On the morning of the Georgia runoff races between Kelly Loeffler & Raphael Warnock and David Perdue & Jon Ossoff, Charlie lays out his path towards holding the Senate majority and previews what could happen on election night. He also previews what will happen on January 6th with a very special guest appearance from Trump Senior Legal Advisor Jenna Ellis who dives deep into what options are before Vice President Pence as he heads into the joint session of Congress tomorrow.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk show, the Georgia runoff, we're on the front lines.
If you want to support us, it's charliekirk.com/slash support.
Email us your questions.
As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Hello, everybody.
Charlie Kirk here.
What a massive week it is, and we are on top of all of it.
Today is the Georgia runoff.
We're going to be covering that throughout this program and also what's happening on January 6th.
If you live in Georgia, go vote for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, okay?
It's that simple.
And if you're listening to this on our wonderful Salem Radio Network station in Georgia, go vote for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.
Josh Hawley started the Senate trend that is now growing in numbers to object to the Electoral College results, a perfectly constitutional measure, something that is in the statutory code of the United States Constitution of Congress and House and Senate rules, something that Democrats did in 2004, something that has been done multiple times before.
Senator Josh Hawley was on the leading edge on this, and he deserves credit for that.
However, as we said many times in the last couple days, we have been warning you and doing our best to explain that when you take a stand,
a courageous stand, that is in such defiance to the power structure orthodoxy, they're going to come after you.
So last evening, Senator Josh Hawley and his family were terrorized by the shock troops.
These are the shock troops of the Democrat Party.
That's what Antifa is.
They are the paramilitary enforcement gangster arm of the Democrat Party.
Senator Josh Hawley tweeted last evening that Antifa, which to this date, there have not been massive arrests, investigations into Antifa, the funding behind it,
and their domestic terroristic activities, went to Senator Josh Hawley's home while Senator Josh Hawley was in Missouri and terrorized his wife and his child.
Senator Josh Hawley called it left-wing violence.
Now, of course, right on Q, the Washington Post says that it was a peaceful vigil.
It says, quote, the activists said they staged a peaceful vigil on Monday to protest the GOP plan to object Congress certification.
That's their opening argument in the Washington Post.
Senator Josh Hawley described it as, tonight I was in Missouri.
Antifa scumbags came to our place in D.C. and threatened my wife and newborn daughter.
He wrote on Twitter late Monday.
They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door.
Does that sound like a peaceful vigil?
That sounds like the shock troops.
It sounds like the people you send in as infantry to go and take ground.
You see, the reason they're doing this is a warning to all of us.
They sent out the shock troops to tell you that you better stand down and do not object to these electoral college results.
This is metaphorical extortion on all of us.
So let's pretend you're a United States senator and you're considering whether or not you should object in the coming days.
Let's say you're Senator John Cornyn.
All of a sudden, you see the shock troops of the left, the militia of the left, the paramilitary organization, the terrorists, Antifa, go and terrorize Senator Josh Hawley's home.
Are you more or less likely to object to their Electoral College results?
So the Washington Post writes this story, which reads as if they're a defense attorney for the terrorists.
No surprise from the Washington Post.
It says here, it just goes on to inexplicably start to mention proud boys as if that has anything to do with what happened to Senator Josh Hawley's family last evening.
And I want you to imagine if 50 Make America Great Again hat-wearing activists went to Senator Chuck Schumer's home and started pounding on those doors and inciting terroristic style behavior.
Do you think the media would be defending that?
And this all comes down to January 6th.
They want you to back down.
They want Pence to back down.
Many of you have seen the movie The Godfather.
This is the horse head in the bed moment.
And for those of you that never seen The Godfather, you're missing out.
It's a metaphorical mafioso tactic to say, back off.
Let's play Cut 39, where it shows Antifa and BLM terroristically trespassing onto a United States Senator's property, knocking on his door.
Play Cut 39.
Sir, we're not going to let people hold our democracy hostage.
We're not going to let them infringe on our rights.
Every ballot has been counted.
It is over.
