White House Advisor Peter Navarro released his own 36-page report alleging election fraud called “The Immaculate Deception.” He presented the contents of the report in a press conference on December 17, 2020. Watch The Video Here Or scroll down for the transcript...
Peter Navarro: (00:00) The big takeaways for me is there appears to be a coordinated strategy effectively to stuff the ballot box with Biden votes, and at least some evidence of the destruction of Trump ballots. That’s number one. Number two, when you go across the six battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, you can see that the number of votes that are being contested, the arguably illegal votes, dwarf the relatively thin Biden victory margins in five of the six states. So, that’s number two.
Peter Navarro: (00:54) And this is something I think that’s been missing from the discussion. This is death by a thousand cuts, but more precisely deaths by the six dimensions of election [inaudible 00:01:10] a smoking gun. And to that point, number four, the famous Tolstoy quote about happy families being all alike, but unhappy families are unhappy in their own way. We have a similar situation here where each of the six battleground states is different in its own way in terms of this election irregularities. Georgia has consent decree issues. Wisconsin has definitely confined voter issues. Michigan has the observer issues and so on.
Peter Navarro: (01:57) And then the last thing which is very troublesome to me is that there seems to be a tremendous effort on the part of many of what should be our pillar institutions in this country to basically self-censor anybody who challenges the results of the election, and it effectively mounts to a coverup. And obviously we’ve got issues with the anti-Trump media, which has hammered him for four years and predicted a landslide win for Biden that never came. We’ve got corporate America. We got surprisingly some of the Republican establishment, and then finally we have state legislatures and the courts themselves.
Peter Navarro: (02:51) And then the other two things I’ll say before working through this whole thing is that you can’t, as a reporter, at this point responsibly say there’s no evidence. There’s a ton of evidence. There’s a mound of it. And you can’t say that just because the courts have ruled against Trump in a number of cases that there’s no evidence of fraud. Most of these cases have been decided on procedure and process rather than the evidence itself.
Peter Navarro: (03:27) All right, well that is the big picture. Let me explain what I did and why I did it. I think he started at midnight on election night when the Trump red tide effectively showed an insurmountable lead, what seemed to be insurmountable leads in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Georgia was over 350,000 votes, Pennsylvania over half a million, Michigan almost 300,000 and Wisconsin over 100,000. And what you saw beginning kind of in the dead of night, these votes counts that started to come in that over time turned the Trump red tide into Biden blue. And what’s striking about what happened is the narrowness, the razor thin margins by which Biden appears to have won those four battle ground states.
Peter Navarro: (04:46) It’s also true, and I don’t know if this is out in the public record that even though the president was behind in both Arizona and Nevada by small margins, there was great confidence within the Trump campaign itself based on internal polling, that the president would close both of those gaps, at least Arizona. And it looked like at midnight that this was going to be a landslide victory in the electoral college, contrary to everything we had been subjected to for months before the election, in terms of the pollsters. So what happened? That’s the question in the wake of this astonishing reversal of Trump fortune. What we’ve had is basically a national firestorm erupt over a country which [inaudible 00:05:48] one another. It’s a 50/50 country right now. It’s just sharply divided on partisan grounds, on ideological grounds. It’s the Democrats versus the Republicans, the nationalists versus the globalists, the working class versus the progressive elites and so on. And so we’ve been fighting about this. There’s court cases and things like that. And at this point, I mean, there’s evidence that the American public has a great suspicion as yourself.
Peter Navarro: (06:22) So, why did I come in as a private citizen and kind of do my scholar thing, which I had done for 25 years? For me, what’s been missing in this whole debate is kind of a chess board look out of a 30,000 foot view of what exactly was going on across the entire terrain. I just simply got tired of hearing people talk about anecdotes and individual things without kind of connecting all of the dots. So I wanted to get to the bottom of all this. I think it’s important for the future of this country that we do this and we do this before Inauguration Day.
Peter Navarro: (07:15) And so here’s what I did. I started with the available evidence and that evidence consists essentially of thousands of affidavits and declarations, which I had access to. Many of those are not in the public record. I also looked at the testimony that had been presented in a variety of state venues. There’s published reports and analysis by think tanks and legal centers. There’s videos, for example, of the famous suitcase in the Atlanta arena. Photos, public comments, press publish and the like.
