Latest / Miss Understood with Rachel Uchitel / Bob Zeidman VS. MyPillow Guy Mike Lindell Wins $5MILL in "Prove Mike Wrong Challenge"

Transcript

Bob Zeidman VS. MyPillow Guy Mike Lindell Wins $5MILL in "Prove Mike Wrong Challenge" · Miss Understood with Rachel Uchitel

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: I remember being in a small town in Italy, struggling
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: to order coffee. I just couldn't get my point across
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: and it felt like I was missing out on really
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: connecting with the place. It's exactly why Babbel is a
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: game changer. It focuses on practical language skills, things you'd
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: actually say in real life situations, not just textbook phrases.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Imagine chatting easily at a cafe in Rome or asking
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: directions in Tokyo. With Babbel, this can happen in just
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: three weeks if you practice daily for only 10 minutes.
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: It's designed by language experts, ensuring you learn conversational skills
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: that natives really use. Plus, you can fit lessons into
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: any part of your day, making it super convenient. So
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: if you've ever wanted to dive back into a language
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: or learn a new one, now is your chance. Visit babbel.com
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: slash pod to save up to 60% off your subscription.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: That's B-A-B-B-E-L dot com slash P-O-D. Start your journey to
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: real conversations in a new language today. I'm Rachel. You
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: could tell you're listening to Misunderstood. Today I'm in Las Vegas, Nevada.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: I'm so excited to be here. I came all the
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: way here to interview my next guest. Bob Zeidman is
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: a software engineer who used his data analytics skills to
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: debunk a false 2020 election conspiracy theory promoted by MyPillow
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: CEO Mike Lindell.
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: Mr.
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Lindell offered $ 5 million in a Prove Mike Wrong challenge,
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: claiming he had the data to prove China interfered in
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: the elections. My next guest today was backed up by
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: an arbitrator's finding that he indeed proved Mike wrong, and Mr.
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: Lindell owes him the $ 5 million. To tell us that
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: story and the importance of facts versus fiction is my
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: next guest. Thank you so much for joining me.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: Hi, Rachel. Thanks a lot for having me on.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Of course. So first I want to talk about, for
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: one second, who you are and what you do, because
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: it's a little confusing. Tell me about yourself.
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: Well, I do a lot of things, but I think
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: what's relevant here is that I do software forensics. Mm-hmm.
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: So I actually, what's interesting is I don't have a
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: degree in computer science, but I've been doing computer programming
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: for 50 years. When I was a teenager, I was
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: doing it. And then actually I got back into it
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: about 30 or 40 years ago. And I developed tools
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: for what I call software forensics, which is comparing, and
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: these are software tools, for comparing software to find out
• 2:47
  Speaker 2: if somebody had stolen code or infringed someone's patent. And
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: I do a lot of that work. I train people.
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: I mostly work on intellectual property litigation. So when big
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: companies are suing over patents, my team and I will
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: come in and reverse engineer the hardware and software, but
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: mostly software, and determine if somebody copied code or is
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: implementing something in a way that infringes somebody's patent or
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: misappropriated trade secret.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Okay, interesting. And you moved to Las Vegas, you said,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: four years ago.
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: Why did you choose Las Vegas?
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: Well, a bunch of reasons. One, I just, so I'm,
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: as people know, I'm a conservative, generally support Republicans. And
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: I found that California was going crazy. You know, I
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: wouldn't mind my taxes going up. They were going up
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: all the time. I would get notices that I owed
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: a new tax regularly, some tax I'd never heard of.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: And the property tax were high. And I thought, I
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: wouldn't mind paying the extra taxes if the standard of
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: living were going up. But there was more crime, more traffic,
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: more homelessness. My wife and I hardly get out of
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: the house anymore. We work from home. And to go
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: out to be entertained, for example, to see a show,
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: the traffic and the crime and the needles on the
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: street were just too much for us.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: So we bought a house here at half the price,
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: a nice house, much lower property taxes, no income taxes.
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: But also, I'll tell you, I just feel... freer here
• 4:16
  Speaker 2: to voice my opinions about political issues and social issues,
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: and people can respectfully disagree with me here, and we
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: can talk about it, whereas in California, I found that
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: I just couldn't do that.
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: Right, absolutely. Okay, so in 2020, during the election, you
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: had voted for Trump, right?
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: You're a two-time Trump voter?
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah, let me put it this way, and I have
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: some friends who are really devout Trump supporters, I'll put
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: it that way, and they're good friends of mine, but
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: I I always felt that both times Trump was the
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: lesser of two evils. Um, you know, I've written about that.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: I'm not a big fan of his, although I did
• 4:54
  Speaker 2: like his policies during the first four years, well, his
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: four years in president in the presidency, but I think
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: he's volatile and unpredictable and it, it makes me nervous.
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: So what was your feeling about the outcome of the election?
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: Did you think that it had been stolen?
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: You know, I don't like to say that because I
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: don't have any proof. Um, And everything that I saw
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: from people was implications. And as a forensics expert, you
• 5:21
  Speaker 2: see things all the time that imply that somebody took
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: something or stole something. But until you investigate, you don't
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: really know. But my feeling from the beginning is that
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: it was extremely unlikely that the voting machines were either
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: hacked or malfunctioned because that would be detected. Somebody like me,
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: there's a lot of people like me. I like to
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: think I'm the best at what I do, but There's
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: a lot of people like me out there. And one
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: of us would have detected that. There's also cyber security
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: analysts who monitor the internet and they would detect that.
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: So I thought it was really unlikely that voting, if
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: there wasn't, well, let me put it this way. I
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: can say for certain there was fraud in the election
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: because every single human activity has fraud. And that's what
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: keeps me in business. If there weren't fraud, I wouldn't
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: be an expert witness on so many litigations. Right. But
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: was it enough fraud to change the results of the election?
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: I have no idea. But I was almost certain before
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: this that it didn't happen in the voting machines. Got it.
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: So what was Mike Lindell's claim?
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: Well, the claim changed over time. But I think very
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: shortly after the election, he claimed that he had proof
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: that the voting machines were hacked. Mm-hmm. I remember distinctly
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: January of 2021, after Biden's inauguration, that he started making
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: significant claims about that he had the proof of this.
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: But he said there were claims that it was China
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: that hacked in. There were some claims that it was
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: the State Department or the Democrats. There were all kinds
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: of claims. Eventually, he narrowed it down to China had
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: hacked into the election. Right.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: Was he expressing how much of an effect that actually had?
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: Was he trying to say that that was the reason
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: that Trump lost?
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely. He kept putting out numbers, in fact. He
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: still does this. He says, here's the number of votes
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: that were switched from Trump to Biden that caused Biden
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: to win the election. But I can tell you, you know,
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: we'll go into this. At the symposium that I went to,
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: those numbers kept changing. He put numbers on the screen.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: And He had invited a number of cyber experts like myself,
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: and we were all saying, where did those numbers come from?
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: But even as he spoke about the numbers on a
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: big screen behind him, he'd look at them and say, oh,
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: those numbers aren't even right. It was even more votes.
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: Oh, wow.
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: And all of us are thinking, where did these numbers
• 7:47
  Speaker 2: come from? Mm-hmm.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: So how did you first hear about the challenge and
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: explain exactly what the challenge was?
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: So I didn't realize that I think the challenge was
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: mostly on conservative media, and so I subscribed to conservative media.
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: Uh-huh.
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: And I also have friends who told me about it.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: But basically, Mike Lindell got on conservative media. I think
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: he got on some other outlets also. And he said
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: he had what are called packet captures. Packet captures are
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: capturing all the data on the Internet and showed that
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: China had intercepted. At least this was the implication. It
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: somehow intercepted votes that were being sent around the Internet
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: between voting machines. And he had he could show that
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: they were changed from Trump to Biden.
