The greatest one hit wonders of all time at US ones, you definitely remember six and ones that'll make you say, oh yeah. Just opened the free iHeartRadio app search one hit wonders and listen now commercial free free never sounded so good. Now your chance to win a thousand dollars entered this nationwide keyword on our website. Fun, that's fun. Enter it now. I Bill Cunningham, the great American of Courson, has many issues and so full of time
that Trump jury matter continues unobated. Can you get a fair and impartial jury in Manhattan? Can you get a fair and impartial jury in nineteen fifty three in the him Attil case. I kind of doubt it. The jury's kind of concocted, the way it is with NPR listeners. They could have moved the case out of New York City to a fifty to fifty Republican Democrat. They didn't do that. They could have moved the case to Staten Island, its own county, which voted for Trump. They're in a jurisdiction, we're
ninety percent of the voters. I think Trump is the devil incarnate. So to have twelve jurors find them not guilty will be next to impossible, but nonetheless, my guest deals with that along with many other issues. Michael O'Neill is a living legend when it comes to matters of stopping illegal voting, is with a federal society, also a devotee of Ronald Reagan. He's a fellow attorney and Michael O'Neill welcome, I think, for the first time to the
Bill Cunningham Show. And first of all, when I have on guests, especially from blue cities and blue states, the stopping illegal voting is a big deal. Now we're told repeatedly that you can't prove any of this because, after all, by the time candidates have been ordained to have been elected in
November, it's too late to file lawsuits. An issue won't be ripe until the Secretary of State determines who won the election, and then by the time it's ripe and sometime in December becomes moot because you can't give the relief sought by January the twentieth. So can you give the American people some overall of the jury system that we have today when it comes to illegal voting, especially
in restoring faith. They're in because the jurors are drawn from the voting roles, and if the voting roles are filled with illegal aliens, such as in California and Nevada, you never get to the point of having a fair jury, much less a fair voting system. So Michael and Ale to deal with the voting system restoring faith give us a thirty thousand viewpoint of where we are
today. Right. The problem here is what you have to do to ensure fair and open election integrity is ensure that the voting roles, in other words, the roles that utilize to determine who's eligible voters are accurate, are up to date and accurate. Now, there's a federal law on the board that obligates registrars of voters election officials in other words, to spot check, to check and determine that the individual names that appear on the voter rolls are actually
eligible to vote. So that means if you pass, if you die, the Social Security Administration is obligated to inform the registrar voters that a person has died and that name is removed from the voter rules. When we know that that doesn't occur. Well, there is no specific federal obligation under that law, under the National Voter Registration Act, to identify and remove non citizens from
voting. Now that should be done. You would think that that would make sense that we know that they by law, non citizens are not eligible to vote. A lot of states have constitutional provisions in their state constitutions stating that the individual that if you are not a citizen, you are ineligible to vote. So it would be just common sense would dictate that data is shared.
And when you're talking about jury pool you're talking about jury duties and jury pools, we know that that's a good indicator that there are non citizens on the voter rules. For example, if you go to if you talk to courthouses in this country, you will find that when individuals show up to serve on jury duty, oftentimes I shouldn't say oftentimes, but sometimes that they will exempt themselves from jury duty by asserting that they are non citizen. I'm ineligible to
serve on this duty on this jury because I'm a non citizen. Well what would make sense there, Well, if you take that individual's name and you know, they just say they just a test that they are a non citizen, will take that name and send it over to the registrar voters to say, well are you on the voting wall and if you are removed that person from the voting wall, Well, that's the problem here is data isn't shared. And this is what we talked about a little bit last week with what
Speaker Johnson and that former President Trump talked about. What's necessary is that there needs to be sharing of data to make sure that the voter roles are accurate and to the extent at which non citizens' names appear on these voter rolls, they're identified and removed. Therefore, we never get into the situation where those votes are illicitly cast, illegally cast, and pervert the outcome of the election.
