. So he gets on the radio. Now think about that — it’s a big deal. And people in little farms out in Iowa could listen to Roosevelt. So he gets on the radio and what’s the first thing he does? His fireside chats. What was his first fireside chat about? This banking crisis. And he came on, he explained to the American people — you know, when you put your money into a bank, they don’t put it in a shoe box and put it in the back room or in a vault. They lend that money out to someone else. And those loans are relatively long term. And they can’t give you your deposit back until some of that money has come in from those loans. And so let’s all wait, let’s calm down, because if you make too many demands on the banks, they will collapse and everything will be worse. So he calmed down people’s fear. He explained to them something they didn’t understand — Fractional Reserve Banking. Imagine that — the President of the United States had to come on to tell the American people how the banks worked. You want to talk about lack of education? There it was, 1933. And then he said, I’m putting in all sorts of legislation which will deal with this problem. And he did, putting one piece after another that dealt with the banking situation, monetary situation.

Edwin: So, here’s Trump in the same crisis, except it’s bigger — electoral fraud, rioting, burning down of cities first, and then electoral fraud. I think it’s a lot bigger than banking collapses, because we had banking collapses through the 19th century and the early 20th century. This wasn’t something new that happened in 1929. This stuff that’s happening now is new, relatively speaking. The scale of it is new. So, Trump has the ability, really, to come on the national networks, commandeer them. This is a national emergency. You think if the Chinese attacked us, he couldn’t simply come on all the national networks — and MSNBC would get on — every one of them?

Kim: Could they deny him the ability to commandeer them?

Edwin: You commandeer them. I’m sure that there was a provision in one of these executive emergency orders that says they can take over all communication devices. So it’s there. So he writes an executive order, says, we’ve got a crisis here and I’m coming in, I’m going to give a speech, like Roosevelt gave. And it would be dealing with the riots — he should have done that way back when — and now dealing with the electoral fraud. And he probably should have given the electoral fraud one on the 5th of November. Because a couple of days later, people are already screaming about, we saw this, we saw that — machines and double counting and all the rest of that.

Edwin: And that’s when — actually I would have done it even earlier, once again — he would have invoked this statute. Said, I have the power to do this. This is going on in the states. The state officials are doing nothing or they’re part of it. And I have this power and I’m going to use it.

Kim: Have you ever heard of counting going on for weeks?

Edwin: No. Once again, he comes out and says, look at this. Look what’s happening here. I wouldn’t wait weeks for it. And the interesting thing about these statutes — this one in particular — is there was a similar statute written actually in 1795 for calling out the militia under the circumstances then. And a militiaman objected — he said, oh, the facts aren’t sufficient for the president to have called me out. And therefore, they can’t court martial me for not showing up. Goes to the Supreme Court of the United States — Martin versus Mott. I suggest people look that case up, Martin versus Mott. And the Supreme Court said, wait a minute, this statute is written so as to give the president the authority to do whatever he thinks is necessary under these circumstances. And given that, no one else has the authority to question him, including the Supreme Court of the United States, because they threw the case out — they denied the relief the party wanted. So, these statutes I’m talking about — and there are actually a number of them, but this is an important one because it deals with the equal protection question — are written with the same type of language.

Edwin: So, if he followed this statute and applied this statute, even the Supreme Court couldn’t intervene against it. So why hasn’t someone suggested this to him? I mean, this is the kind of thing that a president wouldn’t necessarily have to actually do. He’d just threaten it. It simply says, now you people in these states, if you don’t do this within a certain length of time — this we could have done with the riots — if you don’t have this cleaned up within a certain length of time, no more burning of buildings, no more riots, no more police cars.

Kim: I think he did say something like that somewhere, right?

Edwin: Yeah, it was very vague — I may send in the National Guard. No, he says, here’s the statute. And when I come in under this statute, you are going to be liable because the statute specifically says that when this happens and the state officials don’t take the appropriate actions, that the state is going to be determined to be in violation of the equal protection of the laws. So this is not simply my saying, I’m going to take over, nothing’s going to happen to you. I’m going to take over and a lot’s going to happen to you. And he didn’t do that. And he’s not doing it now, of course. And he’s running out — I think he probably has run out — of time.

Kim: I want to ask you about declaring martial law. There’s a lot of people who feel like it should be invoked. There are other people that feel very afraid about something like that happening. But because there’s so much frustration with a certain amount of the US population with election fraud and all the evidence that’s coming out — that’s really observable, it’s not even the stuff we don’t know about, it’s the observable parts — people are so frustrated. And I think even General Flynn had made a suggestion that he should declare martial law. I want you to speak to that — both to the President of the United States, to General Flynn, to Sidney Powell, to Lin Wood, and the entire United States — where you’re at about the possibility of that and what the concerns are.

