Nov. 30, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:18:34
Dr Corsi NEWS 11-30-20: New eBook TRUMP WINS! 100% Certain
|
Time
Text
Music.
So Dr. Corsi, the mainstream press insists that you've got a higher probability of taking a photograph of Bigfoot chasing the Loch Ness Monster while riding a unicorn than proving there's any fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
So you're dipping back into fiction with your newest work, are you not?
I can't wait.
What Craig is talking about is we published over the weekend my new e-book.
Which is Trump wins, how the 2020 election ends in a Trump win.
And I want to be absolutely clear that this ebook shows it's 100% luck that Trump wins at SCOTUS.
What most people don't understand is that from here on, it is now a legal game.
And law is played differently than common sense.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but anybody out there who's gone to law school will realize that one of the first lessons you have to learn in first year, in fact, the first year law school is almost entirely about this, is that you have to learn to think like a lawyer.
Which means forget all the common sense, you know, because it's either this is the law or this isn't the law.
Here's how legal reasoning goes.
And Craig, we're going to illustrate that in a minute, but today is Monday, November 30th.
It's the last day of this month.
It's been a horrible month.
Dark, dark, you know, the mainstream media and they've been running their psychological operation.
Biden won.
He's like, bow down, obey, nonsense.
Craig, what do you think?
You've read this e-book.
What do you think?
You actually helped produce it.
What do you think?
Well, I think that there's so much overwhelming evidence of massive vote fraud and election fraud on so many different levels that it's undeniable and it's going to be really interesting to see at what point the mainstream media finally gives up their wish that there weren't these issues that took place during the election.
You know, and basically, I'm just getting swamped now.
People are buying this e-book.
Very influential people are reading it.
And I think this is going to change the election.
Let's get into it.
We'll just begin here, Craig, and show what's going on right now.
You see the legal The legal confusion where you've got the mainstream media.
I'll just illustrate a couple of points on this.
Let's go to, for instance, I'll just get Liberty Daily.
Let's just pull up Liberty Daily for a minute and just the front page of it.
And you can see basically that they're still kind of floundering for a message, you know, is we have to see that they're, you know, they're saying that, Essentially, the manipulation of the voting machines was blocked and unblocked by the judge.
Then he reblocks.
I mean, so even the judges, this is about a Georgia judge who in fact is locked up the dominion voting machine
so they can't be tampered with or destroyed and they have evidence of voter fraud.
And if you heard President Trump with his interview with Maria Bargaromo, he was very frustrated.
The Department of Justice and the FBI appear to be doing relatively nothing on the election fraud.
And you would think if you listen to all of this machine grind out this news that Trump has no chance.
There's no path to the White House.
He might as well just give up.
But, you know, it's just not true.
Trump is gonna win.
Okay, now, Craig, you want to comment, and then we'll get into the first part of this book, and I will explain to everybody why this is the case.
Right, well it's unbelievable the levels, the depths of what the left has gone to, engineered by people like Zack Exley and others, and if you take a look at their backgrounds, what's taken place is right up their alley.
Lying and cheating and stealing is their business, and there's no way on the planet that the DOJ, the FBI can ignore this, but they'll continue to do it as long as they think they can get away with it.
Now in the introduction I basically make the points that this has been a, like I said when I wrote my earlier e-book in June, which by the way Trump read, and Trump will read this one, I think he may already have as of last night, but at any rate the point is When I wrote that book, the plan to remove Donald Trump from the presidency in June, Donald Trump saw how all this was being architected together.
You know, the Russian collusion, the Ukraine collusion, the COVID lockdown, the Senate impeachment trial.
Just trying to destroy the economy.
Antifa.
Black Lives Matter.
They were going to use the 25th amendment.
That book stopped the 25th amendment.
Donald Trump got through the election.
They're going to try to remove Donald Trump in the period before the election.
And that book largely gave the thinking and the reasoning to block it.
This book is going to do the same with how this end game is played out and why Donald Trump becomes president.
Now, first of all, I'm recapping that In this book, I'm going to present compelling evidence that the goal of the deep state was to steal the election for vice president Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris.
The fact that the deep state intended to steal the election remains or makes understandable why they nominated Joe Biden for president, despite him being a corrupt 78 year old Washington establishment politician who's showing signs of dementia.
It also explains why they thought they could win by nominating Kamala Harris as vice president.
She's a radical socialist politician with a personal history that's unattractive.
And she's so unpopular, she couldn't win a primary in her own party.
But if the Democrats were going to steal the election, they're going to steal it.
Why do they need to bother?
With candidates.
They could have Joe Biden take, you know, under the 25th amendment, remove him right after he was inaugurated, and then Kamala Harris as president.
The whole thing was a scheme, and it completely disregarded you, the American people.
We, the people, don't matter.
This is a coup d'etat.
These are the Marxist elite, and they want to take over.
Well, with this book being written, they can't take over.
And I'm going to show you, we're going to start getting into this in a couple minutes, and show you why.
And so I also say it's also understandable why Biden made these gaps.
You know, he said this is the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of America.
Well, he was telling the truth then.
That's what it is.
And then he said two days before the election, he said, I don't need you to get me elected.
I need you once I'm elected.
Now, the mainstream media tried to say, well, he was saying, I don't need you only to get me elected.
But you know, his slur is so bad, it came across, and I interpreted it as, I don't need you to get me elected.
Because I think we all knew there was going to be no blue wave, And the only blue wave was planning was the vote fraud.
They had planned this from the beginning.
They'd architected the polls so you thought that Biden was so far ahead.
It was not just to suppress the vote, but it was to justify the fraud they intended to do with the computers switching votes and with the mail-in votes.
Craig, that's how we begin.
And I'm saying that You know, we basically have little time, but the right time left.
And within the timeline of how George W. Bush won in 2000, we're right on schedule with now the need to go to the Supreme Court.
And that's why I've written this book.
Here, you're going to see the argument why it's compelling to go to the Supreme Court.
Craig, any comments?
Yeah, well, I would say, you know, you hit the nail right on the head.
Let's go back to when Russ Ramsland was brought into all of this that's been going on by his tech crew coming into him and saying, hey boss, do you want Donald Duck to become the president in Ukraine?
And they spilled the beans that what they had discovered is what Dominion Voting Software Systems And everything else the left was doing would enable them to do just that.
Well, you know, I think we're going to... Let's just get into chapter one.
And Craig, kind of put these up on the screen so people can kind of see it as we go along, the e-book, and we can refer to things in the footnotes if we want to show some of the supporting facts.
One of the first questions I get into, in part one, is how Trump wins in the Supreme Court.
