President Trump's Legal Team; Legal Expert Hans Von Spakovsky | November 20, 2020 | Hour One
Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Huff.
All right. So I want to go through a couple things today. Before we well, in addition to a couple things I want to go through, I also want to talk about something to kind of frame this a little bit. Trump's legal team makes their has a press conference yesterday. And I just want to remind you, why it's not remind you to share with you an experience that I had. I'm not I'm not an attorney, I take great pride. I take great pride in that. I'm just half kidding out there attorneys. But I'm not an attorney, but I did. I was planning at one point to go to law school. And so I did some pre law program at American University. But that was fine. That helped me in a lot of ways understand some things that maybe I normally would not have, that we see going on legally, in this country, legal proceedings and all the you know, we had mock trials and that sort of thing. But more importantly than that, I served on a juror jury, which I've mentioned on here before and I just want to share with you from the perspective of the jury has as a juror, the purpose of an opening argument, because that's what we saw yesterday was just the opening argument. The opening argument is not not the presentation of all of the evidence, the opening argument is just to kind of set the scene. So I want to talk about that. And then I want to share a conversation with you gives me that I had yesterday with Hans von Spakovsky. He is senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He has a lot of experience in election law and constitutional law. He's a smart guy. He's studies these sorts of things. And so we I just wanted to talk about the state of where things were with this election with regarding this election with Hans von Spakovsky. You've probably seen him he's I think been on Fox. If you're still watching Fox. I think I saw him on Levin's program recently. So anyway, we have I spoke with him yesterday after the program and I want to share that conversation with you. But before we do that, by the way, welcome to the program. I'm your host, Todd Huff. You can email me your thoughts, your questions, comments. And of course, your adoration and praise will also be accepted. gleefully kidding, not kidding. In that email, Todd, The Todd Huff show.com. We're on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, not Instagram. Not yet. We have an Instagram page, but we're not streaming on Instagram. We're on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Todd Huff show being a platform for all of those outlets as well all those platforms. And tied up show.com you can watch the program live as well. That's the safest place to watch it because we will not censor our own. Our own show, Facebook might YouTube might who knows Twitter might jack Dorsey, we're probably better off getting the past jack when he's out doing cross country hikes or whatever he's doing to grow his mountain man beard. But nonetheless, you can catch the program on all those platforms as it stands today. So let me really quickly here really quickly here, talk about the opening argument from the perspective of a juror, right from the perspective of a juror with a little bit of a little bit of, I guess, understanding of, of the laws well. So I was I set on a jury back in 2000. And I think it was 17, maybe 18. Do that. Maybe it was 18 2018. And first of all, going through the whole process is gives you a tremendous appreciation of this country and my purse from my perspective. And I think anyone who does it and really thinks about it, this is all a byproduct of what the founders created. So this concept of being tried by a jury of your peers isn't as amazing thing to me. So the state thinks that you did something wrong that we broke the law. And so they have to go through a process whereby they file charges And all these steps have to be taken.
Before you know the defendant, in the consequences of breaking the law require the, you know, the forfeiting of freedom, the individuals liberty, they're going to put someone behind bars and they're no longer going to have all of the freedoms afforded to them. In America, in our under our Constitution. And so, now, this is an election, as I'm, you know, comparing and contrasting this with what's going on with with the Trump team. So this is different in that sense, but there's certainly similarities. But when you're going to ask someone to forfeit third, not ask them demand that someone forfeit their liberties through the violation of a law that requires them to be incarcerated, or, even worse, if they are, since it's a capital crime to give their lives, you have to have an overwhelming amount of evidence, there has to be a very methodical process because the founders had witnessed throughout history and through their own experiences, sometimes what happens when governments go out of control. And by the way, we have a government out of control. I'm not saying in the same exact way the founders saw meaning people are not necessarily he could certainly make the case. But on a wide scale. I don't know maybe it's more similar than I, then I, then I first was saying when I started this, but the point is, in the criminal sense that they witnessed people be targeted, and be threatened with with jail or whatever, some sort of punishment, oftentimes, because of political disagreements, or just whatever the people the powers, the authorities of the day, decided. So they said, instead of letting this be a system that is determined strictly by the government, we want a group of peers, right we want we want a person's peers. So this individual was arrested for a heinous crime and the jury that I served on the trial, where I was on the, on the jury, he was charged