Peter Navarro: (08:02) And from that, from the study of that evidence, I was able to tease out what I see as six major dimensions of these election irregularities. And these include, if you start with the outright fraud, okay? In the report, there’s close to 10 categories of these things. So for example, the worst kind of offense is this large scale fake ballot manufacturing. And we have the story of the tractor trailer that got missing in Pennsylvania that may have had 100,000 votes in it. We saw what happened in the State Farm Arena in Georgia. There’s allegations as well in Arizona. We have indefinitely confined voter abuses where people who claim that they’re indefinitely confined are skiing in Aspen and voting without appropriate ID. Bribery, like what happened in Nevada on the Indian reservations. Ineligible voters, legal aliens, for example, or under-aged voters. There’s maybe tens of thousands of those. The dead voters. There seems to be a persistent problem of dead voters popping up across a number of the battleground states. Ghost voters are those that voted from an address they no longer reside in and so on.
Peter Navarro: (09:51) So, there’s a whole bunch of outright fraud that’s possible. Right? And if you look at the report, you find that a check-mark in the matrices we have indicates substantial evidence and the star indicates some evidence. So there’s plenty of that across the six battlegrounds. If you look at ballot mishandling, you have again, a variety of things there. And this is the granularity that I hope all of the reporters will kind of focus on. There’s the broken chain of custody, for example. You have all these drop box abuses where they were placed in places like Wisconsin without any supervision. We don’t know whether the ballot that was maybe cast by a voter and wound up in one of those drop boxes was anyway interfered with.
Peter Navarro: (10:53) There’s the naked ballot problem, which I mean, that was huge because there was just a lot of ballots that came in without outer envelopes. So there’s no way you can do the signature match, yet a lot of these were entered into the tabulation. Pennsylvania kind of jumps out at you at that. Ballots accepted without postmarks and so on.
Peter Navarro: (11:19) And then if you go to the third dimension of these regularities, you have what I call contestable process fouls. These are examples of where you have effectively, in a lot of cases, the Democrats pushing the envelope of existing in ways where they just blew right over the edges of that envelope. For example, mail-in extensions contrary to law, voters not properly registered, allowed to vote.
Peter Navarro: (12:05) A big one here, and this is kind of like the pillar of a fair election. This is like letting poll watchers and observers come in and see whether the ballots that are being brought in are proper. That they have a proper signature match, they’re not naked ballots, and that they’re not counted more than once when they go through the machines. And we just saw there’s just a lot of affidavits talking about these kinds of things. Michigan was arguably the worst in Detroit and Wayne County and that was pure thuggery what appeared to happen there. And other things like absentee ballots requested and accepted too early or taken too late.
Peter Navarro: (12:58) The next dimension really addresses the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause issue. I mean, this is a sea of check marks across all six states, across three dimensions of violations. I mean, the Democrats basically used the absentee ballot, mail-in ballot process to flood the zone. And one of the big problems with that, for example, as an equal protection issue is that you had much higher standards of ID verification for people who actually went to the polls, the in-person voters versus the mail-ins. And it’s an equal protection issue because you had many more Democrats voting as a mail-in or absentee ballot-
Peter Navarro: (14:03) … voting as a mail-in or absentee ballot person. So you had much less stringent voter ID checks for Democrats. And if you combine that with all the other attempts at abuses dealing with the chain of custody issues, it’s a real issue. You have different standards of ballot curing across jurisdictions. I don’t know. I never assumed that Republicans were more polite than Democrats, but the patterns in the battleground states indicated pretty clearly that if you were a Republican observer or poll watcher in these six battleground states, you were subject to significant harassment, intimidation, and other kinds of things. And then you go to the category of election statistical anomalies, there’s just some weird stuff happened there. You had some cases where the turnout was over 100%. You’ve got evidence of votes switching. You’ve got a case where statistically improbable vote totals based on party registration and historical patterns, and things like that.
Peter Navarro: (15:22) And then lastly, you’ve got these voting machine irregularities. And those are associated with the Dominion machine, but there was two other things going on in Nevada. There’s this thing called the Agilis, which was used for doing ID checks, essentially. And you can’t use that machine, because Nevada law says you have to do these things with humans, not machines. So strike one, there. But it’s also true these machines had an incredibly poor accuracy rate. So effectively in Nevada, where you also had these corresponding problems of people who probably weren’t residents of the state actually voting, weren’t really able to check that properly. And then in Arizona, you had this Novus software, which was used to cure damaged ballots, and that was a train wreck as well. I mean, again, that’s a tremendous amount of granularity. And if you go through each of these six dimensions and then in the various 3 to 10 sub-dimensions, there’s just a lot going on there that should give people pause.
