Latest / Your Leo Nation / EX-CIA Operations Officer Drops Bombshell on Iran MOU & LA Election Fraud

Transcript

EX-CIA Operations Officer Drops Bombshell on Iran MOU & LA Election Fraud · Your Leo Nation

• Mark Garrett: Sam Fattis, retired CIA operations officer. Welcome back to your Leonation. Sam Faddis: It is great to be here as always. Thanks for having me. Mark Garrett: Well, there's a lot going on. and ⁓ listen, I was so really motivated to get on here with the information you sent me before some late breaking news and ⁓ want to talk about this and of course that is the Iran deal. And ⁓ I didn't actually have a chance to see just just recently, just a little bit ago, the actual White House ⁓ I guess pressure you talked about because I was stuck in traffic. Sam Faddis: Right. Right. Mark Garrett: But I got this from you. And ⁓ there's some things here that I do like in this agreement, the supposed agreement. ⁓ but I gotta be honest with you, Sam, there's some things here I'm kind of scratching my head about. I'm wondering why do you agree to this? And as a guy who loves this administration, supports it, you know, adamantly, I'm a little bit surprised that this is not more like unconditional surrender surrender that we heard earlier. Your take. Sam Faddis: Yeah, well I I I think I'm having the same reaction you are and a also as somebody who, you know, worked really hard to get President Trump in in office and and is all about the America First movement. I I don't think this is a deal we should have agreed to. ⁓ w we're the Iranians are telling us they're gonna open the Straits of Hormuz and let tankers go through. And they're telling us that we're gonna talk about the nuclear program. I mean there's more verbiage than that, but the bottom line is they haven't actually agreed to anything on the nuclear program yet. We're gonna have further discussions. In exchange Ultimately, if if we go through with everything on our side, we're gonna unfreeze all the money that the Iranians have. Well, we're gonna stop hostilities, we're gonna withdraw the fleet, we're gonna end the blockade. All the money that's frozen, tens of billions of dollars Iranian funds around the world and bank accounts, we're gonna release. and then we're ⁓ I mean, you know, w we're We're going to facilitate or organize a reconstruction fund for Iran in the amount of three hundred billion dollars that's going to go to them. Now, that's not supposed to be our money. Supposed to be us getting other people to put up the cash. There's still some real ambiguity though as to whether some of that money might be us. starts to get very fuzzy. In in in other words, we're gonna let the Iranians up off the mat and we're gonna end all sanctions and we're gonna hand them a boatload of cash and open up the blockade and let them sell oil and and in exchange they're gonna take us back to where we were before the war ever started in terms at best of letting ships move. And they're gonna talk about the nuke program. And look, my experience with the Iranians is any promise from them to nego negotiate in good faith about the nuclear program is what we used to call in the field a bag of smoke. It's meaningless. These guys they as my father used to say, they would lie when the truth would do. Lying is what they do. And they obfuscate and they drag their heels and so ⁓ that's where we are. I don't think I don't think it's a I don't think it's a great deal and I have Real questions honestly as to whether it's even gonna hold together. I think this whole thing may just fall apart. Mark Garrett: Well, a as do I. ⁓ you know, to go to your your point about look, the culture of deception, and we've talked about this before, I've talked about it before. We're talking about a regime here, we're talking, I think more importantly, we're talking about a culture in the sense that this is a this is a religious fanatic run. regime who believe that they're not only a part of, but they they are essential in the apocalypse, that they want to bring the world to an end, that they they they want ult ultimate martyrism. And so as you said, ⁓ deception, deception is a c part of the culture because this is a an in a ways to means to an end. So any any agreement with them and I and I any agreement whatsoever Sam Faddis: Yes. Mark Garrett: To me, like you said, is is virtually meaningless. The other part you touched on here is the funding. I've heard President Trump said, hey, not one penny of US tax dollars is going to this and so forth and so on. Fine. I I don't want any money of ours to go to them. However, effectively, whether it comes from the Gulf Gulf region, whether it comes from, you know, wherever the money comes from, if we are facilitating that money back on, effectively it's the same thing. Sam Faddis: Yes. Mark Garrett: I don't I don't understand this. Here's one point that there's a lot in here. By the way, I want to be clear. You and I have been witnessing this whole thing for 47 years, as have many people who are listening and watching watching. So before I die, if Iran, because of this deal, has not obtained a nuclear nuclear weapon, then God bless the deal. I want to make be clear about that. That's what we're all hoping. But Sam Faddis: Sure. Sure. Yeah. Mark