Edwin: Let me address first the point that you made. I think it’s very important — the level of frustration that has been built up in this country because the normal mechanisms are not working. This is our problem. The constitutional structure, if it were made to work by the people who are sitting in those public offices, we wouldn’t have this problem. That’s the failure here. It’s those individuals. We put the wrong people in offices because all that you need is right here in this document.

Edwin: Now let’s go to martial law in particular. What is that? That’s when the military takes over and essentially imposes military law on civilians in order to clean up some kind of mess that’s occurred. And we’ve seen what happens in South American countries when that happens. Military comes in, they clean up the mess maybe, they put in some front people from the civilian political parties, and they are always in the background, ready to take over if those front people don’t do what they’re supposed to do. Very difficult situation then, because no longer do you have a free state — you have some kind of military-controlled police state. Exactly contrary.

Edwin: But let’s go back one step earlier — the Declaration of Independence. One of the indictments against George III was precisely that he had put the military ahead of the civil legal authorities. He was indicted in the Declaration of Independence for imposing or attempting to impose martial law within the colonies. So if that was one of the things that violated the laws of nature and of nature’s God to the extent that the colonists could revolt against the king, how could anyone in this country possibly suggest we should impose it now? Just that historical connection.

Kim: I don’t think we even make that connection. We don’t even know that.

Edwin: No, but there it is. Think this through. I wrote a book called The Bastardy of Martial Law by Tyranny Out of Necessity. And “By Tyranny Out of Necessity” — if you know anything about horse racing, when you read the racing form, it says, by Secretariat out of Man o’ War — the stallion and the mare. So you know the breeding. Well, that’s the point. Martial law is always put forward as a necessity. Something terrible has happened, we have a great emergency, and the solution is martial law. Well, it’s tyranny. The solution is tyranny in the guise of martial law. And the bastardy of martial law is the illegitimacy of this concept. You can’t justify it under the Declaration of Independence, you can’t justify it under the Constitution, there’s no way to justify it. Period.

Edwin: Who in the Constitution of the United States is given the authority to execute the laws of the Union? Is it the Army? No. The Navy? No. The Air Force, the Space Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard? No, none of them. The militia of the several states — which is a non-military structure because it embodies the total population. So, if you really wanted to have a quote-unquote martial law type situation — that is, direct control because the other agencies here have failed — you’d call upon the militia to do this. Nobody talks about that because they don’t understand it. I would be willing to bet a stack of gold coins that high — you bring any general in here and put him across from me and I start questioning him about the militia, he wouldn’t know what I was talking about.

Kim: I don’t think anybody would know what you’re talking about.

Edwin: All right, but the generals have more reason that they should know. Because if you read the Constitution, you’ll see that the powers of the Army and the Navy and the militia — in Article 1, Section 8, there it is. As soon as you start reading about the Army and the Navy, you only have to look down a couple of lines and you find the powers of the Constitution with respect to the militia. If you look at the President’s power, it’s in the same clause of the Constitution — Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy of the United States, and the militia of the several states. It’s all there. Now, they don’t want that to happen — I’m not talking about the generals just specifically, but in general. The political establishment, civilian and military, doesn’t want that to happen for one very important reason. Because I said before, the fourth branch — the important branch of government — is the people themselves. They don’t want the people themselves in this situation. They want you to vote for them in a fraudulent election, and then they’re going to run your life. They don’t want you to claim authority within their government. They’ve created this dichotomy. There’s you, the civilian over here, and then there’s this governmental establishment, and if you say anything against the governmental establishment, you are some kind of seditious individual, insurrectionary, or whatever it is, anti-government person. When they don’t seem to realize that the real government of this country is not them — it’s you. And several hundred million others of you. It’s you. And they have besotted you with propaganda to prevent you from understanding this.

Edwin: I’ll tell you a story. I studied law at Harvard Law School, and I took a course in Constitutional law, which was one of the required courses. And would you believe that we never read the Constitution of the United States? Because when I came in, I thought the first day, the professor would say, well, now, this is the Constitution of the United States. You all have a copy of it. It’s all on your desk there. And we’ll meet again on Wednesday — this is Monday. We’ll meet again on Wednesday and I want you to have read the Constitution by the time we get in on Wednesday. And we’ll start discussing some of the basic outlines and structures. I don’t know, it might take you an hour to read the thing if you’re really paying attention to it and trying to see how these different things connect. Never. We started right away reading opinions of the Supreme Court. Opinions of people about the Constitution, not the Constitution.