And this is really a core part of the book.
And this legal dream team, you know, has been accumulating all this evidence.
And you see Sydney Powell with her two briefs, which we discussed thoroughly in the book, in Georgia and Michigan, where she's showing all this evidence of fraud.
One problem, this is what the Democrats have been counting on.
You know why the mainstream media has been saying there's not a scintilla of fact, of fraud.
They're not just, they're doing their usual Baghdad Bob, you know, nothing to see here routine, psych op.
But they know they've got an argument at court.
Now, the way our federal and state court systems work, And trial courts, which are known as the lawyer courts, they're a trial court in the state system.
The higher courts are the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court of the state or the U.S.
Circuit Courts of Appeal or the U.S.
Supreme Court.
The federal district court is the trial court in the federal system.
Now, It's the trial courts where the question of fact are determined, and I began to go over some of this with Robert David Steele, and I'll do another interview with him today.
He's been very good at helping me explain to people why Trump wins, and it's not architected the way this hard left coup d'etat for Biden seems to think they want you to architect it.
It doesn't work that way.
So, okay, let's assume, you know, first of all, I'm trying to make this clear by, let's say we get an example of a first-degree murder case.
You know, the police capture a guy, they come on the scene, and here he is, the supposed murderer, and he's standing over the dead people, the corpse, and he's holding a smoking gun.
Now, Craig, I would think that'd be a pretty lock-solid case.
You know, that would be, wouldn't you?
I mean, the guy's got a gun, the guy's dead, he's holding the gun, he's the suspect, let's arrest him, right?
That's a pretty clear cut, but I suppose there's always an explanation for anything.
Well, okay, so the verdict that he is guilty of homicide has got to be determined in a trial court at the local, the state, or the federal level, depending on the type of crime committed, depending on who he killed.
And in the federal court system, that's in the U.S.
district courts.
And the key about a trial court is you've got a jury.
Now, the jury has got to return a verdict of guilty.
So, for instance, the convicted killer, if he gets convicted, he can appeal the case.
I can say now, wait a minute, the DNA has been done here and my DNA, it was not what was involved in killing this guy.
I may have been holding the gun, but there's somebody else's DNA here too.
And I just came in and picked up the gun after somebody shot him and escaped.
Okay, now you appeal that because I said, wait a minute, I didn't get a fair trial.
This is what the appeals court is not interested in retrying the facts of the case.
Appeals court will say, was the case handled correctly?
Were any of the rights of the defendant violated?
In other words, was there bias in the jury selection?
Was the judge biased when the judge gave orders to the jury as to how they were to reach their verdict?
Were the jury instructions proper?
The defense at the trial probably argued that the DNA and the real killer, if they could be found, The suspect didn't match the DNA of the killer, but that issue got hammered out at trial and the jury didn't buy it.
So the circuit court's not going to hear it.
And the judge conducted the trial, circuit court says there's no issue here.
And that's shocking to people and say, wait a minute, the guy's got proof solid that he didn't commit the crime.
The circuit court doesn't care.
It's not there that it can be raised as an issue, given how the law works.
Then as you go on, you go on, you see that the next thing is, well, let's take it to the state Supreme Court or the federal Supreme Court, the highest level.
They'll certainly know that this guy didn't kill the suspect.
And so you get to the highest court.
The highest court is not going to retry the issue of fact.
Because that was up to the jury.
That was what a trial court was for.
All the Supreme Court's gonna say is there's something about this case, if it's a state Supreme Court that violates the state constitution, or if it's a U.S.
case, something about the case that violates the U.S.
constitution.
And even if they find that, they will vacate the trial court decision and remand it, send it back, To the district court for a new trial.
But the guy isn't off the hook.
And it wasn't because of the DNA evidence.
That guy might go to prison.
And it might be 25 years later before somebody discovers that he was right.
Somebody does a cold case investigation, say, hey, this guy was falsely imprisoned for murder.
He's been in prison for 25 years.
Maybe we ought to let him out.
And unfortunately that happens.
And in fact, this is how the court system act.
Now, so what the point is, is when the Democrats are saying Trump doesn't have fact of fraud, they knew going into the fraud that there wouldn't be time to get it litigated in a trial court.
Because there's hard stops in the timeline in the Constitution for things that are now going to happen to get the president elected.
And one of the first time stops is that the Electoral College has got to meet And this is determined under the Constitution and the federal law, 3 U.S.A.
Section 7.
The Electoral College must meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
And so this year, the relevant dates are that the states have to meet on December 12th in the state capitals for the state legislators to choose the electors.
And on December 14th, the Electoral College meets.
So between, we've got today is the last day in November.
So to December 12th, we've got 11 days.
To December 14th, we've got actually counting today, 14 days, but 13 days in December.
And then the Electoral College meets.
That's not enough time to get a trial.
Because what the Democrats are planning with this lawfare, and lawfare means how you architect your use of the law in order to get the results you want, which in this case is to destroy Trump, destroy the Constitution, with Biden and Kamala winning and Kamala ultimately being president through lawfare.
And what the Democrats are going to do is just file motions.
Well, trial's got to have pre-trial motions.
The judge is going to say, we're going to conduct this trial in orderly fashion.
I'm not going to impanel a jury and have a decision tomorrow.
You're going to have to present your case, President Trump, that there is fraud.
You're going to produce evidence and witnesses.
To litigate the fraud that occurred in the 2020 election could take years.
And even then, it may never be completely done at court and law.
It takes, first of all, the Justice Department, the FBI willing to investigate.
Our Justice Department is completely political.
They haven't bothered with Hillary Clinton's fraudulent foundation.
She got a pass on her email server.
She got a pass.
Comey, all these other guys who ran the coup d'etat, they all got passes.
Nobody's been indicted for anything except one lawyer who had to admit he lied to the FBI and he got a slap on the wrist.
All this Durham investigation, all the bar.
Our Justice Department is corrupted politically and it's not going to do anything to investigate this crime because the Democrats committed it.
And it's true in most of the states.
Many of the states, including the states in the swing states, like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, they've got Democratic governors, Democratic secretaries of states who run the election.
They put their state justice department together, state police.
They're not going to investigate these crimes because the Democrats committed them.
Okay, so the idea of getting a trial and having facts to go to the Supreme Court with and say, we know there was fraud.
The Supreme Court is going to say on every one of these cases, you don't have facts.
You can't come in and say there was voter fraud in Pennsylvania, voter fraud in Wisconsin.
I don't care about all your evidence.
There's no voter fraud.
You can't, you don't have a trial.
You can't prove it.
