Speaker 1: All right, thanks Scott Shanning. Gladya with US evidence election
Speaker 1: fraud grows more and more substantial every day. Percentator Republicans
Speaker 1: who now believe the election was stolen seems to be growing.
Speaker 1: Only twenty four percent of GOP respondents MPR, PBS News
Speaker 1: Hour Maris Pole express confidence in last month's selection results.
Speaker 1: Seventy two percent say they do not trust the election results.
Speaker 1: Count me among them. Overall, sixty five percent of those
Speaker 1: survey think the president should formerly concede to Biden. That
Speaker 1: was the opposite of what we had the poll yesterday.
Speaker 1: But among Republicans, sixty two percent said they do not
Speaker 1: think the president should concede, and sixty seven percent of
Speaker 1: Republicans say they want to see President Trump run again.
Speaker 1: Only thirty two percent said compared to thirty two percent
Speaker 1: who said they do. But sixty seven percent of Republicans
Speaker 1: say they do want to see Trump run again. Eight
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats, twenty six percent of independence say they
Speaker 1: want to see another Trump campaign. That's interesting. We're getting some,
Speaker 1: apparently Biden if he becomes president on January twentieth, after
Speaker 1: tens of millions of Americans have been inoculated with President
Speaker 1: Trump's ninety five percent effective COVID vaccine. But anyway, apparently
Speaker 1: he's too frail, apparently to subject himself to the risks
Speaker 1: of a real presidential inauguration ceremony. So he's gonna almost
Speaker 1: entirely do the thing virtually, which will be the model
Speaker 1: for the rest of his presidency. Rumor going around that
Speaker 1: there will only be one inaugural ball, which would take
Speaker 1: place in the Biden basement in the Tela where mansion.
Speaker 1: Only ten people have been invited. They'll be ordered to
Speaker 1: stay parked in the Biden driveway and haunt their horns.
Speaker 1: Is that how we're gonna do it? What Joe and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden will dance alone on closed circuit eve unbelievable
Speaker 1: by the way. I mean now they I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a big freaking deal. What is going on here with
Speaker 1: this um, with with this whole uh COVID vaccine. Now
Speaker 1: we're we're gonna have six of them by the time
Speaker 1: this is all said, nuts, we're gonna have six of
Speaker 1: them anyway, Um, so we'll watch and monitor all of this.
Speaker 1: But I was why I can't stop reading about it.
Speaker 1: They actually had a picture in The New York Post
Speaker 1: today about the world's first coronavirus vaccine recipient, a ninety
Speaker 1: year old woman by the name of Margaret keenan University
Speaker 1: of Hospital of Coventry in England, and Trump signed in
Speaker 1: an order that says, yeah, we're gonna be the priority.
Speaker 1: We talked a lot about that yesterday. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what's going on in Cornell University. Apparently they had a
Speaker 1: mandated flu shot this year, but um not if you're
Speaker 1: not white. I mean, why are we dividing a campus
Speaker 1: along racial lines like that? What's the point students rush
Speaker 1: to a medical school in coronavirus era because doctor shortages
Speaker 1: now are being predicted UK issues and allergy warning about
Speaker 1: the fives of vaccine after one patient fell ill. You know,
Speaker 1: there are going to be things that we're going to read.
Speaker 1: But the one thing that we did find a ninety
Speaker 1: five percent efficacy rate efficiency rate. It were effective and
Speaker 1: then of course with limited side effects and nobody's dying
Speaker 1: and antibodies are formed, which is what you want. That's
Speaker 1: that's everything you're looking for. And now we have a
Speaker 1: military operation, logistics operation to get this out. So we're
Speaker 1: watching all of this very very closely. And I think
Speaker 1: it's really important for the country in the world that
Speaker 1: we've been able to once again step up and do this.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna we're gonna watch. So just to update
Speaker 1: you on where we are with these voter fraud challenges. Now,
Speaker 1: yesterday the US Supreme Court rejected the emergency appeal by
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania Republicans that sought to avoid the election. This was
Speaker 1: a strong legal challenge. Personally, I'm disappointed in what they're
Speaker 1: going to continue to pursue a quick action on this.
Speaker 1: But this dealt with the Pennsylvania legislature and what is
Speaker 1: known as Acts seventy seven, which massively expanded mail in voting. Remember,
Speaker 1: the rejection rate was twenty seven percent less than it
Speaker 1: was in twenty sixteen. That alone auto raised eyebrows for
Speaker 1: everybody and anyway. But the Constitution of Pennsylvania is very clear,
Speaker 1: and that is they while the legislature and Democrats in
Speaker 1: the state and the Democratic governor in the state signed
Speaker 1: Acts seventy seven, they did it in what was a
Speaker 1: direct violation of Pennsylvania's constitution. The Constitution of Pennsylvania features
Speaker 1: extremely pacific and carefully documented restrictions surrounding all mail in
Speaker 1: voting and that can only be changed through a constitutional amendment. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, the division and acrimony everybody had predicted,
Speaker 1: from the Baker and Carter commissions to the New York
Speaker 1: Times everybody in between, this was one thing again everybody
Speaker 1: agreed on. They all agreed that they didn't trust dominion
Speaker 1: voting machines, and they all agreed that large amounts of
Speaker 1: mail in ballots lend itself towards corruption, fraud, ballot harvesting,
Speaker 1: and everything else that we now have been following more
Speaker 1: closely than any of us wished to ever have had
Speaker 1: to carry. And it's very very you know, it's beyond
Speaker 1: frustrating and angering to everybody. You got nearly two dozen
Speaker 1: House Republicans are urging the President's Attorney General, Bill Bardo,
Speaker 1: appoint a special counsel to investigate election integrity. Well, we
Speaker 1: don't get it fixed, we're never gonna have a free,
Speaker 1: fair election that we get a faith and confidence and
Speaker 1: ever again in the country. I think the Texas case,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to overinterpret what the court decided yesterday.
Speaker 1: They could have just done exactly what they did with
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania case and just outright reject the emergency appeal.
Speaker 1: They did not. They're asking these four states. Perhaps it's
Speaker 1: related to whether or not they viewed Pennsylvania alone's outcome determinative.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure, but that would be my best guests.
Speaker 1: I still disagree with it strongly. But in the case
Speaker 1: of Texas suing as a result of Georgia and Michigan
Speaker 1: and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, well, that would be outcome determinative.
Speaker 1: And these other states now are required to respond to
Speaker 1: all of this. I'm not going to go over all
Speaker 1: of the things that we explained in great detail yesterday.
Speaker 1: One is the jurisdiction issue in original jurisdiction, and that
Speaker 1: would mean the issue of standing, which I would argue
Speaker 1: they absolutely have, because if those states were forced to
Speaker 1: follow the constitutional process, which Texas very articulately lays out
Speaker 1: the Attorney General Paxson in his case, then in fact
Speaker 1: that would be outcome determinative, but it would also result
Speaker 1: in the disenfranchisement of every Texas voter. And frankly, now
Speaker 1: we have other states, Alabama, others now have all joined in.
Speaker 1: I think we have six more states now that are
Speaker 1: filing amicus briefs on behalf of the Texas ag and
Speaker 1: then we get into the issue of the first violation.
Speaker 1: That'd be the clause article too Constitution, the electors clause
Speaker 1: and how each state shall appoint presidential election electors in
Speaker 1: the matter of the legislature therefore made direct Well, then
Speaker 1: that goes to the heart of the Georgia case and
Speaker 1: the consent agreement with the Secretary of State after the
Speaker 1: lawsuit by the Democratic Party from earlier this year. Then
Speaker 1: it gets to the heart of the case and a
Speaker 1: lot of other states as well, or or the Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: Supreme Court extending by three days the deadline. That would
Speaker 1: be again a decision that only state legislators can make,
Speaker 1: not a Supreme court decision in the state. And then
Speaker 1: we have again straightforward language in the state of Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: where for example, they don't allow early voting, but yet
Speaker 1: the ballots were handed out anyway. That would have been
Speaker 1: a decision that would have had to have been made
Speaker 1: by the state legislature, which didn't happen. So we'll watch
Speaker 1: all of this and there's a lot of developments. Was
Speaker 1: still apparently there's more people that are out there telling
Speaker 1: as whistleblowers. There's stories about the things that they have
Speaker 1: said just like all the other people that we've had
Speaker 1: on this program. For example. You know, it's one thing
Speaker 1: that Kelly mcinaney had pointed out an analysis, and I've
Speaker 1: often pointed out, Okay, if you look statistically, do you
Speaker 1: really believe Joe Biden got fifteen million more votes than
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton or fifteen million more than Barack Obama? Even
Speaker 1: I find that hard to believe. If you believe that
Speaker 1: he underperformed with minorities in pretty much every liberal city
Speaker 1: in the country except for the states we're talking about,
Speaker 1: and that would be Fulton County, Georgia, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan,
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania of the Philly area, and then other places like
Speaker 1: Milwaukee and Nevada. Oh wow, that's a little bit. That's
Speaker 1: that's a little bit too convenient from my analysis. Expert
Speaker 1: analysis using commonly accepted statistical tests further raised other issues
Speaker 1: about it, meaning the probability of the former vice president
Speaker 1: winning the popular vote in the four defendant states in
Speaker 1: the ag case of Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin independently,
Speaker 1: if you look at three am November fourth, while the
Speaker 1: vote county is going on, you know, it would be
Speaker 1: less than one in a quadrillion that Joe Biden can
Speaker 1: come back win all four of those states collectively with
Speaker 1: that big of a deficit at that point in time
Speaker 1: in the county. I mean, basically, what they're saying then
Speaker 1: is seven million you know, votes cast melon ballots cast
Speaker 1: mostly for Biden, mostly in the states that we're all
Speaker 1: talking about. Statistically, that then becomes very difficult to buy.
Speaker 1: At least I from my perspective, it becomes difficult to buy.
Speaker 1: Maybe some of you don't have a problem with it.
Speaker 1: The state Alabama, Louisiana attorney generals back the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: challenged by Texas. Missouri joined the fight along Texas to
Speaker 1: challenge the results. The Nevada Supreme Court did reject the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign appeal, affirming and Biden win. That didn't surprise
Speaker 1: us out there. But statistically there's more anomalies out in
Speaker 1: Nevada than any of the state that I've seen. You've
Speaker 1: got Republican attorneys general setting their sights on checking Joe
Speaker 1: and Kamala if in fact they get into office. Democrats
Speaker 1: now promising vote we bringing back the lowest learner as
Speaker 1: the irs had because they're now pushing to expand the
Speaker 1: IRS's enforcement activities and already looking to add five point
Speaker 1: two billion dollars. Here we go, they're coming for your money.
Speaker 1: And Republicans scoff at the Biden plan to create a
Speaker 1: conservative outreach post. There's no outreach with Democrats. They don't
Speaker 1: want to. They don't want to outreach. Now, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to even get into the whole issue of whether
Speaker 1: or not what the result of this is going to be.