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: And so he offered a five million dollar challenge. He said,
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: I'm going to hold this symposium and I'm going to
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: invite the best experts in the world to come look
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: at it. And if anyone can prove me wrong, they'll
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: get five million dollars.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: So what I don't understand is, I mean, it's one
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: thing to go on all this media, claim what he's claiming.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: It's another thing to say, I'll give $ 5 million to
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: anyone who can prove me wrong. But then it's a
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: completely other thing for you to have a symposium where
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: you give the data and challenge people to prove you wrong.
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, he went so far in different steps, right?
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: I thought that was really crazy. So what was on
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: the agenda of the symposium? Where was it? When was it?
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: It was August of 2021.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: It was, there was no agenda. I got there and
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: I was given basically a blank agenda. What's interesting is
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: that during my arbitration, which we'll talk about, agendas came up.
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: You know, during discovery, you can ask for documents. They
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: turned over some strange documents, documents that my lawyers and
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: I were wondering, why did he ever turn this over?
• 9:29
  Speaker 2: This doesn't help him.
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: I mean, you're obliged to turn over every document, but
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: I've been in enough litigations that, you know, people lose documents.
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: And then how do we prove that they didn't lose them?
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: So we got some pretty, what I think are incriminating documents.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: But they gave us, in addition to that, they gave
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: us agendas for the symposium. And it's the first time
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: I ever saw an agenda. The agenda I got on
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: the first day when I got there was something like,
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: um you know uh nine o'clock panel number one ten
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: o'clock panel number two eleven o'clock panel number three and
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: twelve o'clock lunch um and all the agenda was just
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: like that and so I never knew who was going
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: to show.
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: Up okay but you know he was supposed to have
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: speakers or something like that and did they ever show up.
• 10:12
  Speaker 2: So they did uh I had to go online and
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: using clues about what they said you know he'd say
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: like oh here is John who just you know, did
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: such and such. And I'd Google John and such and
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: such and look for faces and say, oh, this is so-and-so.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: But honestly, it was Lindell, at least the first day
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: for sure, it was mostly Lindell talking nonstop. He'd have
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: people on the panel, but he wouldn't.
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: Are you learning to drive? From the 1st of November, 2026,
• 10:40
  Speaker 4: new rules will apply for learner permit holders. To get
• 10:44
  Speaker 4: a third or fourth learner permit, you must have taken
• 10:47
  Speaker 4: a driving test within the previous two years. After your
• 10:50
  Speaker 4: fourth permit, or if your permit has been expired for
• 10:53
  Speaker 4: more than two years, you will have to start the
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: learning to drive process again. Remember, you can only drive
• 10:59
  Speaker 4: unaccompanied if you hold a valid full driving license. Find
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: out more at rsa.ie, a message from the Road Safety Authority.
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: He didn't give them much time to talk. He talked
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: non-stop about election fraud and the proof and the deep
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: state and China.
• 11:16
  Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: And when he ran out of things to say, he'd
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: ask everyone to get up and recite the Pledge of
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: Allegiance or sing God Bless America.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: No, really?
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: Just offhand, was he trying to sell my pillows at
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: the same time?
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: You know, I don't think so. Although it's hard to,
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: I mean, people have accused him of that. But it's
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: hard to say because he's selling all the time. I
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: think the people there knew he was the CEO of
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: MyPillow and selling MyPillows, and there was probably mention of MyPillow.
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: He didn't come out. I mean, I've seen him on
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: interviews where he says at the end, he says, oh,
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: and by the way, you'll get a discount on MyPillows.
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: I don't remember him saying that, but everybody there knew
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: they might have been buying pillows for all I know.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: Right, right, right. So who was invited to this symposium?
• 12:05
  Speaker 2: So there were reporters there and politicians there. You know,
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: I've said he's denied this, but I've said that everyone
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: there seemed to be pro-Lindell and pro-Trump, with very few exceptions.
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: But among the cyber experts, you had to get invited.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: You had to supposedly be qualified and get invited. And
• 12:26
  Speaker 2: he's denied this, but everyone that I came in touch
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: with was a Trump supporter of the cyber experts. And also,
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: when I say cyber experts, to be fair, they range
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: from people who were really experts in their field, to
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: people who admitted that they were just IT people. And
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: by IT people, I mean people who serviced computers. And
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: I give them credit. I think everybody, every expert that
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: was invited was sincere, honest, because we all agreed by
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: the end of the conference, the three-day conference, that Lindell
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: did not have any data related to the 2020 election. Right.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: So let's get into what the data was he showed.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: But before that, was that, well, yeah, tell me about
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: that actually. What was the evidence that he was showing
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: and how was he showing it?
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: So the first day he gave us 11 files. One
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: of them was really big. It took us a while
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: to download it. I've heard rumors that the Wi-Fi was
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: purposely slowed down. I don't know if that's true, but
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: all of us, you know, we spent an hour or
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: two downloading the files, but there were seven of them.
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: And you know, to summarize, there was a PDF, there
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: was a diagram of voting machines and voting process that
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: didn't have anything to do with the 2020 election. There
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: was a video that I probably don't have time to
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: go into. He claimed that arbitration, that it showed us
• 13:55
  Speaker 2: how to extract data from some of the other files,
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: but it didn't. I mean, it's a longer story, but
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: it was a a minute video with no sound of
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: somebody fooling around on a software tool, and all of
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: us dismissed it. But at arbitration, they said this was
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: the key, and if Zeidman had understood how this worked,
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: but when we asked them at depositions, how did it work? Oh,
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: it's like too complicated for us to explain. Right, right.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Did you have only the three days to come up
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: with your answer to submit? Did you have to give
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: it by the time you left?
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you had to give it something like by the
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: very end of the conference on the third day.
• 14:31
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: And actually friends of mine, so friends of mine had
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: encouraged me to come and they said, Bob, you know,
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: you're a leading expert in the field. You should go.
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: And my first response was, first of all, uh, expert,
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: there are other experts have already vetted the data, said
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: that it showed the proof. I might disagree with them,
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: but I'll wait for this to come out. I don't
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: need to go to a conference in South Dakota. But
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: then they said, uh, one in particular said you could
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: win $ 5 million. And I said, I'm not going to
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: win $ 5 million. Because first of all, nobody would offer
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: $ 5 million if the data was illegitimate. Right. We might
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: disagree about whether it showed hacking, but I figured it
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: must be legitimate data. Sure. And the other thing is,
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: I said, but even if I could prove it, it
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: would take weeks or months for me to go through
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: the data and three days isn't enough. But I thought
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: about it and I thought, well, I know some people
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: who knew Lindell and I got myself invited because I
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: thought this will be an historic moment. One way or
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: the other, it'll either be It'll show the election was hacked.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: And I was there when it was announced. And, you know,
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: I could tell my grandkids about it. Maybe the election
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: would be overturned. Or it wouldn't, but it would still
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: be great, you know, interesting people to meet and talk to.
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: I never expected to be able to show the data
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: was fraudulent. Right. But what did happen is my first
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: day there, within a few hours, without, you know, I
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: don't need to go into the detail. And I wish
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: I could say I did something brilliant there. The thing
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: that I did is I recognized something that other people
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: just didn't recognize until much later in the conference.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: And what was that?
