Let's start, first of all, with the petition that John Eastman has filed to the Supreme Court and what he is arguing.

Well, thank you so much, Jenna, for having me on to talk about this really important issue.

John Eastman, Dr. John Eastman, as many of your listeners probably know, is one of the foremost conservative constitutional scholars and attorneys in America.

And he has been for a number of years and he literally, um, he is brilliant.

He has been a law professor as well.

He is a constitutional historian and he was one of president Trump's attorneys after the 2020 election.

And what his role really was, was because he's just a walking encyclopedia of the United States constitution.

And so overall, with Eastman's complaint, with all of these front of the court briefs that are saying this needs to stop, what is your view on, I mean, so the Supreme Court hasn't decided whether or not they will take up John Eastman's petition, but what is the relief that he is asking? I mean, is it along some of these lines or does Where else can we go to create this type of rule?

What are you watching, what are you watching this November? What's p- in particular this November that's in your, uh, uh, you know, in your, uh, head to, to watch?

Well, look, let's start with one thing.

The, uh, left and their billionaire, uh, foundations and billionaire donors have spent, uh, approximately, according to the Capital Research Center, between 11 and 14 billion dollars since the second Obama administration to completely upend our election laws all over the country.

And so s- starting after 2020, um, I joined the, uh, Conservative Partnership Institute in February of 2021.

Left my big law firm.

Um, and then I've spent the last five years, five and a half years doing nothing but working on election integrity.

And it- we've built this election integrity coalition.

Yeah

Thoughts?

Well, look, I, I, I will tell you that yes, the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division, has sued, what have they sued, 27 states now? To get their voter rolls? Okay, I'm not sure why they did that, but they've lost every case.

Why? Because they're not even making the number one argument they need to make in the cases.

Because what are these states claiming as to why they won't turn over, uh, their voter rolls? Privacy.

They're protecting the privacy of the voters.

Really? Really.

Well, I did an analysis, and 23 of the 27 states sued by the Department of Justice, 23 of those states claiming privacy, that won't turn over their voter rolls to the Department of Justice even though the statute says they're supposed to, guess what? These are members of ERIC, the Electronic Registration, uh, Information Clearing House, ERIC.

So walk me through your theory of the case, ma'am.

Thoughts?

Well, look, I, I, I will tell you that, yes, the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division, has sued, what have they sued, 27 states now to get their voter rolls? Okay, I'm not sure why they did that, but they've lost every case.

Why? Because they're not even making the number one argument they need to make in the cases.

Because what are these states claiming as to why they won't turn over, uh, their voter rolls? Privacy.

They're protecting the privacy of the voters.

Really? Really.

Well, I did an analysis, and 23 of the 27 states sued by the Department of Justice, 23 of those states claiming privacy that won't turn over their voter rolls to the Department of Justice even though the statute says they're supposed to, guess what? These are members of ERIC, the Electronic Registration, uh, Information Clearing House, ERIC.

So walk me through your theory of the case, ma'am.

Explain what happened to that and what we can expect to see as a next action item.

Well, [coughs] you know, it's really interesting to me that, um, [coughs] during COVID, states were just throwing out disregarding state laws right and left, and doing things at the very last minute that they now say, "Oh, they don't have time to do this or do that to protect the integrity of the election," but they had plenty of time to add things at the last minute in 2020.

Um, [clears throat] so the Supreme Court said that, um, "Oh, well, the Postal Service probably didn't have time to enforce its regulations." Well, yes, they said that they did.

They said that they could enforce the regulations, and what the regulations would have provided is it would have required states to submit their voter list to, um, compa- to compare to the safe system to make sure that, to identify any non-citizens.

But also, um, you remember this from when we worked on the post-election, uh, in the campaign, uh, the, the contest, the election contest that was filed on behalf of President Trump.

We...

I learned then, I didn't realize this, the Postal Service has all kinds of data, all different kinds of lists.

