All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:06:06
Dr Corsi NEWS 12-09-20: SCOTUS Takes The Case
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪ ♪♪
♪♪ So, Dr. Corzi, sounds like the election fraud
is starting to get some traction with the Supreme Court.
court.
Well, let's just say the case is at the Supreme Court.
I don't think they're going to address precisely the issue of fraud per se, as they say, it lawed for itself.
I mean, it's complicated, but I'm going to explain this as best we can today.
And if it gets a little bit technical, please bear with us.
It's important to understand this.
And there is no Cliff Notes way to explain some of this because it's It is complicated, and it's going to take a little bit of thinking through to get through.
But the point is, let's get to the big points right away.
Today, first of all, is December 9th.
It's Wednesday, 2020, and this has been an eventful week.
I'm here with my producer, Craig.
There's been so much happening each day, and as I always say in a presidential election cycle, Every day is like a month in news cycle.
You know, things just crank through the day and changes, whips around with new stories.
Well, yesterday it was a huge disappointment that the Supreme Court did not grant emergency relief in the case in Pennsylvania.
By the way, that Pennsylvania case is still at the Supreme Court.
It will eventually be held and heard, but it got superseded by the Texas filing.
Now, I filed Corsi v. Biden, and that case was filed at the right court.
In fact, a lot of the strategy of my filing is the strategy in this case.
This is what I was trying to do with filing that case.
Is to, um, you know, lead the way and get the thinking of the legal team coming along.
And, uh, you know, the legal team has followed.
I've been talking to some of the key people in legal team, and they've been following to some extent what I've been doing.
I don't want to take credit for it is not my work.
It is the work of the, uh, the brilliant team to put this together.
And, uh, at the same time, uh, All my life I've had the ability to, you know, as you see and we've done and many times, get something out there which then takes hold.
You understand what I'm trying to say, Craig?
Yeah, absolutely.
And bottom line is at times it just takes a voice to kind of cut through the smoke and mirrors of everything and to get to the point and then people perk up and that's I think what's going on.
It's happened to me since I was a kid, and that I found out when I can figure something out and get it explained, somehow everybody gets it better.
I don't know how that happens.
It's one of those things about human intelligence we don't understand.
I always like the story of the monkeys on the islands.
There's a chain of monkeys.
This is a very famous psychological study.
I'd have to think to remember who did it.
But there's a chain of monkeys on these different islands, and they can't communicate.
Not only because monkeys don't speak, but there's no way they get anything that was done on one island known on the other island.
There's no transportation, there's no communication of any kind.
It's as if they were in their own little worlds.
Now, one monkey figures out a way to, let's say, You know, crack a coconut or whatever with a shell or to use a rock tool to do something.
And that's never been done with these monkeys before.
Well, within a few hours, all the monkeys and all the chains will be doing that.
Okay, and there's no way to know how that happened.
Okay, which is one of the aspects I've always perceived about human intelligence is that we are really all connected.
And that an idea that develops powerfully...
can impact everyone without it being communicated.
Does that make any sense to you at all, Craig?
Yeah, and you know, some people would call it telepathy or some other kind of a phenomenon, but bottom line is, yeah, and so there was a study in the 50s, it was in the Makaka Fuscata, the Japanese monkeys on Kojima Island.
That's what that hundredth monkey effect was all about.
What was that?
That they did exactly what you're talking about.
It was hard for them to understand how it was for these monkeys to pick up a behavior when they're separated by distance and they start doing the same thing.
Yeah, and it's because of the connectivity of everything.
There's an idea I'm going to have to explore.
Maybe when I get older, I'll do some more of these writings and explore these things.
The second point, people, you know, these broadcasts sometimes are long.
We'll come down later and figure out ways to pick out pieces of them and broadcast them separately on the channel as we go along.
But right now, we're in such a mix that we're going to take the time we need to take.
I know people say, well, we don't have two hours.
We're very busy.
Well, not everybody will have two hours.
And I'm not going to go two hours every day.
I mean, I'm not going to go one hour every day.
But if it goes a little bit long, well, just when you finish listening to it, quit.
I get emails from people who say, you know, I'm working here on an assembly line in Ohio, and we're making automobiles.
I'm listening to your podcast all day long, as long as you want to go, because they're on the assembly line and they can put their headphones on and continue listening.
So for that person, it's not too long.
Okay.
For another person who's, you know, said, look, I'm a very busy person.
I'm an executive.
Just come in here and tell me, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Well, okay.
I mean, that's, that's a certain style of communicating.
And certainly when you get to the president or the president of the United States or certain issues, they don't want to hear all the thinking.
They want you to do the thinking and give them the conclusions.
Well, sometimes that's good.
Sometimes it just doesn't work.
Sometimes you need to say, let's go, you know, let's go for a ride or we're going to go off over here to the desert for a while.
I mean, all the times I spent in Arizona and the like growing up and in my thirties, still growing up, you know, every now and then you want to go off into the desert for a while, a couple of days and just talk and think things through.
And if you don't take that time, you're not allowing As almost as it were God to talk to you, not allowing the thinking to get down to a deep enough level where you've turned the idea at all these angles and looked at it from different points of view, and finally you begin to understand it.
You know, because the other person, one more point on this, I always admired Abraham Lincoln for many different reasons, but Lincoln said about ideas First, he got down what he thought about slavery to this.
