Note: If you’re having trouble viewing the video above, please click here.
Joining us today is attorney Sidney Powell, who has been leading election lawsuits in multiple states. On Friday, she filed emergency requests to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to order officials in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona to de-certify their 2020 election results.
We discuss the current status of the legal challenges she’s involved in and her thoughts on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Texas lawsuit as well as the conclusion of the Flynn case.
This is American Thought Leaders 🇺🇸, and I’m Jan Jekielek.
Jan Jekielek: Sidney Powell, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Sidney Powell: Oh, thank you Jan. It’s always great to be with you all.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s been a busy month for you. I want to go back a little before all the work that you’ve been doing on the election, all these lawsuits that you’ve been working on. The last time we spoke, we were actually speaking about the case that you were working on with General Flynn. Since that time, this case seems to have finally been resolved. There was the president’s pardon [for] General Flynn in a kind of historic way, as far as I can tell. At the same time, the judge ultimately dismissed the case.
Ms. Powell: Yes, he still took his time to do that and wrote an opinion he really has no basis to write, because he didn’t have jurisdiction to write it at the time. So we will be moving to vacate his gratuitous slam and appalling opinion, because he had no jurisdiction or basis to write it.
Mr. Jekielek: Exactly. So your reaction to the pardon, then?
Ms. Powell: Well, it’s unfortunate, the President had to issue it. We certainly appreciate him doing that. But if the legal system had worked the way it should have, if Judge Sullivan had been a real judge instead of a tool of Eric Holder, we wouldn’t have had to have the pardon.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s an unusual pardon, because it isn’t of someone that’s necessarily guilty, right?
Ms. Powell: Right. It was a pardon of innocence. Because the judicial system did not work. It’s that broken.
Mr. Jekielek: How common is a pardon of innocence?
Ms. Powell: Not all that common. It’s hard enough to get a pardon to begin with. But I’ve been very concerned over the last 20 years in particular—in writing “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice”—that probably 5 per cent to 10 per cent of our current prison population is actually innocent. Another high percentage didn’t have a trial fair enough to tell whether they’re guilty or innocent, because we have so many judges out there now that are result-driven instead of applying the rule of law like it should be. We have political prosecutions that never should have happened in this country.
Mr. Jekielek: So actually, I’ll recommend to our viewership “Licensed to Lie”, an incredible book explaining how—I’ve heard it described as a prosecutor-ocracy—or something like that.
Ms. Powell: I hadn’t heard that word. It’s a mouthful. Sounds like it works.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, that the prosecutors in the justice system have this incredible amount of power to enter into fleeing and so forth.
Ms. Powell: Yes. And there’s definitely a high number of what I would call self-interested prosecutors that have taken on a life and mission of their own, and they abuse the law in the process.
Mr. Jekielek: I think probably you’ve been a little too busy to start working on this request for an order to vacate. But that’s coming?
Ms. Powell: Yes, that will be coming. We will move to vacate Judge Sullivan’s absurd and non-jurisdiction based decision.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay, and what’s going to happen to Judge Sullivan now, in your mind?
Ms. Powell: Well, if we had all the seats in Congress that we should have had by virtue of a legitimate election, there would be enough congressmen and senators to impeach him.
One of the things I intend to do with “DefendingtheRepublic.org” is to examine all the elections across the country that exhibited the same pattern of fraud that we know has happened in the swing states, and work to get the public and all the parties entitled to the seats they actually won by legal votes. That’s going to take a while longer, but it must be done, because we cannot have people sitting in our Congress and House or in governorships, to which they are not entitled because of the voting machine fraud.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about your court cases that are currently in play. You’ve actually filed emergency requests to the Supreme Court to decertify the 2020 election results to prevent the electors from casting their votes in four states now. Can you break that down for me, please?
Ms. Powell: Yes, we’ve filed suits for the process in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, because all those were fatally flawed by massive fraud in every manner and means you can think of.
But especially insidious and troubling is the machine fraud conducted through the Dominion voting systems. In fact, one of our experts says Dominion fraud was 5 per cent higher votes for Biden across the board everywhere there was a Dominion machine running. The same was true for other Democrats that were running on the tickets in those states.
Mr. Jekielek: But in these four states, you’re saying that it was just a whole nother level?
