Is This Simple SCOTUS Ruling the Gateway to Election Integrity?
Published on January 17, 2026
About This Episode
This week we talk with Dr. Jerome Corsi, a noted expert on election integrity, to take a deeper look at largely unnoticed Supreme Court ruling that may just have started a giant snowball rolling to restore election integrity. On the surface, the case sounded entirely procedural— whether a candidate had standing or not to bring a lawsuit challenging the endless counting of ballots after Election Day. Find out why this ruling sends the message that SCOTUS wants people to be able to trust our elections again.
Show Notes
00:00 – Overview of SCOTUS ruling in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections overview and why it’s clearly not “just” standing
08:50 – The game-changing aspects of this SCOTUS ruling to restore confidence in our elections. Does Chief Justice Roberts know 2020 elections were stolen? Warning shot how SOCTUS likely to rule on the never-ending counting of ballots after election day?
17:13 – Ongoing implications of this ruling — just at a time when Trump’s DOJ suing states over voter rolls and other election integrity issues. How the roll out exposing Minnesota fraud is being mirrored to expose election fraud.
25:26 – Venezuela’s Maduro and what he knows about election fraud here. Minnesota fraud. Why Democrats wanted illegals flooding our border. (It wasn’t just to get votes.)
34:21 – Tina Peter tried to expose election fraud. She was jailed. A three-judge panel just roasted the prosecutors in that case along with the original judge and his sentencing. Corsi is good friends with one of her attorneys, Peter Ticktin.
40:04 – Opening the floodgates of more election clerks coming forward with what they know? Democrats and their fraud-industrial complex. Ruling impact on lower courts. How to now challenge elections and restore integrity. What about Trump’s truckloads of evidence of 2020 election fraud?
Transcript
(Opener only) The law can be a weird thing. And one of the weirder things is the issue of standing. Basically, whether you can show the court that you suffered a unique, particular harm.
Now, when it comes to things like election integrity You might think that everyday voters could bring such a lawsuit. Especially when such a lawsuit could restore trust in the election by forcing the state to do things like demand voter ID, or cleaning up voter rolls so people don’t vote illegally.
Sadly, in a nutshell, crooked elections don’t harm people uniquely. They harm all of us. Voters bear the brunt of the outcomes of elections.
If someone is willing to cheat to get elected — they will make bad laws and decisions. They don’t cheat to get elected and then suddenly find morality after they win. No they will create the means and opportunity for things like all of that fraud being uncovered in Minnesota and elsewhere.
This week, in a case that went mostly unnoticed, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a candidate has standing in an election integrity case.
And while that may not sound like a big deal, what’s fascinating about this case is below the surface — the underlying reasoning and arguments why they have standing, and why you may not realize it but we just took a yuge step forward to restore trust in elections.
I’d like to welcome back Dr. Jerome Corsi, he is the author of about 30 books, six of those ended up on the New York Times best-seller list and two of those hit number one. He is the founder and CEO of Corsi Nation dot com and you should also definitely visit his other site, God’s Five Stones dot com. Doctor Corsi, it’s great to talk to you again…
Additional Show Notes
For research notes, links mentioned during the show, etc., head to this page.
Show 16-03 Summary: This week we take a deeper look at the Supreme Court ruling that may just have started the snowball rolling to restore election integrity. On the surface the case sounded entirely procedural— whether a candidate had standing to bring a lawsuit to stop endless counting of ballots after Election Day. But what this really did was send the message that we need to be able to trust our elections again. And that means being able to trust the people that get elected and how they got elected.
Air Dates: January 17th & 18th, 2026 | Guest: NY Times #1 best-selling author, Dr. Jerome Corsi
So far, it seems not too many in the “mainstream media” have wanted to report on it. Not in any real depth anyway. And not on the election integrity aspects of the ruling. And definitely no excitement about it. Maybe they hope it all goes away?
