Dec. 18, 2020 - Epoch Times
14:17
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Good evening. | |
| Earlier today, YouTube released an official notice saying that they will no longer allow people to make videos about election fraud on this platform. | |
| Except for corporate media outlets. | |
| They can still talk about it. | |
| In other news, at the Supreme Court, eight other states have joined Texas in their election lawsuit there. | |
| Over in Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Republican lawmakers, but they still have a plan. | |
| And over in Michigan, a House chairman told the CEO of Dominion Voting Machines that if he doesn't appear before their committee, he will be subpoenaed. | |
| So that is a lot of stories. | |
| Let's go through them together. | |
| This is your 2020 election update, and I'm your host, Roman from The Epoch Times. | |
| So the first thing that we need to go through is this notice that was released earlier today by YouTube. | |
| So let's read it together. | |
| It starts, So let's stop right there. | |
| That was the first sentence. | |
| So in particular, this is really odd timing, since just yesterday, the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies voted, which is, by the way, a bipartisan council, voted against a resolution to acknowledge Joe Biden as the president-elect. | |
| And their reasoning was that President Trump and other Republican groups still have lawsuits working their way through the courts, which challenge the results. | |
| So this committee itself voted against recognizing Joe Biden as the president-elect. | |
| However, here is YouTube saying that it's already been resolved. | |
| However, let's continue. | |
| Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today or any time after that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. | |
| Now let's pause there. | |
| That is something else. | |
| This is YouTube saying that they are basically the arbiters of truth, that they know what's true or not, and that even talking about the credible allegations, talking about the sworn affidavits, thousands of them across several states that have been filed in courts, will get you kicked off of YouTube or at least get your video deplatformed. | |
| But it goes on. | |
| Let's continue. | |
| And this is in line with our approach towards historical U.S. presidential elections. | |
| Now let's pause there again. | |
| Really? | |
| Because for the last four years, on YouTube, they allowed thousands, probably tens of thousands, of videos from the corporate media outlets which falsely claimed over and over and over again that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. | |
| Those videos which said that Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016 Undermine the trust in our election integrity, just like this state. | |
| They also cast a shadow in the first several years of Trump's presidency. | |
| Which, by the way, this whole thing was completely proven to be baseless. | |
| Special Counsel Bob Mueller determined, after his long investigations, that there was no evidence of this collusion. | |
| And yet, where was this type of statement from YouTube once that report was released? | |
| Anyway, I want to skip down to another part of it because the statement is actually kind of long, but there's a very important part here under the heading connecting people to authoritative information. | |
| And it talks about how basically a very small portion of what people watch online is related to the elections, and then it goes on to say, and the most viewed channels and videos are from news channels like NBC and CBS. So what they're basically saying is that authoritative news sources will be allowed to talk about the election, while common plebs like you and me can stick to talking about the weather. | |
| That's because we don't work for NBC, CBS, or these other corporate media which they have defined as authoritative news channels. | |
| They have basically defined them as the ministries of truth. | |
| Therefore, what business do we have showing the surveillance footage out in Georgia or going through reams of sworn affidavits from poll observers? | |
| I mean, all of that stuff has already been disproven by the mainstream media's fact checkers. | |
| So, what are we even doing here? | |
| You know, Communist China has a policy of one hall, one voice. | |
| That means that the party, the Communist Party, controls what can or cannot be said. | |
| And over the past, over ten years now, as I've researched China's Communist Party, I've come to love and cherish American freedom more than anything. | |
| But I've also been making videos and putting them on these giant tech platforms for the past two years, and honestly, I'll tell you that it feels like working behind enemy lines. | |
| Because you have me, I'm in America, I'm an American citizen, and yet I have to run through all these mental hoops when working on my videos. | |
| I know I can't say certain words, I can't discuss certain topics, and I cannot use certain phrases lest I get kicked off of the platform altogether or just get censored. | |
| So are we really even free? | |
| What? | |
| Well, my YouTube fact-checker says that we are, so I guess that we have nothing to worry about. | |
| Anyway, today's episode will continue as normal, but tomorrow, I don't know, we might really have to stick to only talking about the weather. | |
| Now let's move on over to Texas. | |
| Yesterday, Texas filed a giant lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court wherein they accused four states, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, of running unconstitutional elections. | |