Now this ebook shows how that argument can be defeated, but it's, it takes some, Kind of really deep legal thinking and, you know, what I'm presenting in this book is ironclad.
It's correct, even though it's some legal theories that have never been argued before, before the Supreme Court.
I did my dissertation for Harvard, political science dissertation, in the law school.
It was a First Amendment topic.
It was about prior restraint, prior punishment of political dissent.
It was on the The case of the Pentagon Papers with the New York Times and the Washington Post wanting to print them and those being national security documents that were stolen by Daniel Ellsberg from the RAND Corporation.
The Supreme Court decided they could be published anyway.
They couldn't be blocked before they published them because it was so dangerous they'll cause national security harm.
And that's a famous case.
I got to know Paul Freund in the law school at that time.
He was one of the most brilliant people in constitutional law I've ever met.
I spent a lot of time in his office auditing his classes.
I audited classes in law school.
I got accepted in law school at Harvard, but the political science department paid everything, including a living stipend when I was going to it.
I didn't have the money to go to law school.
And you didn't have a combined program, so I audited.
And one of my two advisors in my dissertation was Arthur Sutherland Jr.
And basically, Arthur Sutherland Jr.
was the historian of the Harvard Law School.
He was clerked with Oliver Wendell Holmes.
So this is, in fact, key.
Craig, you want to comment on all that?
Right, and the bottom line is it is an uphill battle, but it is, as you're saying, 100% certain that Trump can win it as long as he follows what you've outlined in your e-book after some extensive and very quick investigation and writing.
Well, you know, it's been one of the more challenging things I've done in my life, too.
Figure this out.
But I think we've got it now.
Once it's figured out, once it's written down, and Trump and the legal team, we all sent this last night when I finished writing it at about 6 p.m.
Eastern Time on Sunday, November 29th, yesterday.
So you're getting the first look at it.
And basically, this was a grueling exercise, but now that it's done, I don't have any doubt that Donald Trump wins.
So, Craig, we're going to advance here.
The first point I want to make is the Democrats have this architected so they think they're going to win.
And what they think is that they can block.
They committed the fraud.
They know they committed the fraud.
They know what they did.
And so here we are.
We're going to be in a way to We're going to be able to show them how it works.
Okay, so the timeline problem is there, and there's a couple of other issues in the timeline.
So do you want me to point people towards a particular page?
Yeah, page 13.
I'm on page 13.
Okay.
And on page 13, basically, federal law 3 U.S.C.
section 5 has a safe harbor procedure The states are supposed to certify the votes, and each state, they have to settle recounts and other issues before the electoral college meets.
And this year, that's December 8th, and that's even before.
So we've got December 8th, which really only gives us seven days, one week to get the trials done.
It'll never happen.
As I say, these timestamps are hard breaks.
A Democrat-dominated law fair blog advances multiple scenarios for how a state recount might be played in this year's battleground state, advancing strategies the Democrats might use to ward off Trump challenges to make sure the Biden-Harris team works.
I'd like you, Craig, to go to that footnote.
Which is number two, and it is one of the lawfare sites.
And I like it basically just to people see what a lawfare site looks like.
This is the lawfare site, and it's state laws that may decide to dispute a 2020 election.
And so what they're doing here is they're delving into why Trump is not going to be resolving any disputes that arise.
They're saying that this was before the election, and there was concern about voter fraud.
Trump was suggesting he might be willing to peacefully accept if he were to lose on counting of the ballots.
But the point is, they're saying the president isn't going to be resolving any issues that may arise in the 2020 election, nor for that matter Is it likely to be up to Congress or the federal courts?
Instead, the United States, those questions are presented first and foremost for the states for resolution, and that makes them the first line of defense in preventing the electoral dispute from becoming a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
Okay, so, Lawfare is already aware of all these issues.
They're trying to say, we have strategies where the president will never get to the Supreme Court.
Even if we did commit the massive fraud, okay?
And so they've architected all of these strategies to keep the dispute out of the court.
So our first hurdle is we've got to find a way for President Trump to get this case into the Supreme Court.
And they're up against a timeline.
I want you to appreciate how difficult this is.
I want you to appreciate why the Democrats think they're going to win.
So I say on page 14 that the lawyers defending Trump, I've got to realize this time crunch is a real challenge.
With all the pre-trial motions, the Democrat lawyers supporting Biden and Harris plan to file, and given the time needed to hold a trial, it is impossible The GOP lawyers will get a trial verdict on whether or not election violations that occurred will change enough votes to flip the state for Biden to Trump.
And it's impossible that they'll even get a trial to say, we've got an issue of fraud we could take to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court doesn't resolve these issues of fraud, doesn't create them.
Okay, now I'm saying, but at the same time, The Trump team has no, but they've gone again into SCOTUS right now, the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of the United States, its acronym is SCOTUS.
You know, POTUS, President of the United States, FLOTUS, First Lady of the United States, SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States.
Now the hurdle there is, when you petition the Supreme Court, you've got to get what they call certiorari, which is a legal term, which means It's to the effect that the case, they're petitioning the case to be heard.
If the court grants certiorari, it's like, let it be heard.
Let it come forward.
We'll, I'll determine that case at law because you've got a case here.
Okay.
And look at what happened in 2000 with the Florida recount case.
And Craig, this is all on page 15, where I'm detailing all this history.
So you can see it.
You're going to, if you really want to understand why Trump's going to win, you have to understand these details.
So I guess it's a little bit like a legal course in the presidential election, but this is how it gets decided.
Mainstream media, oh Biden's got this cabinet, why doesn't he get all the money for the transition, he's already president-elect, all that's nonsense.
That's all psychologically designed to make you think you've lost.
Okay, now in 2000 what the issue was, was that Gore challenged that the Florida had to be recounted.
And Florida at that time was one of these old punch card things where you came in and you had to punch out on a ballot, paper ballot, the candidates you wanted.
And a lot of people didn't punch the cards correctly.
Like, you know, you're supposed to punch it and the little piece of paper that's called a chad is supposed to fall out.
Well, in some cases, the chads didn't fall out.
They were called hanging chads.
In other words, they were still hinged into the ballot.
So they spent a lot of time, and it got televised, where they're all got rooms of people counting ballots, and they're all trying to decide if this is a hanging chad that disqualifies the vote.
Was the voter clear enough in who they voted for?
You remember that, Craig?
Oh, absolutely, and there were different degrees of chadness, you know, whether that vote was going to be counted or not.
We got all these things about chads, and we learned about all, talking about, well, for weeks.
And then you had David Boies and it was, I guess it was Ted Olson, who were arguing this case in
courts in Florida and every day they come in with new arguments about
the recount and who won the election. Well, finally, in this dispute, it was taken to the
The Bush team said, we've got to get this settled in the Supreme Court.