Garrett: Here we are, we'll see. One of the things here that really, really bothers me, Sam, is this bullet point or this portion of the agreement that the US will withdraw forces from the area within thirty days of this MOU. We're talking about international water. We're talking about America's ability to be there for any other possible reason. To me, this is a real setup either for lack of security or for going back on the agreement in this MOU. This really bothers me as much as anything else here. Sam Faddis: Yeah, I I agree and look you know I think what people need to understand is ⁓ the regime has not changed in in Iran. Right? They there's this commentary that we killed a bunch of leaders and the guys that are in power now are more moderate and reasonable and rational. That's I don't know. It's just let's just go with this. That isn't true. Right? The most powerful guy in Iran now is a general named Vahidi. He's the commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. And the way modern Iran works, it's kind of the the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, is at the heart of the power. It's not just a part of the armed forces that takes orders. It it really runs the country in to a large extent. So this guy's the head of that. So he's the single most powerful dude. Well, his whole life has been the revolution. This guy came up in the IRGC, he commanded the Kuds force, which is part of the IRGC that stages terrorist attacks all over the world, works with Hezbollah, works with the Houthis, yada yada. And now he's and and he is like the most revolutionary, radical, anti-American guy, and completely, he's all about this ideology that you just touched on, this 1ver ideology, which is we gotta bring on the apocalypse because we're gonna win. That's the guy who's really at the heart of everything in Iran now. That guy doesn't want to get along. He doesn't want to coexist. He doesn't want to get past this. And you know, you give this guy $300 billion wherever it comes from. He's not building daycare centers. He's not fixing the roads. Right? All of that ⁓ all of this money and and all of the leeway we're giving them is going to go to them rearming, re equipping. And honestly, if you read their press now, all their official state media. Mark Garrett: Yeah. Sam Faddis: They are crowing that they won this war. So they're emboldened, and you're about to give them a whole bunch of money. They're not going away. I you know, I if you l the my first question I have really is how long is it till the next war with Iran? Because this didn't solve anything. This we we we it maybe it could fall apart within days, this deal, because the Israelis don't want any part of this. And they might just sort of make it fail. It might hold for a few months. I don't know, maybe it'll be next year. But you're gonna have to go back and finish this with these guy I mean that it is a knife fight and like I say, they have no interest in coexistence. I wish to God it was different, you know? Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. That makes two of us. You know, ⁓ speaking about that, you know, we may have to go back in. ⁓ there's there's a lot to that. Just just that one statement you made. First of all, about the verification of the nuclear dust, whatever we call it. Used to call it yellow cake. Remember that years ago it was yellow cake. Now it's nuclear dust. I don't know, whatever. But you know, in the agreement here talks about the UN verification, things like this. And all of those details are supposed to be worked out in the next 60 days. You and I know that the only way under this umbrella of an MOU here, the only way is if look, I'll be honest with you. Probably no surprise. I don't trust the United Nations to verify what day it is. That's me. So from a US point of view. The it seems like the only way to verify or to ⁓ do destroy to remove this nuclear material is for US personnel to have eyes on and hands on. Now, again, I'm talking from a layman. You are an intelligence expert. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems like this is the only option as far as that part of this agreement, which, by the way, was Donald Trump's This is it. This is the the no negotiation aspect of this, no nuclear weapon. I hope he's right. I hope he means it. But it seems the only way to enforce that is to have US eyes and hands on the ground. Your take. Sam Faddis: Yeah, you're a hundred percent right. I mean, look at this is one hell of a lot more complicated and difficult than people think. First of all, everybody's always talking about there's X number of hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and then they list some locations where it is. As if we had a frigging crystal ball and complete clarity and knew where all of their facilities were and the exact status of their program. Let's just start with that's not even close to true. So people will talk about Fordau as an example of one of the places in Natans. Okay, that's great. But what about the secret, the possibility of secret sites we are unaware of? So, how are you going to inspect the secret site they haven't divulged to you and you're unaware of? ⁓ and even when you go to a facility you're aware of, the way this is typically