| And since then, eight other states have expressed their support for Texas, and these are, in alphabetical order, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota. | |
| It looks to me like legal battle lines are being drawn. | |
| The significance of this case is that it was able to quickly achieve the main goal of the Trump campaign's legal team, which was to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. | |
| And basically that was because when one state sues another state, the lawsuit automatically goes straight to the Supreme Court. | |
| So this was basically the fast track to get there. | |
| So what exactly is the premise of this lawsuit? | |
| Well, the Texas Attorney General, Kim Paxton, he says that the changes that these four states made were illegal because according to the U.S. Constitution, election laws can only be changed by state legislatures. | |
| However, these four states altered the rules by various forms of executive fiat. | |
| And last night, over on Instagram, I received a great question from BaseballMan1964. | |
| And he asked, how does Texas have standing to bring up this case? | |
| Well, that's a good question. | |
| Their premise is that every vote cast in these four states that wasn't in line with the Constitution disenfranchised a legal Texas voter. | |
| And that, in my non-professional legal opinion, is a rational argument worthy of at least consideration. | |
| Now, the Attorney General from these four states that are being sued have already come out and disputed Texas' allegations. | |
| So what's the next step? | |
| Well, the Supreme Court has given these four states until Thursday, which is tomorrow, to formally respond to this lawsuit and explain why they were able to supersede the Constitution with their election laws. | |
| So we'll have to wait and see what they say. | |
| And just as a heads up, this lawsuit might get even more interesting as yesterday, President Trump took to Twitter and he said that he or members of his legal team would intervene and join in this Texas lawsuit. | |
| And so I'll throw the links to the details of this lawsuit into the description box below this video for you to check out for yourself. | |
| And while you're down there, take a quick moment to hit No, no, don't hit. | |
| Smash that like button. | |
| As you can see, it is not easy to publish these types of videos on this platform. | |
| Even when we are extremely fact-based, when we source everything properly, we can still be censored. | |
| That's the reality of America right now. | |
| However, when you smash that like button, if the system is still working somewhat properly, you are forcing the YouTube algorithm to share this video out to thousands of more people, potentially letting the truth be known far and wide. | |
| Now let's talk about what happened yesterday in Pennsylvania. | |
| The US Supreme Court rejected a request for injunction relief that was attempting to stop the certification of Pennsylvania's election results. | |
| Now what does that mean exactly? | |
| Well, the Supreme Court did not provide any commentary for the decision, they didn't explain why they made it, but it basically means that Pennsylvania can now actually go ahead and certify their election results. | |
| However, we reached out to the attorney who's representing the plaintiffs in this case, and he told us that they will be filing a separate petition to the Supreme Court that'll have two parts. | |
| The first one is to prevent Act 77, which expanded Pennsylvania's mail-in voting, from being used in future elections. | |
| And then secondly, he is trying to invalidate the mail-in votes from the 2020 election, which were cast because of Act 77. | |
| So basically, even though their petition to deny certification was rejected, they are still trying to have the court decide whether Act 77 was constitutional or not. | |
| Now I received an interesting comment below yesterday's episode, and it suggested that the Supreme Court denied Pennsylvania's application because the Texas case basically addressed the same issue. | |
| And that actually might be true. | |
| We'll just have to wait and see what comes of it. | |
| I'll throw the link to the article about this Pennsylvania court drama in the description box below this video for you to check out for yourself. | |
| Now let's move on over to Michigan. | |
| We received a letter that came from the Michigan House Oversight Committee, and it said that the lawmaker there who is leading the investigation into the 2020 election told the Dominion Voting Machine CEO that if he does not appear before their committee voluntarily, he will be subpoenaed. | |
| Here's what it basically says. | |
| If Dominion chooses to ignore this second request to come before the committee, I am prepared to seek legislative subpoena power to compel your appearance before the House Oversight Committee. | |
| I am hopeful that it will not come to this. | |
| So what's this letter all about? | |
| Well, last month, Dominion Voting Systems had actually committed themselves to attending an oversight hearing over in Pennsylvania, but they backed out at the last moment. | |
| And so in Michigan, this lawmaker said that there have been a number of claims and accusations regarding Dominion software, and that he would like Dominion's CEO to help both lawmakers and voters to better understand the election software, to come and testify and explain how it all works. | |
| We here at the Epoch Times, we reached out to Dominion for comment, but I've yet to hear back. | |
| If you'd like to read more about this upcoming hearing in Michigan, I'll throw the link to that in the description box below this video. | |
| And let's stay in Michigan for another moment. | |
| On Monday, the Trump campaign asked the Michigan Supreme Court to review a legal challenge which revolved around poll challengers not having meaningful access to observe ballot counting. | |