He said, as I would not be a slave, I would not be a slave holder.
Now, that got it down to one idea, but I think it about says everything, don't you, Craig?
Yeah, absolutely.
And not only do I not want to be enslaved, but I definitely don't want to be the party that enslaves others.
Yeah, I mean, that includes doing to others as you would have them do unto yourself.
It includes so much profound thinking to come up with that idea, and it capitalizes so much into it.
It's like a burst of energy, that idea.
And what Lincoln said is he thinks about ideas the same way you burn a log in a fireplace.
He said you burn it down to the cinders.
Now when he had an idea burned down to the cinders, he figured he probably got the idea figured out.
But the hard part was the thinking it down to the cinders.
And if you don't do that, you miss the idea.
Okay.
Now again, if you're an executive session, they say, you know, don't give us, you just went on for 20 minutes.
Why are you doing that?
Well, I had, you know, okay.
I had to go on 20.
Well, we quit listening to you.
So, you know, you gotta be quicker.
Well, okay.
That's where Lincoln would go away and say, how do I say it to these people with all the thinking Lincoln had done?
Now, the other one he did was when he.
Got in there to Cooper Union, various speeches he gave, and this, all he was trying to understand was slavery.
You know, he hated slavery.
He'd seen slaves when he went down to New Orleans in a flat boat when he was a young man.
He'd seen it.
It was repugnant to him, totally.
Frightened him.
And he said, slavery is like there's a baby sleeping in the carriage, and there's a snake in the baby carriage next to the baby.
He said, now that snake might kill that baby.
But if you reach in and try to grab the snake out or the baby out, that may be the precipitant where the snake gets excited and bites the baby.
You might have just killed the baby.
So the question is, how do we get the snake out of the bed without killing the baby?
What he was saying is, how do we extract Slavery from the United States without having a murderous civil war.
And ultimately, he couldn't figure out a solution to that except to have the civil war, and we did.
But he thought about it a lot.
He thought about it in those terms, and he expressed it in those terms because the people could understand it in those terms.
And when they got the idea, they knew what he was talking about.
Do you see that, Craig, as a means of expression?
Yeah, absolutely, because sometimes in order to break your thinking loose, if you're thinking in a particular pattern, we've got cotton, we've got a picket, this is how we make our livings, and we've imported these people, they came in, you know, blah, blah, it's a tradition, however you want to do it, and then all of a sudden you break something loose.
And when you break your thinking loose and think in another direction, that's when innovation takes place.
And also, it's when God has the opportunity to enter.
Because you're thinking about these ideas and you get an insight or you get a flash.
Well, that may be God giving you an idea.
You know, it's part of the part of prayer.
And Arthur can't be with us today for the prayer for Patriot, but prayer has a lot to do with working on an idea and working on it with God in a way that you want to do the divine will, which is what I want to do.
If God's will be done here on earth, I want to figure out What God wants, how, what my role in that is, if I can play a role, what, how, and usually it's been figuring things out, expressing them.
You know, I don't want to run for office.
I don't want to have a political, I don't, you know, that's not my, that's not my, why I'm here.
It's not why I'm here.
Now let's get into this today.
Let's get the court case up in front of us.
And I want to explain to you what has happened here.
Texas has filed this case and this case is against Four states.
Now, the problem that you have with the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court has to have standing to take a case.
The Supreme Court has taken this case, by the way.
It's been docketed.
What that means is the Supreme Court is saying, okay, it's now officially here a case and we're going to hear it.
They said they've got the states have, the states are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Now these are the four states where we know there was the most serious issues of vote fraud and they were different in each state.
Pennsylvania, there were extra days of voting and all this mail-in ballots were coming in.
In Philadelphia, you saw it in the center where they brought in all these ballots in the middle of the night.
Georgia was a little bit different.
They only used the computers in Georgia at the end They weren't planning on doing a lot of computer fraud in Georgia, but they had to do it because they couldn't even produce the number of mail-in ballots they needed.
In Michigan and Wisconsin, they were using the computers very heavily, switch votes all night long.
And they did do some of the mail-in ballot fraud, but not like Pennsylvania did.
Okay, so these are four states that are strategically picked because they had obvious patterns of fraud, but yet the case is not about fraud.
Now, we'll get to that in terms of how I think it needs to also include this element, but the case was, the lawyers who crafted this case, and I know who they are, and I've talked to them at length, And try to have an impact by filing my case, by writing that book, Trump Wins.
And by the way, Trump is going to win this case.
Trump will win.
And Craig, haven't we said from the beginning that Trump will win at the Supreme Court?
You're a broken record on that theme, and I'm with you.
And that he has the best arguments at the Supreme Court that anyone will have?
He does.
The other side are not going to be able to compete in this area because they don't have good arguments.
That's why they just keep saying, give up.
That's why they were running the psychological warfare.
Give up, give up.
You can't win.
You know, we're going to drop leaflets over your position, tell you to surrender because you can't win.
Well, they wouldn't be doing that if they didn't, if they weren't afraid you might just win and we're going to win.
Now I'm gonna explain to you how, as we get into this case, they wanted to argue the case strictly on the, on the law.
In other words, even if they can't prove fraud, they win.
And that was the key point in my book, Trump Wins.
I mean, you've really got to read that book now, especially in light of what we've done here and explaining this, if you want to understand it.
And it takes a little bit of thinking, but it's not impossible.