Peter Navarro: (16:58) And that’s the essence of the report. And you can go through… It’s 31 pages with 150, almost, footnotes. And I would ask everybody to kind of just go through it carefully and make up your minds based on that and in some further investigation. As reporters, I think the ask here is that you don’t dismiss this out of hand, and you also use this as a motivation to do some further investigation. So I’ll stop there, and I’ll turn it over to the moderator to handle questions. I have the one question per, and it will be questions that will be limited simply to the report itself. Otherwise, we’ll move on to the next question. So turn it back to Rebecca and [crosstalk 00:18:12].
Rebecca: (18:16) We thank everybody for coming on, people who in the media or not in the media, but this is first and foremost geared towards the media for dialogue and question availability. I want to call in [Will Steakin 00:18:28] From ABC News. Will, if you just unmute yourself, be delighted to have a question for Dr. Navarro from your vantage point.
Will Steakin: (18:43) Thanks for doing this, Dr. Navarro, appreciate [inaudible 00:00:18:50]. So you said at the top of this call that there’s mounds of evidence, and obviously you say you were laying that out in this brief, this document, but the courts have almost unanimously rejected the president’s team, allies. Almost over 50 cases have been thrown out, and you said that that was mostly because of process, but that’s not necessarily true. A lot of the courts have said specifically, “These claims are speculation, it’s conjecture.” That’s a quote from a judge in Pennsylvania has thrown this out. The DOJ has said there’s been no evidence of widespread voter fraud. So I guess my question is, if there’s this much evidence, is it just the president has a bad legal team? Why is it floundered [crosstalk 00:05:35]-
Peter Navarro: (19:43) Yeah. I think there’s a couple of things going on. I think that that Bill Barr had no business making the statement he did. I thought that was premature, particularly in light of the fact we have what appears to be an FBI and Department of Justice that’s reticent about making any kinds of investigations. I mean, I’m still waiting for the Durham Report. I’m still waiting for there to be a clean accounting to the American people of what Brennan, Clapper, [Comey 00:00:20:19], [Page 00:00:20:20], and Strzok did in terms of trying to manipulate the 2016 election. I mean, I don’t put any stock in what the Department of Justice had to say, number one. Number two, look. I think that going forward, one of the lessons I think the Republicans need to learn is that, and both parties should have learned this with Bush V. Gore, is that a political campaign needs to have a legal component to it.
Peter Navarro: (21:10) And there was plenty of warning signs over a year in advance of this election that the Democrats were going to implement this coordinated strategy which I discussed. Because you saw that consent decree going to place. I’m not sure people understood the full implication of what destroying the signature verification would be, but that should have and could have been challenged. Digression… I mean, in the report, please look at my calculation carefully, because that consent decree, we went from a 6% rejection rate down to virtually nothing, and a massive increase in absentee ballots. And the delta on that is more than sufficient for a Biden win with ballots which would likely have been otherwise thrown out. So we saw the consent decree coming. We saw the machinations that were going on in Wisconsin, in Pennsylvania.
Peter Navarro: (22:24) And certainly if you’re Monday morning quarterback, then you could say that we should have been on this as a party earlier, and with more forces. Okay. But having said that, let’s be clear. If in fact what has happened is as I have described it, that doesn’t take away the fact that something damaging has been done. So you asked, I think, a really important question. And I do think that… Look, I’m a pragmatist here. When I look at judicial branch, it’s as political as legislative and administrative branches. So there is that to deal with. I think it’s criminal that the Republicans holding majorities in state legislatures in both parties have not had the courage to use their power and authority to conduct the appropriate investigations, and I say that in the report.
Peter Navarro: (23:55) So I hear you, but what I’m asking you to do with this report is just go through it carefully and parse it and come to your own conclusions. I think it’s probably the most comprehensive chessboard look at what’s happened of anything that’s out there. So [inaudible 00:24:21] the next question.
Rebecca: (24:22) Okay, great. Sam Stein. Sam, if you just unmute yourself… From The Daily Beast.
Sam Stein: (24:32) Hey guys, thanks so much for doing this. [crosstalk 00:24:34]. Yes.
Rebecca: (24:33) Thank you for [inaudible 00:24:37], Sam.