So start from the beginning and explain it, please.

Walk us through it, Cleta.

Cleta.Well, I think that one of the things that's really important because a lot of people have said, "Well, the president needs to declare a national emergency for elections." Well, guess what? He already did.

He did that in May of 2019.

He declared that there was an emergency because foreign-owned, um ...

It's called information and communications technology and services, and that includes election infrastructure manufactured in whole or in part or controlled by companies that are foreign adversaries, which is China, includes China.

And there's not a voting system in America today, an electronic voting system in America today that is not manufactured in whole or in part in China.

So the president in May of 2019 issued this eme- relying on the National Emergencies Act of 1976, issued an executive order ordering the Department of Commerce to promulgate regulations, which they did.

Is it too late for action, or can we move out today to sort this problem out, ma'am?

Walk us through it, Cleta.

Well, I think that one of the things that's really important because a lot of people have said, "Well, the president needs to declare a national emergency for elections." Well, guess what? He already did.

He did that in May of 2019.

He declared that there was an emergency because foreign-owned, um, it's called information and communications technology and services, and that includes election infrastructure, manufactured in whole or in part or controlled by companies that are foreign adversaries, which is China, includes China.

And there's not a voting system in America today, an electronic voting system in America today that is not manufactured in whole or in part in China.

So the president in May of 2019 issued this eme- relying on the National Emergencies Act of 1976, issued an executive order ordering the Department of Commerce to promulgate regulations, which they did.

The Department of Commerce regulations took effect in February of 2024, and they are the law.

Call this morning.

What did the Georgia election board actually do, and why is the melt- why is, uh, Nicole Wallace and her team of, uh, Mark Elias and Norm Eisen, the two people, in total meltdown, ma'am?

Well, the Georgia State Board of Elections passed a resolution at its meeting this past week in which it called on the Secretary of State of Georgia, the feckless, uh, evil Brad Raffensperger To actually do his job for a change, and to, uh ...

It has been i- identified and established, well established factually, that the Georgia's Dominion now Liberty, "Liberty" quote, quote, uh, acquired Dominion, um, and that these machines are not updated.

There is now a report that the machines can actually produce a record of saying, of knowing who voted and how they voted, that the, there is a real threat to the secret ballot in, with these machines in Georgia.

And there needs to be an update to the software.

That needs to be done out in the open publicly, and it needs to be done before the election.

Now, it's really interesting to me to hear Nicole Wallace say that, "Oh, e- experts say that can't be done." Well, let me tell you what they did in 2020.

To- 29 days, ma'am?

What did the Georgia Election Board actually do, and why is the melt ... why is, uh, Nicole Wallace and her team of, uh, Mark Elias and Norm Eisen, the two people, in total meltdown, ma'am?

Well, the Georgia State Board of Elections passed a resolution at its meeting this past week in which it called on the Secretary of State of Georgia, the feckless, uh, evil Brad Raffensperger, to actually do his job for a change, and to ...

Uh, it has been i- identified and established, well established factually, that the Georgia's Dominion, now Liberty, "Liberty," quote, quote, uh, acquired Dominion.

Um, and that these machines are not updated.

There is now a report that the machines can actually produce a record of saying, of knowing who voted and how they voted, that the f- there is a real threat to the secret ballot in, with these machines in Georgia.

And there needs to be an update to the software that needs to be done out in the open publicly, and it needs to be done before the election.

Now, it's really interesting to me to hear Nicole Wallace say that, "Oh, uh, experts say that can't be done." Well, let me tell you what they did in 2020.

To- 29 days, ma'am?

How do we do it?

Well, two things, Steve.

Uh, number one, DHS has just been waiting for this injunction to be lifted, this ridiculous, lawless injunction that was originally issued by Judge Sparkle in Maryland, who by the way, uh, was a ...