One of the more shocking aspects of the ruling is Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion. What happened for Robertsto see the light? Don’t miss out on Dr. Corsi’s explanation of why. That plus explanations why this ruling specifically targets trust and not just standing, Tina Peters, the Democrats’ fraud-industrial complex, and what Trump will be doing next to expose election fraud. Including and especially the 2020 election.
When, Where, and How to Listen to I Spy Radio
I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size.
The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends, seven times over the weekend, on seven different stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams!
Check out when, where, and how to listen to the I Spy Radio Show. Podcast available Mondays after the show airs on our network of stations.
Mondays: The I Spy Radio Show Podcast Version
Trapped under a heavy object? Missed the show? Don’t worry—catch the podcast version. Mondays, after our network of radio stations have aired the show, I Spy Radio is now available on your favorite podcasting platform, or you can grab it right here. See the full list of podcast options.
Show Notes: Research, Links Mentioned & Additional Info
Show 14-39 Summary: It’s not just the candidates running. It’s what’s at stake in this election. And we look at just two elements with huge implications. Control over federal agencies, whether those will expand or be reined in and deregulated. And all the federal land that might be at stake thanks to a potential Supreme Court ruling — if they take it up and if the next administration acts on it.
Current I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size map.
The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends, seven times over the weekend, on seven different stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams! Check out when, where, and how to listen to the I Spy Radio Show. Podcast available Mondays after the show airs on our network of stations.
Original Air Dates: September 28, 2024, 2024 | Guests: Kimberley Hermann and Myron Ebell
This Week – What’s at Stake
It’s never just about the candidates running. It’s what’s at stake after the election. And we look at just two elements with huge implications of those potential futures. While the economy gets most of the attention, it’s much more than that.
First, we look at control over federal agencies, and whether those will expand or be reined in and deregulated. Or even disbanded. The regulatory agencies are the leash on the economy. Will the economy be given more rope or even let run off leash? Or chained up?
You can guess which candidate wants what on that. But with the new Loper-Bright Supreme Court decision, that overturned a previous SCOTUS ruling, Congress could, if it has the backbone, rein in these overreaching agencies that prevent economic expansion. We talk with Kimberley Herman, the executive director of Southeastern Legal Foundation, about what the overturn of the Chevron deference could mean for the future of government.
What’s at Stake: 640 million acres of federal lands
Years ago, we followed the effort to allow states to take possession of the federal lands within their own borders that had been promised to them at the time of statehood. And all the federal land that might be at stake thanks to a potential Supreme Court ruling — if they take it up and if the next administration acts on it.
That is, after all, what happened with the states east of the Mississippi. None of those states have massive amounts of land in their borders still held by the federal government. But for states West of the Mississippi and in particular, West of the Rockies, states have tremendous amounts of land within their borders still held by the federal government. Oregon has 53.03% of its land that is not its land—it’s held by the federal government. and it’s also tremendously mismanaged by the federal government. Meaning they don’t. And that’s why Oregon has massive forest fires every year. When you don’t manage forests they become kindling factories.
Now, a new lawsuit by Utah is at the Supreme Court. All they need are four justices to vote to hear the case before the full court. This could have huge implications for states that have so much of their land held by the federal government which is doing nothing with it. Imagine the impact of land being brought into active production and use whether that’s agriculture, timber, mining, camping, hunting… Kind of activity that will spur the economy. not to mention create taxable wealth for the government. Rather than letting it sit there and rot and burn which only wastes taxpayers’ money.
We welcomed back long-time guest, Myron Ebell (although it’s been a long time since we last spoke), who is now the chairman of American Lands Council.
The I Spy Radio Show Podcast Version
Trapped under a heavy object? Missed the show? Don’t worry—catch the podcast version. Mondays, after our network of radio stations have aired the show, I Spy Radio is now available on your favorite podcasting platform, or you can grab it right here. See the full list of podcast options.