So that's really the first thing that needs to be done, and that's probably the most important thing to ensure that vote that our elections have are fair and open, is to make sure that the voter roles are accurate and up to date, and that means identifying the extent which non citizens are on these roles and removing them. Michael O'Neil I live in a functional part of the contrary Ohio. All of Kentucky, Indiana requires voter ID requires a photograph that
requires a signature. Now let's jump out to California, Nevada. I understand in about sixteen states, including those two, which are generally blue cities, blue states, that when you get a driver's license, which anybody, if your name is Tony Bender from Guatemala, you can show up in Sacramento, show up in some county seat and say I want a driver's license. They do not inquire by state law as to your eligibility to vote, because,
after all, you're an alien. There's a federal hall that says you can't do it. But when you get your driver's license, they don't inquire whether you're a citizen or not. They give you the driver's license, and then the Secretary of State is mandated to send you at ballot explain that process exactly. And that's what happens is in certain jurisdictions, particularly California, as you just indicated, a lot of the guard rails, the inherent protections, have
been removed. So if you go as you just said, if you if you go and obtain a driver's license, there's an automatic there's an automatic foot of registration that occurs. You can your driver's license. Well if nobody ever asks you whether you're a citizen, and the only thing you're obligated to do is a reverse checkop say, well, check here if you're not a citizen, and you miss that, and we know it's missed. Again, as I told you about the jury duty, the jury duty, there's no protections
in place. DMB officials in California are specifically directed not to inquire about the citizenship citizenship status of individuals applying for driver's licenses, all the while knowing that once you register for a driver's license, you're going to be automatically and you're going to be automatically registered to vote. What else is problematic here is California mails every single name on its voting roles a ballot, whether you indicate you
want to vote by mail or not. So again, in some states you have to affirmatively indicate, you have to go down to the registrar's office, you have to sign some document, you have to affirmatively indicate that you want to vote by mail. You have to take some steps. Well, in California, every single name on those voter rolls gets a ballot via mail ballot.
So ossensibly you have the situation in place where you have non citizens on the voting roles, getting vote, getting ballots, and possibly casting votes. Now what happens to here is the left is always saying, well, you can't prove it, you can't prove it. Well, of course you can't prove it. It's impossible. Think about this. If Mike O'Neill is not a citizen, and I receive a vote by mail ballot, and I get that ballot and I execute it, I've committed a felony. I placed myself
in legal jeopardy. But then I go drop that in a mail in a ballot box, or I go drop that in or I drop it in the mail because the postage has been prepaid. It comes into it comes into a registrar's office or an election's office with thousands and thousands of other ballots. There's no way to identify pull that specific ballot out and say, oh, that
one was improperly cast or that was cast by a non citizen. Once it enters into the stream of commerce, it's virtually impossible to segment and segregate those out, those improperly cast ballots out, Because there again we're talking anywhere from dozens, hundreds, thousands in voting pools of millions of vote by mail ballots. So there's a probability across the country hundreds of thousands or millions of votes or illegally count it because the system is not set up to pull out those
that are voting illegally. And the in fact, this system is set up to make sure that illegals do vote, because there's no segregation of their ballots from those others, because there's no indication that they're illegal in the first place. And so how do you respond to the argument used by the radical left? And after all, the Trump appointed judges, they Clinton appointed judges, the Obama appointed judges, no one ever found massive voter fraud enough to overturn
an election. How would you explain that non sequitor? Well, again, it goes back to the point is judges are loath to overturn the outcomes of election after the fact. You have to put protections in place in before this happens, and in the process, it's important that the process itself be protected. That means having well trained election officials who actually engage in to the extent
there is voter mail, vote vote by mail. And again I'm a proponent of in person voting on election day, but to the extent that there is instituted widespread vote by mail, you need to have again, you need to have here it and upddate voter roles with eligible voters, and there needs to be some due diligence to ensure that the names appearing on your lists are eligible to vote next on election day, when or on the during the process when
those votes are actually counted, you need to have significant signature verification. That means you need to have well trained people actually verifying that the attestation signed on the envelope the outside of an envelope of a mail ballot is the actual signature on record in the voter registration office. That means you have to have real
signatures in the voter registration office. It's imperative that the process is protected and that they're competent, trained individuals that are exercising due diligence because as I said, and as we've seen and experience is born this out, we know that post election lawsuits challenging the over asking, requesting the over the rerunning of an election, over the overturning of the election are very rarely succeeded because it takes
weeks and weeks and weeks for the military ballots, and for the absentee ballots, and for the ballots put off to the side, provisional ballots, and the system is overwhelmed. And so you said, there come the first week in December, three weeks after the election, you still haven't open up all the ballots. You have, all the contests, or all this ballot overseas
was prostmarked at the right time. So by the time the election officials have to answer questions how many illegal people have voted, the judges say, look, the issue is not ripe yet because the winner's not been determined. Once the winner is determined, maybe the first or second week in December, then it's ripe. However, the relief sought is either a trial, which is putting depositions, requests for documents, witnesses on the stand. That'll take years.