Speaker 1: What I am going to tell you is that if
Speaker 1: we don't fix it, and we don't get it right,
Speaker 1: then the country is going to be in big trouble,
Speaker 1: and that means long term. You've got, for example, the
Speaker 1: latest lawsuit in Georgia, they actually documented tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of illegal votes. This is similar to what they did
Speaker 1: out in Nevada and instead of properly updating voter registration roles.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to go forward as a country. The
Speaker 1: medium mob's never going to tell you these things. We're
Speaker 1: gonna go forward and get elections right. We better understand
Speaker 1: the Federalists did a good job on this today. Remember
Speaker 1: he won Georgia supposedly, if you believe that Biden won
Speaker 1: by twelve thousand votes, Okay, The lawsuit points out that
Speaker 1: they have identified, instead of updating their voter registration lists,
Speaker 1: sixty six thousand, two hundred and forty seven underage registrants,
Speaker 1: forty thousand, two hundred and seventy nine people had moved
Speaker 1: counties without reregistering, ten thousand, three hundred and fifteen people
Speaker 1: who were deceased on election day, eight thousand and seven hundred,
Speaker 1: eighteen of whom had been registered as dead before their
Speaker 1: votes were accepted. Two thousand, four hundred twenty three were
Speaker 1: not on the state voter rolls. Four thousand, nine hundred
Speaker 1: twenty six voters who had registered in another state after
Speaker 1: they registered in Georgia that would make them ineligible. Fifteen thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred voters who had filed day National Change of
Speaker 1: Address form without reregistering. And I mean it goes on
Speaker 1: from there. Well, Governor, do you care I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the governor or Georgia? Apparently not. By the way, details
Speaker 1: of Senate candidate Warnox obstruction in a child abuse pro
Speaker 1: it was a little scary. And by the way, have
Speaker 1: you heard the details of Congressman Swalwell. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: into that. Eight hundred nine four one sewn is on number.
Speaker 1: If you want to be a part of the program.
Speaker 1: All right, as we roll along, eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: four one sean you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: the program. This is getting very, very very interesting to me,
Speaker 1: this whole Eric Swalwell story. Now, the backdrop of this
Speaker 1: is a foxnews dot com article out today about Pompeio
Speaker 1: Secretary of State, warning of a Chinese threat to US colleges,
Speaker 1: saying many are basically bought by Beijing. There was one
Speaker 1: family I can think of that's more bought and paid
Speaker 1: for by China than any other. That would be the Bidens. Anyway,
Speaker 1: It's like, what's happening with Swalwell and what apparently has
Speaker 1: gone on here is pretty unbelievable. And Kevin McCarthy, by
Speaker 1: the way, demanding Pelosi boots Swalwall from the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: And what you have is, I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: guy that Russia, Russia, Russia or Russia along with Nataler
Speaker 1: and you know, the shift show himself. Anyway, you have
Speaker 1: accused Chinese government spy woman by the name of Fang Fang,
Speaker 1: a Christine Fang, entering the US through California as a
Speaker 1: college student in twenty eleven spends the next four years
Speaker 1: wooing everyone local politicos and Swalwall according to Axios and
Speaker 1: citing current former US intelligence officials, anyway, even like slept
Speaker 1: with two small town mayors, and you can't write this
Speaker 1: in a novel anyway, got close to Eric Swalwell, who's
Speaker 1: on the House Intel Committee. Quote, she was on a
Speaker 1: mission a US counterintelligence official, set of fang, including plenty
Speaker 1: of seduction before the Feds got wind of her antics
Speaker 1: and she vanished and Fang raised funds for Swalwell back
Speaker 1: in the day and interacted with the Congressman at a
Speaker 1: number of events for several years. Why the hell is
Speaker 1: he on this House Intel Committee? All right? So now
Speaker 1: we have more states joining in the joining the Texas
Speaker 1: Attorney General. West Virginia's attorney general has joined the Texas
Speaker 1: brief as it relates to the case that they're bringing there. Now,
Speaker 1: the state of Missouri has filed dynamicus brief on behalf
Speaker 1: of itself and sixteen other states and support of Texas's
Speaker 1: application in terms of the lawsuit that was filed yesterday.
Speaker 1: You know, this is it. This is the one that
Speaker 1: now we're gonna watch very very closely, especially in light
Speaker 1: of what the court did yesterday with the Pennsylvania case.
Speaker 1: Now we're gonna get into more detail with that. That's
Speaker 1: the case that's brought by Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania's
Speaker 1: sixteenth district. So well, you know, obviously, well more details
Speaker 1: coming up with our panel of legal experts in a
Speaker 1: little bit here. But I'm back to the swallwall thing.
Speaker 1: So you know, when you look at I call it
Speaker 1: the the Joe Biden candidate Protection Program, and when you
Speaker 1: really think about it, this is the media today. And
Speaker 1: I don't want to be a broken record about this,
Speaker 1: but it's it bears repeating, is that the media is
Speaker 1: not objective. They're not fair, they're not balanced, they have
Speaker 1: an agenda, they're abusively biased, they're corrupt. They fed this
Speaker 1: country nothing but lies about Trump and Russia for three
Speaker 1: long years. You know, they've advanced and pushed every democratic,
Speaker 1: radical socialist talking point as it related to their phony
Speaker 1: impeachment hoax, all while ignoring quid pro quo Joe and
Speaker 1: zero experienced hunter. They ignored vetting Obama, they ignored what
Speaker 1: was real Russian interference. Hillary's bought and paid for dirty dossier,
Speaker 1: the dirty dossier not only unverifiable now debunked, used for
Speaker 1: four fives applications, without which they wouldn't have gotten the application.
Speaker 1: You know we have comy and even what Sally Yates,
Speaker 1: Rod Rosensteino, knowing what we know now, No, I would
Speaker 1: never have signed it, little late guys, and where's Durham
Speaker 1: by the way side note, all of that happened, but
Speaker 1: the media pushed it all. The media had an agenda.
Speaker 1: You know, we Peter Schweitzer in Secret Empires. This book
Speaker 1: was blockbuster. We did the first interview on radio, the
Speaker 1: first interview on TV, and that's when we first heard
Speaker 1: about Barisma. You know. Then we got you know, culminating
Speaker 1: in the dumbest interview of a forty nine year old
Speaker 1: and GMA's history and he experienced oil gas energy now
Speaker 1: Ukraine Nope, and he experienced at all Nope. Why do
Speaker 1: you think you got paid millions it or new Maybe
Speaker 1: because your dad is the vice president in charge of
Speaker 1: your creating policy. Probably And it's like an admission, you're
Speaker 1: not you got six hours, you're not getting a billion
Speaker 1: US tax dollars. Unbelievable And they went with one hearsay
Speaker 1: anonymous non whistleblower. As the pretense of it all, we
Speaker 1: only had one fact witness in that whole sham impeachment,
Speaker 1: and they dragged the country through hell, and then they
Speaker 1: dragged the country three years of Russian hell. They were
Speaker 1: all wrong. I mean, that's how corrupt the media is.
Speaker 1: Then the media is so corrupt. They left Biden hide
Speaker 1: in the basement the entire time, Joe Biden and his
Speaker 1: basement bunker, and they did Biden's job for him. He
Speaker 1: didn't need to do anything because they were out there
Speaker 1: pounding Trump every day and beating him up every day.
Speaker 1: You know, they like giddy. We finally got Trump to
Speaker 1: answer a question for the first time in three weeks,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, you let this guy go the entire campaign.
Speaker 1: By the way, he's botching up his cabinet officials names
Speaker 1: and even what they're going to be secretaries of Yesterday,
Speaker 1: I'm grateful to the members of my COVID team, but
Speaker 1: I'd like to introduce to you now who will lead
Speaker 1: the way. I'm really proud of this group. For Secretary
Speaker 1: of Health and Educations, I nominated Javier Baccharia, you know,
Speaker 1: Javier Bascher Excuse me, Yeah, we'll get it right eventually.
Speaker 1: This just then two Tennessee's Attorney generalos signonomicus brief. That's
Speaker 1: big news. Supporting the Texas Texas election results. That's another
Speaker 1: big one. Um uh oh, hang on important. I'm writing
Speaker 1: somebody here anyway. So now I'm looking at, you know,
Speaker 1: all these people that are involved in this corruption. They
Speaker 1: don't do their job, They're not gonna they're going to
Speaker 1: allow this guy to be you know, Hyde and Biden
Speaker 1: the whole time. Then you look at all these phony hypocrites,
Speaker 1: you know that was so upset about foreign election interference.
Speaker 1: How do you ignore the Russian first lady in Moscow
Speaker 1: and the wire transfers with the hunter and his company.
Speaker 1: How do you ignore a Kazakh oligarch and wire transfers there.
Speaker 1: How do you ignore no experience that anybody can find
Speaker 1: in private equity and the one billion dollars later one
Speaker 1: point five billion dollars Bank of China deal. How do
Speaker 1: you not you know, look at any of this and say, well,
Speaker 1: why would the mob protect it? Well, the same thing
Speaker 1: is happening. I guess you got this honey trap set
Speaker 1: by Chinese, by the Chinese government against us. And then
Speaker 1: I'm reading this story and what Pompeio was warning that
Speaker 1: Chinese is threatening US colleges and saying these colleges are
Speaker 1: being basically bought off by Beijing. Now, okay, that's censored
Speaker 1: themselves to avoid upsetting the communist regime. And he said,
Speaker 1: it's poisoning the well of our higher education institutions. If
Speaker 1: we don't educate ourselves, if we're not honest about it,
Speaker 1: we're getting schooled by Beijing. He's probably right. Makes you
Speaker 1: wonder about this virus. How come nobody wants ever talks about, well,
Speaker 1: what price is China gonna pay for all the murder
Speaker 1: and mayhem caused by them? And they're handling of this
Speaker 1: virus they knew it was bad. How do we know
Speaker 1: they wouldn't allow travel out of Wuhan Private province into
Speaker 1: any other part of China. You couldn't travel from any
Speaker 1: part of China into Wuhan, but they left wide open
Speaker 1: their international travel. In other words, you could leave Wuhan
Speaker 1: Province and go to Italy or any other any other
Speaker 1: part of the world. Look at what it's look at
Speaker 1: what the result has been. And I know we've got
Speaker 1: the vaccine, but still anyway, Upo goes on to say
Speaker 1: scholars or lord into their recruitment programs paid to do
Speaker 1: research in or for China, while other easy targets for
Speaker 1: their anti American messaging do their own anti American bias.
Speaker 1: We see it too seldom. He goes on to say,
Speaker 1: he said administrators would be up at arms. You would
Speaker 1: expect that, but they're not, and they often do it
Speaker 1: out of fear of offending China. Now let me tell
Speaker 1: you something, Yeah, Putin is a hostile actor. Russia is
Speaker 1: a hostile regime, no question. I think a bigger threat
Speaker 1: as China. Now we got, you know, a guy, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: that is completely compromised by this country with his son,
Speaker 1: God only knows what they probably have on tape somewhere.
Speaker 1: And we find out that this guy on the you know,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to care about foreign interference in the United States,
Speaker 1: and you got Eric Swalwell was on the House Intelligence
Speaker 1: commit Kevin McCarthy took aim at him earlier today, arguing
Speaker 1: he should no longer serve on the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: This is the guy that took the leading role for
Speaker 1: the democrats impeachment efforts and the Russia hoax lies. He's
Speaker 1: long been disqualified from serving on the Intel community, peddling
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation, and you know it's all an effort by
Speaker 1: a reported spy he's a part of to gather information
Speaker 1: for China. Swalwall being a national security liability, well so
Speaker 1: is Joe Biden. I mean, let me tell you something.