It's not all that hard, really.
If you just take your time and think it through for a while, we'll get there.
And, Craig, I want you to get that book ready so we can bring it up as we need to, but in the very first few pages of it, I make clear—is Arthur able to join us or not today, Craig?
No, he will not be with us.
But we have a new prayer that we want to get reviewed, right?
Yeah, that's it, correct.
Okay, we will review that prayer.
All right, now we'll do it about the half an hour mark, so when we get to a half an hour mark, remind me, we'll review that, we'll stop and review that prayer.
Okay?
Okay.
What I'm making clear in this book is that if you go, Craig, to the first chapter of it, not the introduction, but the first chapter, part one, it's really part one, and tell me when you've got it up there, It's up on the screen and I'm scaling through.
I'm going through the preamble material.
page 13 headed towards the there one of the first points I make is that in the
federal and state systems questions of fact in other words did they commit
fraud or not this has to be settled in a trial Because facts in law are settled at trials, okay?
That's the basic rule.
In other words, if somebody, you wanna know if they committed murder, you gotta charge them, there's gotta be a trial, and the jury's gotta find them guilty of murder.
Now you've got a murder.
Up until then, you had a suspected murder.
So we've got now suspected fraud, but not fraud.
So you can't go into court and argue fraud.
Now that's the first problem they've got.
The second problem is this timeline problem.
And I'll tell you, they ran the clock down on this one pretty hard.
One more day it might've made a difference because we've got the 14th, which is next Monday.
We are at Wednesday.
We've got next Monday and the electoral college meets.
So we've got a timeline problem here.
And in fact, I think they're gonna, the briefs have to be in Tomorrow, Thursday, they may argue this case on Friday and decide it on Saturday or Sunday, prior to the Monday meeting of the Electoral College.
That's possible.
That's very similar to what they did in 2000 in the Florida recount.
It got right down to the end.
And I guess the 12th, which is what day is the 12th?
12th must be Saturday?
Yes, it is.
Well, they could probably argue this Friday and come out with a decision on Saturday, and it would be identical to what they did in 2000.
Came out with a decision the day the states meet to pick the electors.
And I would not be surprised if that happens.
Because, you see, the December 14th is set by federal law.
This is on page 14 of the book.
But, you know, federal law, this U.S.
Code section 3, that's the book of the code, that's the area of the code, section 5 of the third part of the U.S.
Code, 3 U.S.
Code, says that... What page was that again, Dr. Corcoran?
14, the last paragraph.
It says that the safe harbor date was December 8th.
Well, that was yesterday.
When all these cases are supposed to have been settled, all the issues of the safe harbor means that that's when the states are supposed to settle whether or not to certify the elections.
Well, we don't have certification about half a dozen states, and the key states are still in dispute.
We're not going to resolve them by the 8th because it's gone.
By the 12th, they're supposed to meet and pick the electors, and that's what the Jericho March is.
On December 12th, there's going to be a big rally under jerichomarch.org in Washington.
A big rally.
And people are coming to that rally, and they're going to be You know, thousands of people in Washington to try to influence the state legislators not to pick the Biden slates because of the fraud.
And then, okay, so the timeline is a problem.
I was not sure they would hear this case because the timeline is so far down that they heard it.
I know Alito, that's who I was filing with.
I know Alito wants to hear the case.
Alito was the one who paid attention to Pennsylvania.
Of course, that's in his jurisdiction.
It's the area of the circuit courts that Alito is responsible for.
Now, what we have in this is, I think we've got Thomas And Alito, or I think are the two most solid on the court.
I think we've got Barrett, who wants to hear the case.
And I think we probably have Gorsuch.
I think Kavanaugh could make the fifth.
But I also want to bring Roberts into this.
I know people think that's a long shot.
Roberts hates Trump, they say, and all the other issues about Roberts.
I still think there's a way to bring Roberts in the case.
Okay, now let's get to the case itself.
Let's go back from my book now to the case.
And let's start analyzing what they've done here.
And again, it's gonna be a legal analysis and a lot of people, you know, just try to bear with it for a while.
Okay, now with the Supreme Court, it's a very opening of the case.
They say that second paragraph in this, it's a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.
Okay, they wanna file a bill of complaint.
They've got a, it's a very specific kind of motion at law, but they make their biggest points right here.
One, non-legislative actors purported amendments to the state's duly enacted election laws in violation of the electors clause vesting state legislatures with plenary authority regarding the Appointment of presidential electors.
Now, that comes right out of my book again.
Craig, if you'll go back to the book.
I'm not trying to sell a book here.
I just want to point out to you the structure of the argument.
And, uh, you know, you're welcome to buy the book if you want.
And, um, and by the way, the donations, thank you for the donations.
The donations are keeping us going right now.
You can buy books on the site, you can do a variety of things, but the donations are making all the difference in the moment to give us the resources we need to get some things done.
Thank you.
And two books, you know, I'm signing my books for the donations and we're selling my books in the bookstore.
And there's many of them in there.
I think they could be historic copies with my signature on them.
They may someday have a real value.
And I'm seeing people are picking us up, even on Twitter, where we are so badly shadow banned.
Okay, now, if we go to my book, Craig, and we search for plenary, okay?
And you've got to do the advanced search.
To find it in the book, because it is a PDF file.
Plenary, I say on... Page 54.