Kim: What did that translate to you as? A bypass? What is it?

Edwin: It’s a fraud. It’s a fraud. Because let’s take an opinion of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court rules A, and then 10 years later it rules B, which is different from A. Which one was right and which one was wrong? Was A right? Was B right? Was A wrong? Was B wrong? Were they both wrong?

Kim: This happened to you?

Edwin: Yeah, I’m going to tell you that story too. And how do you determine which is right and which is wrong? Well, you compare the opinion to the Constitution. It’s the Constitution that determines whether the opinion is right. It’s not the opinion that determines what the Constitution means. It’s an absurdity. I had a case 42 years ago. And in this particular half of the case — because it had two parts — this particular half of the case, I lost it nine to nothing. Well, people weren’t satisfied with that result. This was a situation that could arise again and again and again. So other people kept raising this and kept kind of haranguing the Supreme Court — do something about this, do something about it. Well, finally, 41 years later, the Supreme Court said, yeah, we’ll do something about it. We looked at it. They looked at it and said, oh, we were wrong back then, completely wrong. Well, when were they wrong? Were they wrong then or were they wrong now? Well, I think they were wrong then because obviously I told them they were wrong then.

Edwin: It’s the Constitution that determines. We have a system in which the politicians tell us what the Constitution means and we’re supposed to believe them. And when we put the Constitution in front of them and say, well, now how does what you just told me square with this provision, then we get a lot of double talk, blowing smoke.

Kim: Is there hope for the United States?

Edwin: Oh, I hope so. All people always live in hope.

Kim: Is there — do you have, at this point in your life, a confidence, any confidence that there are enough people who will carry on transmitting the Constitution in the way it was founded and what it really says?

Edwin: Well, you know what’s enough. What I see now is a lot of people beginning to refuse to swallow, if you will, the problem that they’re presented by these establishment political figures, including the courts. And that’s the first ray of sunshine coming through the clouds. The people start to think for themselves and they go back to the document and say, well, is that what this means that they just told us? That they have these kinds of powers, that they can essentially hold us in a condition of servitude?

Edwin: Let me give you one example. The gun control acts. You trace those things back and you’ll find — Virginia’s a really classic example because you can see it very, very clearly in the statutes — that all the stuff they’re doing today is what they were imposing on the slaves or the so-called free persons of color, which were one degree above slaves in that period of time, the colonial period when they had slavery. This is just one aspect of that system. And when we look at it today, we say, well, wait a minute. Why are we subjecting, or allowing ourselves to be subjected to, these kinds of controls? Is that a free state? Well, the answer is it wasn’t a free state for those people back then — for the slaves and the free people of color. They were in a different situation entirely.

Edwin: And that’s one of the things I look at. I look at something like the Second Amendment and I say, okay, there’s the principle. And it’s the principle of the whole bloody Constitution. This thing is designed to create a free state environment. And what’s the last phrase in the preamble? All of the things that are desirable — we’re doing this in order to achieve these ends. And the last one is what? Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. That’s the key, because if you don’t have that, you don’t have anything else. Everything else goes. And so, I’m hoping that more people will begin to look at that, look at this situation from that perspective.

Edwin: We have to analyze what they are doing in Washington, the various state capitals, all the way down to your local government. Does this comport with the preservation, the defense, the advancement of the principles of a free state or not? And if it doesn’t, what’s the problem? And the typical problem is it’s not in here. It may not even be in a particular state constitution. It’s in those individuals that by happenstance have gotten themselves into these positions of power and then begin to think that because they’re in a position of power, they can reinterpret these documents — living constitution — and simply act like little Mussolinis in their own areas of authority.

Kim: I want to thank you so much for joining us on It’s Rainmaking Time! And being here today to talk about these important subjects that are impacting all of us in the United States and are being witnessed in some way or form outside the country. And for those of you who would like to hear more from Dr. Edwin Vieira or pick up Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the U.S. Constitution, CrashMaker, By Tyranny Out of Necessity: The Bastardy of Martial Law, Constitutional Homeland Security: The Nation in Arms, Thirteen Words, Three Rights, and How to Dethrone the Judiciary — how do people get in touch with you?

Edwin: If they go to newsreviews.com and they go to the archives section, they’ll find all of the articles I have written — a very large number of articles — and they’ll find addresses, links.

Kim: Very good. Thank you so much. God bless you.

Edwin: Thank you.

Kim: It’s Rainmaking Time!