Speaker 1: These countries play for keeps. You know. I've talked to
Speaker 1: some friends of mine that have done businesses business abroad
Speaker 1: with some of the countries that we discuss here, and
Speaker 1: what they tell you is just chilling in terms of
Speaker 1: the amount of spying that goes on if you visit
Speaker 1: these countries, the amount of corruption that exists within these countries,
Speaker 1: that the level of sophistication in terms of their efforts
Speaker 1: to undermine the United States. So now you've got a
Speaker 1: congressman along with mayors. Apparently a couple of mayors were
Speaker 1: sleeping with this accused Chinese government spy. Swalwall has taken
Speaker 1: money from that was raised by this accused Chinese government spy.
Speaker 1: And then by the way, they treat democrats so differently
Speaker 1: than they do, say Donald Trump, they actually went to
Speaker 1: Swalwall and said, yeah, you might you might not want
Speaker 1: to associate with this person. Why didn't they do that
Speaker 1: with anybody in the Trump campaign? Would they assume that
Speaker 1: he wouldn't want to be patriotic, because apparently documents exist.
Speaker 1: I've been told by my sources that said they did
Speaker 1: exactly that with Hillary Clinton's campaign to protect information that
Speaker 1: might be classified. Is there any possible compromising material was
Speaker 1: on Swallowell? What is the nature of the compromise? This
Speaker 1: is Adam Schiff, But they're compromising materials and I'm compromising. Really,
Speaker 1: what's the nature of the compromise? Uh? The talkers ordinating
Speaker 1: in the bed in the bed did go peeps in
Speaker 1: the bed that actually was in the stupid Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: dossiated through the country into this turmoil for three years
Speaker 1: and they got away with it. Does Vladimir know? But
Speaker 1: of course met with trumpus in in New York at
Speaker 1: some point after the twenty thirteen Miss Universe, Yes, agin absolutely,
Speaker 1: and she got compromising materials on trout after their short relations. Okay,
Speaker 1: And what's the nature of the compromise? Well, there were
Speaker 1: and so Putin was made aware of the availability of
Speaker 1: the compromising material. Yes, of course, Buzava shared those materials
Speaker 1: with Soap Checking subject shares those materials with Putin because
Speaker 1: she's a god daughter of Putin, and Puttin decided to
Speaker 1: press on Trump and and the materials that you can
Speaker 1: provide to the committee or to the FBI. Would they
Speaker 1: corroborate this allegation? Sure, of course. When they were in Ukraine,
Speaker 1: we got their conversation by the phone where they're discussed
Speaker 1: those compromising materials. We are ready to provide it to FBI.
Speaker 1: So you have recordings of both soap Check and Buseva
Speaker 1: where they're discussing the compromising material on mister Trump. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: he's coordinating with her with somebody that he thinks as
Speaker 1: a Russian What for to get compromising matterdeals on up
Speaker 1: naked Trump? Gosh, what a dope. Now Swalwell is suggesting
Speaker 1: Trump is behind the access report. These people are freaking
Speaker 1: to range man. Oh gosh. Anyway, Swalwell warned of influx
Speaker 1: of Russians and US politics under Trump. What about his
Speaker 1: compromising my titials? When are there's any compromising my titials
Speaker 1: on Trump? And you know this this honeypot apparently scandal
Speaker 1: that went on. These mayors apparently slept with this person. Unbelievable,
Speaker 1: but that's the nature of your Democratic Party. You know,
Speaker 1: there was an interesting story. It looks like China's already.
Speaker 1: You know, they want to try and pick up where
Speaker 1: they left off with the Biden corruption family. And remember
Speaker 1: all the money they paid to Hunter, the email outlining
Speaker 1: how it's going to be distributed twenty million, one hundred
Speaker 1: ten million for the big guy. Remember that holding it,
Speaker 1: Tune will hold it for the big guy. It's like
Speaker 1: the time the Biden. You know, I'm going to return
Speaker 1: the favor. There is a daily wire piece out. A
Speaker 1: top US official told the think tank last week that
Speaker 1: US intelligence has seen a sharp uptick in the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party to influence Joe Joe Biden's team and those
Speaker 1: around them. A National Counterintelligence Security Center director William Nina
Speaker 1: told the Aspen Institute that the think tank that China
Speaker 1: has launched an influenced campaign on steroids targeting Biden. What
Speaker 1: we predicted China would now literally reemphasize their influence in
Speaker 1: the campaigns to the new administration. We're starting to see
Speaker 1: that now play across the country to not only the
Speaker 1: folks that are in the administration, those around the folks
Speaker 1: of the administration. So that's one area we're going to
Speaker 1: be very keen on making sure the new administration understands
Speaker 1: that influence. What it looks like, what a taste like,
Speaker 1: what it feels like. Robert Brian, the National Security Adviser,
Speaker 1: had warned back in August that China was trying to
Speaker 1: elect Biden and that China had the most sophisticated global
Speaker 1: influenced programs and strategies and abilities and capabilities in the world. Wow.
Speaker 1: By the way, China apparently is amassing large quantities of
Speaker 1: private American healthcare data, including sensitive genetic information. As the
Speaker 1: coronavirus pandemic you know, is now put more people in
Speaker 1: the medical system, They've made collecting health related data a
Speaker 1: national priority, according to a new report submitted to Congress
Speaker 1: by the US China Economic Security Review Commission. Great, that's
Speaker 1: good news. And by the way, it looks like Mayor
Speaker 1: Pete may get a China post. Well got her thirty
Speaker 1: eight year old former mayor a South Bend, apparently letting
Speaker 1: him deep in his foreign policy chops Buddha Judge's future anyway,
Speaker 1: they believe that, you know, giving him that prestigious position.
Speaker 1: I don't trust any of these people. Everybody's so corrupt.
Speaker 1: You know my faith, my confidence in government is at
Speaker 1: the lowest point it's ever been. I never really had
Speaker 1: faith in it anyway. I think most intelligent Americans have
Speaker 1: a healthy distrust of all things government. All right, Leonard
Speaker 1: Skinner's simple man can mean only one thing, and that
Speaker 1: is all things. He's really not simple, the fact that
Speaker 1: it's a great irony. He considers himself a simple man,
Speaker 1: but it means all things. Bill O'Reilly, of course at
Speaker 1: bill O'Reilly dot COM's book continues to do well on
Speaker 1: every bestseller list. Killing a Crazy Horse fifteen in a
Speaker 1: series of killing books, I might count Killing Hannity. You'll
Speaker 1: be a version nineteen or twenty. Hopefully it'll be very
Speaker 1: late in life when we get When he finally gets
Speaker 1: around to him, mister O'Reilly, sir, how are you You know?
Speaker 1: They always big? They always big. Every week you run
Speaker 1: that and people, no, that's your interest. Imagine this. So
Speaker 1: you're gonna do a bill O'Reilly tour. I mean, you
Speaker 1: go on tour still fairly regularly, and the house is
Speaker 1: gonna go dark, and all of a sudden upcomes Leonard
Speaker 1: skinnerd simple Man, and the music gets louder, and he
Speaker 1: gets louder and louder and louder than a spotlight comes
Speaker 1: on and out walks the giant and that's you six foot?
Speaker 1: What are you four? Or five? Bill O'Reilly? Yeah? And
Speaker 1: you know you should be a producer of these shows.
Speaker 1: But I would have to play to talk, no record.
Speaker 1: We'll just have the guys over here, a good guys.
Speaker 1: Let me let me but before you come on with
Speaker 1: your agenda, all right, he said, I didn't even ask
Speaker 1: billow question, and he was about to launch into what
Speaker 1: he wants to talk about and and but I want
Speaker 1: to ask you a question. I'm a little curious about
Speaker 1: when it comes your time, we don't want to go
Speaker 1: ahead of any list, you know, health professionals and those
Speaker 1: with pre existing conditions and compromised immune systems and whoever
Speaker 1: deserves it before us, they get it first, right, okay,
Speaker 1: But when it comes your turn and you have a chance,
Speaker 1: would you take it? Yes, I'm going to take it.
Speaker 1: I'm an old guy, so as you get it pretty soon,
Speaker 1: that's probably true. You're ahead of me on that list.
Speaker 1: Just for the record, you know they're they're going I
Speaker 1: understand by age and intelligence, so I'm way up there, Okay,
Speaker 1: Okay on the age part. You're totally qualified. On the
Speaker 1: intelligence part, that's up for debate. Go ahead, Oh come on, now,
Speaker 1: you The reason I'm going to get it is because
Speaker 1: I don't care whether I turn into a werewolf or not.
Speaker 1: Are you you're not an anti vaxer guy? All I mean,
Speaker 1: because Linda's kind of I mean, any side effect, it'll
Speaker 1: be fine because I won't have to pay my taxes.
Speaker 1: So if I'm a vampire, I mean, I'm not gonna file.
Speaker 1: It's hey, Bill, I hate to tell you, when you die,
Speaker 1: you're going to be paying more in taxes, not if
Speaker 1: I move to Bolivia. By the way, you see, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's people are saying, yeah, we want to add another
Speaker 1: five billion dollars to IRS enforcement. I like, with my account,
Speaker 1: We're good, right, I tell you pay everything, overpay, and
Speaker 1: he goes, yeah, we overpay. Still, yes, yeah, And the
Speaker 1: five billion is just to protect the IRS from the
Speaker 1: popular uprising that's going to gappen if they continue down
Speaker 1: this road, because now it's seizure a private property, which
Speaker 1: is what the progressive left wants, desperately wants. They want
Speaker 1: to be able to pass wealth taxes all over the
Speaker 1: place and basically come in, assess whatever you have, and
Speaker 1: then take a piece of it, even though what do
Speaker 1: you have has been bought by post tax dollars, so
Speaker 1: it's unconstitutional. But that's what they want to do, and
Speaker 1: that's why this election was so important. But people who
Speaker 1: don't have much, they don't care about that issue. They
Speaker 1: want more given to them by the federal government. And
Speaker 1: that's the struggle in America between the halves and the
Speaker 1: have nots. And you saw it play out in this election.
Speaker 1: What was your take? And then I want to get
Speaker 1: to Georgia, But what was your take? I read this
Speaker 1: suit by the Attorney General of Texas. I had him
Speaker 1: on TV last night. I asked him a lot of questions.
Speaker 1: It was well written, it was well thought out, it
Speaker 1: was well argued. It has real legitimacy. If the law
Speaker 1: and the Constitution are truly followed, they win bill. Yes,
Speaker 1: but it won't be because the Supreme Court is going
Speaker 1: to rule that the state of Texas has no standing.