54.
Yeah, I make the point that in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, the Supreme Court made it clear the state legislature Has the full power to set the rules of how the state is going to conduct its election.
Just the legislature, not the governor, not the board of elections, not the state supreme court.
And secondly, they have the sole power to pick the electors.
Okay.
And this is what they call the elector clause.
You elect because this is how the state legislatures are more important than the voters.
And the constitutional process of picking a president, because our founders didn't trust voting.
And this case is about, this case is properly about, can we ever trust voting again?
And this is at the heart of how the constitution was written.
This is the logic I've been advocating people follow for a month, and I'm seeing it now manifested in the Supreme Court, which means I'm seeing the hand of God working here.
I got the idea, they got the idea, we're now pursuing the idea, and the court's gonna have the idea, and soon the people are gonna have the idea.
What this Supreme Court said There's two paragraphs here, and in fact this McPherson in Black case, which is 1892, is one of the cases that the Texas filing of the Supreme Court relies on.
Okay, now the individual that reads is what the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore.
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for elections for the president.
That's a pretty shocking idea, unless and until A state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint the members of the Electoral College.
In other words, they pass a law in a state legislature saying, we're going to vote for the electors for Trump or the electors for Biden.
And whoever wins a popular vote, their electors are voted for and they go to the Electoral College.
And the next sentence, this is the source for the statement of McPherson v. Blacker, 1892.
That the state's legislative power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary, full, can't be limited.
That's the word in the first few paragraphs here of the Texas case.
I made a centerpiece here in my article.
We're getting some vibration outside.
Can you hear that, Craig?
No, go ahead.
Good, that's good.
Okay, so what that means is that the state legislature may choose, if it so chooses, Select the electors itself, which indeed is the manner used by state legislatures for many states for many years after the framing of our Constitution, which I've also argued.
Then the Supreme Court went on and said that the state legislature at any time could take this power back to itself to appoint the electors.
Quote, history has now favored the voter.
And in each of the several states, the citizens themselves vote for presidential electors.
When a state legislature vests the right to vote for president in its people, the right to vote, as the legislature has prescribed, is fundamental.
And one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote, and the equal dignity owed to each voter.
The state, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint the electors.
That's essentially what's going to happen now.
And that's what this court case is really all about.
It's why the court's pretty much got to decide this, hopefully on Saturday, so that the states know that they can pick the electors.
And that'll verify everything that Rudy Giuliani's been doing with these hearings, which is a brilliant strategy.
Okay, now, it means that the voters have increased since the beginning of the constitution early part of our constitution early years the state legislatures were most important voting has gotten to be more important you know a couple centuries later and people are saying you know let all the votes count all the legal votes count the democrats say let all the votes count wherever they come from who it falls fake let them all count no that's not right okay so
But it isn't the voting that decides because we, the people, elect the legislators and the electors are in charge.
Okay.
So that's the first point in this lawsuit.
Okay.
Now let's go back to the lawsuit for a minute and keep going back and forth here.
So we understand the logic in this and how it was developed.
What I'm telling you is that this is why Trump is going to win.
And this is so deeply ingrained in the And the philosophy of our constitution, that it is like, it's like the first sentence of the Bible.
In the beginning was God and God created heaven and earth.
God's in charge.
God can pull the plug anytime he wants.
In the end, God always wins.
This is God's deal.
Lord's prayer, Jesus Christ said, thy will be done in heaven as it is in earth to almighty God, to Yahweh, to the father.
Okay, so we go back to the law case, and we go back to, you know, I used to have this trouble teaching.
When I taught in schools, I would teach, I had a hard time getting out of the first page, the first chapter of, I'd be teaching a course on Thucydides.
I realized we were halfway through the semester, and I was still on the first page.
If you get the first page right, you get the whole thing right.
Put that first paragraph together is the entire thing.
If you understand any one paragraph of the thing, you'll understand the whole thing because it's like a building.
Understand why that stone is there.
Number two, intrastate differences in the treatment of voters Very important.
Even if it was lawful, it was different.
whether lawfully or unlawfully in areas administered by local government
under democratic control with populations with higher ratios of
democratic voters than any other areas of defendant states.
Very important. Even if it was lawful, it was different.
This is an equal protection law argument. The equal protection clause of the
Constitution demands not only that we have rights but our rights are equal.
In other words, your rights are not greater than mine.
And the Democrats in Detroit don't have greater rights than the Republicans in upstate Michigan, or the voters in Arizona, or the voters in Alaska.
And these intrastate differences create Uh, create unequal treatment of rights, which under the 14th amendment is a constitutional violation of serious major proportions.
That's where the voting rights acts laws come from.
And this is talking about voting rights.
So again, remember we haven't proven fraud yet.
We're talking about the legislatures have the full right to set the rules and to pick the electors.
Now we're saying the constitution demands that all, all votes be treated equally.
Next, the appearance of voting irregularities in the dependent states that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot integrity protections in those election states.
These are the three things this case is about.
Now, that last one is so fundamental to the Constitution.
That I'm not sure there is a specific clause in the Constitution that addresses it, but what the Constitution is about is making sure that voting counts.
I mean, that's fundamental to the entire structure of how they've designed the Constitution.
First Constitution says we'll have a popular vote for president, but that could fail.
That's why the state legislators pick the electors, not the people.
You don't want the mob picking the electors.