Show Notes: Research, Links Mentioned & Additional Info
Show Summary: Government must be founded on people of high moral standards. But what happens when people of low morals run it? Pretty much exactly what we see happening right now. This week, we’re talking about government accountability. In particular, how can government officials be held accountable for their actions. Or lack of actions. Does their oath of office mean anything or not? It turns out, a Supreme Court case brought by the Brunson brothers could make that happen.
Current I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size map.
The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends, six different times, on seven different stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams! Check out when, where, and how to listen to the I Spy Radio Show. Podcast available Mondays after the show airs on out network of stations.
Original Air Dates: December 3rd & 4th, 2022 | Guests: Loy Brunson & Joe Mobley
This Week – Government Accountability
This week, we’re looking into a court case currently at the Supreme Court, brought by a private citizen, to actually hold members of congress — and the president and vice president — accountable for failing to uphold their oath of office. While it sounds too good to be true, it has good constitutional grounds in that elected officials are to be “bound” by their oath. Not just mouth-breathe it.
Then we’re taking a look at Big Tech’s censorship — except this time it boomeranged on them. YouTube actually drove users to a competitor and, finally, Congress may take a hard look into Section 230 to revise it and shift all those “platforms” to what they really are: publishers.
This could get really interesting really fast.
Real Government Accountability: The Brunson Brothers’ Supreme Court Case
You might have heard about this. There is a case right now at the Supreme Court, docket number 22-380. It has been accepted and is awaiting its conference date where the nine justices meet to discuss which cases they’ll take on. It only needs four votes to move forward. We welcome Loy Brunson to discuss the case, which has his brother’s name on it: Raland Brunson.
At its heart, the case deals with holding government accountable for their actions. Or, in this case, their lack of action. In the wake of the 2020 election, there was a lot of accusations of voter fraud and election tampering. Including outright theft of the election.
One hundred members of Congress wanted to push the pause button. They wanted 10 days to investigate credible allegations of fraud in the 2020 election because, if true, it meant a grave and unprecedented threat to our democracy.
But the democrats won, so they weren’t interested in pesky things like the Constitution or their oath of office to defend it. Likewise, RINO republicans were more than happy to have Trump driven from office. And if it meant a little fraud or a little election theft, so be it. They too didn’t care if it meant a direct attack on our Constitution. They got what they wanted. Move on.
But threats to the Constitution demand answers. Especially from those who took an oath to support and defend it.
Now, a court case brought by the Brunson Brothers, seeks to do just that.
The Battle to Defend the Constitution
One would think defending the Constitution would be a simple and straightforward process. But the Brunsons’ battle to do that was filled with no end of hurdles and people who apparently had no interest in defending the Constitution. Including judges, courts, and federal attorneys general. Which is odd because that’s their job.
Their court case takes a novel approach. While it deals with the election fraud of 2020, it does not seek to overturn the election or hard-to-prove (from a legal standpoint) allegations of voter fraud. Instead, it seeks to hold 385 members of congress, Biden, Harris, and former VP Pence accountable for failing to uphold their oaths of office in the face of a clear threat to the Constitution. By voting against a simple investigation, they failed their oaths. And, according to the Constitution, they are bound by their oaths. It’s not just a ceremony.
Fortunately, the Loy Brunson and his brothers were both patriots and determined ones. And they found a backdoor to get their case to the SCOTUS. Not only that, but found a willing and receptive audience. Tune in to hear how they got around the hurdles. And, incredibly, what the remedy is that they seek: the removal from office of those who violated their oaths.
And not just that. But to bar them from ever holding office again.
Think that would send some shock waves through our faithless government officials? Talk about government accountability!
And get the day for the Supreme Court conference: January 6, 2023.
Censorship and Government Propaganda
Next up, we welcome Joe Mobley to talk about Big Tech censorship. Censorship has been an ongoing problem. Especially on social media but not just there. Because it turns out our own government worked with Big Tech to censor voices and opinions they didn’t like. Once again, there’s that whole Constitution thing. You’d think someone in government would have read it by now. And maybe discovered that the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring opinions.