ultimately, with acts that led to the death of a five year old, little boy, terrible, terrible stuff. It wasn't a murder trial, but it was a conspiracy. conspiracy to commit murder, were the charges, there were other charges as well. And so it was it was tough to watch. But but to think about it, in hindsight, so that the state had the evidence, the state presented the evidence in a very methodical way. And the jury, we sat there as a peer of someone that was on, you know, we live in the same general community, no one knew him. But we lived in the same general community, and it was our job to say, basically, before you take someone that's a free citizen, like the rest of us, you got to prove that you should be putting this person away. It's the trial was just awful. But the system in action is beautiful. And so to watch that unfold, and to be a part of that, and to see it from the inside is I think, illuminating for those of you that have served on a jury, I think you would maybe feel the same way as I do about this. I didn't want to do it in one sense, but I'm absolutely
I wouldn't have it any other way. And looking back through the lens of of time, the 2020 perspective here that we have looking back over things in our past, I would not change that. But anyway, the opening argument, which is what I want to get to and then I want to take a break and share my conversation with Hans von Spakovsky the opening argument in the trial. They didn't present any I guess you could say they presented but but I would say they referenced evidence like they would make the attorneys the prosecution would say we believe the evidence will show that Mr. So and so did this committed this crime, the evidence, the the autopsy, the circumstantial evidence, the physical evidence, his his testimony, you know, his his interview with law enforcement, whatever the evidence was, these things are going to show X, Y and Z. And as you're sitting there in the jury as a juror, you're you're really just trying to take it in, right? You're just trying to wrap your head around what you're about ready to be told what you're about ready to see and to hear and all this sort of stuff. And so it's a little bit I don't know, I don't want to say well, I guess a little bit shocking to hear some of the things but it doesn't mean you don't leave that opening argument. And think suddenly now I have all the evidence to to make a decision. See, ironically, the day before we had jury selection. And that was the point in time when the attorneys were asking questions they were selecting who would actually be on that jury. They were asking Questions about, you know whether or not someone can be fair and unbiased. And I remember flat out people in that jury selection process telling the prosecution or the defense that there's no way that, that they would even consider someone being charged of a crime like this. They wouldn't they wouldn't even consider the possibility that he or she was not guilty. I heard people say that now, did they mean it? Or are they just trying to get out of the jury that is left to be determined by the individual, I will say that some of them seemed quite adamant about this. So the first process was find people that are fair minded, which Good luck at finding that today. In America. The next process, okay, now we've got our fair minded group. Now we're going to tell you what we're going to show you, right? If you're going to give a speech, what do they tell you in what eighth grade speech class or whatever? You tell people what you're going to tell them, you tell them? And then you tell them what you told him? That's really what happens, right? opening arguments, I'm telling you what we're going to show you, then they show the evidence over the course of whether it's ours, if it's a smaller trial, our trial went on for I don't know, two and a half weeks, I think. So there's two and a half weeks of or two weeks of evidence. And then there's the closing arguments. The closing arguments are we want to remind you what we told you and showed you, that's what it is. And so we're just at the beginning of this. I know a lot of folks are rolling their eyes at some of the accusations. I mean, some of these are bombastic things, right. I mean, we hear about communist ties and Venezuela and China. And it's just a lot of process. It doesn't mean that they're right. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, either. And so there's a process. That's my only point today. People want to say, well, based upon the opening arguments, this is what I think I've made my decision my mind up. Well, you keep saying show us the evidence, they're telling you the evidence they're going to show you, right people say this just where's the evidence, okay. They've made huge claims. These folks have made enormous claims. Now they're gonna tell you what they're going to tell you. They're going to they're going to show you what they just told you, they're going to show you and then you can decide for yourself just like the jury whether or not they hit the mark or not. So now the only There are of course, differences. We're not we don't have any say in the jury trial. I was a part of, you know, our vote was the deciding vote. If all 12 of us voted to find guilty or not guilty. That was the that was the outcome. There was no other opinion that matter that's different in this situation. And plus, we're not in the courtroom. So this is a PR thing. But we're just on the on the map on the timeline of where things stay in. We're in the opening argument phases. So they made some pretty dramatic claims. Now let's see if they can produce produce the good so that being said timeout is an order when we get back I want to share my conversation with Hans von Spakovsky senior legal fellow, the Heritage Foundation. Sit tight back here in just a minute.