Not in a constitutional republic.
We have a republic.
We're not a democracy.
This is not majority vote.
This is rules of structure to protect rights with checks and balances.
And the state legislature is a check to the voting.
Okay.
Now, so therefore if the electoral college is messed up, by the way, we, the people elect the state legislature.
So it's still we, the people.
But the legislators are saying, we're not going to go with the voters.
The voters were so insane here.
They did such crazy things here that if we let that be the standard, your right to vote won't mean anything.
The party's got the most power to craft these things.
We'll craft it so they win regardless of what you think.
Regardless of what all the people who agree with you think, regardless of the 70 people who voted for Donald Trump, it doesn't matter what they think.
Because we've got these irregularities and we'll just make it what we think.
Well, that's, the constitution says when this starts happening, even the electors can't be trusted upon.
Not if they are picked by the voters.
Because the voters were thrown out when we said the electors are picked by the state legislatures.
Now we want state legislatures to take this power back to themselves and do the right thing, which is pick somebody other than the Biden electors, even though Biden won the popular vote in the state with all these irregularities.
Note, we have not yet proved cheating.
We've just proved all these elections.
Now, I think this is a good strategy, but I want in the amicus briefs for them to go a step further.
Now, they touch on it because there's a very interesting twist in this logic.
Okay, so the next few paragraphs.
All these flaws, even the violation of state election laws, violate one or more of the federal requirements for election.
equal protection, due process.
It's really due process where you bring in the integrity of the election and the electors clause.
And thus it arises under federal law.
And as Bush v. Gore said, significant departure from the legislative scheme
for appointing presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.
That was Justice Rehnquist concurring.
So the plaintiff state respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities
exceed the hanging Chad saga of the 2000 election.
Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and could cloud all future elections.
Okay, taking together these flaws affect an outcome determinative numbers of popular votes, etc.
And that was their basic argument to present their case.
And they got their case docketed, so that argument won.
That argument's already won.
Now when you get into the next part here, which is on the case, it's page... this is the first table of contents that you get to.
And I guess it's on about page.
I don't know.
I don't see the number here at this point, Craig, but, um, let's see if there's no, yeah, it's before page one of the brief.
When you get into, now we're down to, this is the state of Texas versus this is the complaint.
So they, the complaint is now going to be heard.
So the first part, they granted that motion.
They said, okay, we'll hear you.
We grant certiorari.
It's on the docket.
Okay.
Now.
Bill of Complaint number one.
They're talking about how lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy.
And here's what we know using the COVID pandemic as a justification.
Government officials in the dependent states of Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania usurped their legislature's authority and unconstitutionally revised their state election laws.
Okay, Craig, I want you to go put up my petition, my case to the Supreme Court.
What's up?
Got it?
Yep.
What page?
You're quick today.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
I gotta look at it myself.
I want where I talk about COVID.
Hold on, I'll get it up here.
One second.
Got so many, here we go, I got the file myself.
It's on page 11.
Page 11 of my filing?
That's your first reference to COVID.
Not page 11, point 11.
Okay, this is a document I'm talking about.
This is not easy because there's so many things going around here in my head and in the reality of all these documents.
Let me show you the one I want.
It's this one right here that I want.
Hold on.
It won't take.
I'll just read it, Craig.
I mean, it's my… There's not 11 pages in my… I want the file that I submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Oh, you're filing?
My filing.
Okay.
I'm on the book.
I'm sorry.
My filing.
Okay.
I've got the… It's the number 11 file.
It's the 11th file.
It's my second point.
My second point is I said I believe Governor Murphy's use of COVID-19 as an excuse for promulgating these mail-in rules and regulations compromised my in-person voting rights.
And I refer to the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York and the synagogue versus Cuomo that was decided last week Which said basically that COVID cannot be an excuse for denying our fundamental rights under the constitution.
I have no way of knowing whether my mail-in ballot was counted the way I actually voted because who knows when or how my mail-in ballot became an electronic blip entered supposedly by some unknown voting clerk at some unknown voting center.
That's the problem.
I mean, I'm sure that is the issue.
I mean, that's the issue they're raising here in this case, is that you can't use COVID as an excuse to say, well, the governors are just going to make their own rules, because that's not what the Constitution requires.
And basically, what they're saying is that this is actually, what I say, is that the, in page two, Basically, they're saying that because this is in so many different jurisdictions, it becomes a case of a conflict of laws in the states.
And it is the original case that is a conflict of law between the states.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to take the case.
In other words, the case originates at the Supreme Court.
And I say that in mine when I'm arguing I guess it's about a point six in my filing with the Supreme Court saying my case involves a jurisdictional diversity case.
The state's implementing the universal mail-in balloting without authorizing legislation, exactly what this case is saying, being passed in the state law by the state legislature like Oregon, commit an obvious article two infringement and implemented mail-in voting in manner inherently designed to facilitate vote fraud.
Okay, so all of this is an argument that the Supreme Court needs to take this case, and the case is about voting rights.
Okay, and they also, as I said, the evidence is overwhelming, and they say They say on page two of the Supreme Texas case, presently evidence of material illegality in the 2020 elections held in defendant states grows daily.
And to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the office of president without a taint of impropriety, threatening the perceived legitimacy of the election.
However, 3 U.S.C.
Section 7, a statute, requires the presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020.