But the issue they were settling on was a very, very interesting issue.
It was basically the timeline.
In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States realized that you had a December 12th deadline, that year like this year, that was when the states met to pick the legislators, the electors.
So the electors are picked by the state, by the state.
Okay, bring Arthur in.
We'll have him join us in a minute.
Okay.
And what this timeline said was the Supreme Court of the United States heard the Bush Gore case on December 11th, 2000.
By the way, Craig, we've got a typo in there.
It should be 2000 instead of 2020 in that paragraph in 15.
We did this so fast, got it in print, that we'll have a few typos.
We'll correct them.
Just make a note of that.
Okay, Craig?
And then the Supreme Court next day, it heard oral arguments on the 11th of December, 2000.
And then the next day it made its decision, which was a per curiam decision, which means basically it was the kind of decision that's only issued in a unanimous decision, but it was a 7-2 decision.
What they decided was that the timeline Okay, so when they went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court stopped the recount on December 9th.
They held oral arguments on December 11th, and they issued the final decision of the Supreme Court on December 12th, just in time to meet the deadline that year for the states to pick their electors, and that was December 12th, just like it is this year, 2000, December 12th, 2000, December 12th, 2020.
December 12, 2000, December 12, 2020.
And the reason for their decision was that Florida had no plan in place
to get this recount done by the deadline.
Thank you.
The Democrats just thought they'd keep recounting and recounting and recounting until they got what they wanted.
They would miss all these deadlines.
The electoral college wouldn't be able to meet.
They just postponed the electoral college until they got the result they wanted, and then Gore would win.
But the Supreme Court said, and here's language, upon due consideration of the difficulties identified in this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance With the requirements of equal protection and due process, which are 14th Amendment requirements of the Constitution on voting rights, that no state can take action which gives unequal voting rights.
And in this case, it is also provided in 3 U.S.C.
Section 5 that requires any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors to be completed by December 12th.
That date's here!
There's no recount procedure in place under the state's court state court's order that comports with the minimal constitutional requirements and so in that regard they stopped the recount and the recount at that point Bush was still ahead so they said Bush wins.
They lost because The Democrats lost because they didn't know the Constitution and they didn't know the timeline.
They thought they could game it.
The Supreme Court said, no, you can't.
Bush is president.
We're tired of this game.
You didn't read the Constitution.
These are hard stops.
Gotta stop the recount.
Now that was a big decision.
And that's again, how the legal reasoning trumps, legal reasoning trumps lawfare.
That's the point.
And I use Trump there on purpose.
Legal reasoning trumps lawfare.
That's why Trump wins.
Arthur's joined us.
Arthur is the prayerful patriot, our sister site praying.
And Arthur, first of all, what do you think of this e-book?
And we crafted some prayers last night that it'd be successful.
You want to talk about the Want to talk about the e-book first?
Yeah, it's great, Dr. Corsi, because it lays out, I would say, three levels, obviously, of items that we all need to keep in mind for prayer work.
And as you've pointed out, the timelines are incredibly tight and incredibly short, so we need a lot of people getting together and putting the prayer power out there to help everybody get overshadowed.
And trust me, the forces of darkness will be working against everybody.
Okay, so now, Arthur, you've crafted some prayers.
stretch out timelines, keep people from hearing it, opposition. We need to get all that cleared.
Okay. So now, Arthur, you've crafted some prayers. What prayers did you craft on the
prayerful patriot?
So basically at this point, as we saw, and in your discourse, Dr. Corsi, on the e-book,
how important it was for the Trump team to actually go in front of the Supreme Court
And that message came through loud and clear.
So what we're asking for is very specific.
This directed prayer is to try to get the issues up in front of the Supreme Court and basically heard correctly.
With the correct arguments so that it's done in the timely manner.
And then, of course, we'll be following up with additional prayers for the state legislators to make sure that they do what they need to.
And then, of course, criminal indictments and things in the long term, working into and around Sidney Powell's team.
So at this point, the one that I think is most critical, most timely, is the one to save the election and our rights regarding the Supreme Court.
Just read some of that prayer, would you, Arthur?
Will do.
In the name of God I am that I am, in the name of that Christ presence of myself
and of anyone else making this prayer with us, we agree together in the name of Jesus Christ
that the will of God be made manifest for.
The immediate action of taking the issue of election fraud to the United States Supreme Court
to reverse the impacts of the now fully exposed fraudulent 2020 presidential election
in enough time to satisfy constitutional requirements for electors and reverse the bogus attempts
to force Joe Biden to be president.
The overshadowing and binding to the forces of darkness surrounding the following Supreme Court justices
in order that they correctly review all evidence, applicable historical opinions and rulings,
witnesses and events as necessary of the November 3rd, 2020 election
and provide the correct opinions and rulings concerning constitutional law
in order to protect our elections, constitutional rights and reverse the false narrative
of the Biden Harris victory.
And that, of course, is Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett.
That all U.S.
constitutional violations committed by the state's governors, election boards, and others to change their election rules in an effort to introduce a suborn fraud and the theft of the election, such as but not limited to the use of illegal mail-in ballots, and the extension of vote counts beyond the day of election,
as well as rules that are in direct violation of the US Constitution under the 14th and 15th
Amendment. Immediate and expedited petitioning to the Supreme Court of the United States by
the Trump legal team for, and I apologize for the legal scholars out there if I mispronounce
this, uh, certiorari. Certiorari.
Okay, the immediate and expedited petitioning to the Supreme Court of the United States by
the Trump legal team for certiorari using the appropriate constitutional precedents such as
Shelby County versus Holder, Abbott versus Perez, to ensure statistical and data evidence is included
in the considerations by the Supreme Court, or other important and key rulings which will ensure
and demand that the court takes the necessary actions to protect our voting rights.
The overshadowing of the Trump legal team, Rudy Giuliani, Janet Ellis, and the Trump legal team supporting members, the overshadowing of all state legislators, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, witnesses, whistleblowers, and staffs throughout the country who must take their stands for their souls to decide to do God's will and reverse faulty decisions, faulty legislation, and all other decisions necessary to return the rule and spirit of law to the election process
The taking back by the state legislators of those actions that were taken, which is in violation of the Constitution, and take the immediate stance to appoint electors who are upholding the will of the people and will vote appropriately, especially in the states and counties where the law has been bent or usurped for political gain in violation of states' legislative rights to control the election process at a federal level.
That the damage created To the election system by Dominion voting systems and all associated companies and names be reversed.
Thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators be brought to justice.