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: So that was, of the files he gave us, well,
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: first of all, he gave us a large file that
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: everybody thought must have PCAP data. That's the packet capture,
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: the capture of the data on the Internet. And so
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: everybody was trying to analyze this giant file. I did
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: that with a tool that everybody knew about. It's not
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: like nobody knew about it. And I also used my
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: own tools, and I basically showed that there was nothing
• 16:26
  Speaker 2: legitimate in there. But that left some other files. And
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: there were these files that just looked like, if you
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: open them up, they look like a whole bunch of numbers,
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: just thousands and thousands of what are called hex numbers,
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: which are numbers in a format that computers use. And
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: everybody else just looked, I think, just looked at it
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: and said, well, these are hex numbers. We don't know
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: what it is. It's just numbers. But I've been doing
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: this for a long time. And I looked at it
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: and I said, you know, if I change this from
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: what's a representation of hex to actual binary data. And
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: so the way I explain that is like, if you
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: had a file that said, was written out 1,192, and
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: you converted it to the number 1192. I mean, it's
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: as simple as that. So I took this representation of
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: numbers to actual numbers. And actually years ago, I'd created
• 17:15
  Speaker 2: a little tool to do this because I needed it
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: for whatever reason. So I got the tool, I used it.
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: And then I created a new file. And then I said, oh,
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: I wonder if I open this up in a text
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: editor because it looks like text. So I open up
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: a text editor and I see all these commands in there,
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: in this file. And I thought, you know, I recognize this.
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: This is a word processing format from like 30 years ago.
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: Oh, wow.
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: And so I said, well, what if I open this
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: file up in Microsoft Word? And I did that and
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: it was a perfectly formatted word processor document. And one
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: of them was just a table of numbers. And I said, okay, well,
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: this table of numbers has nothing to do with the election.
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was, you know, hundreds or thousands of numbers.
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: And then I opened up the others and they were
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: just gibberish, but they looked like somebody had been just
• 18:04
  Speaker 2: typing gibberish for thousands of pages of gibberish. But the
• 18:08
  Speaker 2: thing is, I just want to be clear that the
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: gibberish was perfectly formatted. You know, it had like italics
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: and bold and justification. So it wasn't like.
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: Lindell.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: Lindell's people tried to say, oh, it was gibberish. He
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: didn't know what it was, but he knew exactly what
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: it was. It was somebody typing gibberish into a Word document. Right, right.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: So do you think that Mike Lindell knew that this
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: was information that was not true, or do you think
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: that somebody misled him?
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: That was a big question. So everybody, by the end
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: of the conference, all the experts said, this is not,
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: and I don't think everybody knew exactly how the data
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: was formed, and I had figured that out. And I
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: also wrote up a report that I submitted, but the
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: big question was, does Mike know this or not? And
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: so we actually got somebody, we wrote up a little
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: note for Lindell that said, uh, you know, dear Mike, uh, this,
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: this data is not real. Uh, you know, maybe you
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: haven't given us the real data or maybe, uh, you know, the,
• 19:11
  Speaker 2: some misunderstanding your people can tell us we wanted to
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: give them the benefit of the doubt. Yeah. And the expert,
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: I think it was on day two, was supposed to
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: go up and give it to him. We chose one
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: person in the room who was this very dignified person,
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: very calm and knowledgeable. And so on day three, I
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: asked somebody, I said, what happened when he went up
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: and gave it to Lindell? And he said, the other
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: expert said, we don't know. He went up to talk
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: to Lindell and Lindell pulled him up onto the stage
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: and said, what's going on in the back room with
• 19:40
  Speaker 2: the experts? And this guy said, oh, we're still working
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: on it. We think we're going to have it resolved
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: pretty soon. We think we're going to find the fraud,
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: but you need to give us more time but that
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: was not what we had said we had all said
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: there is there's no real data here we're not working
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: on it anymore um you know but i think to
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: give people the benefit of the doubt you know people
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: wanted to believe but they were at least being honest
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: yeah and saying, there's nothing to believe here. But they
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: were saying, please tell us what we got wrong or
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: what you left out. But Lindell wouldn't have the answers.
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: The other thing I'll say is one member of his
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: team who ended up testifying on my behalf at the arbitration,
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: and we've become friends, one member of the team came in.
• 20:26
  Speaker 2: I remember sitting there, and this made the newspapers. He
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: came in at one point, and people were asking him,
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: where's the data? This isn't packet capture. This doesn't seem
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: to be right. And he said, you know, the data's
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: all bullshit. And I remember sitting right, I was sitting
• 20:39
  Speaker 2: next to him and he was standing, so I couldn't
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: see his face. But I thought, did he just say that?
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: I must have misheard that.
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: But don't miss the USL championship final on CBS, November
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: 21st at noon Eastern. Will the Pittsburgh Riverhounds retain their
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: crown or will new title winners emerge? Don't miss the
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: conclusion to the 2026 season, Saturday, November 21st, noon Eastern
• 21:03
  Speaker 3: on CBS.
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: What did he mean by that?
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: He was telling Lindell that, everybody on Lindell's team had
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: agreed that the data was fake.
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: So I think in answer to your question, my decision,
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: what I've come around to believe, especially after arbitration, is
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: that any reasonable person would know this data was fake.
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: But Lindell fired, he fired the guy who told us that,
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: that it was fake, and really trashed him online, really
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: ruined his career.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: Lindell fired anyone who said it was fake, wouldn't listen
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: to anyone who said it was fake. He wants to
• 21:39
  Speaker 2: believe so badly that the election was stolen that he
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: refuses to listen to anyone who says otherwise.
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's such a scary thing for the American
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: public to follow. I mean, it's like people like that
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: that have a platform that can just give You know,
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: their opinion and spout out information like it's fact without
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: real data that they know, you know, and they can
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: prove themselves. It's such a dangerous thing because people will
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: follow and they will listen to that for lack of
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: any evidence themselves.
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: Because we're not data analysts. We don't know this stuff. So,
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: you know, and it's so difficult because the country is
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: so split, right, on right and wrong. And there aren't
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: too many facts that are really given. It's just so
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: much opinion. And that's how this fake news gets created.
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: I mean, what's your opinion on fake news and how
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: much of, you know, these people's platforms should be and
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: their opinion should be based on actual data?
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: Well, so I think there's a lot of fake news
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: out there. I think on both sides of the aisle,
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: you know, politically. Yeah. I've written, you know, I have
• 22:45
  Speaker 2: a Substack blog and I write on political issues. Now
• 22:48
  Speaker 2: they come from the right because I'm a conservative.
• 22:50
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: But one thing, you know, I had a friend years ago,
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: I would send out emails with information on them. And
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: a friend of mine told me he didn't believe anything
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: until he heard it from me. I think, unfortunately, people
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: consider themselves too busy or not smart enough to know
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: what's going on. So they... They allow their opinions to
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: be manipulated by experts, quote-unquote experts. And I can tell
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: you what's interesting is, you know, I've been involved as
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: an expert witness on 260 litigations. And every time I'm
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: an expert with one opinion, there's an expert on the
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: other side with a different opinion. And so I think
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: when we start believing experts, I'm not sure what the
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: solution is. When we start believing experts, it's dangerous. I
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: think what's better is people should read both sides of
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: an opinion and and try to determine for themselves which
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: one makes sense. But that's really hard to do, and
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: most people aren't willing to do that. Right, right.
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: So now get back to the symposium. So you figured
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: this out in a matter of a day, and you
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: started to write your findings. Were you checking with other
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: people to see if they were also going to submit
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: their findings, and if you were all coming up with
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: the same answer?
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: Well, to be perfectly honest, so it was about three
• 24:03
  Speaker 2: hours in when I found that you could convert this
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: stuff to a Word document of gibberish. And I turned
• 24:08
  Speaker 2: to the guy next to me, who was the guy
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: we had elected to go up later to Lindell, and
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: who also Lindell surprisingly selected as his expert witness for
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: the arbitration, which was weird because that's a mistake. I
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: know litigation, you don't pick someone who was already close
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: to the event. You want someone completely outside. But he
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: picked him anyway. I turned the screen to him when
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: I saw these word processing commands in the file before
• 24:35
  Speaker 2: I knew exactly what it was. I said, do you
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: know what this is? He just glanced at it and
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: said no. Then I put it into Word, got the gibberish.
