LET'S SCHEDULE THE DEBATE

LET'S SCHEDULE THE DEBATE A Response to the Challenge Against My Book "The Great American Gaslight" PROFESSOR TOTO FEB 02, 2026 ∙ PAID Subscribed They didn’t just criticize my book. They issued a challenge. Good. Because nothing sells a lie faster than confidence — and nothing exposes it faster than a public record. Confidence persuades crowds. Records persuade courts. Below is their full challenge, unedited, followed by a complete response grounded in actual procedure, actual case history, and actual law. And yes — I’m happy to debate this any time, any place. �� THE CHALLENGE (IN FULL) “But the courts rejected all the challenges!” This is the second-favorite media talking point — and it’s equally dishonest. Every major legal challenge to the 2020 election was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits. The courts never examined the evidence. They refused to hear the cases at all. The procedural excuses were creative in their cowardice: – “Lack of standing” — You’re not the right party to bring this case – “Laches” — You waited too long – “Mootness” — The election already happened; it’s too late now This is where I stopped reading. This shows a profound and utterly shocking ignorance. Many of the 60+ court cases Donald Trump lost moved to the evidence phase, and the evidence was so lacking that even a Trump-appointed judge in Nevada considered sanctioning Trump’s lawyers for wasting the court’s time. You are a lying liar who either is too stupid to write about this coherently or you legitimately know you’re lying. I will debate you any time any place on the following cases out of Nevada and you will not win: Law v. Whitmer Rodimer v. Gloria Becker v. Gloria Stokke v. Cegavske Marchant v. Gloria Becker v. Cannizzaro Before you ever write anything again you should read all of those. Bold words. Now let’s remove the fog. �� THE CORE DECEPTION You are conflating preliminary judicial review with forensic adjudication — and that’s either ignorance or dishonesty. By “forensic adjudication,” I mean: court-compelled discovery, sworn testimony under oath, ballot inspection, chain-of-custody examination, and independent audit authority. Yes, some courts: reviewed affidavits heard emergency arguments denied extraordinary relief No court: opened discovery issued subpoenas compelled election records deposed election officials under oath audited ballots examined chain-of-custody A judge saying “this filing doesn’t meet the standard for extraordinary relief” is not a judge saying “we investigated the election and validated it.” That ruling does not exist. Because that investigation never happened. Let’s schedule the debate. ⚖️ LAW v. WHITMER (NEVADA) — LET’S STOP PRETENDING THIS SETTLES THE QUESTION You’re right about one thing — and only one: Yes, Law v. Whitmer (Nevada) resulted in a merits ruling. Yes, Judge James T. Russell dismissed the case with prejudice. Yes, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. I’ve never denied that. What you’re doing — deliberately or not — is inflating what that merits ruling actually was. And that’s where the gaslight comes in. WHAT THE COURT DID — AND DID NOT — DO Yes, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on December 3, 2020. Yes, the plaintiffs were permitted to present witnesses and expert testimony. Yes, the judge found that testimony unpersuasive and insufficient for the relief requested. Now read this slowly: That is not a forensic adjudication of an election. It is a bench evaluation of the plaintiffs’ chosen evidence, presented under: severe time constraints emergency posture plaintiff-controlled witness selection no court-directed investigation The court did not: subpoena voting machines compel full statewide chain-of-custody records order an independent audit conduct a ballot-by-ballot forensic examination initiate its own evidentiary inquiry The judge evaluated what was brought to him. He did not investigate the election itself. That distinction is everything — and you’re pretending it isn’t. THE “15 DEPOSITIONS” CLAIM — LET’S BE PRECISE Depositions were taken by the plaintiffs, not ordered as part of a court-directed discovery phase to examine the election system. That is normal civil litigation practice — and it is not the same thing as: compulsory discovery against state actors neutral forensic examination court-controlled evidentiary development A judge rejecting your experts is not the same thing as a judge proving the opposite. Courts do not certify elections by default when plaintiffs fail. They simply deny relief. That is exactly what happened here. WHAT THE MERITS RULING ACTUALLY SAYS Judge Russell’s ruling says, in plain English: “Based on the evidence you chose to present, you did not meet the burden required to overturn an election.” It does not say: the election was fully investigated the system was validated the procedures were forensically examined the chain of custody was verified Courts do not make affirmative findings they were never asked — or empowered — to make. Law v. Whitmer shows how a court can rule on the merits of what is presented — without ever investigating the system itself. Let’s schedule the debate. �� STOKKE v. CEGAVSKE — THE RECORD, PLAIN AND UNDENIABLE Here’s what actually happened: November 6, 2020 — The court denied a preliminary injunction (an emergency request, not a trial, not discovery, not an audit) November 24, 2020 — The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case That’s it. Full stop. No standing dismissal. No merits trial. No evidentiary phase. None of the forensic investigative mechanisms described above were permitted. WHY THIS MATTERS (AND WHY MY CRITIC IS STILL WRONG) A denial of a preliminary injunction means exactly one thing: “Based on the limited, early record, you have not met the high bar for emergency relief.” It does not mean: the election was investigated the claims were fully tested the system was validated And when plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss, the court never reaches the merits at all. So when your critic says: “Many cases moved to the evidence phase” Stokke disproves that claim. This case never entered anything resembling an evidence phase in the legal sense. It ended at the threshold. Emergency posture → injunction denied → case gone. The public was told, “The courts looked at everything.” They didn’t. They looked at whether to hit the emergency brake — and nothing more. Let’s schedule the debate. Subscribed �� BECKER v. GLORIA — WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY DID You’re right on the procedural posture: November 24, 2020 Judge Joe Hardy Jr. Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Court additionally noted that the claims fail on the merits Explicit finding: Becker presented no evidence that alleged discrepancies could overcome the 631-vote margin That’s the record. No dispute. Now here’s the part people keep abusing. THE KEY DISTINCTION YOUR CRITIC CAN’T ESCAPE Primary ruling: lack of jurisdiction That alone means: the court could not adjudicate the election the court could not order discovery the court could not compel evidence the court could not conduct an investigation Once jurisdiction fails, everything else is dicta. And courts do this all the time: “Even if I did have jurisdiction, you still wouldn’t win.” That is not an evidentiary trial. That is not an evidence phase. That is not forensic review. ABOUT THE “FAIL ON THE MERITS” LANGUAGE Yes — Judge Hardy noted that Becker’s allegations, as pled, would not affect a 631-vote margin. But again — read that carefully: as pled based on what was presented without discovery without compelled records without sworn testimony without ballot inspection without chain-of-custody review That is a threshold sufficiency comment, not a truth-finding exercise. Courts do not certify elections by saying: “You failed to prove otherwise.” They simply deny relief. Let’s schedule the debate. �� MARCHANT v. GLORIA — EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED You’re correct. Dismissed November 23, 2020 Judge dismissed for LACK OF JURISDICTION Court noted Marchant lost by ~33,000 votes Margin described as “insurmountable” given the allegations presented That is the record. WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS (AND WHAT IT DOESN’T) Primary ruling: lack of jurisdiction Once the court says “I lack jurisdiction,” the case is over. None of the forensic investigative mechanisms described above were permitted. The court cannot investigate an election it has no authority to adjudicate. ABOUT THE “INSURMOUNTABLE” COMMENTThis is where the media — and my critic — play games. The judge was not saying: “We investigated the election and confirmed the result.” The judge was saying: “Even if I accepted your allegations as true, they would not mathematically overcome a 33,000-vote margin.” That is a threshold plausibility assessment, not a forensic finding. Courts do this routinely when deciding whether a claim could possibly justify relief — before evidence is compelled. A judge saying “your theory couldn’t overcome the margin” is not the same thing as auditing ballots, examining machines, verifying chain of-custody, or deposing election officials. None of that happened here. None of it was allowed to happen. Let’s schedule the debate. �� RODIMER v. GLORIA & BECKER v. CANNIZZARO — THE QUICK ENDINGS Rodimer v. Gloria: Dismissed November 25, 2020 Judge Trevor Atkin dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and format issues None of the forensic investigative mechanisms described above were permitted. Becker v. Cannizzaro: Filed November 19, 2020 Voluntarily dismissed THE NEXT DAY (November 20, 2020) Never reached any judicial review whatsoever These cases didn’t “move to the evidence phase.” They barely made it to the courthouse door. Let’s schedule the debate. �� THE THROUGHLINE (AND THIS IS THE HAMMER) So now we have a crystal-clear lineup: Law v. Whitmer → merits ruling on plaintiff-presented evidence → no court-directed forensic investigation Stokke v. Cegavske → injunction denied → voluntarily dismissed → never reached evidence phase Becker v. Gloria → dismissed for lack of jurisdiction → alternative merits commentary → no discovery, no audit Marchant v. Gloria → dismissed for lack of jurisdiction → margin commentary → threshold dismissal, no discovery Rodimer v. Gloria → dismissed for lack of jurisdiction → no investigation Becker v. Cannizzaro → voluntarily dismissed next day → no judicial review at all Different judges. Different cases. Different procedural endings. Same reality: Not one case crossed into a full evidentiary adjudication of the election itself. Not one court conducted the comprehensive, forensic, system-wide investigation. Not one. Let’s schedule the debate. Subscribed �� WHAT AMERICANS WERE TOLD VS. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED What the public was told: Courts investigated the election Evidence was examined comprehensively Claims were disproven on the merits The system was validated What the court record shows: Emergency filings on compressed timelines Jurisdictional dismissals before investigation Plaintiff-presented evidence only (no court-ordered discovery) No system-wide forensic investigation ever occurred That gap is the gaslight. �� HERE’S THE TRUTH YOU KEEP DODGING Evidence being submitted is not the same as evidence being examined. Affidavits attached to emergency filings are not: subpoenas depositions audits chain-of-custody reviews Not in law. Not in practice. Not ever. My book documents that the system never allowed the investigation the public was told had already occurred. That’s not denial. That’s documentation. �� TO MY CRITIC Here’s the sentence my critic cannot answer: A court saying “you failed to prove your case” is not the same thing as a court saying “we investigated the election and validated it.” Those are different conclusions. The Nevada courts reached the first. They did not reach the second. And no court ever did. Let’s schedule the debate. �� �� THE OPEN CHALLENGE So let’s do this properly. Show me one case — just one — where: ✓ election records were compelled ✓ officials testified under oath ✓ ballots were inspected ✓ chain-of-custody was examined ✓ the court issued affirmative findings validating the election system If you can’t, stop pretending procedural dismissals equal truth-finding. And yes — I will debate this publicly. Pick the platform. Pick the moderator. Pick the date. Debate terms are simple: court orders only, no media summaries, no talking points. We read from the docket. Let’s schedule the debate. �� WHY THIS MATTERS — AND WHY THE BOOK EXISTS This exchange — this exact gaslight — is why “The Great American Gaslight” exists. The public was told: “The courts looked at everything and found nothing.” The actual record shows: The courts ended cases at jurisdictional and procedural thresholds, often with commentary, but without comprehensive forensic investigation. Those are not the same thing. And pretending they are is the gaslight. If you want facts instead of headlines… Procedure instead of propaganda… Documentation instead of dismissal… �� Autographed & Numbered Collector’s Edition available now �� www.TheFakePresident.org �� FINAL WORD Truth doesn’t fear debate. It schedules it. The more these cases are examined honestly, the clearer the pattern becomes: Different procedural deaths. Same outcome. No comprehensive investigation. That’s not rhetoric. That’s the docket. And the deeper we go into the actual orders, the more obvious it gets: The investigation Americans were told had already happened never did. So here’s my standing offer: Let’s schedule the debate. Any platform. Any moderator. Any time. I’ll bring the case files. You bring the proof. And we’ll let the public decide who’s been gaslighting whom. Professor Toto Author, “The Great American Gaslight” First Harvest Ministries International Share �� COMMENT BELOW Have you read the actual court orders? Do you believe the courts conducted full investigations? Are you ready to see this debate happen? Drop your thoughts below — and share this if you think it’s time for an honest, public accounting of what actually happened in those courtrooms. Truth demands it. America deserves it. Let’s schedule the debate.