Ms. Powell: Yes, there was an additional level of fraud in those states. We haven’t had time, as you might imagine, to look at all the instances of fraud that need to be investigated. It makes me wonder where in the world is our FBI and our Department of Justice. I’m frankly very concerned that this entire system was originated likely by the CIA, and maybe even given to Venezuela years ago, or seeded in different places that wound up with Venezuela, which started the Smartmatic and Dominion companies.
The only reason they have a Boca Raton (FL) address here in the United States is to try to make them seem like a United States company. But they’re not. They’re owned, runned and were organized and created by Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chávez, with his dirty money and the dirty money of the Cuban communists, to ensure he had won every election after it was used. One of our witnesses was a direct first-hand personal observer of all of that—received the briefings on how it all worked, saw it work in the control room for election after election, and has given us detailed affidavit to explain it all.
People who say there’s no evidence are just lying through their teeth, or they’re deliberately ignorant, or willfully blind to the truth. Frankly, they’re part of the problem. A lot of the people who are saying there’s no evidence are part of the problem and know damn well that all this happened, and may have even instigated it, benefited from it, paid for it, encouraged it.
Mr. Jekielek: At this moment, you’ve put in these emergency requests. At the same time, just moments earlier, the Supreme Court decided to not take on this Texas suit. So tell me, what’s your reaction to that?
Ms. Powell: Well, I have a mixed reaction to it. I had some concern over the standing of the states to raise the issues they were raising to begin with, but I thought because it was a suit that the court had original jurisdiction of, the court would and should take it, at least—to look at it and address it more fully than they did. It has no effect on our cases, because our plaintiffs are electors who have constitutional standing in the electors and elections clause of the Constitution. So we will not have standing issues in the four cases that I brought. The court really must address the merits.
Another case is also Lin Wood’s case out of Georgia, which is still before the court. And another case out of Pennsylvania is also before the court. There might be a standing issue in one of those, but between the multiple cases that are there right now someone has to have standing. So one or more of those cases is going to have to be addressed on their merits, or we don’t have a Supreme Court.
Mr. Jekielek: Maybe I’ll just get you to clarify for the benefit of our viewership, this idea of standing. It’s essentially that they have the right to bring the case in the first place. But maybe you can explain that a little more?
Ms. Powell: Yes, to bring a case you have to be a party that suffered an actual injury as a result of the conduct that is being complained of. So for example, the court was saying that Texas as a state doesn’t have a particular interest, particularly in how other states run their elections. But voters and electors should definitely have standing to raise claims of vote dilution. Because electors are seated as a result of the vote. In fact, in several states they have the same standing as a candidate would have. By state law, they have rights and duties under their state laws. And they have a special mention in the constitution as being constitutionally required for the process of the Electoral College.
So I don’t think there’s any circumstance under which any court can say an elector that we represent multiple of, in multiple states… In fact [in] Arizona, every single elector in the state joined our suit. So we have standing for all of the claims that we have raised, beyond any doubt.
Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. Now, talking about Georgia, you’ve actually mentioned that some of the counties didn’t actually do a hand recount. Can you tell me more about this?
Ms. Powell: Yes, they often ran the same ballots through the same fraudulent creating machines, which did absolutely no good whatsoever. They did not look at each ballot and compare the signatures. If we could even get 100,000 ballots of the last 100,000 ballots run in Georgia, for example, we could show by instant mechanical analysis the difference in the ballots and the ink.
We know that there were hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots imported into the country, likely from China. We have video of some coming across the border from Mexico.
There’s other information of ballots being shipped from one state to another. In fact, there was a postal service driver, I think, who was sent from New York to Pennsylvania in the middle of the night with a truckload of ballots that was then used to “backfill” the vote count. It’s absolutely absurd. We have more evidence coming in today of a massive load of ballots, I think from Arizona to Georgia.
So they had these warehouses of counterfeit ballots in different parts of the country, apparently, and then shipped them in the middle of the night as needed to backfill in the states where President Trump’s voters poured out in such great number that they broke the algorithm they had pre-programmed in the computers for Dominion to create the fraud. That’s why they had to stop counting in five states.
And that’s why it’s absolutely absurd to say that there wasn’t voter fraud here. We have counterfeit ballots, we have dead people voting, and by the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. There was something someone called “phantom voters”. There were just more manner and means of fraud than any law abiding American citizen could possibly imagine. It’s stunning. It’s absolutely stunning. They were so in our face with it. And then to deny it is purely Machiavellian.
Mr. Jekielek: Tell me a little more about these four cases. I assume that they’re similar in nature, or I understand they’re similar in nature. Can you tell me a bit about how those cases work that are before the Supreme Court?
Ms. Powell: Well, each case discusses in detail the facts that relate to the state in which it arises from, in some specific detail. Then we also allege common claims. For example, the voter dilution and denial of equal protection under the Constitution is one of the claims that we raised in each, because every fraudulent ballot destroys the vote of a legal voter.
Effectively what they did with the machine fraud was to… they did everything from injecting massive quantities of votes into the system that they just made up, to running counterfeit ballots through multiple times in multiple batches to create the appearance of votes that weren’t really there.
They trashed votes. They had this thing called an adjudication system, where they could program the computer—even by their own manual they explain this—they can program the computer to reject ballots for any number of reasons. We think that’s what the whole sharpie thing was that happened in Arizona and another state too—where if the vote was cast with a sharpie, the machine would automatically kick the vote to an “adjudication file”, they called it.
And then the people running the machines, the computers, could simply take that whole adjudication file that had hundreds of thousands of Trump votes in it, and drop it, trash it or flip it to Biden. And that happened all across the board.
Mr. Jekielek: Yes, and that’s very interesting, because I understand that what you found is that larger than the expected numbers of these votes would become adjudicated, and when they become adjudicated, that’s what creates the potential for changing the votes. Do I understand that correctly?
Ms. Powell: That’s one of the ways. Another way they did it was to shave votes. The machine can weight the ballots. So they can give Biden votes a weight of 1.25 count, and Trump votes are reduced to a 0.75 count. So they flip 25 per cent of the votes for Biden automatically, every vote count. Instead of a vote counting as one, which is all a vote should ever count as—one man, one vote. That’s our standard, long held rule; the only way it can work in a democratic republic.
And instead, if you voted for Biden, you got a 1.25. If you voted for Trump, you got 0.75. We can see in some of the readouts, that’s exactly what happened. You can go back, the mathematicians can go back and figure out the algorithm that was run, by precinct even.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s just incredible to hear. So there’s all these people out there saying—especially among the corporate media—”Look, look, all these lawsuits keep getting thrown out; clearly there’s nothing there”. How do you respond to people like that?
Ms. Powell: Well, it’s very concerning, Jan, because this is obviously not the first time this has happened. It’s the first time it’s happened on this scale. But I’ve been given a massive quantity of data from California in 2016 that shows it happened there—that Clinton did the same thing to Bernie Sanders there. I have a witness who told me that they informed Bernie Sanders of all of it, and instead of outing it, he sold out.
So the moneyed interests, the political interests—the global power elites—have been doing this all around the world, wherever they wanted to, for at least 15 or 20 years. Our own government has been involved in some of it. It cuts across political lines. There are some Republicans, no doubt, who benefited from it, just as Democrats have. They’re all playing the game.
I feel more every day like The Matrix movie was real.
I mean, we know that Carolyn Maloney, for example, was complaining about it—I think it was 2006—[she] wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, I think, and other people, expressing concern over this Venezuelan-owned company that’s running American elections. And Cepheus approved it. So we need to look at who was on the Cepheus board then, and the heads of all the major agencies that approved this to begin with.
One of the things Dominion gets people with is what I would call election insurance—”If you put in the Dominion system, you’re gonna win—re-elections, no problem at all.” And that’s what Hugo Chávez had it rigged for. The fact that people are willing to turn a blind eye for this is just horrifying.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s actually an analysis that could be run, to see how often the incumbent that would put in this system subsequently won. It would be interesting to see that.
Ms. Powell: Exactly, exactly!
Mr. Jekielek: I was going to ask you what motivates you, but as you’re describing this, I can probably guess.
Ms. Powell: It’s all about the truth. If we’re going to be a free country, we have to have honest elections. They have been doing this to American citizens and other countries around the world for at least 15 years.
Venezuela hasn’t had a free election since Hugo Chávez did the whole Smartmatic Dominion voting system thing. They exported it to other countries. It’s been used all around the world. The Philippines. I have people writing me from other countries all the time saying, “You’re not just helping the United States of America, you’re helping anyone who wants to be free, and the entire world”.
And the people responsible for this need to be in prison; [they’re] worse than 90 per cent, probably, of the people who are there. This is awful. I mean, there aren’t even words sufficient to describe how evil, insidious and malevolent this is.