That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm, a storm that is the defendant state's own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.
That's the point is that you can't let these timelines be architected by the Democrats who knew there wouldn't be time to go to court to get one of the, they knew they could rush this along.
And the court has said here, hold your horses.
We're taking the case.
I can't tell you how much, how important this is because they're saying doing right supersedes Some dates in statutes.
We'll adjust the dates and statute.
The constitution, the only real date is the inauguration date.
Up until then, it can be chaos.
And believe me, I still think, I think Trump is going to win this case.
And I think they'll still try chaos.
At the other side, the demons are going to continue raging in the streets.
Okay.
Now I only really want to cover one more point here on this case.
And it's on page four.
They start talking about all the improprieties.
And this is what we've been covering.
Again, remember, dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll workers.
Thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators.
Mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers.
Illegally backdating thousands of ballots.
Signature verification procedures ignored.
More than 173,000 ballots in the Wade County, Michigan center that cannot be tied to a registered voter.
These are problems, big problems.
And haven't we been pounding these things, Craig?
Yeah, pounding them like a drum because it needs to be brought to the people's attention because they're not going to hear it through the mainstream media.
But remember, they're not saying these have been proven.
They're just saying, look at the irregularities.
Look at this nonsense going on.
If this is what voting becomes in the future, we're doomed.
We will not have elections.
Videos of poll workers erupting in cheers as challengers are removed from the voting counting centers.
Poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers despite having a court order to enter.
Suitcases full of ballots being pulled from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
I mean, look with your own eyes!
See it.
Don't listen to the mainstream media saying there's nothing to be here.
This is all normal.
These were not suitcases.
You're not seeing what you're seeing.
You're fooling yourself to think there was fraud.
No, they're trying to pull a fast one.
The next point.
Facts for which no independently verifiable reasonable yet explanation exists.
On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania, a laptop and several USB drives used to program Pennsylvania's Dominion voting machines, now they got the voting machines in the act, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Pennsylvania.
The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies in Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system on November 4th, 2020.
So Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, there's the use of the machines.
More so than in Georgia.
Georgia, they used them at the last minute.
The best record might be pulled out of Georgia because they didn't have time to clean it up.
That's why they're trying to erase those machines using the excuse of the upcoming runoff elections for the Senate.
They want all of the proof to disappear.
I want to go now to the expert witness on page 7.11.
The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in four defendant states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, independently exists.
When Mr. Biden's performance in each of these dependent states is compared to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's performance in the 2016 election and Trump's performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections, again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four states collectively is one in about one quadrillion.
Put simply, there's substantial reason to doubt the voting results of the defendant's state.
That's a probabilistic argument.
And haven't we been arguing all week and showing in Abbott v. Perez how probabilistic argument can enter into the court to prove that the result is wrong, it's fraudulent?
Or as Justice Roberts pointed out, it's at the core of the Abbott v. Perez argument.
Okay, Craig, do you see this isn't a fact?
This is the case I presented to them, and with one or two additions, I want to get into the amicus briefs that kind of fine-tune some of the law they should appeal to.
This is the logic that I've introduced into the process.
Do you see that, Craig?
Yeah, absolutely.
And you even went back to Thurgood Marshall using statistics and other things to prove the disparity of education for blacks back in the 50s.
Right.
And I'll work through more of this.
I want to switch to another topic which is equally important.
And this is what's going on now in the We have a bill coming through Congress right now for another supplement.
I think we're going to get another supplemental passed right away.
COVID relief?
COVID relief.
Okay, but there's a very important point here in the COVID relief, and that is, let me go to a couple of emails I've been writing and talking about.
Okay, now here's the point, and let's see if I can get this one here.
That one.
I do want Barr gone, by the way.
Because we could use the Department of Justice in here.
I'd like Grinnell to come along.
I think Grinnell could be a very great AG.
I think he'd be brilliant at it.
I started calling him the Gay Avenger.
Where would we be without people like Rick Grinnell?
I think he's spectacular.
I'm a big Rick Grinnell fan.
Okay.
McConnell's making a big mistake on this bill.
Mitch McConnell, who's opposing these $1,200 checks that Nancy Pelosi wants in.
Now, McConnell basically, he's lashed out at the Democrats claiming that his bill addresses the bipartisan consensus and he refuses to accept anything from Nancy Pelosi's bill.
Stop it.
Pelosi has already hired a top, top advertising firm that is preparing a campaign to tell America that when Biden is president and when the Democrats gain these two Senate seats in Georgia, That, uh, Democrats are for America and Democrats are for America first.
And the Republicans who are elitists don't want ordinary people to get $1,200 while they're giving billions to their buddies.
This is a bad strategy.
Okay.
And I'm urging that president Trump sees the light and somebody goes and says, Mitch, calm down.
We spent all these trillions of dollars here and trillion dollars there, where's another trillion dollars?
We'll fix the currency when we get a chance.
You know it's bankrupt and you know that it is not functioning very well right now with all the money we're spending.
That's why I've got the Swiss America gold and silver, get some gold and silver.
Now, I wanted to do a couple more points as to how we tie this into Georgia.
Because with Georgia, what, and I want to get this here just very quickly.
Let me give, okay, good.
Okay.
Now, uh, in Georgia, these two guys running for the Democrats, Purdue and what's the other one's name?
Well, let's find out.
Okay.
Let's find out because this is important.