So I want to get right to this. This is my conversation with Hans von Spakovsky. He is the manager election law reform initiative and senior legal fellow at the meese center for legal and judicial studies. Heritage Foundation. Got a lot of experience. I'll tell you a little bit about that. But I want to share this interview. It's it will be a couple of couple of segments here. But I think you'll find this both informative and insightful here as we navigate what exactly is happening regarding the 2020 elections. So here's my conversation with hands. Well, with everything going on with this election and all the questions, there's all sorts of questions, uncertainties, irregularities, just different things about the process. I thought it would be a good idea to bring in someone that knows just a thing or two, about election, the constitution and election law. I've got Hans von Spakovsky. He's a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Hans. How are you sir? Welcome to the program. I'm doing just great. Thanks for having me on. Well, it's our pleasure to have you You do know a thing or two I'd say about the Constitution, election law and so forth. Maybe for our listeners who are not familiar with you. Maybe give them a little bit of the background that you have experienced as you have and just why you can can speak to this and shed some light on this issue for us. Sure. Well, I do work at the Heritage Foundation, which is you know, biggest conservative think tank in the world and I run their election law reform initiative, but I got into that job because I actually spent two years As a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, before that I spent four years actually enforcing our federal voting rights laws, the US Department of Justice. And I've also served on two different county election boards, one in Virginia, one in Georgia. So, you know, besides legal experience in this area, I get something else, which you don't often find with the lawyers who do this kind of work, which is a practical experience as a county election official running voter registration and running polling places and elections and the two largest counties in two different states. So you're you're on the front lines, or you have been on the front lines, you get experienced with the hands on sort of stuff. So I want to pause I'm, of course, our listeners know, I'm a conservative, but I don't I want to approach this as a politically as we can to try to parse through, there's so many things for a lot of folks, folks don't understand how elections really work. For a lot of folks, there's confusion, there's, there's lawsuits, and there's recounts, and there's audits and all this sort of stuff going on. So I want to be as apolitical as we can through this. So if you could give us maybe a quick summary of what's going on regarding the 2020 election. And in the the few key states that we have recounts lawsuits, I don't want to go in depth, but just maybe a snapshot, if we can, let's start with with Georgia, maybe give us an idea of where things stand and what's going on in the state of Georgia? Well, you know, they've been doing a recount in Georgia, they're supposed to have it finished very shortly. And then they will announce the results during the recount, they actually found over 5000 votes that have not been counted. During the election, which shows how having a recount was actually necessary. Hopefully, they'll be doing audits to figure out how that happened in the first place. But what people need to understand is a recount simply recounts, the balances have been cast, it's not able to turn up, for example, election fraud. And what I mean by that is Look, if if somebody let's let's assume for example, somebody who's not a US citizen, but they registered in Georgia, they weren't caught and they voted in the election, a recount isn't going to figure out because they're not checking the voter registration list and verifying the information. It's not going to figure out that an alien who's supposed to be voting vote in the election is simply going to recount his ballot. And that's the situation in Georgia, you know, they're having a recount. Will it change the results? Probably not, you know, the the difference between the two candidates is about 14,000 votes. And recounts don't tend to change a lot of votes. I was actually surprised that they found 5000 votes, and I've been counted in this in this particular recount so far. So and that's a great point real, this issue of auditing, you differentiated there between just recounting what's already there, and then actually figuring out, are there ballots being cast that either shouldn't be cast or they're, you know, they may be illegal ballots? Who knows? And a lot of these instances, there's been a whole lot of problems come up in the state of Georgia. What about Pennsylvania? Where do things stand in Pennsylvania?
Well, Pennsylvania, you know, the margin of victory, there was about 63,000. There have been lawsuits filed contesting a lot of things. You know, the biggest thing that happened this year, was folks on the left side of the political aisle going to court to try to change the rules governing the election. And Pennsylvania is a good example of that there. The deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots is the end of Election Day. So your battery your absentee ballot has to be in the hands of election officials by the end of Election Day. State officials there basically said well, despite the statute, we're going to extend the deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots to three days after election day and the state Supreme Court upheld that not only that, but they said, lecture officials couldn't reject a ballot if the signature didn't match, which is required by state law and was supposed to compare the signature on the absentee ballot with a signature on file for the voter when they registered. And also that with the three day extension, it was supposed to have been mailed by the end of Election Day. But even if there wasn't a postmark on the envelope of the absentee ballot, showing that they still had to be counted. All of those are changes that if the state legislature had wanted to make they could, you know, state legislatures constitutionally are given the authority to set the rules for federal elections in their state. But here it was state officials in the state Supreme Court and so the Trump campaign has gone to court along with members of the state legislature in our suit Saying, for example, absentee ballots received after election day shouldn't be counted, because that violated state law. And we don't have yet results in those lawsuits. That is the one case that might end up before the US Supreme Court if the Trump campaign continues to pursue it.