worked with inspections over the years in Iran is. You say, we want to send a team to wherever, N four down Natans only, and ⁓ and they say, Okay. You request permission to go to Natans is what it means. And then potentially several days later or several weeks later, they say, We have arranged for you to come to Natans. And then you wander around under their supervision. With no idea what was at Natans before you asked to go there. And it I mean there have been cases, documented cases, in which the UN guys show up and they're wandering around with equipment and they're like and the Iranians are showing them something and says, see, it's an empty building. There's nothing here. And the UN guys are like, We're getting readings, all kinds of readings with our equipment that says that there has been radioactive material here. And relatively recently, and now you're showing me an empty room. So, Mohammed, my question is, where the heck did you take the stuff that used to be in this room? And then they look at you and say, You're crazy, that's not true. We don't have anything. Or you show up at a site, making a nuclear weapon is not just about getting the sufficient highly enriched uranium, assuming that's what you're using. You know, there's a bunch of engineering work that goes into it. And part of it is high explosives work. Basically, you have to compress the sphere of highly enriched uranium and implosion device. You crush it with conventional explosives and it reaches critical mass and it makes the mushroom cloud. Okay. The engineering aspect of that, getting the explosives right, having them time to all explode down to the millisecond, the nanosecond, there's a lot of engineering here that goes into making this thing work. So you got to do a lot of explosives testing. So the UN over the years has showed up at locations and are like, okay, well, this facility here is a test facility for high explosives, and the only practical use for it is if you're building a nuclear weapon. Like we know what this looks like, because other people build nuclear weapons. I know what the heck this thing is. So if you don't have a nuclear weapons program, And you don't have any highly enriched uranium. Why the heck did do we have this facility? And what have you been using it for? And the response from the Iranians is something like, ⁓ you're crazy. We we were just doing theoretical tests with this. So, you know, in other words, these are stupid lies, but since they have complete control over the ground, what happens on the ground, you're stuck with it. That that's how, in reality, this so-called inspection process. Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. Sam Faddis: has worked. It's a game. It's like a shell game and they just keep moving stuff around. Well, how's it going to be any different when you go into Iran this time? You're not going to be you're not going to be on the ground and just drive wherever you want and inspect anything you want. All of these locations you want to go to are really secure, tightly controlled Iranian military and government facilities. So they will retain complete control. Mark Garrett: I don't know. Sam Faddis: And we can't go, you know, the facilities we don't know about, well that we well, we don't know about them, so you're never going to inspect those. ⁓ and I I say this, by the way, you know, just so everybody's clear, as somebody who worked not only against the Iranians, but spent a big part of my career with a specific poke focus on weapons of mass destruction and a specific focus on their nuclear program. So Mark Garrett: Right. Sam Faddis: You know, there are details of that that we can't go into, but the bottom line is I I'm not imagining this. This is their MO. So yeah, you're right. You can't rely on the UN and and if the Iranians are in fact control in control of what you can inspect, well you're basically playing a a a silly game. They're just moving everything ahead of you going. Mark Garrett: Which by the way, from their point of view, why wouldn't they? If they have this opportunity, of course they would. In other words, the what's the old saying here is the best predictor of future behaviors, past behavior, something like that. I'm paraphrasing, but forty seven years, they're not gonna change over two or three months. I mean, it's it's it's ludicrous to think so. ⁓ Sam Faddis: Of course. Precisely. Precisely. Mark Garrett: you you touched on the intelligence and you touched on information that you obviously that you've obtained and been trained with over the years and stuff but obviously you still you know you can't share that. But this is a hypothetical. I think it's a hypothetical even even for you, someone in the know. Not sure really how to phrase it, I'll just do it this way. How likely is it, Sam, that in other words, what we're seeing here, you can call it a a shell game, you can call it diversion. I'm talking about from Trump's point of view, this MO, coupled with the likelihood that or or because that we we we have more intel than certainly I, maybe even you at this point are aware of. In other words, Those unknowns about you know other facilities, maybe they're maybe they're more known than than we believe. ⁓ maybe that they have intel. By the way, I'm