All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 11, 2020 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:05:11
Dr Corsi NEWS 12-11-20: Trump Winning At SCOTUS
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪ ♪♪
♪♪ So Dr. Corsi, even Montana has joined in to the Texas
lawsuit in the Supreme Court.
Even the cows are mad.
The cows are very mad.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Today is Friday, December 11, 2020.
I'm here with my producer, Craig, and we're going to get right into it today.
We're going to talk about the Supreme Court case, and I'm going to review for you some of the Briefs and some of the politics going on.
Donald Trump is going to win the Supreme Court case.
I don't have any doubt about it.
All this on the mainstream media, this is a last-ditch attempt and Biden is president.
Don't listen to any of that.
It's all propaganda.
It's all a psychological operation designed to make you think surrender, you can't win.
This is a fraud and it's at a level where now fraud can be determined.
Because see, the Supreme Court probably really didn't want this case.
They hate to be involved in these kinds of political cases, but now a few things have happened.
One is that I think we have 21 states, is that right, Craig, who have joined this now with Texas?
Yeah, it's growing, and 21 may be the magic number.
It may be, but see, as it approaches half the states, and the Supreme Court is not supposed to have politics.
I mean, they're not supposed to be Concerned with politics, but yet politics enters into everything.
It's always there.
And so clearly you're going to have an impact because this many states are joining in with Texas.
The Supreme Court is going to say, look, if this is of interest to this many states and we say we don't want the case, we're not doing our job.
And the American people are not going to put up with that.
And that's exactly right.
So I think today they've got to schedule some hearings.
We've got to go forward with this case to get a decision out of the Supreme Court because that's what it's there for.
It's there to solve and settle justice, kind of these kinds of questions, really important questions at law that are course-changing and determine where we're going as a nation.
Uh, these are the responsibility of the justices.
If they don't, you know, if the justices don't want to do this, uh, then they should not have applied for the job.
And, uh, that, that includes Amy Coney, Coney Barrett, who just got there.
Well, I know it's a lot to handle when you first get there, but I'm sorry, but that's, you know, they throw you into combat and your first day is on Omaha beach in 1944.
I don't think anybody's going to feel sorry for you.
Except maybe yourself.
And the point is, not only do we have all these states joining, but in particular, we have the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania joining.
We have two of the legislators joining this, which is pretty remarkable.
I mean, this is a, say, wow.
I mean, even the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, who is Brian Cutler, and the majority leader of the House of Representatives, Kerry Benninghoff, I mean, this, in Pennsylvania, I know they're Republicans, but I mean, this is the legislature in Pennsylvania.
The legislature under the Constitution is the one responsible for setting the rules in the state for presidential elections.
And what these guys have to say is probably pretty important, don't you think, Craig?
Well, I think it is, and it's interesting that the sides have lined up, and so the Democrat states are lining up with the With the side that thought that cheating in the election was perfectly OK and changing everything just due to COVID, even though you can't, you know, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows you to do that.
But the sides are drawn.
It's the blue against the red.
It's the blue against the red.
Yeah, it is.
It's OK.
It's the fourth quarter and we're down to a couple of minutes, but that's when that's when the game gets interesting.
Come on.
Okay so look summary of argument page it starts on page uh really gets into it on page one and two of the brief and um the summary of the argument is no doubt the 2020 This is the Pennsylvania two legislators.
And Amica's brief is, this is something that is a friend of the court.
In other words, they're not parties to the lawsuit.
The parties are Texas and it's basically, I guess we would Texas V, what is the case?
Texas V. Pennsylvania et al.
Pennsylvania et al.
Michigan.
That's why it's at the Supreme Court because it's conflict of laws.
It's a brilliantly conceived case.
And I'm very pleased that what I filed in Corsi v. Biden is fundamentally the same logic with a couple of variations, but it's basically we're on track with where these brilliant attorneys are.
Okay, here we go.
It says you've got these two leaders and they've raised this interest.
Because you've got the co-equal branches, the Pennsylvania legislature, which is equally, you know, these are the House leaders, and so they've got to be listened to.
It's very important.
Their argument, summary of argument, no doubt the 2020 general election campaign was a vigorous exchange of ideas between contrasting candidates and supporters.
Yeah, well, nothing new there.
While such a campaign can be a healthy democratic institution, it was the underlying election procedures that frequently found themselves under attack this year.