Speaker 1: That's what the ruling will be. But the bill, but
Speaker 1: if I may very very gently, but the problem the
Speaker 1: reason this is one of those cases there's a very
Speaker 1: small number of categories as you know, I'm not telling
Speaker 1: you anything you don't know in which the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has original jurisdiction. One of them is controversies between two
Speaker 1: and more states. That's why that's right, and they could
Speaker 1: do something about it. But the State of Texas is
Speaker 1: basically saying, when you cut through all illegalisms, our citizens
Speaker 1: in Texas were disenfranchised in the presidential election because it
Speaker 1: was cheating in four at least four states, and you,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, have to remedy. That keyword remedy. That's
Speaker 1: the lawsuit, and it's it's a good lawsuit. It's smart,
Speaker 1: it is smart, but it's well done. It's not going
Speaker 1: to be successful. Look, the odds are with you. And
Speaker 1: I'm not the pollyannish person, Bill, I think you know,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty rooted in reality. But if the law and
Speaker 1: the Constitution were truly followed in its straightforward language and
Speaker 1: the way this was argued and laid out and all
Speaker 1: ninety whatever pages of this thing yesterday, if that mattered,
Speaker 1: you see, because I think the courts tainted by politics
Speaker 1: like everything else. I mean John Roberts, you know, every
Speaker 1: report was that he was going to rule against Obamacare,
Speaker 1: but then decided it was too political for the Court
Speaker 1: to be involved in it and changed his view. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think he's a liberal man anyway. But getting
Speaker 1: back to the election, the Pennsylvania situation was clearly a
Speaker 1: violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Ye, all right, there's no
Speaker 1: legitimate argument that it was not. But the courts, both
Speaker 1: state and federal today, Alito and the Supreme Court said
Speaker 1: you had a year to do this, You had a
Speaker 1: year to challenge this mail in thing, and he didn't
Speaker 1: do it. Therefore we're not going to hear it. They
Speaker 1: didn't say it was wrong, they said we're not going
Speaker 1: to hear it because it's filed too late. These are
Speaker 1: the little rationalizations that creep into the Supreme Court all
Speaker 1: the time. People should know listening to us right now, Hannity,
Speaker 1: the most powerful entity in this country is the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: far more powerful than the Congress or the President, because
Speaker 1: they're the last word. It may not be fair, it
Speaker 1: may not be right, it might not be based on
Speaker 1: the Constitution. But what those nine people say is what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. And so people should understand that none
Speaker 1: of the nine justices want to overturn this election psychologically
Speaker 1: and emotionally, they don't want to do it, so they're
Speaker 1: going to find a reason not to do it. And
Speaker 1: that's where we are. I wish I could dispute what
Speaker 1: I think would ultimately be the outcome. Now. I do
Speaker 1: think there will be some brave Supreme Court justices. If
Speaker 1: I were to anticipate it would be Alito, it would
Speaker 1: be Clarence Thomas, it will be Amy Coney, Barrett. But
Speaker 1: it won't be John Roberts. I can tell you that.
Speaker 1: And to be honest, I think course sits in Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: are still question marks, and I really don't have the
Speaker 1: I don't believe they'll go there. That's my guests not
Speaker 1: going to get there. They're not going to hear it. Okay,
Speaker 1: it'll be interesting. Now. They could have killed it off yesterday, Bill,
Speaker 1: and they didn't. And they're asking these states to respond,
Speaker 1: so they're going to take a look at it. And
Speaker 1: we don't have any indication of it. And I mean,
Speaker 1: if there was a betting thing, I would put a
Speaker 1: lot of money on this. They're not going to hear it,
Speaker 1: just as they didn't hear the Pennsylvan Pennsylvania, And you're right,
Speaker 1: the Pennsylvania case legislators in that state went against the
Speaker 1: direct wording of their own state constitution. That's a slam
Speaker 1: dunk legal issue that wasn't even in dispute, correct, But
Speaker 1: not to hear it, and they'll find a way not
Speaker 1: to hear the Texas challenge. Well, that is why you're right.
Speaker 1: That's like Levine years ago wrote the book Man in Black.
Speaker 1: Was it laid all of this out. Let me go
Speaker 1: to the state of Georgia. Um, you got the runoff
Speaker 1: races there, Loffler and Purdue against Assa and Warnock too,
Speaker 1: really radical hardcore leftists. But then you've got this intramural
Speaker 1: battle going on between the dope governor the dopey secretary
Speaker 1: of State. Can you imagine the secretary of state? And
Speaker 1: again this goes to the heart of the constitutional issue.
Speaker 1: In terms of election law is constitutionally only in the
Speaker 1: hands of the state legislature, but independent of the state legislature.
Speaker 1: The Secretary of State went into a consent agreement with
Speaker 1: Democrats that sued earlier this year the Georgia Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: the Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the congressional committees and allowed
Speaker 1: this too system of signature verification that would be the
Speaker 1: sole role of the legislature. With that said, they don't
Speaker 1: want to admit they've made a mistake, so they kind
Speaker 1: of have aligned and they won't come back in a
Speaker 1: session and fix the problems that are quite obvious and
Speaker 1: transparent after November third, which would be necessary to have free,
Speaker 1: fair elections in Georgia, which is a big mistake of
Speaker 1: my view. Well, they're not going to admit a mistake
Speaker 1: now all. They're just not going to do it. I
Speaker 1: think that the two senators on the Republican side will win.
Speaker 1: You do, I'm not sure. I'm not so sure I
Speaker 1: agree with you. Well, Kennedy, you know you're disagreeing with
Speaker 1: a guy who I just stop. Stop you. You've actually
Speaker 1: come a long way this year. This is the first
Speaker 1: time you ever said I could never even think about
Speaker 1: running for a Democrat. We were getting to hanitize you.
Speaker 1: Your appearances on the show have helped you. Listen. I
Speaker 1: want people to understand that Georgia is not some crazy state.
Speaker 1: It's essentially a conservative, traditional state. And here's the backup.
Speaker 1: There was one man who ran for the state Senate.
Speaker 1: That's a statewide race in Georgia, a Republican. He won
Speaker 1: by fifty four percent of the vote that couldn't have
Speaker 1: happened in a liberal state. So I think that Georgians
Speaker 1: are gonna They know the Democratic candidates are far left.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about moderate people, as you just pointed out,
Speaker 1: and I think they're going to go in and it'll
Speaker 1: be It's not going to be a landslide, but I
Speaker 1: think both Senate GOP candidates will win. But before you
Speaker 1: have to take a break and sell the humongous stuff
Speaker 1: that you sell, I have a provocative thing that I'm
Speaker 1: going to say to my audience on Bill O'Reilly dot
Speaker 1: COM's and I want to know if you agree with this.
Speaker 1: You ready, I want Attorney General bar to call for
Speaker 1: a special prosecutor to investigate the election. I do too.
Speaker 1: I agree with you, Okay. I don't even think it's
Speaker 1: controversial at all. This becomes vital, okay, because Trump can't
Speaker 1: do it. Bar's got to do it, because nobody's going
Speaker 1: to investigate this once the inauguration takes place. The States
Speaker 1: aren't going to investigate their own screw ups. The press
Speaker 1: wound investigate, and certainly the Justice Department under Biden's not
Speaker 1: going to investigated. For this country to function, we gotta
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this fraud stuff, and a
Speaker 1: special prosecutors should be a point. I've got to I've
Speaker 1: got to take that break. But I'll say this too.
Speaker 1: If you look at what they did to this country
Speaker 1: in the last four years, Russia Russia, Trump Russia, collusion
Speaker 1: that never happened, premeditated fraud, Faiza court abuse, using Killery's
Speaker 1: dirty dossier, the whole ignore quid pro quote Joe zero
Speaker 1: experience hunter, but will impeach the president based on an
Speaker 1: anonymous heresay whistleblower. I mean, the damage that has been
Speaker 1: done in the last four years by the left is incalculable. Bill,
Speaker 1: We'll come back more with Bill O'Reilly All Things o'reiley,
Speaker 1: Bill O'Reilly dot com eight hundred and nine four one sewn.
Speaker 1: You want to be a part of this extravaganza. We're
Speaker 1: gonna go to the heart of that Pennsylvania case with
Speaker 1: Congressman Mike Kelly, He's the one that brought it. In
Speaker 1: the next half hour and as we continue, Phill O'Reilly
Speaker 1: all things O'Reilly at Bill O'Reilly dot com. So I
Speaker 1: agree with you on bar, but I want to look
Speaker 1: at the big picture. Bill. You know, I spent three years,
Speaker 1: and I mean, I think you actually gave me a
Speaker 1: compliment in the coverage being proven right on Trump and
Speaker 1: Russia and collusion and five's abuse and the dirty Dusty
Speaker 1: and nobody else in the media really went and dug
Speaker 1: that deep. And I appreciated your nice comments about that.
Speaker 1: And it happened, just like they ignored Joe and Hunter
Speaker 1: and China and Russia and Kazakhstan and Ukraine. And it happened. Bill.
Speaker 1: And then you add election fraud and all the mess
Speaker 1: we've witnessed. I'm worried about the country, so am I.
Speaker 1: And that's why we need a real tough special prosecutor
Speaker 1: to look into this election. And I'll give you one
Speaker 1: solid thing that has to be done. You gotta do
Speaker 1: forensics on the dominion voting machines. And that means those
Speaker 1: machines are to be brought in, have to be examined
Speaker 1: by the federal government to see if there was any fraud,
Speaker 1: if they were calibrated in a way that wasn't fair.
Speaker 1: The only people who can do that work for the
Speaker 1: federal government. You need a subpoena, you got to bring
Speaker 1: it in. You need the best electronic experts in the world.
Speaker 1: That is the key to this. I have called for
Speaker 1: the same thing, Bill, But you know, and I know
Speaker 1: they're already shredding the hard drives of these machines in Georgia. Belle, Well,
Speaker 1: then let's see that. Well they are. We already know
Speaker 1: that did it? You know people who've got to go
Speaker 1: to jail, Hannity people. Okay, well you know, listen, I
Speaker 1: support your call for a special prosecutor. What a Durham do?
Speaker 1: There was so much. All he needed was the Horowitz Report,
Speaker 1: and he had enough indictments to make I understand. But
Speaker 1: you if you have two reasons, you have two choices.
Speaker 1: You can stay in America and be a loyal, patriotic citizen,
Speaker 1: or you can move to another country. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to Screa is loud as I can scream for justice.
Speaker 1: I want to know what happen, and then I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what O'Riley. I'll partner with it. And I think
Speaker 1: every American patriot that believes in free, fair, honest elections
Speaker 1: with integrity, that will have confidence and we'll join with us.
Speaker 1: You and I will partner on this. Do it on
Speaker 1: your TV shoot tonight if you can, and then I'll
Speaker 1: steer everybody in there, and then we'll pick out certain
Speaker 1: politicians that will call the Attorney General and ask for
Speaker 1: that I guess, you know, for those friends of mine
Speaker 1: that are just so disappointed, and they are and for
Speaker 1: all the right reasons, and I am too, so just
Speaker 1: like it's not in me, Bill to quit. It's not okay,
Speaker 1: it's we're going to accept this corruption. No, the fight
Speaker 1: for too many people have paid such a larger price
Speaker 1: than will ever pay. But all right, all things O'Riley,
Speaker 1: Bill O'Reilly dot com, simple man, and mister O'Reilly, it's
Speaker 1: always a pleasure, honor to have you on the program
Speaker 1: twenty five till the top of the hour, eight hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety four one sewn. You want to be a
Speaker 1: part of the program. And the President's not backing now,
Speaker 1: not giving up the battle. Even though the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: yesterday not on the Texas case the opposite results happening there.