presenting this you know scenario, these questions with a hopeful mind. It's like, what are we missing here? I hope I'm missing something that's out there. So Is this a possibility that some of this is subterfuge, that it's a card game, it's a shell game, whatever you want to call it, because we have more intel, we have more capability than you and I are aware of, and the time is on this administration side. Sam Faddis: Is it a possibility? Sure. And do I hope that that is true? Yeah. Usually like I always say whenever we're talking about stuff like this, I hope to God I'm wrong, man. I'm not gonna I wake up and find out I'm I'm wrong about this. I'm not gonna say, damn, I wish I was right. I'm gonna say, thank God I was wrong. That's how I'm gonna feel about it, because this is pretty serious stuff. Do I think so? No, I I I don't think so. I I know in my personal experience, let me put it this way, w recruiting assets. Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. Sam Faddis: And penetrating Iranian programs that I've had. I had experiences where I would recruit a guy and basically say to headquarters, So tell me what we already know about this target. Right? Because I'm going to be debriefing this dude. And it would help to know when he's lying to me or flesh this out if I know what we already know. Like, you know, so I'm not just groping around in the dark. And the response from headquarters would be. Man, you're not even you're not just in a room we've never been in before. You're in a house we've never been in before. We y what do we know about this? We know nothing at all. So good luck figuring out when he's lying, when he's not lying. We'll figure this out as we go. But the bottom line is we've never we've never had access. And look, it's really, really hard. You talk about you want to know the exact status of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, which by the way They don't admit it even exists. So that's part of your problem. They say they say there is no nuclear weapons program and they've never changed that position. Okay, I mean, you're talking about relative handfuls of people. They don't travel outside a country. They don't f travel freely inside the country. They are watched, they are followed, their phones are monitored, their email is monitored, and if they are found to be doing anything. Mark Garrett: Right. It's a great point. Sam Faddis: That the powers that be don't want them to do, they will die horribly, and all of their family members will die first horribly in front of them before they're put out of their misery. So you trying to go inside that program, recruit recruit guys on the ground in Iran and keep them alive and dodge all of those pitfalls, that is a trick. That is a a a real trick. Mark Garrett: Well That that picture you painted, ⁓ as gruesome as it is, is very effective in really illustrating what we're dealing with here. This is this is a type of regime and mentality and culture that we're dealing with. ⁓ so if and we know that they do commit those types of atrocities against individuals and families and communities in that country, their own country. Playing games with the rest of the world about their nuclear weapons program is really child's play. I'm talking about from a level of atrocity. It's nothing to them. ⁓ final thing I want to ask you about ⁓ regarding this, and we're gonna move on to one more topic here, is the alternative. And this goes back to the unconditional surrender and and and bringing this country, ⁓ back country Iran completely to its knees. Sam Faddis: Check. Mark Garrett: What what does the alternative, in other words, the remaining option or options look like? And I'm gonna say, you know, in a kinetic sense, militarily, what is our other option or our other options? Sam Faddis: Right. Well, I mean, if you if we somehow magically had the way to some way to roll back the tape, which we don't have, and I was in a position to advise the president back when we made this decision to go to war, what would I have said? Don't go to war. Don't do this right now. Next thing I would have said is if you're determined that you want to take these guys out, take down this regime and really end this threat, it isn't gonna happen in a week of bombs. So if you want to get serious, let's get serious. You're gonna have to put together a real program. You're gonna have to increase dramatically the number of assets you have inside Iran. You're gonna have to c make contact with an actual real resistance movement and over to overthrow this government. And then you're gonna have to train them and arm them and do all the spade work. Takes a long time. It isn't spontaneous. It isn't a couple of days. We need to get serious. And then you need to sit down and figure out how you are actually gonna crush them. Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. Sam Faddis: Because the conventional war is meaningless. You sank their navy. Okay, great. They their navy was irrelevant to start with. You s destroyed their air force. Okay. That also was irrelevant to start with. They're going to go asymmetric and unconventional on you. They are going to attack you with thousands of drones and all these stupid little speed boats that they can use against tankers and mines. So you're going to have to put together a system to protect the Gulf. So the Gulf states don't get slaughtered with drones. And then you're going to have to be prepared to counter that asymmetric threat, which means closing all the land borders, imposing a no-fly zone. This has got to be a lot more long-term comprehensive, well thought through strategy to crush this regime and then actually have a viable resistance movement that go overthrow. So none of that's not a week. That's not two weeks. That's you want to do this in a couple of years. Or 18 months from now, we better get rolling right now. Or forget about it and don't start the fight. Right? It's I mean, you you coming from your background, understand as as well as anybody. I mean, in are we serious here? In the real world, if you want to deal with this threat, this is what it's gonna take. And it's not gonna be wishful thinking. It's gonna be a really concerted muscular effort. You know, remember that scene from Tombstone where Kurt Russell is white her. Is talking to his brothers and they all want to walk down to the okay corral and start a shoe a shootout. And what's Wyatt saying? And by the way, this is historically accurate. He's saying, everybody, just chill out, man. Like, he not because he's afraid and not because he doesn't think those are bad guys, but he's like, you guys don't actually understand what you're getting ready to start and what we're gonna have to do. We're gonna have to kill a whole bunch of people. We're gonna have to. That's what it's going to take to solve this threat. It's not just go down there and say some cool stuff and throw some trash talk around. And that's so that, you know, a much more concerted, serious effort. And honestly, if if we're going through with this deal, we ought to start planning for that effort right now because inevitably we're going to have to come back and finish the job. Mark Garrett: Well, I agree with you. It's gotta be finished now one way or the other. And I guess from what I know, from what the public knows right now, that's the best I can see coming out of this so called agreement is is time, like they have time to reconstitute. So do we and to you know, enhance plans. But correct. That's exactly right. Sam Faddis: Yeah, and and and and learn the lessons from this fight. So let wa okay, 'cause when when round two starts, and it will, let's be prepared to to do it the way we should have done it this time. Mark Garrett: Yep, a hundred percent. Well, Sam, from from one deceitful lying ⁓ entity to another, we go from Iran to ⁓ the city of Los Angeles. And I'm referring to the recent, and I'm gonna go ahead and say it and be a smart ass, so-called election in the city of Los Angeles. You did a great ⁓ you you put out a great article like you always do on Substack. And ⁓ about the election. And I just want to go ahead and just preflight this with what I really took away. I thought was so good that when a that you wrote, when elections are run like this, people lose trust in the system. When they lose trust in the system, they begin to disobey the rule of law. I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but I think I think I you know got it. And Sam Faddis: Yes. That's right. Mark Garrett: I want you to talk about, you know, why you wrote that, why you came to that conclusion about the Los Angeles mayoral election. Sam Faddis: I always describe this whole issue with electr electoral integrity as acid on the foundations of the republic. I mean, people follow the law and generally do the right thing, not because they're terrified that there's a cop standing behind them 24-7, but because they believe in the system, they believe in the law, they believe in the in the in the country. And and ⁓ when the day comes that they really fundamentally don't trust the system and believe they're rulers, if you will, are illegitimate, then at some point they're gonna stop doing that. And that's that's a breakdown of society. So you know, Los Angeles is a great example. In California, I'm sure you know this, your former home state. so so Los Angeles, just look at the issue with homeless in Los Angeles and voting, right? Because there are actually huge numbers of homeless on the streets in in Los Angeles. Mark Garrett: At home county, Los Angeles. Sam Faddis: So under California law, if you say you're homeless, you can register, you can talk about registering to vote, but ⁓ to get a mail in ballot, you can just list the physical location where you hang out. Literally, you can say the bus stop at the corner of whatever is where I live. That's where I lie on the sidewalk. And that constitutes your domicile. Well, the mail the ballots won't be delivered to the bus stop. So you are then allowed to give them a completely separate location. It doesn't necessarily have any connection to you at all where your mail and ballot will be sent. So yeah. Mark Garrett: Now, ⁓ Sam, I swa I do wanna interrupt. Please don't ⁓ lose your turn thought. What you said is not you haven't enhanced or embellished anything. What you said is absolute reality and within the law of California. I wanna make that clear to the audience. You're not making this up. So I want you to continue. Sam Faddis: That's right. So