I want to get this done correctly.
And, uh, Here we go.
I'll find it over here.
Okay, just... A Warnock.
How do you spell it?
W-A-R-N-O-C-K.
Are you sure that's him?
Okay.
It's a black gentleman who's running against Loeffler.
Okay.
Who are the two Republicans running?
Lafleur and... um, Asaf?
Yeah, that's it.
John Ossoff.
Loeffler, and isn't Purdue running?
Purdue, Purdue.
Ossoff is the Democrat opposition.
So the two Democrats are Ossoff and Warnock.
The Republicans are Loeffler and Purdue.
Okay, so Loeffler and Purdue need to be the ones who are championing this.
And saying to Mitch McConnell, when we get in, this is what we're going to do.
And this is basically, this is the way we want to do it.
And we want to give the $1,200 to the people.
And so Loeffler and Purdue champion this.
And Trump says, I'll back these two guys.
Basically telling Mitch McConnell, he's not backing Mitch McConnell, because I want the people to get the money.
Now, if he does that, Nancy Pelosi can't run her ad campaign against him next week, right when this Georgia election is going to be decided.
We need this Georgia election.
See, there's still movement here in some of the House seats.
I'm not today 100% sure Nancy Pelosi is going to have a majority in the House.
I think it's getting so close that we may take the majority of the House and the majority of the Senate, especially if the Supreme Court case goes through and Trump wins.
I think we're going to find—remember, we've got a long way to go between today, which is December 9th.
January 6th, January 3rd when the Congress is sworn in and January 6th when the Congress has to accept the presidential election.
And there's lots that can go on over there yet in lawfare and fighting.
The Supreme Court case is pivotal.
This is what's going to decide the election.
This is going to decide Trump wins.
But we're not done yet.
They're still going to try some maneuvers.
They're going to still go to the last minute.
I'm going to be talking about all kinds of arcane stuff that comes out of the 1877 law, and this law, and the 12th Amendment.
And most people are just going to get lost.
And in fact, we're going to have to keep it simple.
But today, the first point I wanted to make is that this is a solid Supreme Court argument, and Trump is going to win.
Second point I want to make here today is that let's get on to the politics.
Let's win Georgia.
Let's get the $1,200 into this bill.
Let's do the right thing here for the people.
And let's get this done so we can have Mitch McConnell say, okay, we'll go with the $1,200, Nancy.
You got it.
We want the people to be, and now you can't run your ad campaign, you can't say we don't care about people, you can't portray us as elitists who only care about our friends, and we've got billions and billions for our friends, but nothing for the people.
You're not going to try to tear apart the America First movement this way, okay?
So I'm solidly recommending that President Trump listen And get Mitch McConnell to sit down and to say, the President of the United States, let's get this $1,200 in this bill.
Let's get it done.
Let's get this bill wrapped up.
Let's get it passed.
Let's get the new relief money out there.
And let's not have it be a Democratic win.
Even if we have to give the Democrats money to bail themselves out, I don't care anymore.
They're going to be back and bankrupt in the next 20 minutes anyway.
We're going to have that problem to deal with in all these bankrupt cities if the Democrats run them.
I'm just trying to keep the Democrat demons out of the packing the Supreme Court and destroying the Constitution.
We'll never have another election.
That's what's at stake here.
Craig, what do you think?
Right, absolutely, and the bottom line is there are times when you can dig in and do things like, you know, we've spent too much money, not a penny more, but on the other hand, if the outcome of not being prudent at this point and thinking it through, you've always got to do what Thomas Sowell says, always say to yourself, then what?
And this is a time to do the then what, and you're on the right track here, Dr. Gorsy.
Well, and I think we will.
I'll be able to pull this out.
And I think that we'll find that Sidney Powell, with all the evidence she's produced, has played a big role in this case.
Rudy Giuliani, I think, is going to get teed up.
The Jericho march is about the state legislatures picking electors that are not the Biden slate.
I think it's all coming together around Saturday and it's going to be played out through Monday.
And most people are going to be, and the mainstream media is going to be saying, this is all pointless.
Trump has a silly suit.
This is ridiculous.
Why are we bothering with this?
He just conceded that Biden has won.
Let's get on with it.
He's picked his cabinet.
Look at how great his cabinet is.
When's the inauguration?
That's all nonsense.
Because our Constitution gave us this period of time, expecting that if the vote was tampered with, if the vote was no good, and it has to go to the electors, or picked by the state legislatures, taking back to themselves the power to pick them by their conscience, not by the popular vote, if it gets to the Congress to pick the president, It's going to be a process that most people aren't going to understand because it's going to be highly legalistic.
It's extremely important.
We'll do our best to make it clear, and it's going to play out.
Craig.
Yeah, absolutely.
And bottom line is, once again, fear not.
You know, the Lord is always in this, and His plans supersede human plans.
We just got to go with the flow on this.
Stay strong.
Stay united.
Okay, now I want to review the prayer for a minute.
Sure.
Okay, because we've gotten this prayer written for God's will to be done.
Arthur's put this together at the Prayerful Patriot, and what this petition says is for the will of God.
It's like we have a Supreme Court petition.
This is the petition to the court of God, and maybe that's the petition that I want to be the lawyer for today.
It's we, the people, that are making this petition to God.
As the name of God, I am that I am Yahweh, the Christ presence, blood of Jesus.