So the democracy is under attack.
What do we do?
Just like they went after Tucker Carlson's personal home, just like they went after Rand Paul and attacked him.
Rand Paul was shot at at a congressional baseball practice.
Rand Paul was attacked in the front lawn.
Now, Senator Josh Hawley wasn't there.
His wife and his child were there as they go straight up to the home and terroristically threaten them living there.
Just like Senator Rand Paul was attacked outside of the White House.
None of this, of course, gets investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
None of this gets investigated.
However, if you dare steal a Black Lives Matter sign, you're arrested very quickly.
Now, I'm not saying whether that's the right thing or the wrong thing.
He got arrested for stealing private property.
I have to look at the details of the case.
The point is, you see how quick that was done?
Oh, you steal that sign, you get arrested.
We're going to make an example out of you.
You go to a Republican United States Senator's home when he's not even there with his wife and kid and terroristically knock on the door and trespass on their private property.
You get framed as a hero.
Now, remember, this is nothing new for the Washington Post.
They have an affinity for terrorists.
The Washington Post also wrote glowingly about Al Baghdadi, where they called him an austere religious scholar.
So the Washington Post glamorizing terrorists is nothing new.
So for all domestic terrorists out there that are involved in Antifa or other activities, you might go to federal prison.
Well, probably not because we don't actually do that anymore.
But if we had a Justice Department, you would go to federal prison.
But at least you'll get a nice piece in the Washington Post where they're almost sympathizing with that behavior.
But what does this have to do with January the 6th?
Josh Hawley, in their mind, is to blame for the constitutional measures to object to the Electoral College votes.
They want to make an example out of him.
They're screaming through their bullhorns, we're not going to allow our democracy to be threatened.
Those are, of course, code words.
Antifa and the terrorist thugs, they wouldn't care about democracy or the democratic means to elect leaders in a constitutional republic, but we don't even live in a democracy.
And I'll explain the difference either later in this show.
It's a longer podcast.
I've done this many times on the Charlie Kirk Show podcast, so you could check it out.
The point is this: Antifa is trying to say you're not going to usurp what is right in the world.
Nonsense.
They're trying to make you back down.
They're trying to make all of us back down.
That's what last night was all about.
And if we learn the lesson from Brett Kavanaugh, you know what we should do?
We should double down our efforts.
And where are the other establishment Republicans all of a sudden finding their spine like they did against Kavanaugh?
Because Kavanaugh and the fight against Kavanaugh is a teaching lesson for us all.
We're going to get into that in just a second.
Trending on Twitter, President Trump tweeted this morning, the vice president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors.
That's correct.
We have said this on our program the last couple days.
I think our team here on the Charlie Kirk show deserves a lot of credit.
We have been talking about how Vice President Mike Pence has the constitutional authority, a plenary power, to reject electors from states that are in question.
It's been done before.
He has power and he has precedent to do this.
I was, let's just say, written up on media matters, which is a wonderful badge of honor.
So thank you for that.
It's terrific for suggesting this.
And I do think that we have been the leading broadcast that has been explaining exactly what can be done on January the 6th.
There was a great piece written on nationalfile.com that wrote up exactly what we talked about on our program yesterday that said Pence has the power and the precedent to do this.
Now, I'm not recommending this lightly.
I wouldn't be recommending this if there was not overwhelming amounts of allegations of fraud, the affidavits, and also the changes in the constitutional process of how these elections were actually enacted.
And there's a variety of different recommendations of how it can be done with Vice President Mike Pence.
We are going to be joined exclusively on the live stream, and we will turn it into a flash podcast.
So make sure you subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast by Constitutional Attorney Jenna Ellis, who agrees with the interpretation that we have been talking about here.
And by the way, we did not come up with this, but I think it's fair to say that we largely popularized it.
Is that fair?
I think that's a fair way to word it in the last couple of days, and we have been leading with it.
And again, the constitutional scholars that have been talking about this and the constitutional experts like Jenna Ellis, some of which are arguing that, and this is Jenna's take when she joins us on the program, she will argue that this should be sent back down to the state legislatures, not to the House of Representatives.
I think that's actually a very interesting and probably constitutionally sound measure.
However, some people that are cote blanche or blanket judging and describing any move by Mike Pence to reject electors from states that are fraudulent as unconstitutional, seditious, or illegal, is not actually looking at any sort of Supreme Court precedent.
They're not.
This has only really been done in the last couple decades once in the election of 1960 with Richard Nixon.
And Richard Nixon was not in any form of legal or, let's say, judicial cases following his action to do this.
Now, if Mike Pence does not have this authority, then the United States Supreme Court will rule on that.
However, don't we owe this to our country, owe this to our electors, to at least exhaust every single constitutional option?
And again, constitutional option, where the Democrats, when they don't get what they want, they immediately go to illegal options.
They launch coups against a president.
They spy on presidents.
They don't actually ever work through the Constitution.
They illegally listen to phone calls like Shmerich Shimmarella did, which triggered the impeachment fight earlier this year.
Everything that I am arguing is not necessarily, in any way whatsoever, through a Machiavellian moral paradigm.
I am not saying that the ends justify the means.
I'm not.
That's the Democrats.
That's the left.
They will burn cities down to the ground.
They'll go to United States Senators' homes.
They will intimidate.
They will extort.
They will target.
I'm not saying any of that.
Instead, I'm saying what constitutional measures are left that were given to us by the framers and the founders to ensure election integrity, to clarify the results of these elections, and possibly use the states as the last line of defense and also possibly the House of Representatives.
Anyone that tells you that this is not constitutional is probably reading the French Constitution because I don't see what they are reading.
This has not been ruled on.
This has not been decided.
Parts of this is just statute, not in the Constitution.
You have to look at the election of 1876, the election of 1960 and 1800.
History is a guide for those of us that want election integrity.
January 6th is coming.
There's a lot more to unpack about it.
We have to take a break.
We'll be right back.
Hello, everybody.
Charlie Kirk here, host of the Charlie Kirk Show.
The main debate on January the 6th is whether or not Mike Pence has the power to count votes or not count votes.
The main part of the argument from those people that say it's unconstitutional is the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Let's just take a timeout really quick.
This is not part of the United States Constitution.
It's not an amendment.
It is an act passed by Congress.
Now, it is a law.
Got it.
And we should, of course, take that very seriously.
But to act as if this is part of the United States Constitution is a false descriptor, a false description, I should say.
The Electoral Count Act came as a consequence of the highly contested election, heavily contested election, I should say, of 1876.
We talked about this quite a lot.
We were one of the first programs that was really unpacking what happened in the election of 1876 of President Hayes versus Governor Tilden from New York.
The country was bitterly divided, and Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats controlled the House, went to a contested kind of split, and the unfortunate result of this was the end of Reconstruction in the South and a Republican president becoming president.
And the end of Reconstruction was obviously not something that was good for our country in any way whatsoever.
As a consequence of this, in 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed.
There are lots of different ways to interpret it.
Some people do consider this law to be precedent, where it says that the vice president's role is simply ceremonial.
Now, this is a very, let's say, unclear interpretation constitutionally.
This was kind of the main reason behind Congressman Louis Gomert's lawsuit against Mike Pence.
Congressman Louis Gomert was not suing Mike Pence for defamation or for slander or because he didn't like Mike Pence.
He was suing him to try to get an interpretation constitutionally on this 1887 law of whether or not Mike Pence actually has the authority to act in a way to toss out bad or let's say electors that have been fraudulent.
I think that's probably the most fair way to say that.
And so there's a couple points of interest around the January 6th date, especially when it comes to the Electoral Count Act.
The one that really everyone kind of conveniently avoids is the election of 1960.
It's not inconsequential.
It's actually, I think, the most important part of this entire debate.
In the election of 1960, as we have covered many times, Nixon won Hawaii on Election Day.
And then, and in the first recount, Hawaii certified for Nixon, sent two sets of electors, and then eventually JFK ended up being called the winner in Hawaii by certain media standards, but the certification said otherwise.
So Nixon had a certification for himself and had public pressure to go for JFK and ended up giving the electors to JFK against his own interest.
However, this was in complete and total defiance of the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
Whether this was the right thing or not, we don't really know, but we know he did it.
And I don't like hyper-focusing on Wikipedia.
I've been through plenty of points and complaints there, but I think this is super instructive, though, of how Wikipedia actually describes this.
Somebody sent this to me at freedom at charliekirk.com.
Listen really carefully and closely to how it describes Richard Nixon in 1960 under the 1887 Electoral Count Act.
Richard Nixon in 1960 graciously made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.
Huh.
So, graciously, it's okay to break the law if it's in favor of a Democrat.
It's okay to break the law if it favors JFK.
I just find that interesting because kind of the cover fire for how Wikipedia is clarifying this, I'd love to see kind of the edit history on the back end of Wikipedia to see if somebody changed this recently because it was the polite thing to do.
And I feel the need to repeat this.
I don't take any of this lightly.
I don't like being in pseudo-parliamentarian waters here.
I don't like handing over elections simply to Congress, but I'm also a constitutionalist.
This is here for a reason.
Thomas Jefferson used his power as the president of the Senate in 1800.
Thomas Jefferson, who, by the way, framed our entire country philosophically in the Declaration of Independence, the laws of nature and nature is God, mentions God four times in the Declaration.
Thomas Jefferson, more than almost any other American founder except probably James Madison, had an impact on the philosophical political direction of the country, used the power of the president of the Senate in 1800 to clarify a disputed election that guess what?
He was participating in.
And so here's the question that has yet to be answered by any constitutional expert out there.
Why did no one sue Richard Nixon in 1960 and clarify the Electoral Count Act of 1887?
Answer is probably this, because they liked the outcome and they considered Richard Nixon to be doing the gracious thing.
And no one thought that there was any need to tie this up in the courts or for clarification.
However, that's not the way law works.
That's not the way justice works, right?
We don't believe in this moving of the goalposts, constantly changing of the window, social justice.
If a law is binding, Richard Nixon should not have been able to have the power to put electors in JFK's category in defiance to state certification.
And I'm sure a lot of you are saying, well, Charlie, why the hyperfixation on 1960?
It's actually the last time that we've seen something like this.
And it's actually relatively recent.
And I think it reinforces our argument here that what we're dealing with here is not something that happens every election, nor should it.
This election was more interfered with.
This election was more tampered with.
This election was more flawed than any election in my lifetime and arguably in American history.
And I actually am going to make a long-term constitutional argument against some of my very good friends that are saying that Mike Pence does not have the power.
If you believe that the vice president, the president of the Senate, doesn't have the power, wouldn't you want to know now and not when, God forbid, Joe Biden ever becomes president and Kamala Harris might be the president of the Senate one day?
Wouldn't you want that ruling to be clarified now and not one day when the Democrats, God forbid they ever add seats to the Supreme Court?
Isn't this the opportunity now to find out if the Electoral Count Act of 1887 actually is binding precedent?
I'm making this argument for my friends out there that disagree with the approach we've been taking on this show.
I'm not going to, it's not even worth saying anything.
These are really good people that just have a difference of opinion constitutionally.
But actually think there's no binding for their argument.
And if they actually wanted to test it, if they wanted to see if there was a stress test behind it, then they should be calling for Pence to do this, suing, losing, binding Supreme Court precedent, discussion is over.
Instead, we're kind of in this strange academic shallow waters where you have these constitutional scholars weighing in, when in reality, it doesn't matter how many Woodrow Wilson disciple academics that you have from the Princeton Law School that say that something is unconstitutional.
It's actually completely irrelevant.
All that matters is how those nine justices rule on the high court, the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has unappealable power.
That's why they're called the Supreme Court.
So wouldn't you want to know straight from the Supreme Court whether or not the President of the Senate has this power?
And I believe he does.
I believe he does have the power to do this.
And by the way, we would not have this power if the state legislators were actually granted the capacity to have the special sessions when the governor of Georgia did not even grant it to them.
When the Speaker of the House, Boyers, Rudy Boyers or something, I can never remember this guy's name, doesn't even grant the special session in Arizona.
Rusty.
It's close.
All of these measures are designed to have checks and balances.
If the President of the Senate's role in Congress sitting there was simply ceremonial, why didn't they get rid of it in 1887?
If it was simply theatrics, pageantry, going through the streets, why even have that certification?
Why not just end the process with the Electoral College?
Why not create a constitutional amendment to end it once and for all?
The reason is this: that certain interpretations from the Federalist Papers going back to the Founding Fathers is that the House of Representatives actually represented how the founders originally wanted presidents to be elected.
You see, in the original creation of the Electoral College, the vision that James Madison had that actually happened for the first couple elections was each elector represented a congressional district.
These winner-take-all model of states did not come until a couple elections afterwards.
We'll get the exact election.
I think it was James Monroe or Andrew Jackson.
Anyway, the first couple elections in American history was each elector represented a congressional district.
Therefore, one would argue based on the interpretation of how James Madison and some of the other founders designed the United States Constitution was that they didn't want the president of the Senate, the Vice President, just to have a kind of Rosebow parade theatric, look at me, I'm opening the envelopes.
No, no, no, no.
The members of the House were there to be a check and balance to see if any of the states certified something fraudulently because the House of Representatives members represented the states, but they weren't part of the state government.
That's why this clause was in there.
Can you tell me one other part of the United States Constitution that is simply theatric when it comes to the appointment of leaders?
If the President of the Senate being there is simply ceremonial and theatric, then the people that disagree with our reading have to tell me what else in the Constitution is ceremonial and theatric?
Is the First Amendment ceremonial and theatric?
I need a list of everything that is theatric and literal.
And just reading into it as you're saying hiding behind the Electoral Act of 1887 as the only reason for that is a fair argument, but I think is a flawed one, especially when looking at the unchallenged decision that Richard Nixon made in the election of 1960.
We're talking to Jenna Ellis here, who's a lawyer to the president.
I love your perspective.
I'd hope you help us build it out of what you think Mike Pence should do tomorrow in regards to state legislators and electors.
Please help build that out.
Yeah, and thanks so much, Charlene.
I really appreciate all of the support that you've provided as well, and just for the country and for the president.
You know, this is a really important time, and we have to make sure to continue the fight for election integrity.
But we have to do that, of course, within the margins of the law and the Constitution.
We can't help the left tear down the Constitution and the country just because we're so upset that they're tearing down the Constitution and the country.
So one very viable option that Mike Pence has as the president of the Senate is because six states currently have electoral delegates that are in dispute, and we know based on the clear and convincing evidence that there is a sufficient legal basis to question whether the state law and the Constitution was followed in the administration of those elections.
And so the vice president's role is to open and count all of the electoral delegate votes from the electors that are chosen in the manner prescribed by the state legislatures.
That's the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1.2.
The Vice President can't fulfill that responsibility if he doesn't know that those electors were so chosen.
So he should not open any of the electoral votes in the six contested states.
And instead, he has the authority to pose a question back to the state legislatures.
They are the constitutional authority and direct that question and ask them to confirm which of the two slates of electors have in fact been chosen in the manner that they have provided for.
And he should open all of the other votes in all the other states.
But this is a meritorious request because he's taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
He's not exercising discretion.
He's not establishing new precedent.
He's simply asking clarification from the constitutionally appointed authority that would require the state legislatures to convene in session, which they have refused to do out of political fear, probably, among other things, and would require them to exercise their constitutionally appointed authority by answering that question as to the certification of their delegates.
And it would force them to answer that question, and we would have a much cleaner outcome here.
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
So can you help clarify at least the rationale constitutionally of why you believe Mike Pence has that power?
Some people are saying that because of the 1887 Electoral Act, he does not have that power.
I do not share that view based on precedent and also clearly what the Constitution states.
What would be your argument against that?
And some people that are whispering in the vice president's ear tells him he has no power, just count the votes as is and walk away.
Right.
Well, and of course, people are concerned about precedent, and they're concerned, and as we should be, and we should never advocate for something that we would be against than the Democrats doing, for example, in four, eight, or 12 years.
And so, the reason that he has this authority is because of his oath of office and because the Constitution requires that the only electoral votes that are counted are from electors that are chosen in the manner prescribed by the legislature.
So, that's in Article II.
And so, his oath of office requires him to uphold the Constitution, to uphold Article II.
And in the 12th Amendment, as well as the requirements that are in the procedural aspects of counting these votes, he can only count the votes, the electoral votes that were selected and cast in the manner that those state legislatures set.
So, while there certainly this would be challenged if he tries tomorrow, I have no doubt that this would be challenged.
I have no doubt that there would be objections from other people as they're already coming out.
But this is not only a constitutionally viable option, but I do think it would prevail because the constitutionally delegated authority is only given to the state legislatures.
That's Article II, and they have to answer that question.
And so, when Mike Pence, as the president of the Senate, does not know and there is a question as to whether these are the delegates that were, in fact, selected in the manner that the General Assemblies have prescribed according to Article II, then that is always a valid question to ask those state legislatures.
Now, is it possible that those state legislatures could come back and certify Biden delegates from the state legislature?
That's possible, of course, but that's their authority.
And that is why we have been asking, as Team Trump has been asking the state legislatures to convene in session to look at the evidence and to see and to make findings that the law in their state was not followed and the rules were so completely disregarded that the elections in those states were irredeemably compromised.
And they have the ability, the plenary authority, the absolute authority under that text in the Constitution to select delegates then for their states.
And let's remind everyone, Charlie, that up until 1824, the state legislatures selected delegates to the Electoral College without holding a popular vote.
We, the people, didn't get to weigh in.
That was our original constitutional process.
So for everyone saying that this is going to disenfranchise people, that's just simply not accurate.
The state, through their general assemblies, could change their election law according to, of course, it has to still be constitutional, but that's the manner that the Constitution prescribes.
That's why we have an electoral college to deal with corruption, to deal with foreign influence if it's there, to deal with all these things that Alexander Hamilton was concerned about in Federalist 68.
So when we're asking the state legislatures to do their constitutionally appointed duty, that is absolutely something that the vice president who is sitting as the president of the Senate absolutely can ask the state legislatures.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that.
And so it's open for interpretation.
So for anyone to say that it is unconstitutional, they're jumping to their own conclusions.
You're the one that's actually arguing for a constitutional provision here that has a remedy to this, correct?
To say that Pence does not.
Yeah, can you help build that out because we're being accused of being unconstitutional right.
Well, you know, the left and those who are against election integrity, of course, are using that phrase unconstitutional, meaning things that they don't agree with, right?
So they're manipulating that term like the left does, rather than saying what constitutional versus unconstitutional means is this in accordance with the procedure and the authority that is laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
That's what being constitutional is.
And there are arguments, of course, within that context to make an argument.
And the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution on this particular issue.
There have been contested elections in the past.
They've been resolved in a variety of different manners that fall within that text of the Constitution.
And so what I'm suggesting here for the vice president is absolutely within the text of the Constitution.
It's giving it back to the constitutionally delegated authority.
It's arguing for a precedent that would cement the fact that the state legislatures are the constitutionally appointed authority.
It's not Pence exercising discretion.
It's not him choosing one slate of electors over another.
It's not going outside the bounds of the Constitution and asking for something that's outside the authority of the Constitution.
So when they accuse us of being unconstitutional, they can't actually back that up by showing where in the U.S. Constitution in that text that we are violating that in any way by suggesting that the vice president has this authority and that this would actually be a fulfillment of his oath of office and making sure that the state legislatures do their job under Article 2.
I love that.
Andrew, again, Producer Andrews here, Jenna.
Thank you very much for Jenna.