Or maybe they did read it. Which is why the government has been working with Big Tech to censor. Let them do the dirty work.
Should @iSpyRadio be banned for telling the truth? (click for full size)
As mentioned on the show on the right is Mark’s Twitter post that has him banned. Apparently, the censors on Twitter don’t like it when someone criticizes socialized medicine. What do you think? Does it deserve a ban? (By the way, it’s 100% accurate. Right now, Canada’s socialized medicine system is actively encouraging the old and infirm to kill themselves. To save they system money. To the point that euthanasia is now the 6th leading cause of death in Canada.
We welcome Joe Mobley, a member of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Project 21, to talk about Big Tech’s censorship. Project 21 has been a leading organization for Black conservative voices for over 25 years.
What got our attention was Joe’s article in the Daily Caller: “The Walls Are Closing In On Big Tech“. Are Big Tech’s days of censorship numbered? Could —okay, more to the point, will—the new congress finally take action on Section 230 to hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship? Tune in to hear how that might work and what it might look like.
But it’s more than just censorship. It’s government propaganda. Because when they’re not banning conservative voices, they’re pushing their own Leftist ideology at the request of our own government. More of that government accountability right there.
Don’t miss this discussion of how bad it is. And what is already happening to turn it around.
The I Spy Radio Show Podcast Version
Trapped under a heavy object? Missed the show? Don’t worry—catch the podcast version. I Spy Radio is now available on your favorite platform, or you can grab it right here. See the full list of podcast options.
Research, Links Mentioned & Additional Info
Loy Brunson Segments (1–3)
Support their efforts for government accountability! Visit 7discoveries.com to donate
[The] brothers have filed their suit and it is currently with the US Supreme Court. They claim that the actions by US politicians to ignore requests and arguments from the people to investigate the 2020 Election fell on deaf ears. But the brothers argue that these politicians had a Constitutional duty to investigate.
The case received more attention after it reached the Supreme Court. It now has been given a docket number 22-380 with the court.
Show Summary: This week, two momentous decisions by the Supreme Court will have long-reaching impact. We talk with constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord, about the Dobbs and EPA rulings, why they are so important, and the impact they will have. And why Dobbs and EPA signal a whole new court—and the first true major blow to the deep state in decades.
Current I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size map.
The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends, six different times, on seven different stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams! Check out when, where, and how to listen to the I Spy Radio Show. Podcast available Mondays after the show airs on out network of stations.
Original Air Dates: July 23, 2022 | Guest: Jonathan Emord
This Week – Dobbs and EPA
Instead of two guests, we have two topics. We are going to dig in deep into two recent Supreme Court decisions: the Dobbs and EPA rulings.
Specifically, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and WV v EPA. These two decisions alone represent a huge shift at SCOTUS.
Both of rulings these are momentous in their own rights.
Dobbs because it erases an imaginary “Constitutional right” of abortion and will open the door to more protections for the unborn at the state level. And the EPA ruling, because it restores some Constitutional balance among the branches of government. And opens the door to weakening the administrative state. Provided that Congress exercises the power that was restored to it.
Did the 2022 elections just get yugely more important? Yes.
Dobbs Overturns Roe v Wade
Why was Roe v Wade so hard to overturn? How did the 1973 court get is so wrong and invent a “right”? Tune in to find out. And, also importantly, going forward Dobbs gives SCOTUS the mental permission — the fortitude and courage — to make other rulings that restore constitutional order.
The era of the John Roberts court is officially over.
Could America, after all the shrieking is done, could America turn more pro life after the overturn of Roe v Wade with more protections for the unborn? And could we be witnessing the beginning of the end of the Deep State?
West Virginia vs EPA – First Major Blow to the Deep State
As Jonathan Emord reminds us, the administrative state is the true government because they hold all the real power. Effectively. Because Congress has not used its power. And the Executive Branch has both abused its power through overreach and failed to use its power to rein in unelected bureaucrats.