The overshadowing of Sidney Powell and her legal team to ensure that the continued investigations lead to criminal indictments.
That the prosecution be brought off to swift successful closures.
That those judges that have been using their offices to ignore or bend the law for political gain and as a tool and instrument for implementing agendas other than fairness and correct compliance of the law be stripped of their responsibilities and replaced with those who correct the out of alignment conditions and return God balanced to the judicial system.
The immediate and thorough nationwide audit of the 2020 election results to reverse the fraud
that has been discovered in the elections, especially in the so-called swing states,
Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia. The rendering impotent of
the psychological operation currently underway against the American people in the attempt to
dismantle the Constitution by controlling the media, controlling the elections, imposing
restrictions upon our freedoms.
Now this is important, Dr. Corsi, also embedded in here that we want to ask for Divine justice to be served upon the media, pollsters and those complicit in keeping an inaccurate narrative alive about the elections and are responsible for spreading a discord and unrest among the citizens.
The clearing of all Illuminati, Luciferianist, satanic manipulation of the people, the courts, the lawyers, judges, and others of all treachery and intrigue, lawlessness, and opposition to the Constitution as a divinely inspired document, and that the immediate ratification by this prayer of the promise in scripture of Jeremiah 2011, whereby the evildoers behind the fraud, criminal activities, and seditious acts shall stumble and not prevail and not prosper, And that the keys of the house of David shall be given, so he shall open.
And then we ask for the clearing of that, that no light be given unlawfully, unauthorized to any part of life, for there's not the commitment of the soul's salvation on the worship of our God.
And we also agree together for absolute God protection from the backlash of the forces of darkness by the prayer, so on, and we ask for it to be closed.
That's out on the prayerful patriot right now and can be given.
Dr. Corsi?
Well, the key about this is we are asking for the will of God to be done.
Yes.
We're praying that God's will be done.
Same thing in the Lord's Prayer, at the center of the Lord's Prayer, as I will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
And so, we are not telling God what to do, we're asking that His divine justice be applied here.
And what I want to tell you is, this book, this e-book, Came to me all, you know, the piece has been moving around in my mind.
I've been seeing this and suddenly the whole thing, the entire e-book came to me as I just had to write it down.
I knew before I wrote one word where the whole thing was going.
And I started it on Thanksgiving.
So I've actually, this book, the entire time of writing this book took four days.
And I'm not bragging, I'm just telling you what happened.
And I think, you know, I don't attribute this to myself.
I think this is the will of God.
I think this is given to me.
I'm just seeing it.
I don't have the feeling I created.
I had the feeling it was right there in front of me.
All I do is read it and then write it down.
And I think, Craig, you pretty much saw me do that, didn't you?
Yes, absolutely.
It was a very quick work in progress that went from a concept to fruition and publishing.
And I don't think what a publishing house would believe possible.
Okay, now let's go to, I want to, we're going to take one more point that I'm really going to make sure you understand today.
And that is, okay, we've gotten, now let's just review what we've established.
We're not going to get a trial.
We're not going to be able to determine fraud in a legal sense.
Not the conventional legal sense of a trial.
This guy's convicted murderer.
No, we're not going to get that because there's no time.
And we see even in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, that it was time, the timetable that made the judges, the Supreme Court say the recount stops.
They didn't decide who won the recount.
They just said, there isn't time.
We can't stop this.
So it just stops.
Whoever is ahead now, that stops.
That's the winner.
And the Democrats have planned to keep it going on forever till they won.
Now there's a similar set of arguments here.
And that's my first section is first legal strategy.
This Trump SCOTUS strategy.
Number one, expand the constitutional issue with mail-in voting in Pennsylvania.
Okay.
Now this is very important.
There is a constitutional challenge in Pennsylvania.
By the way, certiorari comes from a Latin verb, which is certiorari, which is the first conjugation of Latin verbs, and this is the passive exhortation form, which basically means, let us be informed.
Let us be informed.
Let us be informed.
In other words, the Supreme Court saying, okay, we wanna hear this case
because we wanna hear, we wanna be informed about the arguments.
This merits our attention.
That's all certiorari means.
That's a big threshold because the Supreme Court doesn't think
if there's not a constitutional issue raised here, they're not gonna bother.
Just because it's an important case doesn't mean they have jurisdiction.
The first thing they've got to deal with in the Supreme Court is, do we have jurisdiction?
That's a legal argument.
Do we have jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, to hear this case?
And is it appropriate for us?
Is it at our level?
Should it have been adjudicated in the lower courts?
Is this really a federal Supreme Court issue?
Well, because of the presidential election, because of the issue involved, it can go directly to the Supreme Court.
The key rule here, what the constitutional argument is, is that article one, article two of the constitution is the article that determines how presidential elections are conducted.
And article two is very, very clearly written, probably one of the clearest of the parts of the constitution.
And it says, without doubt, the state legislature Is the only body of government vested with the authority to set the rules for the state's presidential election.
Okay.
In other words, adding dates beyond this November 3rd, 2020 deadline to permit Pennsylvania voters to submit ballots that could be counted in violation of the U S constitution.
Because the state Supreme court.
Did not extend the days of the voting.
The state legislature did not, there was no law.
The law said in Pennsylvania that the election ends and has to be counted on election day.
The governor, the board of elections and the Supreme court changed the rules for extra counting.
They thought that was great.
We got the state court, we got it all that done.
But the problem is, The Constitution doesn't allow them that authority.
And the Constitution rules here.
So, the case has come to the Supreme Court.
First of all, Judge Roberts, before Barrett was on the court, didn't want to do anything.
He said, we'll talk about this later.
Okay, and so his first order kind of punted.
But then it came before Alioto.
Alito, I'm sorry, Alito.
I do Alioto because that's a great restaurant in San Francisco.
You may know it, Craig.
A former mayor of San Francisco started that restaurant.
Great, great seafood.
Great lobster.
At any rate, Alito, each of the Supreme Court judges get certain of the circuit courts to be their province to oversee, to kind of make sure the circuit courts are staying on track and doing the right thing.
And again, that's not how they decide cases.
It's just the procedurally, not violating procedure.
Well, Alito, the case came to Alito and Alito said, wait a minute, there's a constitutional issue here in Pennsylvania.
And so on November 9th, 2020, the beginning of this month, he ordered that the ballots in Pennsylvania that were received postmarked after November 3rd, 2020, were to be segregated.
He said, you can count them, but we want to know where they are.
Now, that was a clear signal.
He didn't enter an order that the votes had to be thrown out, just that they'd be segregated.