Mr. Jekielek: Why do you think there’s been so many rejections of these suits in the courts?
Ms. Powell: Because the corruption goes deep and wide. They have threatened people’s lives, they have threatened people’s children. We have the very unusual “car wreck” that involved one of Kelly Loeffler’s regional campaign workers in Atlanta, just a few days around the time of our suit. Our judge in Atlanta gave us the preliminary injunction we wanted, and 20 minutes later, completely reversed it.
Mr. Jekielek: So there’s actually work being done as we speak, as I understand it, doing a kind of forensic analysis of some of these Michigan machines; like some 20 of them—I can’t remember the exact details right now—that you may be aware of?
Ms. Powell: Yes. That is not my lawsuit. It’s an independent patriot that filed that lawsuit. He’s done a great job with it. There’s apparently a judge there with fortitude and integrity—it takes both—they go hand in hand. But he has ordered the forensic examination of those machines, which is what should be happening on every Dominion machine in the country. Right now, every federal judge should have ordered them impounded and reviewed forensically.
Frankly, it should happen in other states too, because our witness said that the DNA of the code is in all the other systems also, it’s not just Dominion. Every voting machine in the country should be checked for its validity, and its ability to do exactly what the Dominion machines have done here, and to see whether it was done in this election.
We have them destroying evidence right and left in Georgia, in Cobb County, Gwinnett County, Fulton County. Everything from shredding ballots to wiping machines and replacing servers. All these machines should have been impounded the day after the election, and reviewed for forensic analysis.
But I think the analysis that’s going to come from Michigan is going to prove exactly what we have been saying was happening with these machines.
They did a real hand count in one small county in Georgia, and found a significant vote flip. I think it was about 0.26 vote flip from Trump to Biden, in that one county where they actually did a real count. And Coffee County, Georgia just refused to certify its results from the election, because of what they found as obvious fraud.
Mr. Jekielek: So at this point, what would it take to get this broad assessment or analysis of machines to actually happen?
Ms. Powell: Well, given the level of foreign interference we can demonstrate, and the country has evidence of in our filings of foreign interference in the election, it’s more than sufficient to trigger the President’s executive order from 2018 that gives him all kinds of power—to do everything from seize assets, to freeze things, demand the impoundment of the machines. Under the emergency powers, he could even appoint a special prosecutor to look into this, which is exactly what needs to happen.
Every voting machine in the country should be impounded right now. There’s frankly more than enough criminal probable cause to justify that. For anybody who’s willing to address the law and the facts purely on the basis of truth, and not politics or corporate greed or global wealth.
Mr. Jekielek: That’s interesting that you mentioned that executive order because I understand there’s also a report that DNI [Director of National Intelligence] Ratcliffe is supposed to be preparing to come out in not too long from now. It’s 45 days, I believe, from the time of the election, about prospective issues.
Ms. Powell: Right. And what happened in the election. Well, if that report is an honest report, it’s going to blow the mind of every citizen in the country who’s willing to look at the truth and the facts, because we’ve never witnessed anything like this in the history of this country. And it’s got to be stopped right now or there will never be a free and fair election.
Mr. Jekielek: So this is what you mean when you say you feel the Republic is at stake?
Ms. Powell: It is. Absolutely. Any election from here on out is an absolute farce and a joke and a manipulated charade, if we don’t fix this right now and come up with a system that we can all trust. There should be nothing but transparency in an election in the United States of America, and the very fact that they are refusing to let people look at the machines or address any of these issues tells us it’s one big fraud.
Mr. Jekielek: Well exactly. It’s fascinating, because you would feel like anybody would want to be able to actually know the reality of the situation.
Ms. Powell: Exactly. As my friend, Lin Wood, says, if people have nothing to hide, they hide nothing.
Mr. Jekielek: Sidney, any final thoughts before we finish up?
Ms. Powell: Just to say that we must fix this, we must fix it now. And the American people must demand it. We cannot settle for anything like what we’ve witnessed in the last four years—the conduct of the Democrats, the global elites, the power brokers for the last four years in their effort to destroy President Trump.
This is not about President Trump. He’s just a symbol of “We the People”. It’s about the future of the Republic.
We have to fix this. We have to fix it right now. And there should never be another election conducted the way this one was. There should never be another American election without complete transparency.
Mr. Jekielek: Sidney Powell, such a pleasure to have you on again.
Ms. Powell: Thank you, Jan.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.