And these things are, I mean, pretty straightforward. I mean, you mentioned some of these laws, it's in black and white. But to your point, the, the courts arbitrarily extended these things, or do the exact executive actions of the executive branch taking action and so forth. So that's a problem. It's one of the problems we have with judicial activists at all levels of courts around this country. What about Michigan? What's going on in Michigan, ons. Michigan has a very large differential and added about 147,000 votes that Biden won. And the specific problem in in Michigan is that the Trump campaign again, they filed suit, and they're complaining about the fact that their poll observers were kept out of the Detroit downtown facility where they were opening processing and counting absentee ballots. And as you know, we had a huge really exponential increase in absentee ballots this year, and Detroit officials basically broke state law, you know, candidates and political parties are allowed to have observers, so observe every aspect of the election process. And there's, that's there's a good reason for that. We want that kind of transparency so that we can ensure that officials aren't doing things they shouldn't be doing. And because of that, the Trump campaign is saying, look, we can't be sure they actually did what they're supposed to do with absentee ballots, which is when an absentee ballot comes in, and they open up the outer envelope, they're supposed to verify a check. Is this a registered voter? Did they sign the form? Did they correctly provide their registered name and address and if any of that information is missing, or it's wrong, the ballots rejected, you know, it's not counted. And I think the Trump campaign is alleging that what they believe happened in Detroit is the Detroit officials just basically threw out all those procedures and just counted every ballot coming in. And even if it came in from a person who wasn't on the registered voter list. They just added their name to it and counted the ballot, which again, would break state law. So we don't know how many ballots that might have affected, is it enough to change the outcome? I don't know. 147,000 votes, that's a lot of votes to change. And I don't know if they've got the evidence sufficient to convince a judge that the results of the election were compromised.
So normally, one more question here before we have to take a break. But I guess, we can't go through every single state but what normally is supposed to happen, the normal process, the you know, the people have a state vote. You know, there's a declared winner. Usually, there might be a little bit sometimes there's a lawsuit or whatever the case may be or a recount. But generally speaking, there's a concession. There's certification of the electors, all this stuff happening that people don't normally see maybe walk us through what normally happens. After the vote, votes are counted or cast on election day.
They have an initial count of the votes, and they report the results. There's usually a recount if the margin of victory depends on the state, but usually the margin of victory is 1% or less, or in some states, it's half a percent or less. Then they do a recap where they go through and once again, just count recount the ballots that they're not verifying. As I said, voter registration issues. Once that's done, then election officials certified the results. That means they're signing form saying these are now the official results of the state. Normally, that's when folks file lawsuits losing candidates, if they still believe that there was a problem, somehow the election results were were compromised. And you know, normally, litigation could take quite a while I don't recall this, but remember 2008 there was a litigation contest over the us senate race in Minnesota, between Al Franken and the incumbent Norm Coleman. That litigation took eight months at the end of it Al Franken was declared the winner. But here, we've got a deadline December 14, that's when the electoral college is supposed to meet in each state and cast the official votes for president So time is short. Okay, I need to take a break. But when we get back I want to talk a little bit about maybe what makes this election Different you said even with that last answer, you said that most lawsuits or many lawsuits aren't even found until the certification process. We've got all this stuff happening here, kind of on the front end of this. I want to walk through what's, what's different. Talk a little bit about voter fraud, irregularities, that sort of thing. But I gotta pick a timeout. We're with Hans von Spakovsky. He's senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Be back here in just a minute.