There's the story.
They manipulated the rules.
No place was this more apparent than Pennsylvania, where despite bipartisan efforts of the General Assembly to strike a careful balance between access and security, in other words, letting people vote and making sure it was a secure vote, Those legislative efforts were subverted by outside actors who greatly damaged the Commonwealth's integrity procedures.
That's a big, serious point, because this is a constitutional argument, and it's hard at saying that only the state legislatures under Article II of the Constitution get to set the rules for presidential election.
So if there's outside forces that are involved, it's already suspect in Pennsylvania.
In October 2019, the Pennsylvania General Assembly took the laudable step of enacting bipartisan legislation, Act 77, which allowed for the first time all qualified voters to vote by mail without requiring them to show their absence from the voting district.
See, usually absentee ballots are only if you're going to be gone.
That's why they're called absentee.
You want to vote, but you're going to be gone out of the state on the day of the election, maybe in a hospital.
Maybe traveling on business, who knows?
And so this expansion of voting rights was balanced with pre-existing safeguards to protect the integrity of the voting process, okay?
In other words, you're saying we tried to put in mail-in voting responsibly, but it got subverted.
Unfortunately, since that legislative enactment, other actors have used COVID-19 as a pretext to eviscerate, big word, the election integrity provisions of the commonwealth's
election code such that the administration of the 2020 election board no resemblance to
the carefully considered procedures enacted by the general assembly. Now Craig I think that's
exactly the point I made in my ebook and if you'll just get that up for a minute I want to
point out that I went through the different states and showed you in the
first chapter I believe it was that in fact the procedures for these mail-in ballots were not following
the strict guidelines of that the constitution requires for due process voting.
And even worse, the state legislatures weren't setting the rules, but it was the governors and the boards of education, et cetera.
And so when I did this book, Trump Wins, which I still believe is going to be the case, Trump will win.
I think it's now clearer than it has been all along.
And you take a look in chapter one, or part one, it's really part one, when I'm going through the different states.
So this starts like on page 19 and 20.
In page, let's see, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan.
I'll see you next time.
All of these I'm saying there are problems with.
And Pennsylvania probably had the most serious problems.
Because again, what we're about to see, the legislature passed a bill, but then the governor, et cetera, changed the rules.
Okay, now all these states, I'm saying, have similar problems.
That's the point I made in my e-book, Trump Wins.
Now, back to the brief.
Well, Amica Curia take no position with regards to the remedies suggested by plaintiff, and that's entirely the province of the court's discretion, which it is.
The court's going to say what the remedies are here once they determine that these problems occurred, and they will determine it.
The mickey respectfully submit this brief to provide the court with background.
Okay.
So here's what happened.
They're saying now argument.
Now we're on page, um, of the brief page three, Craig, the plaintiff's bill of complaint highlights a number of ways, the procedure of Pennsylvania's general election, different, uh, differed markedly from the carefully considered statutory requirements of the Commonwealth election code.
These extra judicial assaults or salt on the mechanic mechanism of the Commonwealth selections came from all sides.
Well-funded national groups who using COVID-19 as a pretext brought a litany of lawsuits challenging seemingly every facet of Pennsylvania's elections read Soros and company.
Then the Executive Branch, read Democratic Governor, shrank from its obligations to protect the Commonwealth's laws and took to offering extrajudicial guidance to the Commonwealth's Board of Elections, read Democrats.
Finally, these efforts were condoned and furthered by the overreaching Pennsylvania Supreme Court in clear violation of the requirements of the U.S.
Constitution, read Democrats to the Second Power, Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania.
So in late 2019, the Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a bipartisan election bill, Act 77, which in addition to allocating $90 million to ensure Pennsylvanians could vote safely and securely on modern voting machines, created a new category of new no-excuse vote mail-in voting.
I discussed this specifically in the e-book.
And again, this is the beginning of the problem, but so far it was a General Assembly passing no excuse mail-in voting.
It has to be acceptable on its face, unless of course it's an inherently fraudulent scheme.
But that's not what they're going to argue.
They're going to argue that they thought they were doing something that was tightly controlled, but then these outside influences—governor, board, lawsuits from political groups on the Democratic side—expanded the rules beyond what the legislature did, and that's the constitutional violation.