And the swearing in is January the twentieth, or January the first or elected officials. So there the issue becomes moot. One case, you haven't declared running yet, we can't look into it. Once the winner is declared, well, we can't give you the relief you seek because the swearing is too tight. Do I have it correct right? And I would yes, you do. And I would also add that judges are low just and this is probably a good thing is they don't want to perceived as interfering in the
electoral process. You don't want to have the allegation that the judge, you know, oh, the judge picked the candidate here well, and they opened
themselves up to that. So therefore they're going to be very, very reluctant, and they're going to look for every single exit opportunity to get this case off their docket, if that means graining a motion to dismiss because of an of a failure to allegen the injury in fact what you're talking about, or mootness or any of these procedural hurdles, they're going to exercise that they want to get these off their doctac They don't want to be perceived as interfering with
the election process. Now, Secondly, the US Constitution says the state legislatures set the time, manner, and means of an election, which means the state of Pennsylvania, State of Ohio through the legislature, State of California, through the legislature determines how elections are conducted in many states like Pennsylvania. Each county elects its own election supervisor. So obviously in blue blue counties they select
liberal Democrats to administer their elections. Which so in the last election you in Pennsylvania county registrars far leftists who had drop boxes, no signature of verification, They had very liberal laws, the whole deal, and they determined how the election was conducted. Wasn't that fundamentally unconstitutional? Certainly? And what's important here is although the states have the role as you're dictating, there is a role for Congress, and there is a federal role here. We are dealing with
federal elections. So again, if you have a federal cause of action, there is a federal cause of it. There is a private cause of action that allows individuals to challenge the accuracy of the voter roles under the National Voting Registration Act if there was a if there was a cause of action that allowed if there was a reasonable certainty or a premifession case that non citizens are non citizens were appearing on a voter role, and there is an obligation under a
statute, a legal obligation that those individuals are identified and removed. Now, look, let me be clear here. I'm not saying that you should go out and prosecute these cases, or you should go up and there should be penalties. Actors. Here are the election officials who are tasked with ensuring the accuracy and up to date nos primacy of their voter rolls. The obligation is on them to identify and remove. Now I don't whether there's a penalty for
name appearing. I'm not concerned about that. What I'm concerned with is maintaining the accuracy and up to date on the voter rolls so that eligible voters are either sent ballots or can appear in person and vote on election. Here we said in April of twenty twenty four, we have the leading candidate for the presidency on trial in a blue county and a blue city about to be I think rail rode it in Manhattan, and he can't campaign right now because he's
in trial. You've been, and I've been, in lengthy trials in which two to three hours ahead of time, at six o'clock in the morning, you meet with your client, you prepare the day, then you're in trial until four o'clock, five o'clock in the afternoon. Then you meet with your client back in your office those six or seven o'clock at night, and then you prepare the next morning. You get getting up at six o'clock in the morning. Try to do that for eight weeks to see what shape you're in.
If you're a seventy seven year old man and so at this point, I don't care if you're a marathon runner and your life, your life's on the line, and you're looking at life imprisonment in front of a judge Marshawn who made financial contributions to President Joe Biden and whose daughter. I thought the daughter might have been a fourteen year old teenage girl with braces. It turns out to me that his daughter is forty years old and she's raised about one
hundred million dollars for Adam Schiff and for Joe Biden. Kamala Harris, she's a Democratic, progressive activist. And so you're in front of that jury. Is it fair to have a jury in which ninety percent have voted for the other guy? This whole jury system in Manhattan is unique in the history of the world. It reminds me of the m Maatil jury. The nineteen fifties in Mississippi, they set free three white guys for killing em Attill, and
so can Donald Trump. Since this is my last question, this is off scare. Can he get a fair trial in Manhattan? Absolutely not, And that's why they have changed a venue. Motions that are that are granted. If it's if you can establish that it is impossible for your client to receive a fair and impartial to obtain a fair and impartial jury, then you can change. You can move to change venue. Of course, that didn't get
them anywhere in New York, but there is there. Ostensibly there is a release style for this so that this trial should never occur to Manhattan, occurring an area where you are at least increasing the likelihood that you have impartial jurors. Now, the lack of impartiality is going to result in a tainted trial. But I don't know how the extent to which the entire process, again,
this entire prosecution in this particular case. We can spend hours talking about each individual case, but we're talking about events that occurred before the twenty sixteen election. The federal government actually tried a case similar to this with John Edwards,
and they lost so there really is no federal case here. The import they used the statuteal limitations has passed, that they used a felon a boot a bootstrapped a misdemeanor into a felony charge for something that Department of Justice again never prosecuted. So there's just so many problems with this issue in this trial. And again not to mention the fact that you pointed out just a minute
ago, the fact that this is going to be an enormous distraction. But this is again part of the law there, part of to settle this issue, in other words, who's going to be the next president of the United States not at the ballot box, but instead in the courtroom. And this is the problem. Michael O'Neill Esquire, Federal Society Member. More information Landmark
Legal Foundation dot com, Landmark Legal Foundation dot com. Michael O'Neill, you're a great American and for us setting us straight on this and once again thank you for coming on the Bill Cunningham Show. Thank you, Michael, Thank you. Bill. Have a great tax God bless America. There you have it. What chance does the Trumpster have none? And you n n none.
Let's continue. Bill Cunningham News Radio seven hundred, you, l of you, Nothing compares to coming home to a healthy lawn by lawn plus, But a healthy lawn doesn't mean you're la