Speaker 1: But in the case Tuesday yesterday rejected what I thought
Speaker 1: was constitutionally probably the strongest case in the country as
Speaker 1: it relates to the state of Pennsylvania, where Republicans had
Speaker 1: a strong, powerful legal argument constitutional argument as it relates
Speaker 1: to the state constitution and what was known as Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: Acts seventy seven. But in spite of the facts of
Speaker 1: the case, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal without
Speaker 1: comment by Pennsylvania Republicans that sought to avoid the results
Speaker 1: of the election in that big battleground state. Not a
Speaker 1: good decision in my view. Here's what the president is
Speaker 1: asking lawmakers in the Supreme Court to do. Hopefully the
Speaker 1: next administration would be the Trump administration, because you can't
Speaker 1: steal hundreds of thousands of votes, you can't have fraud
Speaker 1: and deception and all of the things that they did
Speaker 1: and then slightly win a swing state. And you just
Speaker 1: have to look at the numbers, look at what's been
Speaker 1: on tape, look at all the corruption, and we'll see
Speaker 1: you can't win an election like that. Now, let's see
Speaker 1: whether or not somebody has the courage, whether it's a
Speaker 1: legislator or legislatures, or whether it's a justice of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Let's see if they have the courage to do what
Speaker 1: everybody in this country knows is right. Anyway. So, by
Speaker 1: the way, this is the case that Ted Cruz. The
Speaker 1: one they rejected, not the Texas case, which they are
Speaker 1: now seeking input from the four states that Texas has mentioned.
Speaker 1: But this is the one Ted Cruz was willing to
Speaker 1: argue before the US Supreme Court. This is the Congressman
Speaker 1: Mike Kelly suit. And this was the suit that went
Speaker 1: after Pennsylvania Acts seventy seven. Now that act passed by
Speaker 1: the democratic state legislatures or Democratic legislators, signed by the
Speaker 1: democratic governor, and the problem is it was in direct
Speaker 1: violation of Pennsylvania's own constitution. Their state constitution features carefully
Speaker 1: documented restrictions surrounding mail in mooting, and that can only
Speaker 1: be changed through a constitutional amendment, a far more difficult
Speaker 1: process that which we have described in detail. And by
Speaker 1: the way, for all the good reasons that the New
Speaker 1: York Times pointed out, the Carter Baker Commission pointed out,
Speaker 1: and so many others had pointed out prior to this election,
Speaker 1: that massive use of mail in balloting lends itself towards
Speaker 1: all this fraud. You take away mail in balloting, we're
Speaker 1: not in this mess that we have today, where such
Speaker 1: high percentages of the American people and some polls in
Speaker 1: the eighty percent range, rejecting the honesty and integrity and
Speaker 1: have no confidence in the real outcome of this election. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Greg two follows with us. He is the lawyer based
Speaker 1: in Pittsburgh. Congressman Mike Kelly Pennsylvania's sixteenth district. He's the
Speaker 1: one that brought this case. I was a pretty disappointing decision,
Speaker 1: Congressman yesterday. Yeah, but you know, we were very disappointed.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me on the show. We're disappointed
Speaker 1: that the court was unwilling to grant interim injunctive relief
Speaker 1: pending our petition for Sir Ferrari. However, all they denied
Speaker 1: was entering injunctive relief preserving the status quo while they
Speaker 1: consider our petition for Sir Ferrari. We are still proceeding
Speaker 1: with this week filing our petition for Sir Ferrari. We
Speaker 1: do still hope that the Supreme Court will see fit
Speaker 1: to grant relief with respect to the Unconstitutional Act seventy seven.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Mike Kelly, I mean, it was
Speaker 1: pretty much a simple slam dunk cases, not a complicated
Speaker 1: legal or complicated constitutional question here. It's pretty straightforward. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we sure thought it was, and Greg has done great
Speaker 1: work on this. But when it comes down to this
Speaker 1: is the this is either it's either constitutional or unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Acts seventy seven, which was passed in October of twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: and so you got to look at what happened and say, listen,
Speaker 1: forget about anybody, any allegations of fraud, forget about all that.
Speaker 1: Let's just concentrate on what Pennsylvania did in October of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen by changing our voter or laws, but not
Speaker 1: doing it the proper way, and that is by an amendment,
Speaker 1: which is an onerous effort. You have to do it
Speaker 1: the right way, but in great confilcon's Honestly, it really
Speaker 1: comes down to this was an unconstitutional movement or event
Speaker 1: that took place in Pennsylvania's legislature, and we really didn't
Speaker 1: have standing on it until after we were harmed. So
Speaker 1: when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is a five two
Speaker 1: d court by the way, said oh no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you guys came too late. And by the way, you're
Speaker 1: not allowed to bring this up ever again. But you
Speaker 1: should have contacted us beforehand. And so how would you
Speaker 1: follow a lawsuit before you were harmed? That would even
Speaker 1: be People would say, no, you can't. You can't see
Speaker 1: somebody for something that hasn't happened. I think I think
Speaker 1: that was the nasal when watching some of the analysis
Speaker 1: of you know, these armchair lawyers on TV and some commentators,
Speaker 1: and that was their suggestion, Well, you should have brought
Speaker 1: this issue up about Acts seventy seven into twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: when when it first happened. The problem from my perspective,
Speaker 1: with that argument is there. I mean, maybe you could
Speaker 1: have done it, but and pointed out the unconstitutionality of
Speaker 1: it at the point, I don't know. Well, but we
Speaker 1: didn't have standing back Sean, we didn't have any standing
Speaker 1: because we hadn't been harmed. So you really can't follow
Speaker 1: a lawsuit against something you think may happen procedurally. I'm
Speaker 1: still scratching my head to find out or to try
Speaker 1: to figure out what the world Pennsylvania's legislature was thinking of.
Speaker 1: But then to compound all that, even after this takes place,
Speaker 1: you had the governor been changing. No. Remember the third
Speaker 1: at eight o'clock was supposed to be the drop deadtime. No,
Speaker 1: we're going to let it go to November fourth, November fifth,
Speaker 1: then we're going to finish up on Friday, November sixth,
Speaker 1: at five o'clock. And by the way that they're don't
Speaker 1: have to be the signatures don't have to match, the
Speaker 1: postmarks don't have to be on there. Nobody's allowed to you. Also,
Speaker 1: we didn't have people were able to watch the polls
Speaker 1: of what they did, and you saw that in Philadelphia.
Speaker 1: So I think when Greg talked about this early, honest,
Speaker 1: this is as plain as the nose on your face
Speaker 1: when it comes to this being unconstitutional. And that's what
Speaker 1: we're challenging right now. And while we didn't get Listen,
Speaker 1: we didn't get our temper injunctor relief, but we should
Speaker 1: be able to have the case ard on the basic
Speaker 1: merits of the case. When would we'd likely hear about that?
Speaker 1: Greg Toofel, Well, we're going to follow a motion for
Speaker 1: expedited review. The court could and go along with that
Speaker 1: and treat it an expedited fashion. If the court is
Speaker 1: still willing to consider any relief with respect to the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election as opposed to only granting relief with
Speaker 1: respect to future elections, then one would hope that they
Speaker 1: would handle it on an expedited basis, But that's entirely
Speaker 1: up to the court there, they're not held any particular schedule.
Speaker 1: When you got your when they rejected your emergency appeal yesterday,
Speaker 1: then open the door for the Texas ag case and
Speaker 1: for the four states that Texas has filed against. Well,
Speaker 1: how do you interpret those two minor decisions, if you will,
Speaker 1: So they're not actually related. They're not related, but why
Speaker 1: one not the other? Well, on the motion to accept
Speaker 1: the complaint in original jurisdiction, my understanding is all they've
Speaker 1: done so far is direct the opposing parties to respond.
Speaker 1: They haven't yet decided whether they're going to take that
Speaker 1: case yet. Either they directed the opposing party to respond
Speaker 1: to our application and then ultimately to deny the application.
Speaker 1: So it's not yet clear whether the Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: going to be willing to hear that case in its
Speaker 1: original jurisdiction. It doesn't appear to be obligated to take it.
Speaker 1: So I hope court does take it. But we are
Speaker 1: on a very tight calendar right now, so if they
Speaker 1: were going to take it, we would know fairly quickly. Correct. Oh,
Speaker 1: I imagine they will on an expedited basis, And I
Speaker 1: didn't see the schedule, but I'm sure they respond they
Speaker 1: required a response on an expedited schedule. Okay, So well
Speaker 1: I guess we're just going to have to wait and see.
Speaker 1: All right, So what is the next step Mike for
Speaker 1: you and Greg moving forward? I think we followed the
Speaker 1: law and do what we think we can do or
Speaker 1: what we know we can do. But it's you know, Sean,
Speaker 1: it really does come down to who is it now
Speaker 1: that we have faith in when it comes to deciding
Speaker 1: these things. So if it didn't take place in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: it was unconstitutional what they did at seventy seven. There's
Speaker 1: no question about it. It's unconstitution It violates everyone of
Speaker 1: the outlines of what you have to do to make
Speaker 1: an amendment to this. They had to amend it, and
Speaker 1: they had amended according to what the law says they
Speaker 1: have to do. So now we look at this and
Speaker 1: I got to tell you, it's just a regular every
Speaker 1: I don't have a law degree, but you know what,
Speaker 1: you look at this and say there's something wrong here
Speaker 1: when no court will touch it because of what And
Speaker 1: the answer is, well, you just don't understand how this works.
Speaker 1: And I said, bingo, I don't you tell me why
Speaker 1: she wears it, where she wears a blindfold over our
Speaker 1: eyes and holds a scale that's the even and says
Speaker 1: I will judge it on the basis of the merits
Speaker 1: of the case. If we can't rely on this going forward,
Speaker 1: what in the world can America rely on it? And
Speaker 1: what does the world think of the greatest nation the
Speaker 1: world has ever known not be able to figure out
Speaker 1: how to run its own elections fairly and squarely and
Speaker 1: counting every legitimate and lawful vote. But then looking at
Speaker 1: what took place. Listen, John, you and I know this.
Speaker 1: What happened on November the third wasn't magic, It was math.
Speaker 1: This was all planned way before that that day. What
Speaker 1: we're saying now is because of the no excuse mail
Speaker 1: in ballot that was passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature and
Speaker 1: signed by the Governor of Pennsylvania, it was unconstitutional and
Speaker 1: that should throw out that specific part of what it
Speaker 1: is that was relied upon on November the third and
Speaker 1: months before that when it came to no excuse mail
Speaker 1: in ballots that is not part of Pennsylvania's voting procedure.
Speaker 1: It's unconstitutional and it needs to be revealed as that,
Speaker 1: and it needs to be it needs to be thrown
Speaker 1: out that. There's just no way you can look at
Speaker 1: that and say I'm satisfied with that. There's no way.