We're asking for the immediate taking up and renewing adjudication of the case that is the Texas case.
And that's happened.
The immediate involvement of all individuals need to play their parts for the victory of Donald J. Trump.
I want to get some more engaged.
I want to get engaged on Ted Cruz.
I think Ted Cruz can play a very, very good role in arguing this case.
We've still got to architect some amicus briefs.
I think he can play a big role.
Maybe Ted Cruz, maybe this is his opportunity if he takes the right steps to become president in 2024.
If he You know, he's stubborn and thinks he's got it all figured out himself, doesn't want to listen.
We'll go on to the next guy.
I'd rather work with Ted Cruz at this point.
I think he's got the talent to do it.
And I think if he will just open up his mind and listen for 20 seconds, he may get the point.
We're also begging for John Roberts and Clarence Thomas.
Stephen Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan.
They're going to be a tough case.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
If the hand of God is on this, it is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg died just in time for Trump to get Amy Coney Barrett on the court.
And that's an important shift.
And basically what this prayer says is that all the constitution violations be taken care of,
the overshadowing of my legal team, the legal teams, the states participating in these laws,
that we have the protection on Sidney Powell, Larry Klayman, my attorney, David Gray, my attorney,
Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and all the supporting legal team and their members.
Yeah.
And that the reversing, look at the states we've named in this prayer.
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia are all mentioned in this prayer.
The all-seeing eye of God to continue to expose the vote fraud.
Bringing justice, those who changed votes, those who are responsible for knowing implementation and the creation of fraudulent software, dominion systems, those who threw out votes intended for Trump, those who manufactured, delivered, or were complicit in the introduction of illegal votes, those who blocked poll workers from auditing the ballots, especially those defying court orders, those working behind the scenes as moles, undercutting the progress that should be made.
Those responsible for the software development of the algorithms that change votes.
We ask that divine justice be served upon the media, who are propagating this hateful propaganda with the social media.
The releasing of divine justice and divine intervention.
This is the miracles that have happened, the miracle to get this court heard, this case heard.
The clearing of all Illuminati, Lucifer, and satanic manifestations of the people.
And the immediate ratification by this prayer of the promise of Jeremiah 2011 and of Isaiah 22-22, and we ask God that this be lawfully brought about through the will of God.
Now I want to go to Jeremiah 2011 and Isaiah 22-22 which are at the beginning of my book.
And Jeremiah 2011 which the prayer they given to me in 2004 when I was with John O'Neill.
I had co-authored Unfit for Command, the Swiftbook book, and that was a tough fight too.
Someone said, God wants you to read this prayer, Jeremiah 20.11, but the Lord is with me as a mighty terrible one.
That's how my life has been.
God's come on me like night and day, middle of the night.
I started this book on Thanksgiving morning.
I wrote it continuously until Sunday night it was done.
I had to write it.
I saw it all at once in a minute before I wrote a word and then I had to get it down.
Therefore my persecutors shall stumble and they shall not prevail.
They're the ones who are going to be greatly shamed for they will not prosper.
And their everlasting confusion will never be forgotten.
This everlasting confusion is what this is, and it'll never be forgotten.
This is a case for all times.
Isaiah 22, 22.
And the key of the house of David I'll lay upon his shoulders so that he shall open and none shall shut.
And he shall shut and none shall open.
If my filing did anything, it opened the door.
McCorsey v. Biden, it opened the door.
And God saying that door will never be shut.
And when the court decides for Donald Trump, the door on these demons who tried to steal the United States of America, destroy the constitution, that door is going to be shut and none shall ever open that door.
22, 22.
22-22. If you take 20-11, add up the 1 and 1, it's 2 plus, that's 22.
20 plus 2. 22-22.
Dr. Zelenko was here with me last week.
We spent a day and he said, do you have a Hebrew Bible?
I said, yes, I do.
I got it down from the shelf.
So the first sentence of the Bible, in the beginning, there was God and God created heaven and earth.
So you take the first word of that sentence, the first letter of each word, And each letter has a number significance in the Gematria, which is the God's work and word and number.
Numbers and speech is how God created the word.
That's God's manifestation.
Words and numbers, words and numbers.
The first letter of each of the words in the first sentence of the Bible, the letters associated with that, the numbers associated with that first letter adds up to 22.
We're talking about this is the, this is how the Supreme Court case of Texas addresses the core idea of the constitution.
We, the people vote, the votes have to be equal.
Nobody's votes more important than anybody else's vote.
And we maintain the integrity of those votes.
Nobody runs a scheme where our votes don't count.
Now it's on that pillar.
That we, the people, with the checks and balances that sometimes it can go wrong, that's why it's a Republican, not a pure democracy, that it works.
And as I say, these verses given to me to read, not my choosing, have the same concept in them.
Craig, what's your thought?
Yeah, and bottom line is it's a pivotal point in the history of this country, and it is a second revolution that's going on in one way or another.
We are going to prevail, and now within this next week, the light will start to shine on the darkness.
I'm convinced of it.
Well, let's pray that God rules.
I'm sure He will.
And the will of God be done.
I'm sure it will.
And let's conclude here by saying, in the end, God always wins.
And God will win here, too.
This is Drome Corsi with my producer Craig.
Today is Wednesday, December 9th, 2020.
A very historic day.
Thank you for joining us.
God bless.
We'll be back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection