Latest / The Ben Ferguson Podcast / Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules!

Transcript

Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules! · The Ben Ferguson Podcast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This is significant what just happened with Texas suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: and Wisconsin at the Supreme Court over these election rules.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: This isn't just people now fighting back. This is an
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: entire state fighting back against governments that are not doing
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: things the right way. Now, let me broaden this out
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: so you understand why Texas is doing this specifically, what
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: they are saying to the Supreme Court directly now is
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: we have a problem with these other states and the
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: rules that they broke to have their elections, which makes
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: our vote much less insignificant because of their decision to
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: not follow And this is their argument the Constitution and
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: to change their elections without having actual the actual legislative
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: bodies do it in the name of COVID nineteen. You
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: very well could have changed the outcome of the free
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: and fair election and the way the elections are supposed
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: to be done in America, which means you are disenfranchising
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: the voters of Texas and the will of the American
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: people nationwide. I would not be surprised if other states
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: follow suit. I think Texas and what they did here
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: is honestly pretty brilliant. Now, this may not have an impact.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: Unbiden becoming the president may not. What this will have
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: an impact on is precedent moving forward, which is the
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: reason why this court case, in this battle is so valuable. Now.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: The state of Texas filing this lawsuit, they also did
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: it directly with the US Supreme Court right before midnight,
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: challenging the election process in these states. The grounds for
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit very simple. They are accusing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: Wisconsin of violating the Constitution. Texas is are that these
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: states violated the Elector's Clause of the Constitution because they
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: and through executive action, but not through the state legislators,
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: which is exactly how it's supposed to be done. That's
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: part one of the lawsuit. Let me break that down.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: What they're saying, in layman's terms is, you guys, violated
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the United States Constitution because you did not actually allow
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: for the people that are elected to be involved in
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: changing of these rules. You didn't have votes on changing
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: these procedures. You had non elected individuals and executive orders,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: which the Constitution, they're arguing, does not allow an exemption
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: for for a national emergency or anything else. The legislature
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: is the one that is supposed to do this. This
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: is not supposed to be people that are not elected.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: In other words, the people in Georgia and Michigan, Pennsylvania,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: Wisconsin that changed how our elections are done in this
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: presidential election in their states did not have the power
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: and or the authority to do this. Therefore, they violated
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: the Constitution. That is part one of Texas' argument. Part
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: two of Texas's argument is this. They argue that there
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: within states. Huge problem with the Constitution. I'll say it again. Texas'
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: second point is you not only did you guys scrupt
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: these elections in your state by not having the legislature
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: actually make the decisions on the changes you were going
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: to be making, which is a violation of the United
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: States Constitution, violates the literal electric clause of the Constitution.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: But within your states, you guys screwed up again because
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: you had different rules for voting in different counties, which
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: they're arguing means you're disenfranchising. It violates they said, the
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: Constitution's equal protection clause, meaning that you protected votes in
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: some ways right in some areas, and you did not
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: protect people's votes in other ways. That's a problem. When
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: you have county over that's doing an election totally different
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: than the next county that's next to them, it's a problem.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: You're supposed to have consistency and continuity. Consistency and continuity,
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: that's what you're supposed to have in an election process statewide.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Should not be different in one county compared to the next,
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: and the next and the next, because what you're doing
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: is there's some people that were eligible to vote. Basically,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: their argument is in one county that would be ineligible
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: to vote in another. There would be different votes that
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: would be eligible to be counted in one county that
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: would have been deemed ineligible ballots in another county. There
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: are protections in the constitution for this is what Texas
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: is arguing. You guys had different voting rules and procedures
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: in different counties, so votes were counted differently in different
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: counties within the state. Therefore, you violated the Constitution Nite
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: States of America's Equal Protection clause. Now both of these arguments,
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: I don't care who you are as a legal scholar
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: have merit. I would not be surprised if the Supreme
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Court hears this, and they should in my opinion, because
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: the accusations that are being made are are appropriate. These
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: are appropriate actions. These are actions that should have been taken.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: These are actions that that the Texas is doing to
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: stand up not just for the voters of Texas. What
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: they're really doing is they're standing up for every voter
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: in America. What they're saying is is that every vote matters,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: and every vote should be counted, and some ballot shouldn't
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: be thrown out in one county where next door they
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: wouldn't be thrown out where one one in one place
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: that's a valid ballot, in the next county over it
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: would be an invalid ballot. You guys change laws, and
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: you weren't allowed to change those laws. You're not elected
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: to change those laws. That's another part of this. So
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: when you guys have done these things the way that
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: you decided to do this, the way that you decided
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: to just make up rules as you go, the Constitution
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: of the United States America actually shockingly does not allow
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: for this. Now Texas is not done. They also have
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: a third accusation, and I'm going to tell you what
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: that accusation is in the second But before we get
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: to that, I want to tell you about the number
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: one conservative organization the country called AMAK. AMAC is fighting
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: to protect the integrity of the election process. They have
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: come out with their new magazine which does a deep
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: dive into exactly what we're talking about right now, a
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: deep dive into the election process and how we need
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: to restore integrity with the election process. They go state
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: by state explaining what happened, what you should be concerned about,