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: What I did is I told everyone, I said, hey,
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: I'm going to go back to the hotel and think
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: about this some more. I went out and as I'm
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: walking to the hotel, I called my wife and I
• 24:54
  Speaker 2: whispered into the phone, I said, think about what you
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: want to do with $ 5 million.
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: What did she say?
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: I don't know. She just started laughing. She said, you
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: found it? I said, you're not going to believe it,
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: but I actually can prove it. And I went to
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: my hotel room, wrote up a report, which I do
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: all the time. I can do that really quickly. Wrote
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: up a report with all the details. It's a 15-page report,
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: but thousands of pages of exhibits. I registered it with
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: the U.S. Copyright Office because I thought there's a possibility
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: someone might lose it. Mm-hmm. But then the next day,
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: they gave us a whole bunch more files. I essentially
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: did the same thing with those files. It gets a
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: little complicated. Then later in the day, they gave us
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: even more files. And I thought, okay, this is the
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: way they're going to keep anyone from getting the prize.
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: But the point was that I talked with people. One
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: person told me at the end of the conference that
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: he'd submitted a... No, I don't think... Actually, I think
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: I read about it somewhere. He claimed to have submitted
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: a report. So I actually contacted him and said, do
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: you want to do this arbitration together? And he said no.
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: So it was just me against Lindell. Wow.
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: So you submitted your findings. Did they respond? Did they
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: give you their version of why you were wrong?
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: No. Some reports are saying that I got a rejection
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: from the judges of the contest, but I didn't get
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: anything until a few months later when I filed for arbitration.
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: I just got silence.
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: And why did you finally go down that road and say,
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: I need to do this and I'm going to take
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: him to court or arbitration?
• 26:32
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: So, you know, if you look at my history, I've
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: done this before. I just, you know, I've lost money
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: bringing litigation when I think I'm in the right and
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: the public needs to know. Yeah. And I thought the
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: public really needs to know about this. Lindell is still
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: going around to this day. In fact, he says that
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: nobody challenged or doubted his results. And I can tell
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: you every single expert in that room doubted his results.
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: But most of them didn't submit a report. Well, I
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: can say none of them but me submitted a report.
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: Even the gentleman who said he did, it's questionable whether
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: it was a report that would qualify. Right, right, right.
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: But do you think that what Mike Lindell is doing
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: is almost hurting the case for Trump or anyone that
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: is trying to claim voter fraud with some sort of credibility?
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: Because what he's claiming is just so far-fetched and there
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: is no data.
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think actually, so I've heard rumors from people
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: I respect who think that Lindell is actually working with
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: some organization, could be the FBI or China, to actually
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: hurt Trump's chances. I'm not sure that I believe that.
• 27:45
  Speaker 2: In fact, I doubt it very much. But actually, you know,
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: I've told Republicans that this is hurting Trump because, so
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: for example, every case that challenged the vote in the
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: 2020 election was funded by Lindell and uses the same
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: people who were defending this data that's fake data. And
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: although Lindell is going around saying, oh, these cases are
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: being thrown out, because of the liberal judges or the
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: corrupt judicial system, it's being thrown out because it's very
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: easy to see that this is fake data. Right. And
• 28:18
  Speaker 2: I think there should be legitimate challenges. I mean, I
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: think at least legitimate investigations. I think it's in the
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: American public's best interest to investigate anything where there's... Because
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: let me put it this way. If there is fraud,
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: we need to know. Yeah. And if there isn't fraud,
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: people need to be assured that the voting works correctly.
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: Absolutely.
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: But Lindell is destroying any legitimate efforts, with putting all
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: these resources into fake efforts. Right, right.
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: So what did you actually have to show to the
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: arbitrator to get him or her to side with you?
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: I mean, did they have to go through the data
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: or you just had to show that what you found
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: was not accurate?
• 28:55
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I had to show that what I found was
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: not accurate. It wasn't related to the 2020 election. It really,
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: Lindell's arguments kept shifting and different people on his team
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: had different arguments. But what it came down to was, uh,
• 29:11
  Speaker 2: Lindell's team, his lawyers and experts, said they hedged on
• 29:19
  Speaker 2: this because it sounded so ridiculous, but they would say
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: that anything could be related to the election, and I
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: had to prove it was not. And one of the
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: arguments was if the file, you know, if somebody hands
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: the file to me and says this is related to
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: the election, that makes it related to the election. Or
• 29:37
  Speaker 2: Lindell saying it's related to the election makes it related.
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: Because they were saying, oh, we didn't ask him to
• 29:43
  Speaker 2: show hacking or fraud in the election. We just said
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: he had to show this was not related to the
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: election with 100% certainty. And he couldn't show it with
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: 100% certainty. There was still some possibility that it was
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: related to the election. Right. And my argument was that
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: that's ridiculous. The law, I know the law well enough,
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: and the lawyers supported me, my lawyers supported me on this,
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: that any interpretation of a contract, and I signed a
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: written contract, any interpretation has to be reasonable. So no
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: reasonable person would say, you know, if I hand you
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: this bottle of water and say, hey, I drank this
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: at the election, that this is somehow related to the election.
• 30:26
  Speaker 2: And the arbitrators agreed with me and my side, saying that...
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: That's such a ridiculous interpretation. No reasonable person would say that.
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: And the arbitrator said, I had shown that the data
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: was not related to the election.
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: Were you surprised by the judgment?
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: Don't miss a minute of United Soccer League action. The
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: USL Championship and USL League One are on CBS Sports
• 30:51
  Speaker 3: and ESPN platforms. all season long with additional coverage on
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: Sirius XM FC channel 188 and select matches available in
• 31:00
  Speaker 3: Spanish on 2DNA. It's your time to take part in
• 31:04
  Speaker 3: building what's next. Visit uslchampionship.com or uslleague1. com for complete listings.
• 31:12
  Speaker 3: Find your local club and be part of what's next.
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: What you got?
• 31:17
  Speaker 2: I was happily surprised. So I've been in, you know,
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: I've seen enough lawsuits. some involving me and others as
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: an expert witness, to know that justice is not always served.
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: That is true, yeah.
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: And arbitration is, they have a lot more leeway. And
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: the fact is, if the arbitrators decided that there was
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: some loophole in the law, the contract wasn't valid, or
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: I had to abide by Lindell's unreasonable understanding, they could
• 31:44
  Speaker 2: have ruled against me. Right, right. And the longer it took,
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: they had until April 20th to give a ruling. And
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: by April 19th, I was starting to get really anxious
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: because I'm thinking this is so easy that if they're
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: not ruling, they're finding a reason to rule against me. Right. Actually,
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: and then what happened was I was playing poker. So
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: I play high stakes poker and I was in a
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: tournament and I decided I wasn't going to check email
• 32:11
  Speaker 2: from my attorney. If I saw that an email came
• 32:13
  Speaker 2: in from my attorney, I wasn't going to check it
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: because I don't want to know.
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: And then, but instead I didn't realize I got a
• 32:19
  Speaker 2: text message. It just said, oh, there's a text message.
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: So I clicked on it and it said, congratulations from
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: my attorney. Congratulations. You've won $ 5 million.
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: Oh my God. What was your reaction?
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: Well, I don't know what I did. I don't remember exactly,
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: but everyone at the table, the poker table started asking
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: me what's going on. So I started telling them and
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: everybody was congratulating me. And it was really hard to
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: focus on the On the game, yeah, sure.
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: So what's the reaction been from people since they've heard
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: about this now that it's in the media?
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: So by far, the reaction has been positive. I've gotten
• 32:52
  Speaker 2: a few nasty emails and tweets on Twitter saying really
• 32:58
  Speaker 2: horrible stuff. No threats against me, but that I'm a horrible,
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: horrible person. But I'd say 99% or more is congratulatory.