Now, as I say on page 17, the point here is that there is a constitutional issue in the Pennsylvania case because the governor, the Board of Elections, and the State Supreme Court are not empowered by Article II of the U.S.
Constitution Okay, now this in constitutional law is what you consider a slam dunk.
This is a no-brainer.
when Pennsylvania voters were allowed to submit their ballots that would be counted.
Under Article II, only the Pennsylvania legislature could make that decision
and the Pennsylvania legislature passed no such law.
Okay, now this in constitutional law is what you consider a slam dunk. This is no-brainer.
This is not hard. This is bright light.
The Constitution says only the Article 2, only the state legislature can change the rules.
The governor, the State Board of Education, the State Supreme Court, the highest court in the state, are not the state legislature.
So therefore, they weren't allowed to make this decision to have ballots that came in after The election day, November 3rd, 2020, still be counted, accepted as legitimate ballots and counted, the mail-in ballots in particular, in Pennsylvania.
So what Alito is saying here is, tough luck, guys.
This issue, you lose.
Trump wins this issue.
And Alito's basically saying, when are you guys going to file the case?
Because you win.
Which means probably the leader will say all these mail-in ballots that came in after November 3rd and were counted, and he knows exactly how many they were.
Of course, Pennsylvania may try to cheat on that, but they won't get very far.
Now suddenly, he's probably flipped the state of Pennsylvania to Trump by this.
But by the way, Um, the Pennsylvania only got 20 electoral votes, so it's not enough for Trump to win.
In other words, we've got to have more states that made the same mistake.
So I started looking at the state laws for the mail-in voting and the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada.
They use COVID-19 as an excuse to expand absentee balloting to include mail-in ballots sent by the U.S.
Postal Service to all registered voters.
But an examination of state statutes in these states revealed that no state legislature in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, or Nevada passed laws specifically authorizing mail-in ballot rules and regulations.
All five of these states, plus Pennsylvania, seem to assume That they could mail ballots to all registered voters, perhaps justified by COVID.
It involved nothing more than assuming that existing state law for absentee ballots made what they called no-excuse ballots possible at the discretion of the state board of elections.
And these five swing states, mail-in ballots for rules and procedures, We're made only through actions taken by governors, state boards, and state courts.
So in other words, sure, they said you could come in and get a no-excuse absentee ballot, but the absentee ballot rules these states have mean you've got to come in, got to present your identification, got to get an absentee ballot, got to submit it so your signature can be verified.
It's not an easy process.
And to say, we've got no-excuse balloting here, send in whatever you want.
We're going to mail them to you.
Make it easy.
You can't violate the way the state legislature wrote the law that absentee ballots have to be administered.
And just because suddenly there's no excuse doesn't mean you can start mailing everybody in the state ballots.
Unless the state passed a law to that effect, which it didn't do very often.
Now, there's another couple of defects, and that is further research.
And I go through each of these states.
I mean, I go through Oregon.
Okay, so Oregon's a very clear case.
Oregon was one of the first states to make vote-by-mail the standard way Oregonians are expected to vote in all elections.
But Oregon established vote-by-mail as a standard for voters by a citizen's initiative in 1998.
Well, that's okay maybe for state elections, but it's not going to work for the presidential election because a citizen's initiative, vote by mail to the rules of Oregon, that's not done by the state legislature.
But in 1981, the Oregon Legislative Assembly expanded vote by mail for local elections.
But there is no record that the Oregon State Legislature ever passed a law extending vote-by-mail to federal elections, including presidential elections.
This is a clear violation of Article 2 of the Constitution that reserves to the state legislatures the sole power to make the rules and regulations.
Then the Oregon Legislature, twice, once in 1995 and then in 1997, failed to pass laws That would have enabled Oregonians to vote by mail.
So Oregon voters in 1998 voted to expand mail-in voting to primary and general elections.
Then in 2000, Oregon became the first state to implement an exclusively mail-in presidential election, but again without the state passing a law.
The 2000 election took Oregon nine days after the election for the state to award the then Vice President Al Gore the state's seven electoral votes.
When there were still 20,000 mail-in votes to count, they still gave it to Gore.
Oregon's about as far left as you can get.
I think they're the socialist communist state of Oregon.
In retrospect, if the lawyers for George W. Bush during 2000 had thought to challenge the constitutionality These universal mail-in procedures in Oregon used in 2000 presidential election without specific authorizing legislation for the state legislature of the democratic attempt to steal the 2000 election may not have happened.
And as I go through these various states, it's clear, it's especially clear In Wisconsin, and also New York State.
In New York State, the governor, our brilliant Governor Cuomo here, just said, we're gonna have everybody mail the ballot.
Well, New York has no such provision in its state laws.
And so on the basis of this alone, if you just took Pennsylvania, Oregon, Wisconsin, New York, and a few others here, The election, this is a slam dunk issue, and it's only the first of about three very solid issues that Trump has gotten arguing this.
But this one is like, it's so clear that a first year law student should be able to make this argument, but they haven't taken constitutional law yet.
When they get to take constitutional law, which I guess is the second year, Maybe third year, they'll figure this out.
But the point is, the public doesn't know this.
The press doesn't know this.
The mainstream media doesn't know this.
And when the lawfare lawyers, unfortunately, I think including Dershowitz now, I think he's not gonna be able to be part of this team.
I was hoping originally he would see the light and understand the constitutional reasons why Trump wins.
They're panicking.
You mean the states did mail-in voting and they didn't pass state laws?
Oops.
Craig, what do you think?
Yeah, that's kind of like making up the rules as you go along.
And they always try to do it because they think that they can pull the wool over the public's eyes.
But in this case, Dr. Corsi, we have somebody that actually looked into it and figured out what they had done and how it's not legal and constitutional.
And here you go.
Trump wins.
Arthur, what do you think?
Well, I see the hand of God in this again, Dr. Corsi, and the fact that they didn't figure this out ahead of time.
You know, God knew that this was going to come to a point where this was all going to have to be revealed to everybody, and I think this is, you know, a constitutional civics lesson for the entire nation, and an opportunity for us to straighten it out.
It's very clear-cut.
I agree.
Well, and you know, these lawfare guys, Satan thinks these guys think they're so clever.
We're going to have an insurrection.
We've done it with Obama.
We've learned how to do all this.
And we did it in Ukraine and the Arab Spring.
The State Department was working with us.
We've got the Justice Department.
We're going to win.
And they didn't read the Constitution.
How hard do you think it would have been to go to the Oregon legislature and say, hey, guys, we're going to steal this election.
Would you kind of cooperate with us here and pass a law so when we do it, we haven't violated it?
No, forget about that.
COVID.