so I'm I'm Joe Homeless Guy and I say I sleep in the bus stop, but you're b I want my ballot sent to this other address. And typically those addresses are some kind of nonprofit location in the vi in the area. And okay, so the ballots now and by the way, that same location be can be provided by thousands of homeless people. So thousands of homeless people from all over whatever section of the city. Have their ballots sent to a nonprofit and they arrive in their name. Now, when you fill out your ballot, or when somebody fills out your ballot, it's supposed to be signed. But if you say you can't write, you can literally make an X like we're in an old pirate movie, or a dot, or any other kind of mark. So now the ballot that arrived at the nonprofit, supposedly for the homeless guy. Who sleeps in the bus stop can be returned with an X. So no signature. And it's supposed to be witnessed or should be, must be witnessed. So somebody's supposed to sign that they're confirming it was you. But the thing is, no w a such person can be witness on an unlimited number of ballots, and nobody ever even confirms who that witness is. The validity of their signature, or actually, for that matter, that any such person exists on the planet. So now you got a piece of paper requested by a homeless person, and there's no real verification that they exist necessarily either, that comes back in the mail with an X, no signature witnessed by a person who might exist, might not exist at all. On top of this, it's Case after case after case, in fact some of them that have gone to prosecution, one involving a lady who just pled guilty to this, of people who s where it's documented that homeless people are paid for their ballots. Mark Garrett: Which which that actually is against the law. The ballot harvesting is not in California. Correct. Sam Faddis: Ballot harvesting is not meaning a person can go gather up an unlimited number of ballots. Some states don't allow that, but California does. So that part is completely legal. You're absolutely right. To pay a person for their ballot is illegal, but I'm sure this will resonate with you trying to prosecute those cases because your hand in a Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. Of course. It's Sam Faddis: I mean the cases show basically they're you you're talking like five bucks a ballot. They're just passing out really small amounts of cash to some dude who's on drugs and lives on the street and he doesn't care, and they're paying him for his ballot, and in many cases they're telling them how to fill them out. Or they're just buying the ballots and then the ballots come back and the homeless guy never filled it out at all. I mean, what what is to verify there? Some Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. Sam Faddis: Some check marks on a ballot, an ex, and what could be a completely vic fictitious name of a witness that doesn't even exist. Mark Garrett: Yes, which which could be, which is also a code code phrase for probably is fictitious. Sam Faddis: So so there is literally n there's nothing to verify or enforce. It is a I mean and and ⁓ so you have the most recent case of, you know, the Republican candidate for mayor in Los Angeles, and under the California system, as I understand it, you know, it's basically the first it's it's it's what you might call an open primary. So Mark Garrett: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Sam Faddis: the the the Republican candidate was going to come in second in the primary, meaning it it would be a runoff between him and the current mayor in the fall. And then all of a sudden f at the last minute, when he's about to declare victory, 40,000 ballots or something appear out of nowhere and another lady who happens to basically be a communist, a democratic socialist, inches him out and meaning the runoff in the fall will now be b between one ultra leftist and another ultra leftist for mayor of Los Angeles. And you know, I mean it it's it this system is obviously design designed this way for a reason. It is designed this way to allow the Democratic Party to steal elections. That's that's why it it's a prescription for one party rule in perpetuity. That's what it is. No. No, that I mean so that's the only possible explanation for it. And obviously it's California, so there's no indication at all that anybody plans to change anything about this because it's producing the results it was designed to produce. Mark Garrett: It's a hundred percent. I'll go ahead, I cut you off. F finish. No, you know, it it it's ⁓ I I read ⁓ another article ⁓ the other day about this and what we're seeing is we're seeing a law or laws in place that make the process completely open to fraud. So and and look, by simply turning a blind eye, not not very ⁓ verifying, so there's a lot of Passive, you know, culpability, I guess, and trying to say, you know what, I just don't look at this, you know, it they came in legally. I don't have to verify that as long as I don't do my job, these things can happen. So, in other words, the law has set up a system that's completely open to and encourages fraudulent behavior. ⁓ and they've done it for the reasons you said, it's really to steal elections. Sam Faddis: Yes. Mark Garrett: To to to your point about this one, this by the way, this is from the Los Angeles County Registar Recorder's Office. Okay, so this is not from some right wing, especially Los Angeles County entity. On election night, and we're talking, I'll say their names, ⁓ communist Karen Bass, Communist ⁓ Nithya Rahman, and you know, undeclared ⁓ Republican, I think by you know, by registration, Spencer Pratt. On election night, Bass had 38% of the vote. Spencer Pratt had 28% of the vote. And Ramen had 20% of the vote on election night. I'm going to fast forward here. There's some ⁓ stuff in between. Post-election turnaround, this is approximately say about 90% of the vote in. Karen Bass now has 34% of the vote. Ramen has 29% of the vote. And Spencer Pratt is down to 25% of the vote. Those ballots you're talking about that came in a week or two, but a week was enough to do Pratt in afterwards. The point is, with all of the mail in ballots before election night, the election rolled out the way we saw it. Bass, Pratt, and a very, very strong second position, and then Sam Faddis: Mm-hmm. Mark Garrett: ramen solo that she had conceded she said i lost she was crying on stage she gave up the same you would think the same ⁓ disbursement of mail unballots you would think mail and ballots before male and ballots afterwards would be at least similar they all come in like 80 against Pratt whether it's for Bass or for ramen but especially ramen this makes no sense and this is as Sam Faddis: Yes. Mark Garrett: A f much of fairy tale asks the tooth fairy. Sam Faddis: Yes. Yeah, a hundred percent. And look, I mean i i you know, this is the way I feel about it. Arresting individual people who are paying homeless folks on the street for ballots, you know, that's fine. You're committing a crime. I I I'm not gonna say they don't deserve to be prosecuted. But that's a that's a losing effort, man. Trying to run around whatever sections of LA we're talking about. And find individuals who are paying five bucks a pop for ballots on behalf of whatever organization. That's like trying to take down the mob by going and hitting up individual bag men in some neighborhood in New York City, right? Again, I'm, you know, I'm not suggesting you shouldn't do that. If you're serious about taking out the mafia, well then you're gonna have to go to the people who are actually running the organization. That you're gonna have to and not easy, obviously, but has been done. You gotta tear this thing out by the roots. The folks who orchestrate this, who provide the cash, who collect all these bounds, the folks, I mean, many of whom are actually embedded in these nonprofits, they gotta be prosecuted and they gotta go to prison for significant periods of time. That's how you destroy this. You gotta tear the thing out by the roots. Now, supposedly the feds are now. attempting to do something on that kind of strategic level in Los Angeles, I will believe it when I see it in terms of results. I mean, to begin with, I mean that's great, but it's just like the mob. Who's gonna roll? Who's g who's gonna roll on the dawn and say this is the way this system works and I'm prepared to stand up and get you know, get in the witness chair and s and in broad daylight in my true name under oath and do this. And then suffer the consequences for the rest of my life. Who's who's gonna do that? I mean y you know, that's Mark Garrett: It's a it's a good question and ⁓ I time will tell. I think that our our look from a couple of guys who believe in the rule of law, who believe in the the good old days, when you went in a booth, you pulled the curtain, you had a paper ballot, it was one person, one vote at a time on election day for two guys who believe in that that time and era. Sam Faddis: Yes. Mark Garrett: Our best hope right now is Steve Hilton. I don't know again. We're talking about a guy who is running within the culture of corruption we're talking about. I'm not hopeful. I I'm praying that some miracle will happen and he will become the governor of California, my former home state. And that's where change should start. He also has the help. Bill O'Saley is doing a pretty good job with a lot of corruption there, a US attorney in Southern California. ⁓ yeah, hope so. They have a pretty good ⁓ DA there in the county of Los Angeles, Nathan Hawkman, who I've had on the show. So, you know, there are some possibilities here, Sam, but the stars have to line up like they haven't in a long time. And I'm praying that they do. But in the meantime, ⁓ the way you laid it out ⁓ in your article, I think is fantastic. Everybody should read it. Speaking of that, where can people find you, listen to you, read you, and get in contact? You tell me. Sam Faddis: Yes, I do. Best place to go is to go to Substack to Ann magazine. A N D magazine s dot substack dot com and then I'm on I'm on X and every place else on the as real Sam Fattis, but and magazine'll get you to all those places. Mark Garrett: Fantastic. Sam, it's always a pleasure and a privilege to have you on. We really appreciate your time, your expertise. And really, ⁓ you know, our tagline here, we believe in the rule of law, a man who has a passion for the rule of law, Sam Fattis. God bless you, my friend. We will see you again and hopefully pretty soon.