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: And friends of mine, so I went to a conference
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: the weekend after I got the notice, the decision. It
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: was a conference for conservative politics. They had some very
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: well-known people there, some who know Trump personally. And the
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: person who ran is a good friend, and she knew
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: the result. And she was really excited for me. But
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: I told her, I said, I'm probably not going to
• 33:37
  Speaker 2: tell people who I am. And then when I got there,
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: nobody knew me. And I realized the conservative media was
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: not carrying the story. So most of them hadn't seen
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: me and didn't know much about this. Right.
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: Interesting.
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: So I walked around and by the second day of
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: the conference, I'd started telling a few people. And I
• 33:56
  Speaker 2: went over to someone who was very close to Trump
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: and said, I'm the guy who just won $ 5 million
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: from Lindell. And he smiled and put out his hand
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: and congratulated me. And he said somebody needed to do that.
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: So I was really surprised. And I started telling more people.
• 34:13
  Speaker 2: And almost everybody was congratulatory. I met a few people
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: who weren't. And their attitude is more like, well, why
• 34:20
  Speaker 2: did you do that? You know, you know that hurts Trump.
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: You know it hurts the Republicans. And I said, look,
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: the truth needs to be out there. If we complain
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: about the left not giving the truth, we need to
• 34:31
  Speaker 2: set an example by showing the truth. Yeah. And after
• 34:33
  Speaker 2: talking to people, every single person was happy with what
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: I'd done. Right.
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: There was a report that you had actually heard from Trump.
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: Is that true?
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: Oh, no, no. That would be interesting. I don't know.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that can always happen from now on, though.
• 34:49
  Speaker 2: I'll just add, I have one friend. So I have
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: one friend here in Las Vegas. I don't know if
• 34:53
  Speaker 2: I should name him, but he's one of Trump's biggest supporters.
• 34:57
  Speaker 2: And he's a good friend. And he sent me a
• 34:59
  Speaker 2: congratulatory note immediately. Mm-hmm. But I have another friend who's
• 35:03
  Speaker 2: also very close with Trump and I haven't heard from him.
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: I hope our friendship is not on the line because
• 35:09
  Speaker 2: he's a really good guy who does really great things.
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: But I don't support Trump like he does. And anyway,
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: I thought the truth needed to get out. So I
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: haven't heard from him yet. Right.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: And have you heard from Mike Lindell?
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: Only indirectly. I've seen some reports. What's funny is I
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: got the invitation from him. It was supposedly vetted by
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: him to attend the conference. And then I spent a
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: year and a half in arbitration with him. And he
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: still doesn't know my name.
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: I'm sure he knows your name. He may pretend that
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: he doesn't.
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: No, but I'll tell you something about him I learned,
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: which is interesting. At his deposition, he was on the
• 35:47
  Speaker 2: phone up until the time he sat down for deposition.
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: And then he took a phone call during deposition, which
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: you're not supposed to do. Right. Right. But he took
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: a call, a business call, and then as soon as
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: the deposition was over, he got back on the phone
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: making business calls. And then at the arbitration, if you
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: hear him, he'll tell you how I didn't know what
• 36:08
  Speaker 2: I was doing at the arbitration. And he'll give specific examples.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: Funny thing is, and the transcripts are all public, he
• 36:16
  Speaker 2: was at the arbitration for about an hour. A three-day,
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: four-day arbitration. He came in on the second day, and
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: his lawyer said, Mike only has an hour, so can
• 36:25
  Speaker 2: we interview him? Can we do his part now? And
• 36:27
  Speaker 2: then he's got to leave.
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: Oh, boy.
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: And I've had lawyers, even, I think there was, I
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: think someone on his legal team actually said to me
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: that I've never seen this before. I mean, usually the
• 36:40
  Speaker 2: parties to an important arbitration are there the whole time.
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: They want to know what's going on, but he wasn't.
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: So it sounds like he may have thought that he
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: was going to win this and he wasn't too worried
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: about it or he just didn't want to be part
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: of it.
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think he doesn't understand failure. I mean, I
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: shouldn't say he doesn't understand failure. He writes about failure
• 36:59
  Speaker 2: in his book. But I think right now he's, I
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: think he truly believes, if you read his autobiography, he
• 37:06
  Speaker 2: says this, he's on a mission from God. And I
• 37:08
  Speaker 2: think that he's going to get Trump back in office
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: because God wants that. And I think he thinks God's
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: on his side, so he's got to win. But that makes,
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: you know, it's kind of like the story of, if
• 37:19
  Speaker 2: you've heard the story of the guy who's, there's somebody,
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: there's a flood going on and he's in his house
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: and the water's coming up and a car comes by
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: and they say, hop in the car, we'll get you
• 37:30
  Speaker 2: out of here. And he says, no, no, I believe
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: in God. God's going to save me. You know, and
• 37:35
  Speaker 2: the flood gets higher and a fire truck comes by
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: or a boat comes by. That's right. And says, get in.
• 37:39
  Speaker 2: He says, no, God's going to save me. And then
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: he's on his roof and the floodwaters are almost covering
• 37:44
  Speaker 2: the entire house. And a helicopter comes by and says,
• 37:47
  Speaker 2: grab the ladder. We're sending down a ladder. We're going
• 37:48
  Speaker 2: to rescue you. And he says, no, God's going to
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: protect me. And then of course he dies and he
• 37:53
  Speaker 2: ends up in heaven. And he says to God, what,
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: what happened? I believed in you and I thought you
• 37:57
  Speaker 2: were going to rescue me. And God said, I sent
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: a car, a boat and a helicopter.
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: You just didn't see the sign.
• 38:06
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 38:06
  Speaker 2: And I think Lindell is the same way. It's like,
• 38:10
  Speaker 2: I think he doesn't understand that, you know, if he
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: is doing the work of God, you know, we could
• 38:15
  Speaker 2: question that. But if that's true, he still has to
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: work for himself and do the right thing. Right.
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: And no facts.
• 38:23
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: The difference between fact and fiction.
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: So do you think he's going to pay you?
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: Unfortunately, no. I didn't think from the beginning. The main thing,
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: I think, is that he's being sued by the voting
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: machine companies, Dominion and Smartmatic. They're asking for something like
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: a billion dollars each and he can't defend himself. What
• 38:44
  Speaker 2: amazed me is that I kept telling my lawyers if
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: I were in his position, which I hope I'd never be,
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: but if I were, he's got this little tiny $ 5
• 38:54
  Speaker 2: million case relatively, but he could use that as practice
• 38:59
  Speaker 2: for the billion dollar cases and he could get all
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: his people together. They could at least have the same story.
• 39:04
  Speaker 2: They kept contradicting each other. They should get them all
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: in a room and spend a lot of time saying,
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: here's your story. You know, I've, I've seen this in law,
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: in lawsuits all the time. Now, ideally what you're doing
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: is you're saying, look, everybody may have fuzzy memories and
• 39:18
  Speaker 2: may have seen things differently. Let's get together and figure
• 39:21
  Speaker 2: out what everybody saw. And in, in Lindell's case, he
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: could have, I'm not recommending this, but usually what happens
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: is okay. you know, we have to have a story
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: about what is the data, why is it relevant, and
• 39:35
  Speaker 2: people are going to stick to this story. But they
• 39:37
  Speaker 2: didn't do that. And my transcripts are public. Lindell's legal
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: team wanted to keep them confidential, and the arbitrators ruled
• 39:45
  Speaker 2: against them. Right. So my transcripts are public. So now,
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: even if they come up with a consistent story, it's
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: going to contradict what they said in my case. So
• 39:54
  Speaker 2: I think they're going to lose. I mean, Lindell's going
• 39:56
  Speaker 2: to lose to Dominion and Smartmatic, is my prediction. They'll
• 40:00
  Speaker 2: have to declare bankruptcy. And if I see any money,
• 40:03
  Speaker 2: it'll be a small fraction of the $ 5 million. Right, right.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: So you're a registered Republican in Las Vegas. Republicans put
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: a lot of money into Nevada and did not do well.