Sam Stein: (24:37) Yeah, I appreciate it. Dr. Navarro, so you’ve laid out a fairly comprehensive [crosstalk 00:00:24:42]-
Peter Navarro: (24:45) Okay. Yeah, sure.
Sam Stein: (24:47) Yes. No, the press briefing refers to you as Dr. Navarro. You’ve put out-
Peter Navarro: (24:51) I know. You were doing your Daily Beast thing with your emphasis there. So I had to laugh, but go ahead.
Sam Stein: (25:00) This report, it lays out a comprehensive case for these dimensions of irregularities and fraud. There are very few, I guess, tension points left in the electoral process by which to do these investigations that you’re calling for. So I’m wondering, in your personal capacity, do you believe that Republicans in Congress should object to the validation of the election when it comes to a vote on January 6? And secondarily, you’ve made the case that Republicans statewide have not stepped up to the plate, so to speak, in how they’ve handled the electoral irregularities in their own states. I’m wondering, do you feel like, for instance, Governor Brian Kemp deserves to be challenged in a primary over what’s happened in the 2020 elections? Is this the type of thing that should haunt their political futures?
Peter Navarro: (26:01) Well, I think it’s [inaudible 00:26:02] that you’d haunt this country. I’m telling you that we have a situation now where the… I call it the anti-Trump media, and it’s the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, a little bit of The Daily Beast in there, probably. I mean, there’s a tremendous attempt right now to suppress anybody or anything that calls these results into question, and I think that’s a very dangerous thing. I mean, this is like supposed to be the greatest democracy in history, and if you can’t have what people in this country believe is a fair election, all hope is lost. And there’s sufficient skepticism and doubt right now, and the reason is, Sam, is because we haven’t really done the full investigation. The initial line from the anti-Trump media was, “There’s no evidence.”
Peter Navarro: (27:12) Then it was, “There’s some evidence, but not enough to overturn the election.” And now the line is, “Well, the Electoral College has ruled and it’s over, so let’s move on.” But let’s remember that the election was stolen from Nixon in 1960, stolen, flat out. It took decades for anybody to fully acknowledge that, and it had a great effect on our history, including probably a great impact on how the Vietnam War might’ve even unfolded. So these elections have consequences. My concern is that if we don’t deal with this before Inauguration Day in a comprehensive way-
Peter Navarro: (28:02) … before Inauguration Day in a comprehensive way, that it will undermine the integrity of our process, and now [crosstalk 00:28:13]. Yeah, I’m going to give you your answer. First of all, first thing you have to do is you cannot hold that election for Senate in Georgia on January 5th. You have to at least push that until February to clean up Georgia’s act. Georgia is a frigging cesspool of election irregularities, and there’s no sign of any cleanup prior to January 5th. They’re going to double down. The Democrats are going to double down in every trick they pull in Georgia to try to take that election through these election irregularities. So I think we need to do that. I think that what Ron Johnson did yesterday in the hearing was healthy. I think that every state legislature needs to get their butts back into session and hold an investigation. And should people be held accountable for this, regardless of party? Yeah. I mean, this is like-
Sam: (29:22) There’s a big vote coming up on January 6th. Big vote coming up on January 6th. Congress needs to validate the election. There has been some talk among some members-
Peter Navarro: (29:31) But you’re looking for a headline now. I mean, look, my role here is to say that the emperor in the election has no clothes, all right? Your job as reporters, I believe, is to dig deeper into the granularity that I’ve put before you, okay? There’s something rotten here in Denmark, right? And as to what we do about it, as every day goes by, it becomes more complicated and you’re absolutely right that our options narrow. But the last thing this country needs is an Inauguration Day where we have what is perceived to be an illegal and illegitimate president inaugurated. I’m going to move to the next question, but thank you, Sam. I appreciate your thoughts. Yeah. All right, what else?
Alexandra: (30:24) Thank you, Sam. Next question is Penny Starr from Breitbart. Just unmute yourself. Willem might mute you and just we’ll have you unmute yourself, Penny. We’ll be delighted to take your question.
Alexandra: (30:36) Penny?
Peter Navarro: (30:36) We lost Penny. All right, move on to the next person. We’ll come back to Penny.
Alexandra: (30:54) Next one is Simone Gao. Simone? We’ve unmuted you and Penny.
Peter Navarro: (30:59) From where?
Alexandra: (31:00) Pardon me, from the Epoch Times and NTD, Japanese television.