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: and what we need to do to change it to
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: protect the elections moving forward. If you have not joined
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: the number one conservative organization in the country, I want
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: you to join and sign up now for free. I'm
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: going to give you a one year free membership right now, Yes,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: a one year free membership. All you have to do
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: is go to ben Free online dot com. That is
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: www dot ben Free online dot com and you can
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: join AMAC right now and get this magazine. Also, you'll
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: have an organization that's advocating, fighting and defending the integrity
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: of the vote. If you're ready to get in the
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: game and have your voice be heard, go online to
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: ben free online dot com. That's been free online dot com. Now,
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: I want to get into part three of this lawsuit
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: that Texas has directly with the Supreme Court. First off,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: they argue the state violated the electoral electoral Clause of
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: procedures through the courts and through executive action, not to
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the state legislatives. They're saying, that's number one. Number two,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Texas argue that there were differences in voting rules and
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: procedures in different counties within multiple states, where one ballot
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: may be valid one county, but the county next door
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: it may not be valid. That's a huge problem that
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: violates They argue the Constitution's equal protection clause. In Part
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: three of this lawsuit is Texas argues that there were
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: voting irregularities in these states. As a result of the
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: two decisions that I just told you about, Texas is
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: now acting the Supreme Court to order the states to
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: other legislators to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says, I'm
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: going to read this because it's important exactly what they're
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: saying in this lawsuit. They say, quote certain officials in
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the defendant states presented the pandemic as the justification for
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail in voting. In
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: other words, you guys use COVID, a disease that has
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with voting, as a justification to literally
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: ignore the laws that you currently have on the books
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: in these states. You then use COVID nineteen, which is
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: not a justification in any capacity, to change election law,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: to decide to completely overhaul mail in voting. Again, you
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: guys are making up laws that don't exist. You're making
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: up rules that are violation of the state and the
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: United States Constitution, and you can't do this. Texas also
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: said these states flooded their citizenry with tens of millions
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: of ballot applications and ballots and degradation of statutory controls
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: as to how they are lawfully received as well as
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: evaluated and counted. In other words, not only did you
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: guys make up new rules, but you didn't keep the
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: integrity of the ballot because you decided to change and
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: people had different standards for evaluating these ballots and how
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: these ballots were even counted. Now. Texas says this, and
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: I think this is an important point they said, Look,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: whether this was intentional, whether this was intended or not,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: these were unconstitutional acts. And these unconstitutional acts had the
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: same uniform effect. Texas charges that they made the twenty
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: twenty election number one less secure. Number two, they made
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: the election less secure in the state of Texas. Now
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: you may say, okay, hold on a second, how can
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: Texas claim that what they did in Pennsylvania or Georgia
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: or Michigan somehow made their elections less safe. They're making
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: the argument to Wisconsin and all these other states in
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: this lawsuit, Hey, what you guys did is you made
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election less secure in my state. Well,
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: the reason why they can make that arguments because the
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: national election, we had a free and fair election the
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: state of Texas. Is what Texas is saying their argument.
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: We did things by the book, by the constitution. We
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: didn't make up new laws that we didn't have the
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: power to make up. We didn't allow for executive action
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: to change the way we did election. We didn't send
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: out numerous millions of ballot applications and ballots and degregation
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: of statutory controls without these checks and balances that are
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: on the books in your states. And so you may
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: have altered the election and changed the outcome of the
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: election for the people of Texas. That's what Texas is
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: saying here. You made our election less secure, our election
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: less meaningful in our state, and our election that was
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: done in the appropriate and legal way could easily be
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: canceled out by the inappropriate actions of you in another state. Now,
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: this case presents a core question of election law one
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: to the defendants in these states violate the Elector's clause
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: in our Constitution by taking non legislative action. No, these
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: people that made these decisions were not elected to change
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: which is what the Constitution says you have to have.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: That's the question that Texas is asking the Spring courts
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: decide on these non legislative changes to the defendant states
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: election laws. They also are asking this question question, did
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: you facilitate the casting, the counting of ballots and violation
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: of your own state laws, which in turn violated the
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: Elector's clause of Article two, Section one clause to the
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: US Constitution. This is a very very very fair question
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: for Texas to be asked in the Supreme Court and Finally,
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: Texas says, look by you taking these acts, doing these things,
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: these unlawful acts, as the lawsuit states, the defendant states
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: have not only, they argue, tainted the integrity of their
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: own citizens votes in these states, but these actions have
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: also debased the votes of citizens in our state of
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Texas and other states that did in fact follow the
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: laws and remain loyal to the Constitution. In other words,
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: you guys in these states, you went rogue, You made
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: up law, you made up rules, You decide to violate
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: the Constitution, multiple clause of the Constitution, and that disenfranchise
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: the votes in our states and other states that did
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: in fact remain loyal to the constitution. Is this a
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: compelling argument? The answer, I think anyone that's looking at
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: it's in a non biased way would say, yes, you know,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: wherever you're from, wherever you're listening to us today from
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: this is the question that needs to be asked, and
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: it's a question that needs to be asked over and
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: over and over again. This is the question that should
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: be asked, and I think most people will agree with me.