Good to talk with you.
Thanks for joining the show.
Hey, what I love about what you're saying here is it actually sort of bridges what, in a weird way, what Senator Cotton's objection is in the statement that he released.
We love Senator Cotton.
We've had him on the show.
We disagree with him wholeheartedly on this issue.
But, you know, his quote says, nevertheless, the founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states, not Congress.
They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College, not Congress.
What you're basically saying is Vice President Pence has a remedy here that would align with his objection and send it back to the people and not create some precedent where the Vice President is choosing winners and losers.
Right.
Yeah, that's exactly correct.
And I do agree with Senator Cotton insofar as the provision that you just read in a statement that it's not up to Congress to choose the electoral delegates.
We know that.
Now, raising an objection to a compromised election or corruption, that's absolutely Congress's job.
And I think that Ted Cruz and Representative Mike Johnson from Louisiana, who's a good friend of mine, I think that his view on all of this is absolutely correct.
We've seen those objections by Congress in other prior elections.
They haven't been outcome determinative.
But insofar as Congress is not vested with a political role here.
And let's be clear, this isn't about overturning an election.
This isn't about campaigning for one candidate over another.
This is about making sure that the law and the Constitution are followed.
And the Constitution requires that the administration of elections is in accordance with each of the state's laws.
And that wasn't done in at least six states that we're aware of.
We have sufficient evidence and legal proof for.
And now we've been shut out of court, which has been a monumental, not only just disappointment, but dereliction of duty of the judicial branch.
But ultimately, the state legislatures don't need a judicial order to fulfill their obligation under the Constitution.
And so for Congress to simply pose that question and go back to that legislative authority, that precedent is completely in line with what the founders intended, the text of the Constitution, and would establish good precedent for future contested elections.
I agree.
Well, Jenna, I want to thank you for joining us.
My last question is here.
Let's just kind of repeat it for some of the new listeners and viewers.
What is the specific ask for what we should demand on social media and otherwise for the vice president tomorrow?
What is the ask, the request, the call to action?
The call to action is to ask Vice President Pence to make a formal request to the state legislatures and that the state legislatures would have to answer whether their delegates that are certified in a state have been done according to the law of their state.
And they have to be responsible for that.
So we need to ask Vice President Pence to pose that question to the state legislatures and for the state legislatures to act and for them to uphold their own state law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Very good.
Well, Jenna, thank you so much for joining us.
Keep fighting.
We're going to be here late into the evening.
And so if you want to dive back in as things happen today and tomorrow, we appreciate your fight.
So thank you.
Call in anytime.
Sounds good.
Thanks, Charlie.
Thanks, Dan.
Thank you, Jenna.
Talk to you soon.
Great.
Well, I think that's an interesting solution.
I think that's another analysis.
I mean, the states can probably meet without, I mean, once the vice president requests it, I would imagine the states would then be able to have special sessions without governors.
100%.
I mean, if that happened in such a formal, consequential level, they would be forced to meet.
I think the other thing that's interesting about this, again, going back to this call that happened over the weekend with 300 legislators, the reports that we're hearing is that these legislators did not at all grasp the power that they wield.
So I think this whole process has been like one giant constitutional education for hundreds and hundreds of state legislators across the country.
And I think if you could repeat the process back, they now are educated.
They're armed with the facts.
I have to believe that the process could play out in a much, much different way.
And remember, Michigan, Republicans.
Arizona, Republicans.
Georgia, Republicans.
Pennsylvania, Republicans.
These are all, you know, they might have Democratic leadership in some places, like in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but these are Republican-led House state legislatures.
Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
We're going to give away a couple signed books of the beautiful MAGA doctrine.
If you guys just show us your subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast in particular, we are here all day.
We have the Georgia results coming in this afternoon.
We will.
And then we have January 6th.
So if you guys have specific questions, pieces of feedback, things you want us to answer, email to us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And if you want to get in that running to win a book, make sure you show us your subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast.
Thank you for supporting us at charliekirk.com/slash Support.