Peter Navarro: (31:05) Okay.
Simone Gao: (31:06) Hello? Can you hear me?
Alexandra: (31:08) Yes.
Simone Gao: (31:11) Dr. Navarro, in your report, you listed six categories of irregularities. And in them, there’s no foreign interference. So I was wondering, have you done research in this area or you have done research, but you haven’t found anything?
Peter Navarro: (31:32) Option three. I’ve done research, but I didn’t want to put that into the report because it’s a whole nother issue. And I think it would have detracted from everything else that’s in the report. But I do strongly urge our heads of state to look into possibilities. And it may be as we dig deeper into, for example, the dominion issue and possibly get access to analyzing the ballots in Maricopa County, it’ll be able to track some of that back. All right. Next question.
Alexandra: (32:17) Okay. Penny does have a question. Penny, if you can unmute your line. If not, we can ask the question for you. All right. Seems she’s not able to do it. We’re going to go to John Zmirak from The Stream. John, we’re unmuting your line. Please make sure you unmute yourself as well. John?
Peter Navarro: (32:51) What’s going on there?
John Zmirak: (32:51) Sorry, can you hear me?
Alexandra: (32:53) Yes, we can. Doctor-
John Zmirak: (32:55) I’m sorry. I’m not used to this interface. Okay. Thank you for this report. I will try to publicize as much as possible as soon as I have a written form of it. I would ask why? Why are so many in the legacy conservative media, particularly, and why are so many Republican lawmakers such as Mr. McConnell eager to shut this down without an examination of the merits? Can you speculate as to what’s going on? Do they simply want to get the Trump phenomenon out of the way so they can return the Republican party to what it was before? Or is this a desperate attachment to respectability, to pretending we live in a 1946 textbook? I’m baffled why you see nationally all these people lining up to silence and mock the people who are raising these serious questions after four years of the Russia collusion hoax.
Peter Navarro: (33:58) Well, I think what part of your question indicated, I think you understand exactly what’s going on here. If you look at Donald Trump, Donald Trump ran in 2016 as an economic nationalist. And two of the key pillars of economic nationalism are fair trade rather than free trade. And secure borders. Okay? The fair trade issue is basically stop sending our jobs off shore in pursuit of slave labor and cheap supply chains, to protect American workers, and secure borders is basically, at an economic nationalist level, a way of restricting the supply of cheap labor to protect primarily lower income minorities in our urban areas, Blacks and Hispanics. American Blacks and Hispanics are really the ones who get punished the most by illegal immigration. Right?
Peter Navarro: (35:20) So that economic nationalism was very contrary to traditional Republicanism which supports free trade, as they define it, which basically means cheap labor, environmental pollution havens, government subsidies, and all of that. And open borders in order to basically attract cheap labor for American corporations. Right? So Trump basically beat 16 of these economic globalists that he ran against, beat them handily, and governed for the last four years accordingly. And national review think tanks like Heritage, much of the Republican universe, which is, at the think tank level, is funded by corporate America, has never embraced the President. Ever. Ever. And the same problem you have in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, where you have the poster child for that are people like Toomey.
Peter Navarro: (36:52) So no one should be surprised by Toomey and Romney and the rhinos deserting the president. What is more puzzling, my friend, is the lack of intestinal fortitude at the state legislature level. I mean, it really is truly remarkable. You have Democrat governors in some of these states, the Republicans have a lock on the state legislatures. And those state legislators have the full power, basically, to overrule the electoral college vote total in those states. I mean, they could’ve stopped this and they could’ve put that baby in its crib just simply by investigating these charges. So that’s what’s going on here. This is, again, you have a case where close to 80 million Americans, the president’s deplorables, the people who are just, they’re just middle America working class folks that joined the Trump Republican party who were being, simultaneously in a pincer movement, harmed by a Democrat party, which is effectively, strategically gamed the electoral process. And traditional Republicans who want to go back to the status quo and forget all about Trump.
Peter Navarro: (38:32) Now, the danger here is two fold. It’s like we can’t live in a country where we can’t have fair elections. And I think there’s too much thinking in the media itself in the Democrat party that somehow, in this special case, Trump is so bad that somehow the ends justify the means. And that’s just wrong. And at the same time, if any of these traditional Republicans think that the Trump revolution is over just because they won’t stand up for the president, they got another thing coming, number one. And number two, hell hath no fury like a deplorable scorned, and that’s what’s happening here. So anyway, next question.