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: My vote clearly was impacted in a negative way. My
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: vote was impacted in a negative way. By other states
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: who decided to change and do things outside of what
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: the Constitution deems to be appropriate. The government's job, the
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: Constitution states, is to have a free and fair and
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: order of the election across the entire United States of America.
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: It's in the constitution. The changes that were made disenfranchised
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: countless American votes. And not only did they disenfranchise countless
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: American votes, right, but they very well could have changed
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: the outcome of the election, which means you change the
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: outcome of election, and that is something you're not supposed
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: to have the power to do. You're you're not supposed
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: to have the power to do what I just described.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: A state is not supposed to have the power to
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: alter a nationwide election and disenfranchise and cheapen the votes
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: of people that followed the Constitution in count with states, cities,
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: and communities around the country. The Supreme Court, I believe,
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: is going to take this. I believe they should take
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: it because this isn't just about the twenty twenty election.
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: This is about much more than that, all right. I
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: want to get back to something else that is big
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: on this case that Texas is bringing trying to protect
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: and defend the integrity of every vote. Ted Cruz has
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: now come out and said that he will, in fact
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: stand ready to present the oral arguments if the Supreme
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: Court takes up this Pennsylvania ballot case. I want you
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: to hear this from earlier, and then I'll explain more
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: about it. Now. Fox News has learned that if the
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court decides to take up the case, a high
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: profile US senator will be arguing in front of the
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: High Court. Texas Senator Ted Cruse, telling Fox News exclusively quote.
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: Petitioner's legal team has asked me whether I would be
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: willing to argue the case before the Supreme Court if
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: the court grants serchiarori. I have agreed and told them
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: that if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: ready to present the world argument. The case being brought
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: by Republican Congressman Mike Kelly and congressional candidate Sean Parnell.
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: They argue, no excuse, mail in voting is unconstitutional, so
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: they're seeking to throw out those ballots in this presidential election.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: Cruz is publicly pushed for the High Court to take
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: up the case, and the Senator tells Fox News, as
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: I said last week, the bitter division and acrimony we
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: see across the nation needs resolution. I believe the Supreme
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: within its powers that we are following the law and
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: following the Constitution. This would not be a new experience
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: for Senator Cruz. He served as Solicitor General for the
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: State of Texas from two thousand and three to two
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: thousand and eight. He has made nine appearances before the
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court. This could be the tenth. It will be
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: interesting too, My Commanuel, thanks, breaking news up again. If
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decides to take of this case, it
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: would be the tenth time the Cruise has argued before
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. This is obviously big news. He stated
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: that petitioner's a legal team and asked me whether I
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: would be willing to argue the case for the Supreme
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: Court if the Court grants this. I have agreed and
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: told them that if the Court takes the appeal, I
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: stand ready to present the oral arguments. Which is great news.
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: You know, people keep asking me what's going to happen
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: moving forward. I don't know if this is going to
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: change the election. What I do know is this is
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: exactly the questions that we should be asking right now.
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: This is the exact questions that we should be asking
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: to make sure that this doesn't happen in the future.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: And I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat.
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: You should care about the integrity of this election. You
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: should care that states in other states are not just
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: throwing random jello against the wall changing the rules that
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: can affect the outcome of the integrity of your election
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: in your state, because that is what this is actually
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: all about. And with Texas deciding to sue, that's what
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: they're trying to do. They're saying, all right, look, you guys,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: screw this up roll in all these other states. We're
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: never gonna allow this to happen again. And we're sure
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: as hell'll not gonna allow for you guys to do this.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: We're not going to allow you to destroy our system
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: of our elections and violate the Constitution without it being
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: on the record that you guys did this, and we're
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: saying no more. This is exactly why Ted Cruz said,
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: I'll argue in these cases. This is why he's getting involved,
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: and he should get involved. This is exactly what he
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: should be doing. You know, Ted Cruz said that these
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: election related cases raise very serious issues. He's right, they
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: raise very very very serious issues for all Americans, not
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: just in these states, in every single state. Ted Cruz
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: last night was on Fox News Channel talking about these
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: issues and just how important it is that we get
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: this right. He said, Look, that's why I'm agreeing to
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: these oral arguments before the Supreme Court. This is too
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: important to just say, oh, well, it happened and we're
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: not going to worry about it moving forward. That's why
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: Texas is suing. That's why they're doing this. Take a listen,
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: but first, joining us now with more we're surrounding the
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: legal battle out of Pennsylvania. Senator Ted Cruz center, and
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: let me applaud you because you have offered to step up.