| Basically, even though Michigan has already certified its 2020 election results, the campaign is asking the Michigan Supreme Court to declare that the Secretary of State violated both the state constitution and election laws by allowing absentee ballots to be counted without meaningful access for poll challengers to observe what was actually happening. | |
| And this case comes after multiple whistleblowers and witnesses testified before the Michigan House Oversight Committee last week where they claimed instances of both fraud and intimidation during the general election. | |
| I guess these are the type of things that YouTube doesn't want us to talk about. | |
| Kind of weird. | |
| So anyway, we'll be keeping an eye on this case, and if you want to read more of the details about it, I'll throw the link in the description box below this video for you to check out for yourself. | |
| And now, let's move on over to Arizona. | |
| Late yesterday, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the Arizona Republican Party's effort to challenge the results of the 2020 election. | |
| Basically, they upheld a lower court's dismissal of the case and said that no evidence of either misconduct or illegal votes was presented. | |
| The Republican Party chairwoman said that the ruling was disappointing. | |
| She said that the petition that she sent over to the Arizona Supreme Court was asking the court to review 28,000 duplicated ballots, basically people who voted twice, as well as digitally adjudicated ballots, meaning ballots that were changed once they went through the machine. | |
| She estimated that more than 100,000 ballots were at stake. | |
| However, the justices on the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the request to inspect more ballots and they cited some case law, basically law which set some precedent in the past, which says that the validity of elections isn't voided by past mistakes. | |
| In their statement, Arizona's Chief Justice wrote, quote, the validity of an election is not voided by honest mistakes or omissions unless they affect the result or at least render it uncertain, end quote. | |
| So whether you agree or not, it looks like this avenue for President Trump in Arizona has been closed. | |
| If you'd like to read this full story or read the full text of the court's decision, I'll throw that link in the description box below this video for you to check out. | |
| Now lastly, I want to emphasize again, frankly, I don't even know if you'll be able to watch this video. | |
| Maybe as soon as we upload it, it'll be taken down by YouTube. | |
| But there's one point that I really, really want to touch upon. | |
| It might really be the case that there is a perfectly legitimate explanation to everything that we saw in that surveillance video from Georgia. | |
| It might also be the case that the thousands of sworn affidavits that allege some form of election fraud might all turn out to be false. | |
| That really might happen. | |
| It might even be the case that every single piece of evidence that alleges any kind of fraud in this election might not be proven accurate. | |
| Who knows? | |
| That really might happen. | |
| However, in my opinion, it's neither the job of the media nor the job of these giant tech corporations to act as the gatekeepers of truth. | |
| We here at the Epoch Times, we do our investigations, we let you know the facts, we let you know all of our sources as transparently as possible, and then we let you make up your own mind. | |
| We don't make any determinations one way or the other, and in terms of who's guilty and who's not, that's not up to us, that's up to the courts to decide. | |
| But these giant tech companies like Facebook, for instance, they have independent fact checkers who take our investigations, they take our articles from the Epoch Times, and they call up election officials and they ask, hey, is there anything fishy going on over there? | |
| And the election officials say, no, nothing at all. | |
| And then our articles are rated false. | |
| And you, the viewer, the voter, You no longer have access to this information, at least on Facebook, because now you only have access to the official accounts. | |
| And it looks like you won't be having access to this kind of information on YouTube either, starting today. | |
| After today's notice from YouTube, you will now likely only have access to what the officials have to say. | |
| Are the officials telling the truth? | |
| Is there any evidence that they're not telling the truth? | |
| How will you know if you're denied access to it? | |
| Now, in my opinion, the people who call for censorship in this country often feel like they have good motives behind themselves. | |
| And, fine, I don't want to assign any bad motives to them. | |
| I assume that they have good intentions. | |
| But they often don't consider the fact that while today they agree with what's being censored, tomorrow they might themselves be censored. | |
| Because when you open up Pandora's box like that, when you allow censorship to take place, who says that it'll always go your way? | |
| Regardless, I would highly recommend that if you don't already, follow us on Parler, follow us on Instagram, and sign up for our newsletter. | |
| I'll throw all those links in the description box below this video. | |
| That way, no matter what happens here on this channel, we can stay in touch. | |
| Lastly, smash that like button for the YouTube algorithm. | |
| Subscribe to the channel so you can get this kind of content delivered to your feed while you still can. | |
| And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from the Epoch Times. |
Export Selection