John Zmirak: (39:27) Thank you.
Alexandra: (39:29) Okay. We have several more questions. Thanks, everybody, for being so patient here. Next one, Penny Starr has asked a question. And then we’re going to go to Jeremy Peters. Penny Starr at Breitbart says, “Will the report changed the outcome of the election? And if so, how would that unfold?”
Peter Navarro: (39:52) My aspiration with this report is that it’ll be a catalyst for a full investigation of all of these alleged election irregularities on a fast track and done before Inauguration Day. And my view is that let the truth come forward. And if Biden won fair and square, then I’ll be the first to congratulate him. But if there are sufficient election irregularities and illegal votes to overturn the thin Biden margins in those battleground states, then America deserves a different outcome. So let’s see what happens, as the president likes to say. Next question.
Alexandra: (40:47) Okay, great. We’re going to go to Jeremy Peters from the New York Times. You’re unmuted. Thank you so much, Jeremy.
Jeremy Peters: (40:55) Hi there. Thanks for doing this, everyone. I know you said only one question, but my first question is very short, yes or no. And it’s have you shared this with the president, what you’ve laid out here, this report? And two, describe this kind of ever widening effort by people to undermine the integrity of the election that’s grown from the Democrats to Republicans and state legislatures, many of whom supported and voted for Trump, to Trump’s own justice department and his own attorney general and his own three Supreme Court justices, which he has hand picked. So I guess isn’t it more likely that rather than there being this kind of conspiracy to undermine Trump, that these folks are all looking at at your evidence and saying, “It’s just not there?”
Peter Navarro: (41:51) So, no. That’s not possible at all because they haven’t seen all everything I looked at. They haven’t done their homework. I mean, I’ve literally read thousands of affidavits. I’ve read every-
Peter Navarro: (42:03) I’ve literally read thousands of affidavits, I’ve read every single court case, I’ve looked at all the testimony that was done at the state legislature level and I can count on one hand the number of people who’ve done that in this country. So, no, I think what needs to happen is folks need to look at this.
Peter Navarro: (42:25) The Supreme Court, the ruling of The Supreme Court, was not on facts or evidence. It was on standing. Let’s be clear about that, right? You can draw no conclusion from the legitimacy of the illegitimacy of this election, from what The Supreme Court rules, okay, so let’s be clear about that. Again, a previous caller talks about whether it was Mitch McConnell or Mitt Romney or whoever in the Republican party and these people are not aligned and never have been with the Trump agenda so it’s not surprising that they have pardoned company on this issue.
Peter Navarro: (43:21) What I’d urge you, Jeremy, is like, look, I would say this. The New York Times has the most power of any news organization in the world to do effectively a hard investigation of all of this. It simply has not done that. It simply has not done that. The knee jerk reaction these days is to- if you’re on the left it’s like something that comes out that doesn’t fit your narrative, it’s like you knock it down. You kind of like- skeptics, this that and the other thing, give it no credence and if you’re on the right maybe you do the same thing but gray lady, love to see you guys do your job on this and there’s more at stake than you know.
Speaker 1: (44:32) [crosstalk 00:44:32] Did you hear this one?
Peter Navarro: (44:35) He hasn’t queued up any of his inbox. I don’t know if he’s read it yet.
Alexandra: (44:44) Okay, next we’re going to go to Alexa Corse from The Wall Street Journal. Alexa, I’m muting your line if you want to unmute yourself.
Alexa Corse: (44:54) Hi Dr. Navarro thanks for doing this. I wanted to return to what you said about Georgia because that was the first time I heard about the idea of postponing it. Have you talked to Governor Kemp or other Republicans in Georgia? What do you think the Governor should do about the situation there?
Peter Navarro: (45:20) I think that there’s a court filing filed by Lynn Wood that has put that option on the table. It’s not my job to call Brian Kemp, but if he were to read this report I would not be unhappy about that. He really needs to step up, Ducey needs to step up, the state legislatures in these states need to step up. I mean these- in the presentation I didn’t go through kind of the individual states but this whole idea of each state and the toll story idea has it’s own- it’s kind of compromised in it’s own ways and yeah part of the problem in Georgia is Kemp was directly involved in that consent degree. So it’s kind of hard for him to admit that it’s illegal and basically gave the Democrats the weapon to destroy the Republicans. So that’s a little bit tough.