Welcome back. So talking with Hans von Spakovsky, it's a two part interview. But because of the programming format, I've got a need to do a short segment here and then play the second half of our interview here in the next segment. So bad luck, whatever the circumstances, whatever, however, people are viewing this, you know, you can look at this, some people want to know the odds of, you know, Trump somehow getting elected Still, this is not this is not over. It is a difficult path. But again, if there are levels of corruption and fraud, and deceit that have been suggested by these attorneys, just take away all the names, all the outcomes, and just ask yourself, what are we supposed to? What are we supposed to do? What are you supposed to do if you're a state legislature, and it's your ultimately your job to make sure the electors that you send to, you know, to the electoral college reflect the will of the voters in your state? I mean, that's the statute and most, I would say all I just don't know for certain, but most states, that's the way that this presumably all the way that it works. The problem is, if you can have no confidence in the outcome of these elections, what do you suppose to do? That's a very reasonable question. What are you supposed to do? There's so much fraud, corruption, again, you look at these signed affidavits, pristine balance coming in, in the state of Georgia. People, you know, people that have counted ballots for 20 years so that that's obviously not what about looks like what are you supposed to do? You the democrats just want you to Hey, certify this thing. Get on with life. We've got this mythical office of the president elect joe biden's out there mumbling and bumbling about whatever else he's talking about. Kamala Harris is out there. Talking about whatever she's talking about. You've got talk of his cabinet. for Bernie Sanders, the Department of Labor. That's possible, I guess. Elizabeth Warren, running the Treasury. That sounds fantastic. This is all speculative, of course. But he these are the sorts of things that you hear whispers about anyway. But the question remains, what happens next? Is there really a viable path, you know, something Trump's just out there, trying to, you know, hunker down in the White House, hunker down, you know, all about hunker down here. But hunkering down in the White House and refusing to leave. But there's a much more fundamental problem here. What do you what do you suppose to do? We don't have any confidence in these elections. I saw what is it 38% 40% some number that's approaching half the country that don't believe this remarkable times that we live in. So now what, again, take away names, outcomes, who gets what does what he's supposed to do, you don't know what the results are. The cheating and the quote unquote, errors miscalculating goes in one direction, what he's supposed to think of all this. I know what I think about this, but I'm gonna take a break, come back and share the rest of my interview with Hans von Spakovsky back here in just a minute.
Right welcome back. I'm with Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation talking about the 2020 election the process what normally happens and so forth, and he kind of laid out what normally happens after votes are cast on election day before the break. So now, what is it that makes 2020 different? What are some things that have happened? And I guess, maybe kind of paint the picture of some of the concerns or regularities and then those sorts of things? Well, I think the biggest problem There's been a huge exponential increase in voting by mail. And the problem with that is that look, if you look, if you look at election fraud cases, proven cases, absentee ballots are often the target, because they're the easiest ballots, frankly, to steal, to forge to change, and to pressure voters in their homes to vote a particular way. And so, you know, you have to be worried about that, particularly also, because there have been these big pushes through litigation to change the rules governing absentee ballots that we talked about earlier about the extension of the deadlines for the receipt of those ballots. But lawsuits have also tried to get rid of the security protocols in place for absentee ballots and be for example, lawsuits were filed trying to say upstage should not do signature comparisons, which is one of the only ways to figure out whether somebody else fill out your ballot forged your signature, we had lawsuits saying states should not be able to enforce their witness signature requirement on absentee ballot. And although we also had lawsuits, saying that states that ban vote harvesting should have those laws overridden. And for folks who don't know what vote harvesting means, look, when you vote by absentee ballot, you can mail it back, you can deliver it yourself, usually a member of your family can deliver it but strangers other other folks are not allowed to deliver your ballots for you. states that allow vote harvesting, allow anybody to show up at your front door as a candidate, you know, a campaign staff or a party activists to offer to deliver your ballot. And of course, the problem with that is you're putting your ballot in the hands of people who have a stake in the outcome of the election. That's right. And that's very, that's very problematic. And you can see kind of the false nature of what these lawsuits and folks on the left were claiming. Because, you know, they had this big push, we've got to have absentee mail and bows because of COVID-19. at the very same time, they're saying, oh, if you're a state that bans vote, harvesting, why you've got to allow it now because because of COVID-19. Well, what's a faster way of spreading COVID-19 and saying you're going to allow strangers to go door to door to door in the neighborhood to pick up people's balance? You know, that doesn't make any sense. But it shows you they were trying to take advantage of COVID-19 to change the rules in in a bad way it looks at the biggest problem with this is it puts the hit you It puts your balance in the hands people have a stake in the outcome and it makes you liable to them pressuring you in your home. So vote a particular way. Do you have any concerns about some of these things you've seen about the Dominion voting systems and some of the questions