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: They only gained the governor's seat, right?
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: Right. Well, and the Lieutenant Governor and the Comptroller.
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: Okay. So they didn't do well, though, across the country, really.
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: And a lot of the people that didn't do well were,
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: you know, so far out there talking about so many
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: conspiracy theories. Do you think that it's because these people
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: had radical views on election fraud and the White House
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: being stolen and January 6th?
• 40:39
  Speaker 2: Essentially, yes. I know that some Republicans are not going
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: to want to hear this, but a lot of Republicans
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: privately say what I'm going to tell you. I think that, well,
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: I think Trump lost the Senate for the Republicans in 2022.
• 40:53
  Speaker 3: Don't miss the USL championship final on CBS, November 21st
• 40:59
  Speaker 3: at noon Eastern. Will the Pittsburgh Riverhounds retain their crown
• 41:03
  Speaker 3: or will new title winners emerge? Don't miss the conclusion
• 41:07
  Speaker 3: to the 2026 season, Saturday, November 21st, noon Eastern on CBS.
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: And I think he lost all of the positions that
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: we should have won. So I personally think the Democrats, well,
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: first of all, in a year, what do they call it,
• 41:26
  Speaker 2: in a midterm year, in the middle of a president's term,
• 41:31
  Speaker 2: four-year term, usually the other party wins. I think that's
• 41:35
  Speaker 2: typical because people love politicians until they get into office
• 41:39
  Speaker 2: and then they don't like them so much. And I
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: think there's a lot to dislike about Democrats right now
• 41:45
  Speaker 2: and Joe Biden. And I think the Republicans should have
• 41:49
  Speaker 2: won the 2022 elections. And, but I think the devotion
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: to Trump, it became a, you know, it became a
• 41:59
  Speaker 2: contest among Republicans between devotion to Trump and people who
• 42:03
  Speaker 2: defied Trump. And that shouldn't be the way the party is.
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: The party should, should be according to an ideology, small government,
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: less taxes, you know, security on the border, those kind
• 42:14
  Speaker 2: of things. And the other thing is, most of the
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: media hates Trump. Even Fox News, because of the trouble
• 42:24
  Speaker 2: they've run into, are probably not so friendly. And he
• 42:26
  Speaker 2: doesn't like them. Actually, Lindell hates Fox News. I saw that. Yeah.
• 42:31
  Speaker 2: So what's happening is the media hates Trump. So even
• 42:34
  Speaker 2: if you think he's the perfect candidate, he attracts so
• 42:38
  Speaker 2: much negative attention that it hurts Republicans. And any Republicans
• 42:42
  Speaker 2: who associate with him, with all this election fraud, not
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: just the election fraud, but just being in, you know,
• 42:49
  Speaker 2: being partnering or agreement with Trump, loses most, many independents
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: and even some Republicans. So my feeling is, whether you
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: liked what Trump did during his presidency or didn't, he's
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: damaging the Republican Party And I don't see how the
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: Republican Party is going to survive the way it is. Right.
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: We were talking about this a little bit earlier, but
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: talk to me about your feeling on Joe Biden and
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: how he why he won this time around and how
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: he's doing.
• 43:21
  Speaker 2: Right. So I haven't heard this from many people, but
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: I honestly believe and I told people during the election
• 43:25
  Speaker 2: that I thought Biden was going to win. Well, for
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: two reasons. One, I think Trump mishandled covid. Let me
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: just say, I think. People, up until COVID, people, even
• 43:35
  Speaker 2: if they didn't like Trump, they liked his policies. The
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: economy was getting better. Things were looking better. We looked,
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: the country seemed more secure. The border was more secure.
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: But during COVID, people wanted a father figure who would
• 43:48
  Speaker 2: comfort them. And I compared to Ronald Reagan. People loved
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: Ronald Reagan, not just for his policies, but he felt
• 43:55
  Speaker 2: like your dad, like the dad you wanted to have.
• 43:57
  Speaker 2: Just a nice guy, controlled. He knew what he was doing.
• 44:00
  Speaker 2: He never got angry. But he was always very firm.
• 44:04
  Speaker 2: And Trump went off on every, any person, politician or
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: media who said anything nasty about him, he just attacked.
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: And during COVID, people didn't want that. They wanted to hear,
• 44:14
  Speaker 2: like Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton had this ability to make
• 44:17
  Speaker 2: people feel comfortable. Yeah. And Trump didn't. So I think
• 44:20
  Speaker 2: that's why he lost. But I predicted he would lose
• 44:22
  Speaker 2: to Biden because Biden didn't fit the mold of what
• 44:26
  Speaker 2: the Democrats say they want, which is a young, vibrant
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: person with new ideas. But I think what most of
• 44:33
  Speaker 2: America wanted is what they wanted in Trump the first place.
• 44:36
  Speaker 2: They wanted someone who's just going to be nasty, say
• 44:38
  Speaker 2: what's on his mind, just insult people. And, you know,
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: they're tired of politicians being nice and saying the things
• 44:45
  Speaker 2: they want to hear and then in office doing something different.
• 44:48
  Speaker 2: And I think that's Trump was elected in the first
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: place to say, hey, let's get someone who's going to
• 44:52
  Speaker 2: speak his mind and screw up the whole system. And
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: I think Biden is the same kind of personality. He
• 44:56
  Speaker 2: says what's on his mind. I think he says stupid stuff.
• 44:59
  Speaker 2: I think he says insulting stuff. And people said, yeah,
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: that's the guy I want because Trump isn't doing it anymore.
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: So what are you going to do in 2024? Are
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: you going to be voting for Trump?
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: So I hope not. Actually, I'm part of a group
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: called No Labels. No Labels is a bipartisan group. And
• 45:20
  Speaker 2: by the way, I was reluctant to join for a
• 45:23
  Speaker 2: while because I've been in touch with, quote unquote, bipartisan
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: groups or nonpartisan groups for a long time. And usually
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: they're not. But No Labels is incredibly bipartisan. They have
• 45:36
  Speaker 2: Republicans and Democrats in positions of leadership and donors. They
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: have put together the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is 25
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: Republicans and 25 Democrats that meet regularly and vote on
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: bills and propose bills. And they've been successful. The first,
• 45:54
  Speaker 2: I forget what you call it, the first bill for
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: bailing out the economy, the smaller one that passed was
• 46:02
  Speaker 2: written by the Problem Solvers Caucus, not the second one
• 46:06
  Speaker 2: that Biden passed, which was this massive trillion-dollar bill. So
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: the No Labels is planning to, if it turns out
• 46:14
  Speaker 2: the election is between Biden and Trump, No Labels is
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: going to run a ticket of one Republican and one Democrat,
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: one moderate Republican and moderate Democrat for president, and I'm
• 46:26
  Speaker 2: involved with that effort.
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: Is there somebody you have in mind that you would
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: like to see running on either side?
• 46:32
  Speaker 2: That's a good question, and no. I mean, I would
• 46:36
  Speaker 2: vote for DeSantis as a Republican. I like what DeSantis
• 46:39
  Speaker 2: has done, and I think he's more... I know that
• 46:43
  Speaker 2: a lot of Democrats would disagree, but I think he's
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: actually more able to work within the system. He doesn't
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: get nasty with people. He's going to attract negative attention
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: from the Democrats and the media, but that's going to
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: happen if any Republican gets elected. But if it is
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: Trump and Biden, this bipartisan ticket, the one concern I
• 47:04
  Speaker 2: have is you've got to have people who have the
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: name recognition and have the personality. There have been great
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: politicians who just never make it because they don't have
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: the personality. So I don't know who that would be.