So I say on page 23, the essential point to understand in this chapter is that the violations of Article 2 are the easiest and fastest way to compel SCOTUS review.
In other words, Alito said, bring it on.
Alito knows this argument's there.
He's already got it figured out.
And he knows the other justices have no choice but to go along.
It's hard to imagine any justice, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who could find a basis for saying the 2020 election was conducted according to the Constitution when it is apparent and easily proven that many states ignored the Article II requirement that only the state legislature is allowed to make the rules for that state's election for the President of the United States.
Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, many state governors, state boards of election, and courts made up whatever rules for mail-in election voting that sounded good to them.
Their actions represent a prima facie.
Prima facie means on its face.
Like, this is so clear.
Okay, this is, you know, clear as day.
These actions represent a prima facie.
Violation of Article 2 sets an even more clear and more easily established constitutional infringements of Article 2's requirement for conducting federal presidential elections.
It's hard to imagine.
It's hard to imagine how there could be a clearer violation.
This one is so clear.
And, you know, again, we go state by state.
Indiana.
Now, Indiana voted for Trump, but in Indiana, there was a big fight between, I guess, Governor Holcomb and Holcomb, and the state was, we've got to have, Governor, you've got to let us have mail-in voting, because, look here, we got COVID.
The governor said, no, no, no.
The state legislature has not passed this.
We have absentee balloting.
But in Indiana, you got to have specific reasons.
The reason has got to be you're out of state on business.
You're in the hospital.
Can't get to the polls and you are old and frail and we'll send somebody to help you from the election board to vote.
But you got to apply at the board of elections.
You got to validate that it's you, your signature.
Then you get an absentee ballot.
But when you bring it back, we got to validate that it was you, it's your signature, it's your vote.
Very strict requirements.
That's why absentee ballots all these years And their old requirements in the state legislatures have been accepted because the idea of elections in the United States is that they're in person, traditionally, and mail-in.
Absentee, yes, but absentee was really not mail-in.
Absentee was a whole set of procedures where you could do it by mail, but It really required the election board to validate that your signature matched your registration card for voting, your voter registration, that it matched everything, and that you were this person, that this was your vote.
It was very strict.
And so Governor Holcomb in Indiana said, I'm not going to do this.
I'm not going to just expand it.
Well, they kept pressuring him, pressuring him, pressuring him.
Then they went to the courts in Indiana, the Democrat demons.
They got courts to say, we need to have mail-in voting because of COVID.
And the governor finally just said, OK, I am expanding the rules for absentee ballots.
And because of COVID, anybody with a COVID problem can get a ballot.
And you don't have to prove anything other than you're exposed or you're worried about COVID.
And we're going to allow mail-in ballots.
And he caved in.
But the state legislature never passed a law.
Now the record in that state is so clear because the governor resisted it.
And it doesn't matter that that state went for Trump, but because in Indiana, if they violated the constitution and how they conducted the election, the federal election for president in that state is null and void.
The entire election, because they violated the rules.
And so we'll just throw away the mail-in votes.
Well, first of all, this state is one that went for Trump, and that's not the point.
My point is, yes, in many of these states, the swing states, where they violated the rules, like New York, if the Supreme Court throws out all the mail-in votes in New York because there was no state law passed that allowed them, period, well, clearly Trump's probably going to even win New York.
And if they throw out Indiana, it's another state, we said another time, so this whole mail-in scheme has endless problems in it from a constitutional point of view, because even the states that had no excuse balloting You know, they had modified laws saying you can get a temporary, you can get an absentee ballot for any reason you want.
Don't have to be sick.
You don't have to be traveling.
Just come in and ask for one, but you gotta follow the procedures.
Unless the state court, the state legislature changed the law to say you can mail a ballot to everybody.
If they did that, that is not the procedures that state's laws specify for getting an absentee ballot in a presidential election.
Now, is that clear, Craig?
Right, absolutely.
And as soon as they've done that, they've created an issue that can very clearly be proven at the Supreme Court.
And I gather, Dr. Corsi, you're going to outline for us exactly how that's going to happen.
Yeah, I mean, it's very simple.
Today, reading this book, or today understanding what they've got, and I'll be doing everything I can in the media and making sure they get this and understand it.
We'll be broadcasting this, just on this morning, gonna be on all these different platforms.
And I will go on with Robert David Steele a little bit later today, get all this explained to his audience, and we'll get it explained to many audiences.
But the point is that Alito's already, what are you guys waiting for?
Just give us this one.
Okay, now this is not proving fraud.
Okay, we'll get to that.
This is not proving fraud.
What this is doing is saying, Article two was violated because of the way the mail-in balloting was done, implemented by governors, state boards of education, state courts.
Election.
The election, the 2020 presidential election.
The state board of the election.
State board of, yeah, state board of election.
State governor, state board of election, state court made the rules for mail-in balloting predicated on COVID, largely, without changing the state law.
And the state laws rule.
And so just like in Pennsylvania, where Lito said, segregate out the mail-in votes that were counted after the election, because that violates the state constitution.
State laws had determined how that election is going to be conducted in Pennsylvania.
State laws did not extend the date where ballots could be received and considered valid and counted.
Similar flaws in all these other states, maybe related arguments, they're not identical, but there's arguments in many of these states where the state legislatures did not approve the procedures that were implemented for mail-in voting, either the way the mail-in ballots were sent or received.
Suddenly you can say, well, they didn't check The signatures on the mail-in against the signatures in the registration?
That's a violation of the way the law is written.
Forget about fraud.
They didn't have a postmark on the ballot?
Well, that's a violation of the way the state law is written for federal elections by the state legislature.
Because even if you consider these no-excuse absentee ballots, they just can't come in over the transom with no Postmark or signature and be counted.
You don't have to prove fraud.
You have to just prove that the state of Pennsylvania, state of Wisconsin, state of New York, state of Indiana, the list goes on, did not amend the state law through the state legislature to accord with these Loose, loosey-goosey ways that they allowed mail-in balloting to be done in the state.
That does not follow Article 2 of the Constitution.
It's unconstitutional, and it will be thrown out at the Supreme Court.
Craig.
Right, absolutely.
And what's interesting in a lot of this, Dr. Corsi, is you don't want to set up a threshold that's too high to prove.
So, for example, in the Hillary Clinton case, with her emails, it didn't matter whether she intended to do what she did or not.
She did it, and as soon as she did it, she violated law.
And that's the threshold that needs to be kept here.
Don't create a canard that you have to prove the fraud.
You just have to prove that the election process itself was invalid.
Yeah, the proof of fraud is the PSYOP, psychological operation by the mainstream media and the Democrats, so you don't think of this issue.