She's from Trinidad and Tobago, and she was a lawyer in the, a Biden DOJ Civil Rights Division, and then they put her on the federal bench in Maryland, and she issued this ridiculous ruling a f- few months ago saying that DHS didn't have any authority to provide citizenship status information, uh, with regard to voter rolls.

Well, she's ig- she ignored and her decision didn't even include, and I think that's why the government will ultimately prevail, that federal law requires DHS to confirm the citizenship status of any individual upon the request of any local, state, or federal agency.

So DHS went out a few months ago and they acquired all of the publicly available voter rolls from every state, from every state.

So they have been running until this order, this injunction, DHS has been running the voter rolls, the publicly available voter rolls, and that's how they have identified all these tens of thousands of non-citizens on the voter rolls of various states.

Give us some guidance here.

How do we do it?

Well, two things, Steve.

Number one, DHS has just been waiting for this injunction to be lifted, this ridiculous, lawless injunction that was originally issued by Judge Sparkle in Maryland, who, by the way, she's from Trinidad and Tobago, and she was a lawyer in the Biden DOJ Civil Rights Division.

and then they put her on the federal bench in Maryland.

And she issued this ridiculous ruling a few months ago saying that DHS didn't have any authority to provide citizenship status information with regard to voter rolls.

Well, she ignored and her decision didn't even include, and I think that's why the government will ultimately prevail, that federal law requires DHS to confirm the citizenship status of any individual upon the request of any local, state, or federal agency.

So DHS went out a few months ago and they acquired all of the publicly available voter rolls from every state, from every state.

Give us some guidance here.

What happened here? Can you explain it?

Yeah, I can explain it.

We have four Supreme Court justices who are supposed to be conservative, three of them appointed by President Trump.

And they sided with the communist women on the court and basically said that the lower courts and all their tyranny had to be supported, even though Justice Alito wrote an eight-page dissent with which Justice Thomas concurred, saying this court in and of itself is responsible for the delay and that the states were responsible, that the plaintiffs were responsible for the delay.

That's basically the basis on which The Supreme Court denied the request for the stay that the Trump administration had sought, which is really to overturn these lower court decisions.

And the Supreme Court and Justice Kavanaugh in one paragraph order from which Thomas and Alito dissented said, Justice Kavanaugh said, well, there's just not time.

Well, let me remind everybody that this time, what, six years ago in 2020, these very same In many cases, the very same plaintiffs and state election officials were just without any legal authority whatsoever changing the laws because of COVID.

Besides the administrative, you know, the Marshall things, the heart of this, what did President Trump want, and what did the four justices, three of whom he appointed, say no to?

Um, what happened here? Can you explain it?

it?Yeah, I can explain it.

We have four Supreme Court justices who are supposed to be conservative, um, [clears throat] three of them appointed by, uh, President Trump, and they sided with the communist, uh, women on the court, and, um, basically said that the lower courts and all their tyranny had to be, uh, supported.

Even though Justice Alito wrote an eight-page dissent, which, uh, Justice Thomas... with which Justice Thomas concurred, saying, "This court, in and of itself, is responsible for the delay," and that the states were responsible, the, the plaintiffs were responsible for the delay.

That's basically the, the basis on which the Supreme Court denied, uh, the request for the stay that the Trump administration had sought, which is really to overturn these lower court decisions.

And the, and the Supreme Court, um, and Bre- Justice Kavanaugh in a one paragraph, uh, order from which Thomas and Alito dissented said...

Justice Kavanaugh said, "Well, there's just not time." Well, let me remind everybody that this time, uh, what, six years ago in 2020, these very same, in many cases, the very same plaintiffs and state election officials were just, without any legal authority whatsoever, changing the laws because of COVID.

Besides the, besides the administrative, you know, the marginal things, the heart of this, what did President Trump want, and what did the four justices, three of whom he appointed, say no to?

What's your reaction?

Well, I'm so tired of these judges who think that they were elected president, they think that they are elected officials, and they're just tyrants in robes.