allegations, irregularities, statistical analysis, any of that stuff? Does that Does that concern you? Well, it concerns look, you know, look, two dozen states use Dominion software. On the other hand, I do know that Texas refused. After testing the Dominion equipment refused to allow it to be certified and sold in Texas. I I don't know whether any of these allegations about about the Dominion equipment are true. What I do think is that it needs to be investigated. And they need to evaluate, review and test the equipment and the software to see if there's any truth to any of these allegations. So what do you do? Or what do you think's the right thing to do? Try to be I know, you, you know, you know, we all come at this with some degree of bias, but isn't as fairly as we can hear. You're a member of a state legislature in say, Michigan or Pennsylvania, whatever. And you're not. I mean, it's very reasonable to think we can't trust the results that we're seeing here. Is there any like what happens? I mean, are they just going to go with, you know, the certified results or get the situation and the county Detroit's, and I'm drawing a blank on the county at the moment, but you know, they've not certified the vote there yet. In that particular county, specifically in Detroit, I mean, how are they supposed to navigate this? Is there a chance of anyone talking about sending a slate of electors that may not match up with how the state allegedly voted, I guess, walk us through that. What are some scenarios and what's the right thing to do there? Well, the legislature's do have the ultimate constitutional authority over which electors get to vote. All the states, though, have have put in laws saying that whoever the majority of the people in the votes in the state vote for that's the slate of electors that get to vote. So state legislators would have to override a state statute on that. If they want to pick a different slate of electors, I don't think they would even consider doing that unless they have overwhelming evidence that the results of the election were compromised. And there's only been one instance in the US history that I could find where something like this happened. And that was the 1876 election in 1876, three states, including Florida, South Carolina, they, they couldn't figure out who had won the election in their states. And so they said to set of electoral college votes to Congress and said, You, you try to figure it out. And Congress actually set up a bipartisan commission to investigate it, and they ended up awarding all the electoral college votes to the three states to the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes. But that's only happened once in American history. I look, I doubt it's going to happen this time. What I do think needs to come out of it very clearly, is look, no matter what happens in the presidential race, all of these irregularities, these problems, all these claims, they all need to be investigated thoroughly, by state legislatures, by election officials and by law enforcement officials to figure out what problems occurred, what vulnerabilities there are the system and fix any of those vulnerabilities and problems so that we don't have this problem happened again, if you had to Lasko, I know, you got to wrap up here. And we want to be respectful with your time. What is what are the things that you think and I know, we got, you know, a wide variety of the way that states approach elections? What are some some common sense solutions to some of these problems? these loopholes or fraudulent opportunities that folks have to do nefarious things? What are some common sense solutions that states should implement in their elections, moving forward to prevent some of this stuff from going chaotic? Well, every state needs a voter ID law. But they need a voter ID law that applies not just to in person voting, but also to absentee ballot. Second, every state ought to require proof of citizenship when people register to vote. Furthermore, they need to do a better job with their state voter registration list and finding people who are registered more than once. And people who are also registered in other states, to for example, prevent people from being able to vote more than once in the same state or vote more than once, because they're registered in two different states. And there's a whole actually relatively easy series of steps people could take to do that, that the election officials just aren't doing. And that includes, by the way, states should be running their data lists and comparing them with a voter registration list with the records held by the US Department of Homeland Security, to find people who are not US citizens who've registered and voted. I mean, there's a lot there's a lot of very simple steps I think states could take that they're just not doing. You think about mass men's Oh, my male sort of approach what what are the What do you think about that? I don't like voting by mail for many reasons, like said is they're the easiest ballots to to steal all to forge scores of voters with and I think it spreads voting out over too long of a period of time. It's particularly a problem for people who look at the vote, two months before election day. And information comes out. That is important to the choice you made as a candidate, guess what's too late, too late to change your vote. You can't do anything about it.Well, that's right. There's a lot of problems, a lot of common sense solution. Hans, I appreciate you shedding some light on some of these things. Thank you so much. I respect you. I respect heritage and the good work that you do over there. Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Hans, thank you so much for joining us today, sir. Sure, appreciate you having me. Not a problem. Thanks a lot.
Alright, folks, that is all the time that I have the day I know we're headed into the weekend. I know that there's a lot of things vying for your attention, a lot of things that still need to be worked out here, looking at the possibility of a real Biden presidency, the possibility or the hope that maybe something can still come of all these lawsuits and what's happening And so forth would hang tight. hang tough, be tough. Hang in there. And know that folks, this battle is just beginning in a lot of ways. So, have a great weekend. SDG See you Monday. Take care