Speaker 1: It has to be taken up by the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and they have to rule according to the the constitutional facts. Gregg,
Speaker 1: what are the next legal steps for hopefully the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court immediately taking it up, but long term, this is
Speaker 1: such a clear cut constitutional violation of the Pennsylvania state Constitution. Yeah,
Speaker 1: when the federal government delegates power to the states to
Speaker 1: dictate to direct the time, place, and manner of federal elections,
Speaker 1: it's not a blank check to do it anyway you want.
Speaker 1: A state legislature is still obligated to follow its own
Speaker 1: state constitution. And when a state supreme court like Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: State Supreme Court hunt on ridiculous procedural grounds on latches
Speaker 1: in this case, and refuses to enforce its own constitution
Speaker 1: in the administration of the elections of federal elections, that's
Speaker 1: a federal question that the Supreme Court should care about,
Speaker 1: should rectify it, shouldn't allow a lawless Pennsylvania legislature to
Speaker 1: ignore its own constitution and act an unconstitutional law and
Speaker 1: proceed to implement that law in the twenty twenty election
Speaker 1: and in all the elections coming up. At the bare
Speaker 1: minimum should be released granted as the future elections, and
Speaker 1: one would hope they wouldn't stand by and put a
Speaker 1: stamp of approval on an election that was conducted illegally
Speaker 1: and sewn. One of the more ridiculous aspects of this
Speaker 1: case in Pennsylvania actually started the amendment process in apparent
Speaker 1: recognition of the fact that amendment was necessary to do this.
Speaker 1: So if that process continues, all of us Pennsylvanians will
Speaker 1: get to vote by no excuse mail in ballot on
Speaker 1: whether we're allowed to vote by no excuse mail in ballot,
Speaker 1: and if we voted down, if we vote down, the
Speaker 1: amendment doesn't matter. We will still continue to vote by
Speaker 1: no excuse mail in ballot, which is just absolutely ridiculous. Well, listen,
Speaker 1: I wish you a lot of luck, both of you,
Speaker 1: because this is a critical constitutional issue in Pennsylvania. More importantly,
Speaker 1: everybody knew, understood completely and fully what would happen, and
Speaker 1: if you had this widespread mail in ballots is not
Speaker 1: a surprise, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. Everybody had
Speaker 1: predicted it, everybody had warned about it, and it was
Speaker 1: actually a point of agreement Democrats and Republicans on this
Speaker 1: one issue, just like dominion machines. Thank you both for
Speaker 1: being with us. Greg Twofold, thank you. Mike Kelly. Will
Speaker 1: continue to follow the case closely. We got time for
Speaker 1: a call here Florida, Chuck standing by Chuck. How are you?
Speaker 1: I say, as you're a veteran, thank you for serving
Speaker 1: your country. Welcome to the program. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Not being PC, but I hope you and your family
Speaker 1: have a merry Christmas and happy New Year's sir. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you can say Jesus and Christmas and God on this program.
Speaker 1: It's not bad. I've always known that I am a veteran,
Speaker 1: and I am most importantly what we refer to as
Speaker 1: an oathkeeper, and upon entering service, we swear an oath
Speaker 1: told the Constitution United States, not any particular political party whatsoever,
Speaker 1: or the government itself, but that piece of paper. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: part of the government has found a way to circumvent
Speaker 1: what holds our country together, and those in charge don't
Speaker 1: seem to be willing to do anything to offset that,
Speaker 1: and Unfortunately as getting to be time where oathkeepers and
Speaker 1: those who truly believe in the way this country started
Speaker 1: need to come out of the woodwork, because if our
Speaker 1: elected leaders aren't going to do it. The very first
Speaker 1: three words of the Constitution say at all we the people,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you. And this is where you know,
Speaker 1: I know, we have elections and people go away and
Speaker 1: we forget about it, and it's still a problem the
Speaker 1: next time because we didn't resolve the issues that were discovered. Now,
Speaker 1: you know, we've learned from a state like Florida that
Speaker 1: you know, you can have problems and then resolve them.
Speaker 1: And we had problems in two thousand, we had problems
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, Governor de Santis. Resolve them. Same with Ohio,
Speaker 1: same with other states. Now that we know where the
Speaker 1: problems are Georgia, we know we have problems in Nevada,
Speaker 1: big problems there, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Fix it now, and
Speaker 1: don't you know, say oh how and then we'll scratch
Speaker 1: our wouldn't conservative it? How could this ever have happened?
Speaker 1: How could this ever happen again? Because we didn't fix it.
Speaker 1: And that's why understanding what happened, and getting to the
Speaker 1: bottom of it is critical. On top of everything else,
Speaker 1: the injustice of it all, the anger that's associated with
Speaker 1: it all, it's it's real. Anyway, appreciate the call, Thanks
Speaker 1: for all you do, Thanks for serving your country. Eight
Speaker 1: hundred nine four one, Shawn, our number quick break. We'll
Speaker 1: come back and at the top of the hour will
Speaker 1: analyze the legal aspect of the ag case in Texas
Speaker 1: and much more as we continue. All Right, News round up,
Speaker 1: Information overload hour Sean Hannity Show, eight hundred and nine
Speaker 1: four one, Seawn. If you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of the program, all right. So, as the Pennsylvania Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case was rejected, the US Supreme Court rejecting a
Speaker 1: look at the Pennsylvania case, which I thought had great
Speaker 1: constitutional merit. As we were discussing, we are following this
Speaker 1: new lawsuit. And while yesterday the court had the choice,
Speaker 1: they could have denied any look at at all of
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of Texas and his complaint that it
Speaker 1: was filed. We had the Attorney general law last night,
Speaker 1: Ken Paxton of Texas, and here is what he said
Speaker 1: to me. So it's really important point that you're bringing
Speaker 1: up in a state on state suit. Our only place
Speaker 1: to go is the US Supreme Court. We can't be
Speaker 1: heard anywhere else. Other lawsuits started a district court level,
Speaker 1: and they have a right to be heard at least once,
Speaker 1: whether they have a good case or a bad case.
Speaker 1: So our request is we want to be heard. The
Speaker 1: only place we can go is a US Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and so we're pleading with the Uspreme Court, please hear
Speaker 1: our case, give us a chance at least to argue
Speaker 1: what we think is right. We want to argue the constitution.
Speaker 1: It is the responsibility of state legislatures, per the Constitution,
Speaker 1: to set the rules for election of electors, and in
Speaker 1: this case, those were overridden. In the four states we're
Speaker 1: talking about, we're overridden by other officials, whether they were
Speaker 1: judges or other governmental officials. And that's not the way
Speaker 1: our constitution works. And that's the challenge we have in
Speaker 1: front of the court. Can this be overridden by people
Speaker 1: who are not responsible under the Constitution for doing this.
Speaker 1: Mister Attorney General, can you explain how the elector's clause
Speaker 1: in Georgia, Michigan, PA, and Wisconsin were violated? Yeah, So
Speaker 1: in almost all those cases that we have, states that
Speaker 1: allowed mail in ballots in cases they were not supposed to.
Speaker 1: They allowed for non signature of verification, which is really important.
Speaker 1: So when you request a mail in ballot, you have
Speaker 1: to sign for that for that application, and then they'll
Speaker 1: verify when you send your ballot in on a sleeve
Speaker 1: of the ballot. Usually they'll verify that signature to ensure
Speaker 1: that those two signatures match. Well, if you just waive
Speaker 1: those requirements, you have no way to go back and
Speaker 1: verify that the person that requested the application is the
Speaker 1: person voting. That's a pretty important thing. When in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: go from two hundred and thirty three thousand mail in
Speaker 1: ballots four years ago to two point five million and
Speaker 1: the difference in the election was only eighty one thousand,
Speaker 1: that's a very important issue to ignore. All right. Now,
Speaker 1: if we get to the heart of the voting here,
Speaker 1: we have certain things now that we know. We know
Speaker 1: that for example, if you look at the margin of
Speaker 1: difference Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, it's about forty four thousand votes.
Speaker 1: You have seven million absentee votes cast mostly for Biden.
Speaker 1: If you look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and I mean
Speaker 1: that's that is a lot and a lot of votes.
Speaker 1: But remember Wisconsin doesn't even allow early voting like this,
Speaker 1: yet those ballots were given and the procedures that would
Speaker 1: secure an absentee ballot were bypassed. Again, another separate suit
Speaker 1: and the you know presidents, you know rightly trying to
Speaker 1: point these things out simultaneously. Wells Texas case based on
Speaker 1: the other merits that we were discussing with the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of Texas. Anyway, here to weigh in on a
Speaker 1: Julie Kelly political commentator wrote the book Disloyal Opposition of
Speaker 1: the Never Trump right tried and failed to take down
Speaker 1: the President. Greg Jarrett, he's the host of his new podcast,
Speaker 1: two number one Bestseller's witch Hunt and the Russia Hoax.
Speaker 1: Welcome both of you. As you look at this from
Speaker 1: the legal side of things, Greg, Jared, where do you
Speaker 1: see things at this moment? Well, it's a difficult case
Speaker 1: to convince the Supreme Court to take. They do have
Speaker 1: what's called original jurisdiction, so if there's a dispute between
Speaker 1: two states, they can take the case. But it's discretionary.
Speaker 1: So's I think, and I was watching your interview last night.
Speaker 1: I think that's the biggest obstacle that Texas has to overcome.
Speaker 1: But they have so much evidence here. We have invalid
Speaker 1: ballots that were backdated, late ballots, illegally counted, blank ballots,
Speaker 1: assigned random names and filled in ballots didn't matching, didn't
Speaker 1: match the valid of voters, signatures were missing or didn't match.
Speaker 1: And some of this place. Some of this was cured illegally,
Speaker 1: for example, in Wisconsin by election workers. There, I'm allowed
Speaker 1: to cure ballot like that. So I think that if
Speaker 1: Texas can present a sufficient amount of evidence, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court just might take the case. But frankly, I mean,
Speaker 1: I've got to be totally honest with you, the chances
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court taking this case are not good,
Speaker 1: all right, So and you're to take Julie, That's what
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer, but I think that what Greg
Speaker 1: says is pretty accurate in terms of the court taking
Speaker 1: the case. But look, you can't unsee what they laid
Speaker 1: out in that lawsuit. A lot of us have been
Speaker 1: covering that. I've written a few articles about Pennsylvania and
Speaker 1: Wisconsin myself. To your point, they're what Greg was saying,
Speaker 1: there's no ballot turing provision in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. You
Speaker 1: also had unelected officials, which includes the Secretary State of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania who is appointed, not elected like in most states,
Speaker 1: just rewriting the law arbitrarily on their own and changing
Speaker 1: the state legislature's legislation the election lot that they set out.
Speaker 1: So this is a very damning bill of particulars that
Speaker 1: the Texas to Train General laid out, and it has
Speaker 1: to be considered when the legislatures plan to vote on
Speaker 1: December fourteenth for their electors late. All right, So let
Speaker 1: me go back to greg. Even though the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: yesterday they turned down the Pennsylvania case, which I thought
Speaker 1: was a very strong constitutional case which should be something
Speaker 1: I would believe of great importance that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: would prioritize and take up. And that being, of course,
Speaker 1: the state legislature and basically going against the statutory legal
Speaker 1: language within the Constitution, which would have taken a constitutional
Speaker 1: amendment to accomplish if the Constitution were followed. I guess
Speaker 1: probably their reason, if I had to guess, is that, well,
Speaker 1: why didn't you do it before the election. But that's
Speaker 1: my only guess, and I think it's a weak answer.