And the only way this is going to be resolved is if the Supreme Court will do what its job and will actually tell these judges to stop inserting themselves.

They don't insert themselves, they're dragged into it.

But, you know, look, they need to start telling these left-wing groups who keep filing these lawsuits that they're not going to entertain a political question.

This is a political question.

The Supreme Court allowed the, John Roberts, the chief justice, allowed the s- the United States Postal Service to proceed to promulgate final rules, to issue final rules, and that's where this issue's going to be decided.

Are you buying that argument?

Here's Cleta Mitchell, a Senior Legal Fellow at the Conservative Partnership Institute and the founder of the Election Integrity Network.

Well, I define lawfare as using and abusing the legal system to, um, punish political enemies.

That is not what the system was designed to do.

And so, and I would also say that I would be hard-pressed to find instances of Republicans doing that to Democrats.

But it is...

But one of the things that's very important for people to understand is that Democrats, and I think we're seeing it in this Trump administration, we are seeing sort of the chickens have come home to roost in the judiciary in a way that we've never really realized before.

Um, the judicial s- the judiciary, the judicial branch of our government is controlled by the left.

So it not only kind of tells us where we are, but is pushing us towards, you know, increasing acceleration, uh, of going to a destination that is anti-Constitution, anti-American.

Ma'am, can you give us your thoughts and observations?

Well, I want to give a shout out to the Department of Homeland Security because they are taking their responsibilities very seriously.

Their responsibilities under the law established by President Obama on his way out the door in 2017 that elections are critical infrastructure.

And the Department of Homeland Security has a responsibility to mitigate any threats, mitigate or eliminate any threats to critical infrastructure.

That means any threats to elections.

And so you will remember that President Trump announced in his state, his message to the union, the entire country a month ago that will actually now more than six weeks ago that there were that they had confirmed over 250,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in the states.

And that was a preliminary number.

What is Cleta Mitchell's recommendation to the president of these United States for what we need to do, what actions we need to take? Do you have free and fair elections and not have it stolen in November, ma'am?

Ma'am, can you give us your thoughts and observations?

Well, I want to give a shout out to the Department of Homeland Security because they are taking their responsibilities very seriously.

Their responsibilities under the law established by President Obama on his way out the door in 2017, that elections are critical infrastructure.

And the Department of Homeland Security has a responsibility to mitigate any threats, mitigate or eliminate any threats to critical infrastructure.

That means any threats to elections.

And so You will remember that President Trump announced in his state, his message to the union, the entire country a month ago that will actually now more than six weeks ago that there were that they had confirmed over 250,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in the states.

And that was a preliminary number.

What is Cleta Mitchell's recommendation to the president of these United States for what we need to do, what actions we need to take? Do you have free and fair elections and not have it stolen in November, ma'am?

How do we go six years with an intelligence committee knowing all these threats in almost no action?

You know, John, that is such a good question, because let me add to that.

And you referenced it today in the Just the News article.

In 2019, Senator Klobuchar introduced a bill.

They had 40 co-sponsors and many of the most Democrats.

And that would have strengthened the oversight of the voting machines, the voting technology.

And Senator Wyden.

Tell us what you know.

Uh, does it go far enough? And what should be the next steps?

Well, there are a couple of next steps.

I think that everyone needs to remember that the Secretary of Homeland Security is the, uh, Department of Homeland Security is the agency risk manager for critical infrastructure.

And elections, not just the technology, but everything about elections, uh, are critical infrastructure.

That was determined by President Obama and his Secretary of Homeland Security in 2017.

And that is still the case.

So the Secretary of Homeland Security has wide authority to, um, take m- and a responsibility to issue mitigation steps.

Yeah

The only way we're gonna get sorted is get a, a national security emergency memorandum out, ma'am.

Well, thank you, Steve, for having me on to talk about, 'cause it, to talk about this, because it's really important.