Want to know how the administrative state (aka the Deep State) took over? Then you must read Jonathan Emord’s The Authoritarians
The EPA ruling just restored the separation of powers in a big way. The EPA grabbed a tremendous amount of power when it decided it could use the Clean Air Act to effectively regulate the entire economy via climate change. Now, its WV v EPA ruling stripped the EPA of that power and handed it back to Congress. Effectively, SCOTUS reaffirmed that laws must come through Congress, not the unelected bureaucrats of the administrative state. And, potentially, could strip billions from the Far Left’s theft of public dollars.
With these two rulings, we stand at the threshold of history.
Trapped under a heavy object? Missed the show? Don’t worry—catch the podcast version. I Spy Radio is now available on your favorite platform, or you can grab it right here. See the full list of podcast options.
When you consider the implications of this one decision, they are awesome. It doesn’t just apply to the EPA and its elaborate plans for changing the global climate through command and control. It also applies to every other agency [all 432 of them], including the CDC and even the Federal Reserve itself.
Read this terrific and fascinating post from the wife of Andrew Torba (the founder of Gab.com) on the incredible link between a mom and her unborn child that continues for years after birth. Or after an abortion. Could this explain why so many women deeply regret their choice?
The Washington Post in an editorial expressed absolute shock and alarm at the implications: The directive from the White House, issued late Wednesday, sounds technical: creating a new “Schedule F” within the “excepted service” of the federal government for employees in policy-making roles, and directing agencies to determine who qualifies. Its implications, however, are profound and alarming. It gives those in power the authority to fire more or less at will as many as tens of thousands of workers currently in the competitive civil service, from managers to lawyers to economists to, yes, scientists.
Supreme Court v Constitution | Is the Great Pushback Beginning?
Show Summary: Last week, the Supreme Court struck down one of two vaccine mandates, 6-3. But in a second case, two “conservatives” joined the liberals to uphold the mandate forcing healthcare workers to take the vaccine. They were both agency rules, so why strike one and not the other? We ask Jonathan Emord, one of America’s top constitutional attorneys. And would have happened if they hadn’t?
Current I Spy Radio broadcast areas. Click for full-size map.
The I Spy Radio Show airs weekends, six different times, on seven different stations. Listen anywhere through the stations’ live streams! Check out when, where, and how to listen to the I Spy Radio Show. Podcast available Mondays after the show airs on out network of stations.
Original Air Dates: January 22nd & 23rd, 2022 | Guests: Jonathan Emord
Vaccine Mandate Struck Down
This week: last Friday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down one of two vaccine mandates—the OSHA mandate that tried to force companies with more than 100 employees to force their employees to take an experimental covid vaccine. But in a 5-4 decision, they left another vaccine mandate intact. Why? Why the difference?
We welcome back Jonathan Emord, one of America’s top constitutional attorneys to discuss the difference. And what this means for the vaccine mandates, the other mandates, and, especially, what this means for the future rights of Americans.
The fight for your freedom is not over as neither of these two cases are fully over.
Did these ruling shake the plans for the “Great Reset”, both here in America ans abroad? In the shadow of the rulings, Boris Johnson, abruptly announced the end of all covid mandates. Masks in public, social distancing, masks in schools, vaccines, and their plans for a vaccine passport.
Setting aside the power of career-ending scandals to “suddenly” motivate politicians to do the right thing, listen to this powerful video of a 14-year-old girl describing the damage the mask mandates have done to her and her generation:
The I Spy Radio Show Podcast Version
Trapped under a heavy object? Missed the show? Don’t worry—catch the podcast version. I Spy Radio is now available on your favorite platform, or you can grab it right here. See the full list of podcast options.
More bad news on Covid vaccines and myocarditis in men under 40 – even as more colleges require booster shots for students (Alex Berenson, Substack, Jan 5, 2022)