Speaker 1: But now you're saying specifically about the Texas a g case,
Speaker 1: you don't see a good chance that taking it up,
Speaker 1: even though they ask for arguments from the other four states. Well,
Speaker 1: just alleging that, you know, there's a violation of the constitution,
Speaker 1: that's not enough to have standing to sue. Texas really
Speaker 1: has to establish that it's been injured and their claim
Speaker 1: here and well, hang on, but it's outcome to these
Speaker 1: four states would be outcome determinative in the election, and
Speaker 1: their state has a decided interest in this when the
Speaker 1: citizens of Texas then would be disenfranchised based on that violation.
Speaker 1: You're absolutely right, Sean, and Texas is presenting that argument.
Speaker 1: They are saying that the constitutional rights of our citizens
Speaker 1: in Texas have been violated by other states that have
Speaker 1: not followed constitutional rules and laws that they set for
Speaker 1: the election, so they've been injured. And I, you know,
Speaker 1: as a lawyer, I think that's a really great argument. However,
Speaker 1: I know the Supreme Court. I followed the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: for decades, and I know what they do. They try
Speaker 1: to avoid getting involved in politically oriented cases, and they
Speaker 1: are still stinging from the Gore versus Bush two thousand
Speaker 1: election contest, which I covered down in Florida for thirty
Speaker 1: seven long days and all the way up to the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court, and they will do anything to avoid
Speaker 1: getting involved in this. And so, you know, as much
Speaker 1: as I think as a lawyer and legally they should
Speaker 1: be involved, I'm telling you that historically they're just not
Speaker 1: going to do it. You're ta, Julie, that's just such
Speaker 1: a disappointing thing to hear. Greig is probably right. But
Speaker 1: you know, as we went through these battles Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justice battles, especially wreck Havanaugh, to have a constitutionalist on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to think that they would punt on
Speaker 1: what is arguably one of the most important cases that
Speaker 1: they would ever consider, restoring the integrity of our national election,
Speaker 1: of rebuking this plan of Democrats by Democrats to steal
Speaker 1: elections by breaking the laws, violating laws, making up their
Speaker 1: own laws. That's really going to be a hard till
Speaker 1: for seventy four million Trump voters to swallow. All right,
Speaker 1: let's go to what you've been looking at, and that
Speaker 1: is on some of the more technical side of the
Speaker 1: voting machines and other investigations involved in the election. Because
Speaker 1: I don't think I think the polls are right. I
Speaker 1: think the people this country have accurately identified that these
Speaker 1: elections are full of fraud and laws being just you know,
Speaker 1: cast aside, abandoned. No, I mean partisan observers never allowed
Speaker 1: to observe all sorts of irregularities happen, and people don't
Speaker 1: have faith in the confidence an integrity of the vote.
Speaker 1: And I don't we never will. I don't see it
Speaker 1: ever happening. So where do you stand in your investigation? Well,
Speaker 1: I will say a couple of things really stood out
Speaker 1: in that Texas lawsuit. One was in Georgia. The rejection
Speaker 1: rate for mail in ballots in twenty sixteen was about
Speaker 1: six point four percent. This year it was point three
Speaker 1: to seven percent, even though there were something like six
Speaker 1: times as many mail in ballots used in Pennsylvania. Obviously
Speaker 1: changed Kathy Books are changing all the rules at the
Speaker 1: last second, apparently defying another Supreme Court order, Justice Ledo's
Speaker 1: order to segregate those ballots. I don't even know if
Speaker 1: that's been decided. In Wisconsin, the idea of Milwaukee County
Speaker 1: election workers filling in missing addresses on the certification envelope
Speaker 1: and allowing those ballots to be illegally cured and inspected
Speaker 1: before the deadline. Those are some of the major issues
Speaker 1: that of course in Michigan, the Secretary State mailing out
Speaker 1: seven point seven million mail in valid applications without proper authority.
Speaker 1: I mean that's a point, I mean seven million without
Speaker 1: look at for example, and again it's outcome determinative dive
Speaker 1: in a place like Wisconsin, or the signature verification issue
Speaker 1: in Georgia, or the constitutional issue that's emerged in Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: or the statistical information you know, one in one quad
Speaker 1: brillionth of an opportunity in terms of the anomalies in
Speaker 1: ms in the results that ultimately came out, and the
Speaker 1: unlikelihood that any of this would have happened, which we've
Speaker 1: gone over in great specificity in detail. Now. The problem is,
Speaker 1: as you know, as Jonathan Turley was on the line,
Speaker 1: the President's running out a runway, and I was going
Speaker 1: to have to land a seven fifty seven on a
Speaker 1: postage stamp at this point because of real time considerations, Greg, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the job of investigating is demanding, is time consuming. That
Speaker 1: clock is ticking. I mean today is actually the day, Shaun,
Speaker 1: as you well know, of the Safe Harbor deadline, and
Speaker 1: so electors are being selected by the states, and you
Speaker 1: know in less than a week. Of course, the Electoral
Speaker 1: College meets. That would be next Monday. But even Ruth
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsberg had really said the drop dead data is
Speaker 1: Congress on January sixth, and then inauguration day schedule for
Speaker 1: the twentieth. You know, the core question is there was
Speaker 1: no question that there was rampant fraud. Did it happen
Speaker 1: in sufficient numbers that change the outcome? So that's the
Speaker 1: core question. And it's almost impossible. I can tell you
Speaker 1: this is a lawyer for forty years. You cannot dig
Speaker 1: up the evidence and present it in court of law
Speaker 1: to stop this runaway train with outbreaks in the six
Speaker 1: week period of time that is allotted. It just cannot
Speaker 1: be done. So what's going to happen is that, you know,
Speaker 1: lawyers and investigators and historians will end up judging who
Speaker 1: actually on the twenty twenty presidential election, notwithstanding who's inaugurated
Speaker 1: on January twentieth. It weren't their varying analysis after two
Speaker 1: thousand in terms of some saying Gore one, some saying
Speaker 1: Bush one. Yeah, there were and you know, anybody with
Speaker 1: a brain could see this coming a mile away. There
Speaker 1: have been three separate studies and commissions that said this
Speaker 1: was going to happen. You know, years ago they concluded
Speaker 1: that universal mail in balloting is a recipe for corruption
Speaker 1: and electoral disaster. There are too many ways to trifle
Speaker 1: with mail in ballots. And it certainly happened here and
Speaker 1: I identified a few minutes ago all the way. Look
Speaker 1: that you're talking about the Baker Carter Commission, you talk
Speaker 1: about the New York Times, you're talking about you know,
Speaker 1: everybody had said the same thing, and then they used
Speaker 1: COVID as an excuse the one time they didn't, you know,
Speaker 1: quote the great doctor Fauci that he said it was
Speaker 1: safe to vote in p you know, with social distancing, etc.
Speaker 1: Judges in Pennsylvania who were saying, oh, forget the law
Speaker 1: that we passed for exactly that's their Supreme Court. Greg,
Speaker 1: all right, thank you both, Julie, Thank you, Greg, Jared,
Speaker 1: thank you eight hundred and nine for one. Sean, you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of the program. A twenty
Speaker 1: five till the top of the hour. We'll get to
Speaker 1: your calls coming up here. I see that Goya Foods
Speaker 1: named Congresswoman a Casio Cortez employee of the month after
Speaker 1: sales spike with her calls to boycott the company's product
Speaker 1: because the president of the company actually praised the Trump economy.
Speaker 1: What a what a terrible thing. And when she boycotted us,
Speaker 1: our sales increased a thousand percent. Did we ever send
Speaker 1: any Goya products to the local food bank that I'd
Speaker 1: like to work with? Linda, Linda, I've been here for
Speaker 1: fifteen years. All right, all right, stop, yes we did,
Speaker 1: we did, right, we bought Miley did too, right, that's right,
Speaker 1: and we've and by the way, they're great foods, and
Speaker 1: I now buy them. I never bought them before. They
Speaker 1: actually are great, great beans and stuff. And you know,
Speaker 1: especially if you're like, make awesome chili, their beans make
Speaker 1: awesome chili. I make the best chili, pathways chili. Yes,
Speaker 1: I do. I really, you do, not, it says who
Speaker 1: says me? Because you already know him a good cook?
Speaker 1: Why are you acting like I'm not. You might be
Speaker 1: a good cook doesn't mean you make the best chili.
Speaker 1: I make the best chili. I make the best corn beef,
Speaker 1: and I make the best breakfast. I make the best
Speaker 1: everything and I grow the best steaks anymore funny else? No, okay,
Speaker 1: just checking both. Yeah, but she's busy selling her tax
Speaker 1: the rich gear. What does she have sweatshirts? Fifty nine
Speaker 1: bucks tax the rich sweatshirts? Can you imagine? Did you
Speaker 1: see by the way that the Democrats now they want
Speaker 1: to give the I R. S another five point two
Speaker 1: billion dedicated to enforcement activities? What is this lowest learner?
Speaker 1: Two point zero? Now go after every Conservative? What do
Speaker 1: I always tell my financial guys, pay it, pay it,
Speaker 1: pay it ding ding they pay. I think, what's the point.
Speaker 1: I know so many conservatives they just get, you know, attacked.
Speaker 1: Unbelievable eight hundred nine for one Shawn, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of the program here, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw the list of crimes out in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles that they now have a DA's do not
Speaker 1: prosecute list. Misdemeanor cases will be declined or dismissed prior
Speaker 1: to arrayment of factors for consideration. The list includes trespassing,
Speaker 1: disturbing the peace, a minor in possession of alcohol, driving
Speaker 1: without a license, driving with a suspended license. You're not
Speaker 1: gonna get in trouble making, criminal threats, drug and paraphernalia possession.
Speaker 1: I guess a crack pipe and needles are okay. Being
Speaker 1: under the influence of a controlled substance, public intoxication is okay,
Speaker 1: Loitering to commit prostitution, and resisting arrest is okay. And
Speaker 1: they'll not seek the death penalty. And those accused of
Speaker 1: misdemeanor's low level felonies will be referred to community based
Speaker 1: programs for juveniles. Those accused of any misdemeanor no longer
Speaker 1: they have there's no consequences. Our prosecutorial approach should be
Speaker 1: based towards keeping youth out of the juvenile justice system.
Speaker 1: All if you just keep letting him go, they'll be out.
Speaker 1: And with the employing the lightest touch necessary to provide
Speaker 1: for public safeties. You know, you add this to the
Speaker 1: massive defunding of the police effort, it's getting to be
Speaker 1: the wild West out there. It's going to become the
Speaker 1: wild West twenty twenty. You know, for all the liberals
Speaker 1: that don't want citizens that don't believe in the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment to have firearms, well, we've sold more firearms in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty than any other year on record. And you know,
Speaker 1: the shooting rate in New York's jumped nearly one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty five percent. Does that surprise you. By the way,
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matters co founder is firing back at Obama
Speaker 1: for criticizing defund the police. That's where this is all headed.