And I did watch Wayne Allyn Root.

I've watched him several times in your discussions with him.

The, he's right about the dangers and the vulnerabilities and the threats.

The thing that is frustrating to me is that the Department of Commerce already has all the authority it needs today- To be able to, uh, co- to oversee and regulate the use of these voting machines.

They already have that authority.

Uh, Cleta Mitchell, your thoughts on this, ma'am?

The only way we're gonna get sorted is get a, a national security emergency memorandum out, ma'am.

Well, thank you, Steve, for having me on to talk about, 'cause it, to talk about this, because it's really important.

And I did watch Wayne Allyn Root.

I've watched him several times in your discussions with him.

The, he's right about the dangers and the vulnerabilities and the threats.

The thing that is frustrating to me is that the Department of Commerce already has all the authority it needs today to be able to, uh, co- to oversee and regulate the use of these voting machines.

They already have that authority.

Uh, Cleta Mitchell, your thoughts on this, ma'am?

As you see it now, given how the RINO Republican Party doesn't wanna deal with this, but it must be dealt with, are you comfortable right now, 80 what? Eight days away from the midterm elections, that the midterm elections are gonna be safe and secure, ma'am?

Not unless ...

I will not be comfortable unless, um, the Department of Commerce exercises its responsibility to make sure that the voting machines accurately capture the votes of the American people and reflect the will of the American people.

They have the authority to do that, the power to do that.

They need to be working with the election officials to make that, make sure that there are manual confirmations of the, of what is produced by the voting technology.

They have to do that.

They have the authority.

Thoughts and observations.

Are you comfortable right now, 80, what, eight days away from the midterm elections, that the midterm elections are going to be safe and secure, ma'am?

Not unless, I will not be comfortable unless the Department of Commerce exercises its responsibility to make sure that the voting machines accurately capture the votes of the American people and reflect the will of the American people.

They have the authority to do that, the power to do that.

They need to be working with the election officials to make sure that there are manual confirmations of what is produced by the voting technology.

They have to do that.

They have the authority.

They need to get busy and do it.

Thoughts and observations.

Um, are we going to enter the '26 election in a better posture than the last three?

Well, John, that's a-- the answer is mixed.

Number one, um, there has been-- The, the biggest, I think the greatest thing that has happened since 2020 is that we now have a movement, an election integrity movement That did not exist prior to twenty twenty.

And this makes me very happy because as you pointed out, [laughs] uh, I'm old, and I've been spending a lot of time over the years on election integrity back before it even had a name, really.

And, um, so I'm thrilled to be joined by really many, many millions and thousands of people and in particular, hundreds and hundreds of volunteers across the country who are part of our election integrity network.

And that is a real thing.

It is an actual, uh, five oh one C three network.

I watched you build this movement.

Is there any reason to believe New Jersey is the only place this is happening? Or are we looking at the same broken process in California, New York, Illinois, Colorado or elsewhere? We're

looking at a situation that has the entire system is broken, Congresswoman.

I mean, the fact of the matter is federal law enacted under Bill Clinton in 1993, the National Voter Registration Act has resulted in the really really blocking the state's ability to clean voter rolls and the the last 30 years there has been a steady drumbeat a brainwashing uh a drumbeat of telling election officials at the local and state levels that if they try to clean the vote even though the law says they're supposed to.

The left-wing groups have sued states, they have tried to block them, and there are statutory blackout periods when states are not even supposed to remove anyone who wasn't eligible to register in the first place.

So we have a lot of catching up to do, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I can give you examples all over the country.

If the system can register people who literally tell the government, I'm not a citizen, how many other states are sitting on the same problem right now and just haven't admitted to it yet?

Well, it's a really big, big problem, and of course that's one of the reasons that we wanted to pass, one of the reasons you have been a big supporter of the Save America Act, which would have required proof of citizenship at the time people registered to vote, because right now the default position is to register people even when they say that they're not citizens.