But the point is, rather than the Hillary Clinton case, Because the Department of Justice, they're politically motivated to not indict Democrats, certainly not Hillary Clinton.
They're all protected by our Department of Justice from crimes, Hunter Biden.
Anyone remember Hunter Biden?
I refer to Bush v. Gore, because Bush v. Gore, Supreme Court decision in 2000, which ended the recount and settled the election.
Okay, because by ending the recount, the court did not say Bush wins, but by ending the recount, and when the last Bush was ahead, Gore lost.
And what that decision was based on was the timeline.
The state had not devised a procedure to complete the recount in time for the state legislatures to meet, which was on December 12th.
In order to pick the electors.
That's a hard stop.
Can't be extended.
So the court said, I'm sorry, Florida, but you failed to follow the constitution and the laws regarding, you know, there's several things.
Article 12 is the most important.
Then the 12th amendment, the 20th amendment, and there's some federal statutes.
You have to understand all of them to understand how federal elections are done.
They're all important.
In this case, Constitution article two is alone sufficient because it says the state legislatures alone make the rules for federal elections, including the presidential, in particular, the presidential election.
Really, it's only the state legislatures have to make the state rules for the presidential election.
State governors and others can do various things, even in normal federal elections, as long as it's not the presidential election.
The states are in charge of the voting.
States control voting rules.
But because of the way Article 2 is written, the state governor, state board of elections, state Supreme Court, is not in charge of deciding how that state will conduct the presidential election.
And you've got to understand that because that decides the case.
And on that point, Biden loses and it's locked solid.
That's really the first point I wanted to make today and convincing you, you've got to read this book.
Because the rest of the book is equality, is well argued, and absolutely the case.
Craig, any final comments?
Yeah, so bottom line is, President Trump secured a landslide victory into the evening of November 3, that Tuesday, and everything that took place after that, the pause, the flooding into the ballots, all of that stuff is washed away, and he is the victor.
Well, I want to make one point here, because again, you're rushing.
Not me.
Well, and again, you have to understand the Constitution and how courts work.
If the Supreme Court decides that the elections in these states, and enough of them to make sure that Trump would be the winner, the Supreme Court does not issue an order that the states change their votes suddenly for Trump.
That's not, all the court does is say, the way they administered mail-in ballots, because state legislatures did not set the rules in the federal election, the governors, state board of elections, and the state courts did, in those states, the election's null and void.
It wasn't constitutional.
So Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes do not get assigned to Biden, but they also do not get assigned to Trump.
All the other states, New York, slam dunk.
Wisconsin, slam dunk.
There's gonna be a lot of others.
All the Supreme Court says is the election was null and void in these states because they didn't follow the rules.
It doesn't correct it by giving them to Trump.
Trump still wins because there's no procedures for doing another election.
There's no redo.
And you're gonna have to understand how it goes to the state legislatures to pick the electors.
They can do that any way they want.
Ultimately, it might end up in the Congress to decide the presidency.
Got a lot more unraveling here to go.
I don't want anybody to think because of this Trump, specifically, Trump does not lose.
Okay, at this point, you can't say yet, I mean, I know at this point, once this is decided, look, the rest of the process is gonna play out and Trump is gonna win.
That's lock solid.
But legally, let's draw the distinctions that have to be drawn.
Because law is about drawing distinctions that are based on statute, precedent, previous legal court cases, and legal reasoning.
And here you've got to stop short of saying that because Pennsylvania, these ballots are thrown out, the ones that were mail-in ballots that were received by the state of Pennsylvania postmarked after the election and counted.
So we throw those out.
But that doesn't mean that they are awarded to Trump.
Maybe that by throwing them out, Trump has now the electoral votes in the state.
But all the court said was, that election is not valid.
And it will not be valid that Biden wins.
From there, how it gets played out, now we're into multiple scenarios.
I mean, it's kind of like chess, Craig.
When you're playing chess at kind of a master level, You get to a point in a game where it's certain you're going to win.
That's when the other side of their brilliant chess player just resigns.
They don't play it right to the end.
They know they're going to lose.
They resign.
That's pretty advanced.
When you're winning a chess game as a master or a grandmaster, you're doing the openings of the initial middle game, and by a certain point, The only way you can lose is if you make a bad mistake.
But you don't necessarily make a bad mistake.
The other side could yet win.
So what I'm saying here is it's locked certain that Trump wins on this issue.
And without these votes, he's also not going to win at the At the electoral college.
But that does not yet mean that Trump has declared the victor.
In Bush v. Gore, the court stopping the recount meant that Bush was the winner.
Because the court said enough.
And so it is status quo then.
In other words, it's not status quo post or ante or anything else.
You don't keep counting.
It's whatever it was at that moment, it stopped.
And because Bush was ahead, he won Florida because it was stopped.
And those electoral votes pushed him over the edge.
Yeah.
Pushed him over the edge nationwide.
But here, that the votes are taken away.
The court will not, I don't believe, say they have to be, those votes are not gonna be given to Trump.
Now, those states made suddenly, Biden does not have enough electoral votes to win, because the electoral counts change.
But that's now, now we've got a question of how's the Electoral College gonna go?
We'll have to get to that probably tomorrow.
We'll get through a few more things.
It's going to take us two or three days to explain it.
It is complicated.
All I want you to know today is that there is a constitutional issue here with the mail-in votes and the state laws not being changed that makes it certain that Trump will win at the Supreme Court.
And that's huge.
Now we're playing a chess game.
It's hard to see from here on how Trump loses.
But we have to play to the end game.
We have to play till Biden resigns.
And Biden will resign, but it's not going to be done.
This whole e-book, I'd have to read the whole thing and understand it to see how this complex game is going to be played out.
And we're just at the beginning of explaining it.
This book, it's available now.
Coursenation.com.
People have been buying it.
It's getting out there.
there. And I will be talking about it probably all week.
Um, Chris.
Craig, final comment, and then Arthur, final comment, then we're gonna wrap up.
Fear not, stay strong.
Arthur?
Yeah, gotta go out to the Prayerful Patriot.
Let's get step one, you know, alignment with God's will, and get this moving.
And stay tuned, because there'll be lots of changes on the Prayerful Patriot.
Dr. Corsi?
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Today is Monday.
November 30, the last day in November, we've been through a horrendous month, but today it changes.
Today, President Trump, reading this e-book, can know that he's not going to lose.
He's going to win at the Supreme Court.
Let's get that case there now.
In the end, God always wins.
This is Jerome Corsi with my producer Craig and Arthur, who runs our affiliate site, The Prayerful Patriot.