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: It'd be interesting. I'm not involved in that decision for
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: no labels, but I have advised them. I said, you've
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: got to get someone who is electable because a lot
• 47:26
  Speaker 2: of times moderates, are just not electable, which is unfortunate
• 47:31
  Speaker 2: because they're too moderate. People see them as being middle
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: of the road and not a fighter. So I don't know,
• 47:37
  Speaker 2: it's a good question.
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: I'm curious about your thoughts on DeSantis, though, because it
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: could be a Democratic or Republican side, but the sides
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: that he's taking on the don't say gay policies and
• 47:51
  Speaker 1: his stance on a lot of things really rub people,
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: some people, the wrong way. I mean, what are your
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: thoughts on that?
• 47:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's a whole... Another discussion that, you know,
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: I'd be, you know, I don't know if we have
• 48:01
  Speaker 2: the time for that, but I think the thing that's
• 48:03
  Speaker 2: important is despite what the media says, Florida, which used
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: to be, you know, it would go Democrat most of
• 48:12
  Speaker 2: the time, for the first time is going Republican because
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: of DeSantis. I think actually with the laws that he's
• 48:19
  Speaker 2: passing in the media, I think my feeling is you
• 48:21
  Speaker 2: read exaggerations of these laws. And I've heard this from
• 48:23
  Speaker 2: people and I've tried to, discuss them and they don't
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: want to hear like the don't say gay law is
• 48:30
  Speaker 2: in my mind, that's a wrong understanding of what the
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: law really is.
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: What, what is your understanding?
• 48:36
  Speaker 2: Well, look, I think, uh, well, and let me finish.
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: I'll just say that Florida has been voting Republican supporting
• 48:41
  Speaker 2: DeSantis in big numbers. And I think that there's more
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: support for him than the media would, would let you think.
• 48:46
  Speaker 2: I think there's small groups of protesters, but the don't
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: say gay law is, look, I think we used to
• 48:52
  Speaker 2: all believe that sexuality was something that parents taught their
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: kids or, and very, uh, specific circumstances. We allowed it
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: to be taught in school, but there were a whole
• 49:03
  Speaker 2: bunch of regulations about parents needed to be aware of this.
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: And suddenly the country is going in the direction of teachers.
• 49:10
  Speaker 2: No more, uh, no better how to teach sexuality to
• 49:13
  Speaker 2: the kids than the parents do. And the parents are
• 49:15
  Speaker 2: being left out of the decision-making. And I think that's
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: completely wrong. Um, I've heard arguments, you know, the kids
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: know what's best, but I don't believe that. And that parents, look,
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: they're abusive parents, they're bad parents, but we don't make
• 49:29
  Speaker 2: laws based on the fact that some people are bad.
• 49:32
  Speaker 2: We actually, our system is supposed to be innocent until
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: proven guilty, and so all parents are, you know, assumed
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: to be good people. even if I disagree with them,
• 49:41
  Speaker 2: they're good people with good intentions, unless I specifically know
• 49:45
  Speaker 2: that some parent is doing something wrong. And yet in
• 49:48
  Speaker 2: a lot of states now, they're assuming parents are wrong
• 49:53
  Speaker 2: and that the teachers know what's right. And I just
• 49:55
  Speaker 2: think that goes against everything we've believed for two centuries.
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: I understand what you're saying. You know, my daughter, she's
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: in fifth grade now, but we live in New York City.
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: And in fourth grade is when, you know, the Department
• 50:09
  Speaker 1: of Education decided recently that they were going to talk
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: about LGBTQ and all of that. So she comes home
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: one day and we're walking home from school and she goes, Mom,
• 50:18
  Speaker 1: are you down with the pansexuals? And I'm like... Her
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: name is Wyatt. I said, Wyatt, what are you talking about?
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: And she said, are you down with LGBTQ, mom? And
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: I'm like, where are you getting this? You don't even
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: know how to multiply 75 times four. Like, how are
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: you learning this today? Not that I have a problem
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: with her learning it, but maybe not necessarily from a
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: teacher and, you know, in a whole group. And I
• 50:41
  Speaker 1: did notice on the paperwork she brought home in this
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: kind of spectrum that they had with the LGBTQ stuff.
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: that straight wasn't on it. And I think that in
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: her class, what I found is that people felt like
• 50:53
  Speaker 1: that they had to identify with something on that spectrum
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: because all of a sudden she would come home and say,
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: so-and-so said that they were gay today and so-and-so got
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: very upset about it. And so it was a conversation
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: all of a sudden that was being had by, you know, nine-year-olds.
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: And I thought that was very, very, interesting, odd, and
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: much sooner than we ever had that conversation. And it
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: kind of, in my opinion, didn't help because it almost
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: made them feel like they had to pick a side
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: or pick what they were too early. Some people do
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: know very early, and I don't take that away from them.
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: But some people don't and want to figure it out
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: on their own as opposed to having to check a box.
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: So I think, you know, I'm moving to Florida this summer.
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: So it would be very interesting to see how that
• 51:42
  Speaker 1: goes and the difference in her education and the difference
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: in living between New York and Florida.
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: You know, if I could just say something. You know,
• 51:51
  Speaker 2: when I was growing up, my dad taught me this
• 51:54
  Speaker 2: attitude that stuck with me. And we never learned any
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: of that kind of stuff. But we learned stuff that
• 52:00
  Speaker 2: I'd come home and I'd ask my dad. I said,
• 52:02
  Speaker 2: you know, this doesn't sound right. We didn't have Google,
• 52:05
  Speaker 2: but he read a lot. We had books, and he
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: was just a fountain of knowledge. He was self-taught. He
• 52:10
  Speaker 2: didn't go to college. He taught me that if your
• 52:13
  Speaker 2: teacher says something that sounds wrong, come home and ask me,
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: and we'll figure it out. We'll go to the library.
• 52:20
  Speaker 2: We'll talk about it. Sometimes your teacher's wrong, but you
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: always need to respect your teacher. You never... You never
• 52:28
  Speaker 2: yell at your teacher. You don't even have to say
• 52:30
  Speaker 2: the teacher's wrong because sometimes you and I all figure
• 52:32
  Speaker 2: it out and we'll know the teacher's wrong, but there's
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: no point in arguing with your teacher. Yeah. But I
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: know that I grew up with that attitude that, in fact,
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: I grew up with the attitude that experts are not
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: always right.
• 52:42
  Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
• 52:42
  Speaker 2: And I found that so much in my life. But
• 52:45
  Speaker 2: I think so many people don't. And I remember in school,
• 52:48
  Speaker 2: I was unusual in that I would, like, I'd come
• 52:51
  Speaker 2: home and ask my dad and say, is this right?
• 52:53
  Speaker 2: And we didn't learn about sexuality. I don't know what
• 52:54
  Speaker 2: I would have done. Mm-hmm. And we talk about it.
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: Most kids would say the teacher said it. It's right.
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: And there's a lot of pressure. I remember the pressure
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: in school for stuff that was not even this important.
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: So it scares me that teachers are. And the other
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: thing I want to say. So it scares me that
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: they're teaching these things without their parents' knowledge. But I
• 53:18
  Speaker 2: can tell you in California where my son was going
• 53:21
  Speaker 2: to school. Uh, he wasn't, you know, I don't think
• 53:24
  Speaker 2: they were doing this kind of stuff back then. It
• 53:26
  Speaker 2: was like 20, 25 years ago now, but he would
• 53:30
  Speaker 2: come home and just the math, you know, he, uh,
• 53:34
  Speaker 2: I love math. He'd come home with a math, uh, uh,
• 53:37
  Speaker 2: test that was scored a hundred percent. And I'd have
• 53:39
  Speaker 2: to go over it with them and point out the mistakes.
• 53:42
  Speaker 2: The teachers were making mistakes. And I'm thinking that my
• 53:45
  Speaker 2: concern at that time is why are teachers making mistakes
• 53:47
  Speaker 2: in something that, that is basic. And, uh, I don't
• 53:53
  Speaker 2: want them teaching sexuality if they don't understand how to
• 53:55
  Speaker 2: do a math problem.