Peter Navarro: (46:40) In Arizona, again, let’s be frank here the McCain factor is operative in Arizona politics there and there might be something going on in terms of the Arizona Republicans doing a little payback here but I mean, again, Alexa I get back to what I’m seeing here. I mean it’s like if you look very, very carefully at all of the evidence it’s frightening the scope of this and there’s plenty there and you can’t say that there’s no there there. There’s just plenty there and I mean, look, why don’t we know where that tractor trailer is that allegedly went from New York to a polling place in Pennsylvania? Where is Bill Barr and the justice department and Chris Wray on that? I mean why aren’t we seeing that?
Peter Navarro: (47:48) By the way, somebody asked me earlier about the FBI and the justice department. Let’s think about this, it’s like prior to the election when Joe Biden was saying that the Hunter Biden laptop from hell showed nothing on it and the FBI had evidence to the contrary and was already conducting investigations yet they let that stand. I mean what’s going to happen here after the inauguration day and Joe Biden gets in and then they’ll tell us all this stuff happened? So, anyway it’s a dangerous game that the media is playing, that the political establishment is playing and that our justice branch of government is playing and I think we can do better.
Peter Navarro: (48:46) So I urge The Wall Street Journal, who never liked our fair trade policies either, to investigate this a little bit more fully. Anyways, next question.
Alexa Corse: (49:00) I just wanted to clarify, it was a little muffled, you said that Governor Ducey of Arizona also needs to step up?
Peter Navarro: (49:09) Yeah of course. I mean Arizona is … Look, there’s, again, if you look at the report there’s a lot of things going on there in terms of ballot mishandling, there’s weird statistical anomalies and machine irregularities. Yeah, I mean let’s get to the bottom of it and remember here’s the tell in the [inaudible 00:49:34] game. This is the [inaudible 00:49:35]. We went to huge Trump leads in four of the battleground states and all we got across six battlegrounds was razor, razor thin margins. Razor thin margins and the ballots in question are five and 10 times those margins. So, yeah I mean we should get to the bottom of this because I think if we got to the bottom of it … Look, if we get to the bottom of it and there’s nothing there hey, again, I’ll be the first to congratulate the Biden/Harris ticket and America can breathe a sigh of relief that they had a fair election.
Peter Navarro: (50:21) But up until then, no. The public smells something is wrong, Republicans don’t trust this election any more than they trust The New York Times and The Washington Post. Next question.
Alexandra: (50:41) Thanks Alexa for the question and thanks to all the media on the call and the patients and Dr. Navarro for your time. We have tons of questions from people who are not reporters and I just want to sprinkle some of those in. Charles Gray, we’re going to unmute your line and just unmute yourselves.
Peter Navarro: (51:09) Let’s do this. If the reporter questions are done let’s take two more questions from the audience and then it’s two o’clock.
Alexandra: (51:19) Yes, thank you everybody for staying on so long.
Peter Navarro: (51:25) Yeah.
Alexandra: (51:27) All right we do have another reporter question we missed. Jeff Earl from The Daily Mail if you could unmute your line.
Jeff Earl: (51:44) Can you hear me now Dr. Navarro?
Alexandra: (51:46) Yes, sorry. Sorry I missed it. I missed you on asking a question, I apologize.
Jeff Earl: (51:51) No problem. Thanks so much guys. Listen, I just wanted to ask since you mentioned at the top that you’re nearing your personal capacity. There is this issue of the Office of Special Council I think sent a letter from some of your past meetings-
Peter Navarro: (52:06) Yeah, we’re not going there dude. Next question. Mute this guy.
Jeff Earl: (52:11) Well, but hang on.
Peter Navarro: (52:12) No, no. Mute that guy. Mute the guy. Mute the guy.
Jeff Earl: (52:17) I’m not just a guy-
Peter Navarro: (52:19) We’re talking about the … Hey, Alexandra? Okay.
Alexandra: (52:29) Yes?
Peter Navarro: (52:29) Next question.
Alexandra: (52:33) We’re going to ask a question. Charles’ line is unmuted. Charles? If you just unmute your line there. Okay. Doesn’t seem to be working.
Peter Navarro: (52:56) Why don’t we do this, why don’t we do this, hey, this has been great a full hour of Q&A here and we’ll leave it at that and I urge all you good reporters including the guy from The Daily Mail to write a good story about the report itself, and let’s see what happens as the President said. All right, thank you.