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: I have said from the beginning, if you're looking at
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: the constitutionality of what the state legislature in Pennsylvania did,
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: it directly contradicts the language in Pennsylvania state constitution. Now
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: that to me is a slam dunk case the Supreme
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: Court should take. You are now willing to argue that, which,
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: by the way, let the record note you have one
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: cases in the Supreme Court. Well, that's right, John, and
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: it's good to be with you this evening. You know,
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: we're seeing across the country lawsuits that are challenging voter fraud,
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: that are challenging irregularities in the election, and in Pennsylvania,
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: this appeal to the Supreme Court raises very serious issues.
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: It raises pure issues of law, and I believe the
• 22:56
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court should choose to take the case. I think
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: they should hear the appeal. And as you noted, the
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: legal team reached out and asked if I would be
• 23:05
  Speaker 1: willing to present the oral argument if the court took
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: the case, and I told them I'd be happy to because,
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: particularly at a time when this country is so divided,
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: when people are so angry, I think we need a
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: sense of resolution and we need the Supreme Court to
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: step in and ensure that we're following the Constitution and
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: following the law right right now, it's not healthy for
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: our democracy what we're seeing. And in Pennsylvania, the problem
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: was made worse because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a partisan,
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: democratic court that has issued multiple decisions that were just
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: on their face, contrary to law, and that's not how
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: elections are supposed to work. All right, let me go.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: So I look at that case is probably the strongest
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: on the constitutional merits. I don't want to go to
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: the case in Wisconsin. The law is clear and it
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: has court precedence with the Wisconsin's Supreme Court, and that
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: is they don't allow early voting, and when they do,
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: they are there's a very strict application process they've identified,
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: and Rights has been on this program rans previous saying well,
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: they gave out one hundreds of thousands of these early
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: votes that contradicts not only the law but legal precedents.
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: Then we got the case in Georgia with the dual
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: verification standards, and then we got the Nevada case, which
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: is fascinating where they've identified people that are at of state,
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: tens of thousands, people that are at public addresses or
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: nonexistent addresses, and a lot of dead people that actually
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: voted in Nevada. Now, I want to ask you, hypothetically,
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: if those cases has been talked to me that there
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: might be other states or a single state that would
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: unite those four and make it one big Supreme Court case.
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: I want to pick your constitutional mind on that possibility. Well,
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: if an individual state did sue another state before the
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over that.
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: That's a matter that they could consider. The challenge right
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: now is the timing is that we're getting awfully close.
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: Tomorrow is what's called the safe harbor deadline for the
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: presidential electors. The electors will cast their ballots on December fourteenth,
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: and then obviously we've got the presidential inauguration coming up
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: on January twentieth, So the time is running out of
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: the hourglass. I think the Supreme Court feels the urgency
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: of that. That's the reason why Justice Alito set the
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: deadline for Pennsylvania's response to this lawsuit to be tomorrow,
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: so that so that we'll have a response. We could
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: have a decision as early as tomorrow from the Supreme
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: Court whether or not they'll take the case. Now, getting
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to take a case is not easy.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: Typically you get about eight thousand appeals to the Supreme
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: Court in a given year. They take about eighty of them.
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: They take about one percent, and so so the big
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: considered right, I think the Court should consider it. I
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: have called on the Court to do it. I think
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: it's the right thing to do. There will be justices
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: who would prefer to stay out of this, who would
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: prefer to protect their own credibility, essentially to protect their backsides.
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: I think that's the wrong thing to do here. I
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: think when you look at a country where thirty nine
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: percent of Americans right now believe this last election was rigged,
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: that's a real problem for confidence in the integrity of
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: our electoral system. And so I'm hopeful the Supreme Court
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: will step forward to its responsibility and resolve this case
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: and resolve other cases as needed, according to law and
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: according to the Constitution, to say this is a country
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: where we respect the rule of law, where we follow
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: the Constitution, not the momentary partisans swells of interest or
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: passion you may see on either side. You know, Tech
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: Crews just said something that's so important. He said, thirty
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: nine percent of Americans believe that this election was basally fraudulent.
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: How do you restore integrity to the election? This is
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: how you do it. And you hear these cases, and
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: that's why what he's doing in the Pennsylvania case, in
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: the Texas case is so vitally important to the integrity
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: of our election and making sure that every vote is
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: counted the right way, the appropriate way, the legal way,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: and I'll leave it at that.