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: Well, that's a good point.
• 53:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: But it is a lesson in that people really should
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: know facts, should ask questions if they don't know, if
• 54:07
  Speaker 1: they don't understand, and look at both sides and try
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: to come up with an answer that makes sense for them.
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: And I think too many people you know, just follow
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: whatever the herd mentality is on one side or the other.
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: And they get really lost because they can fight so
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: hard about their opinion on something that really they know
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: nothing about. And they're just listening to what you're talking about, experts.
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: And Mike Lindell's not an expert. He's not a political guy.
• 54:35
  Speaker 1: He's a pillow guy. He's the CEO of a company.
• 54:38
  Speaker 1: He's a businessman. And I think that it's very interesting
• 54:41
  Speaker 1: that people like that, like we talked about earlier, have
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: this platform to all of a sudden be an expert
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: when they might not have you know, the expertise. So
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: now that you've been through all this, do you think
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: that China hacked the election?
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: No, I think the thing is, the way I explain
• 54:58
  Speaker 2: it to people is, I don't know if you remember
• 55:00
  Speaker 2: the Stuxnet virus that came out during the Obama administration.
• 55:05
  Speaker 2: So it was a virus that attacked nuclear centrifuges in Iran.
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: I don't remember that. Okay.
• 55:13
  Speaker 2: So what happened is nuclear centrifuges started spinning so fast.
• 55:16
  Speaker 2: I don't know the whole details, but you need to
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: spin the uranium to purify it to make a bomb.
• 55:21
  Speaker 2: And the Iranian centrifuges started spinning so fast they would
• 55:25
  Speaker 2: destroy themselves. And eventually there was a Russian cybersecurity expert
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: who noticed information coming out of the internet in Iran
• 55:36
  Speaker 2: that was strange and tracked it to this virus. and
• 55:40
  Speaker 2: was able to get a copy or duplicate the virus.
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: And then there was a Russian, Kapersky, a Russian antivirus
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: company started studying it. I think they published a report
• 55:52
  Speaker 2: and then Symantec, which is a US antivirus company started
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: examining it. And it turned out to be the most
• 55:59
  Speaker 2: complicated computer virus in history. It came out of one
• 56:03
  Speaker 2: of the most isolated countries in the world, Iran. And
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: yet within three months they knew Basically how it worked
• 56:11
  Speaker 2: and how to defeat it and Iran was able to
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: stop it because of these I'm not saying that was
• 56:15
  Speaker 2: a good thing But it was effect was a bad thing,
• 56:18
  Speaker 2: but they were to stop it from destroying all their
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: centrifuges it came out that later that it was a
• 56:23
  Speaker 2: joint project of Israel and the US and My point
• 56:28
  Speaker 2: is that this was done by two of the greatest
• 56:31
  Speaker 2: technology Countries in the world with some of the greatest
• 56:35
  Speaker 2: resources it went into one of the most isolated countries
• 56:38
  Speaker 2: in the world And yet within three months, it was detected.
• 56:41
  Speaker 2: My point is that there's something like a million voting
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: machines in the U.S. And we're an open society with
• 56:47
  Speaker 2: a huge Internet that's being monitored by all these cybersecurity companies.
• 56:51
  Speaker 2: Somebody would have found hacking by China. Now, I thought
• 56:55
  Speaker 2: Lindell found it, which he obviously didn't. But somebody would
• 56:58
  Speaker 2: have found it. So I think it's almost impossible that
• 57:01
  Speaker 2: China hacked our voting system.
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: Do you have confidence in the way Americans vote and
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: will you have confidence in the next election?
• 57:11
  Speaker 2: I'm frustrated by things like ballot harvesting and write-in, mail-in
• 57:17
  Speaker 2: ballots like a lot of Republicans are. What I think
• 57:19
  Speaker 2: is interesting is if you look at like the 2000
• 57:23
  Speaker 2: election with Bush and Gore, we had Democrats making the
• 57:26
  Speaker 2: same kind of claims. And now, you know, but when
• 57:29
  Speaker 2: the Republicans won, now the Republicans are making claims when
• 57:31
  Speaker 2: the Democrats won. I'd really like to see more voter
• 57:36
  Speaker 2: integrity efforts. If I do get any of the $ 5 million,
• 57:40
  Speaker 2: I want to give it to a group, at least
• 57:42
  Speaker 2: some of it to a group that investigates election integrity.
• 57:46
  Speaker 2: I think it's to everybody's benefit. Even if nothing went
• 57:49
  Speaker 2: on during the, if there was no fraud during the election,
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: I think people would feel better if some kind of
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: bipartisan or nonpartisan group could confirm all that. And right
• 57:59
  Speaker 2: now you've got people like Lindell and And people, you know,
• 58:02
  Speaker 2: you've got people on the other side who say there's
• 58:03
  Speaker 2: never fraud, you know. In fact, one thing that frustrates me,
• 58:07
  Speaker 2: people on the other side saying, oh, there was no fraud.
• 58:10
  Speaker 2: Studies have shown there's no fraud. But if you don't
• 58:13
  Speaker 2: have the mechanisms in place to measure the fraud, which
• 58:16
  Speaker 2: we don't, then how can you say there was no fraud?
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. So, all right, what is going to be
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: happening to you next? You said you're going to write
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: a book about this. What else is going on in
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: your life?
• 58:27
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm writing the book. That's the biggest thing right now.
• 58:31
  Speaker 2: I'm about this experience. It should be ready soon. I'm
• 58:36
  Speaker 2: really hoping it's not just an examination or a discussion
• 58:40
  Speaker 2: of what happened, but the people. I think the people,
• 58:45
  Speaker 2: it's really interesting. Again, there's people relying on experts, people
• 58:48
  Speaker 2: with money saying they're experts in fields that they know
• 58:51
  Speaker 2: nothing about. But also, I think it's a fascinating psychological study,
• 58:56
  Speaker 2: I hope, of Why do people do this? Some people
• 59:00
  Speaker 2: do it for the money, some for the fame and
• 59:02
  Speaker 2: the recognition. And some people are just true believers who
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: believe that, you know, if Trump needs to be president,
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: we'll do anything necessary, legal, illegal, ethical, unethical, to get
• 59:14
  Speaker 2: that done. And I see that in politics all the time.
• 59:18
  Speaker 2: It really, it's horrible. I mean, it's happened throughout history,
• 59:23
  Speaker 2: but you always wonder what are the consequences going to be.
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Well, I congratulate you in your findings. I
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: am happy for you. I hope you get the $ 5 million.
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: I think what you did for the country in bringing
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: this to light is very important.
• 59:37
  Speaker 2: Thank you.
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: I hope everybody reads your book. My last question for
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: you is, have you ever bought a MyPillow?
• 59:43
  Speaker 2: I have a MyPillow and I even have MySlippers. Wow.
• 59:46
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: And do you still use them? Yeah.
• 59:48
  Speaker 2: My wife uses the MyPillow. She loves it. And the
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: MySlippers are actually pretty good slippers. That's great. It's a
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: shame that this is happening.
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: Oh my gosh. How hysterical.
• 59:57
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 59:57
  Speaker 1: Well, I wish you the best of luck. I hope
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: to see you again.
• 59:59
  Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 3: Like what you hear? Turn into USL All Access Live
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 3: every Tuesday at 8 p.m. Eastern on Sirius XMFC Channel
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: 188 for exclusive interviews and the latest from around the USL.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 3: The exclusive satellite radio home of the USL, Sirius XMFC
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 3: is North America's only 24-7 source for engaging soccer talk
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 3: and live matches from the USL, Premier League, and more.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 3: all on Sirius XM FC, channel 188, and the Sirius
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 3: XM app.