Speaker 1: You have an emergency medical team unit robbed in Brooklyn,
Speaker 1: Lord by a fake phony phone call. I mean, you
Speaker 1: can't make this up. You look at House and Senate Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're prioritizing foreign nationals and bills while Americans remain jobless
Speaker 1: and they're more concerned about bringing in people from other
Speaker 1: parts of the world. How don't we hire americans first? Unbelievable?
Speaker 1: This is now what you know, Welcome to This language
Speaker 1: is now evolved, according to dictionary dot com and a
Speaker 1: response to the court packing definition change. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: dictionary dot com change their definition of court packing in
Speaker 1: response to a Twitter users acknowledgement of the change that
Speaker 1: language evolves and apparently this new definition responding to a
Speaker 1: tweet criticizing a Playboy reporter for implying Republicans packed the
Speaker 1: courts zumably with the vacancy that, by the way, it
Speaker 1: happened all those other times in the past Ruth Bader
Speaker 1: Ginsburg and anyway, language evolves, so do we. And a
Speaker 1: November first archive shows a definition of court packing based
Speaker 1: on the US history Franklin FDR trying unsuccessfully nineteen thirty
Speaker 1: seven to add six additional justices which had invalidated a
Speaker 1: number of his new New Deal laws. But anyway, now
Speaker 1: they want to just change the name. I mean, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Cornell University is offering race based exemptions to the flu
Speaker 1: vaccine mandate, and they said students who identify as a
Speaker 1: person in color of color can seek an exemption to
Speaker 1: the school's flu vaccination mandate for on campus residents because
Speaker 1: of historical injustices and current events. And we required all
Speaker 1: students attending its campus to receive a flu vaccine according
Speaker 1: to its COVID nineteen Behavioral Compact, and the school allowed
Speaker 1: wiggle room for students who identify as quote, black, Indigenous,
Speaker 1: or as a person of color and may have personal
Speaker 1: concerns about fulfilling the compact requirements based on historical injustices
Speaker 1: and current events. That does not exist to all students.
Speaker 1: That would be called discrimination. I'm not quite sure if
Speaker 1: I don't even like the policy to begin with to
Speaker 1: be honest anyway, unbelievable times we're living. It's getting nuttier.
Speaker 1: And did you see what's going on out in Portland?
Speaker 1: Portland exploded in violence again, hundreds of protesters attempting to
Speaker 1: set up another autonomous zone, reclaim a home that was
Speaker 1: sold by an African American family to pay for legal fees.
Speaker 1: When the Sun was arrested, so they outrage with a
Speaker 1: dozen arrests, more violence. Apparently family was removed in September.
Speaker 1: They're thrown rocks at officers again. Why would they stop?
Speaker 1: They didn't get in trouble the last time. People out
Speaker 1: there spread a fire extinguisher at them. Damn much police vehicles.
Speaker 1: And this happened all in broad daylight. And that genius
Speaker 1: Mayor Wheeler out there sent out a statement he's authorizing
Speaker 1: Portland police to use all lawful means to end the
Speaker 1: occupation and not going to be another autonomous zone in Portland. Okay,
Speaker 1: And I would have him explain what he means by lawful.
Speaker 1: I want to know what he means, doesn't mean what
Speaker 1: you and I mean. I can tell you exactly right now,
Speaker 1: exactly right, okay. Well you know I would say, you
Speaker 1: know what we live. It's now the it's the error
Speaker 1: of anarchists and radicals. They're just taken over and they
Speaker 1: don't see this is the problem. Right. So there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of innocent people trying to just live their lives
Speaker 1: and raise their kids. And then you got Wheeler out there,
Speaker 1: free wheel in it. Pardon the pun. Let's let's have
Speaker 1: Wheeler handle it. You put together the police that you want,
Speaker 1: you put together the people that you want to enforce,
Speaker 1: the lawful exchange that you want to see happen, and
Speaker 1: then we'll talk. University. You gotta get vaccinated, but not
Speaker 1: if you're not if you're not white. Okay, well, why
Speaker 1: are we doing? Why are we deviding people at Cornell?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't they be one glorious student body and eventually would
Speaker 1: be proud Cornell graduates, an Ivy League school graduate. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't understand the written in discrimination in
Speaker 1: school policy. By the way, why are they making people
Speaker 1: get vaccinated anyway? That should be a personal medical choice
Speaker 1: between a student and their doctor. It's not like you're
Speaker 1: telling them to wear a mask in a classroom, which
Speaker 1: they I would say, have the right to do. Well,
Speaker 1: you're gonna you're gonna now demand that everybody get vaccinated,
Speaker 1: but not if you're not white. How does that bring
Speaker 1: people together? But that's what they're doing. It's you know,
Speaker 1: you can't even make this stuff up. Then you got
Speaker 1: this woman, Cynthia Johnson. We've been passing notes about this
Speaker 1: back and forth the whole day. Have you've been following this? Um?
Speaker 1: So let me let me just go back and play
Speaker 1: part of this and look, there's some context to it.
Speaker 1: But anyway, she's a member of the Michigan House of
Speaker 1: Representatives and she makes a call out to her soldiers
Speaker 1: to make you trump people pay now. As an original
Speaker 1: post she made, the comments got a lot of press
Speaker 1: pick up because she apparently has been getting threatening voicemails.
Speaker 1: I don't want anybody threatening anybody out there. Anyway, she
Speaker 1: started it with, you know, pretty ugly speech and anyone
Speaker 1: who criticized her. But anyway, while she does end the
Speaker 1: video with this threat, she says that the top be smart.
Speaker 1: You don't have to yell, you don't have to curse
Speaker 1: at anyone. Hit their asses in the pocketbook. And then
Speaker 1: she goes on to explain how the FBI found someone
Speaker 1: who wish your threats tot her. I don't want her
Speaker 1: to get threat I don't want anybody you're threatened. I mean,
Speaker 1: why don't we just leave people the hell alone. She's
Speaker 1: now been removed from her committee assignments, waiting further discipline action,
Speaker 1: according to some published reports. Now, but listen to what
Speaker 1: she says in this threat. You don't have to yell,
Speaker 1: you don't have to curse anybody else. You don't have
Speaker 1: to call people names, hit their asses in the pocket book.
Speaker 1: So this is just a warning to you trumpers, be careful,
Speaker 1: walk lightly. We ain't playing with you. Enough of the shenanigans.
Speaker 1: Enough it's enough. And for those of you who are soldiers,
Speaker 1: you know how to do it, do it right, be
Speaker 1: in order make them pay. I love y'all. Do you
Speaker 1: know what to do? Do it right, make them pay.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe maybe I'm just too maybe I'm
Speaker 1: become a snowflake. It sounds like a threat to me, Linda, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a threat. Threat. But the problem is that we're
Speaker 1: not allowed to call it that because we're on the
Speaker 1: other side of the argument. How about a threat is wrong? Period,
Speaker 1: says they are conservatives out there threatening liberals. I would say,
Speaker 1: don't do it. I mean, this is what this is
Speaker 1: what we say to everybody, you know, So now we're
Speaker 1: creating this hatred and this horrible way of thinking is
Speaker 1: said of saying, hey, you're all children of God, and
Speaker 1: you should all love each other, we should all be
Speaker 1: kind to each other and stop trying to hurt each
Speaker 1: other because we all got to live here. There's none
Speaker 1: of that anymore. Now it's just a visiveness. But those
Speaker 1: days I think sadly are gone. And I mean sadly too.
Speaker 1: I mean you would think that every I know, everybody
Speaker 1: that like is a graduate or whatever school they went to,
Speaker 1: they're all proud of their university. They all. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not proud. I didn't even walk niue individual. You're
Speaker 1: not normal. Let's put them on. Most normal people are.
Speaker 1: Usually they're proud they graduated, and they're one. You know,
Speaker 1: if you are well whatever, you know, you name the school,
Speaker 1: whatever your mascot happens to be, you know, you just
Speaker 1: identify with it, and it's something that people have in common.
Speaker 1: It's not about the racial component of this man. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, one glorious Cornell family. Apparently forget it. Let's
Speaker 1: go to Christian in California. What's up, Christian? How are you?
Speaker 1: I wish I could say that I was good, but
Speaker 1: I'm really not. Your heart is trouble. What's up? I'm
Speaker 1: in I'm in trouble. I live in Sherman Oaks and
Speaker 1: my wife and I are moving my son from preschool
Speaker 1: to kindergarten above and we are crossing off schools faster
Speaker 1: than we can find them. That is teaching the anti
Speaker 1: racist critical race theory curriculum, which is now come in
Speaker 1: this new form of Pollyanna curriculum, which everyone needs to
Speaker 1: learn about right away. There was this like Pollyanna conference.
Speaker 1: It took place at the biggest dependent private schools out here,
Speaker 1: and it literally it sounds fluffy, and then you get
Speaker 1: the second page. It's like to teach your child's racial
Speaker 1: identity and the racial identity of others. And it's great.
Speaker 1: K through eight, it is beyond disturbing. There's a school
Speaker 1: the look. I've covered a lot of this, I've seen
Speaker 1: this and it's happening everywhere. You know what, the hardest
Speaker 1: and saddest thing in all of this is, how about
Speaker 1: you just teach kids to respect other kids and leave
Speaker 1: them alone. And that's easy to do and keep it basic.
Speaker 1: And then how about we focus on reading, writing, math,
Speaker 1: and some version of normal history that is accurate, and
Speaker 1: we don't do the simple, basic things. And they spend
Speaker 1: all this time on all of this other stuff, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's like it's I'm not really understanding what
Speaker 1: the purpose of it is except the term. You know, kids,
Speaker 1: Indoctrinate them and a good little socialist as quickly as
Speaker 1: you possibly can, because this may be the only opportunity
Speaker 1: you have and to group think and to you know,
Speaker 1: total complete conformity. But at the same time, don't ever
Speaker 1: think about mentioning God in school. That's too controversial. Kick
Speaker 1: him out. It's if you're gonna tell out. Just teach
Speaker 1: the simple value of love God and your neighbor as yourself.
Speaker 1: I guess you have to eliminate God. How about your
Speaker 1: treat your neighbor as yourself? Pull keep it there and
Speaker 1: leave everybody. Then stick to the reading, writing, math and history,
Speaker 1: and let's get our kids educated so they have the
Speaker 1: rungs of the latter that they can climb and tap
Speaker 1: their God given abilities and live life and be the
Speaker 1: best they can be whatever they choose to do. All right,
Speaker 1: Hennan's tonight nine eastern on the Fox News Channel. Say,
Speaker 1: DVR love this statement. Under Biden. I learned yesterday the
Speaker 1: US Attorney's office in Delaware advised my legal counsel they
Speaker 1: are investigating my tax affairs. I take it seriously. Okay,
Speaker 1: And Joe is deeply proud of his son who gets
Speaker 1: all these millions with zero experience. Ally, we'll have the
Speaker 1: latest on that the election, Kaylee Mcinanny, Laura Trump, Pete Hegseth,
Speaker 1: Congressman Gates, Joints, us Leo Terrell, Rick Rinnell, Chris Kobak,
Speaker 1: and Rins. Previous news you won't get from the mob
Speaker 1: nine Eastern tonight. We'll see then back here tomorrow. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us,