These no-excuse mail-in voters can also request their ballots later in the process than was previously possible and are able to return their ballots several days later than had been traditionally allowed, 8 p.m.
on election day.
Traditional voting options remained available.
Voters may still choose to request an absentee ballot if they have a statutory permitted reason for doing so or vote in person.
So you can still get a ballot as an absentee ballot if you're going to be gone out of the state.
And you can vote in person.
Okay, now note here that people are saying, well, the Pennsylvania case was thrown out by the Supreme Court.
Well, in a sense, it's back in play.
And that case wasn't thrown out.
All that was thrown out was the expedited relief that was sought in that case, namely an injunction to prevent the state from certifying the vote.
Of course I've been willing to allow Pennsylvania to certify the vote because ultimately that doesn't mean anything if these if these claims uh Texas are are found to be true and I think they are true.
Now going back to this brief from Pennsylvania from the from the House Speaker and Majority Leader Well, these reforms proved prescient.
When our society and its electors were greatly impacted by the COVID-19 epidemic, the mail-in voting component proved to be an easy target for those seeking to manipulate election procedures.
That's the crux of the case right here.
In the spring, under the pretext of a guise of COVID-19, special interests Reed Soros began attempting to use the Pennsylvania courts to impose election procedures of their own choosing.
They're citing some cases which are extending the deadline for mail-in ballots and the spurious legislation only worsened over the summer as these interest groups brought countless more suits challenging both in-person and mail-in procedures for their own perceived benefit.
They're trying now to rig the election through the state courts.
Even fact finders determining that the relevant circumstances did not merit relief was not enough to protect the textual requirements of the Pennsylvania Code.
Okay, so this case in particular, Crossy v. Bookvar, Where special master determined the extension to be received deadline was not necessitated by the evidentiary record raised by the petitioners.
In other words, what these lawsuits were doing was extending the voting beyond the election date.
And the legislature thought that that wasn't justified by COVID.
COVID was already subsiding at the time of the election in Pennsylvania and other states.
As the pressures of the upcoming election grew nearer and more intense, in response to yet another challenge of the Pennsylvania election code, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, while recognizing that the statutory deadlines concerning absentee and mail-in ballots are, quote, fully enshrined within the authority granted to the legislature under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions, article two in the Pennsylvania constitutions, the legislature setting these limits was doing its job.
They use cases involving sudden natural disasters.
It's extraordinary jurisdiction to impose a three-day extension.
See the case, the issue is back at the court, but now in the proper context under Article 2.
That's very important because this whole case is about Article 2.
And Article 2 is very, very clear.
Only the state legislature can affect Laws regarding elections is not going to be a hard case to decide.
And it's going to be decided in favor of Trump because it's just so clear that what Pennsylvania did with all of these extra outside the legislature attempts to influence how voting was going to be done.
These created these wacky provisions, which allowed for fraud and the state legislature never approved them.
Okay, in that same case, this is Democratic Party v. Buchvar.
I guess Buchvar, is Buchvar the attorney general?
Do you know who Buchvar is, Craig?
Yeah, try to figure it out.
It's one of the officials in the state of Pennsylvania.
In that same case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sanctioned the use of unmanned, unsecured drop boxes.
Kathy Bookvar is the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
So that must be Secretary... Secretary of State.
No, Secretary of State.
That's who I believe she is.
Secretary of State.
Okay.
Okay, she's in charge of elections.
Got it.
For the state, but not for the state legislature.
Correct.
Okay.
Secretaries of State run the elections in the various states.
All right, so on these boxes, you just drop them in.
Quote, such envelopes shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail postage paid except where frank or delivered in person to the state county board.
Okay, that's, I guess, one of the sections of the law.
This assault on the textual requirements of the election code did not stop with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party decision.
Emboldened by the court's decision and the intense pressures of the upcoming election, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Secretary of State, Kathy Bookvar, sought King's Bench jurisdiction, seeking a judicial declaration from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court That county officials may not reject absentee or mail-in ballots or refuse to count voted absentee or mail-in ballots on signature verification grounds.
So she said, don't bother verifying the signatures.
What?
And that absentee ballots and mail-in ballots and the applications for these ballots may not be challenged by third parties at any time based on signatures.
The whole case of the Democrats collapsed right there.
It just, boom!
I just, you know, I say, this is a big boom.
What do you think, Craig?
Well, bottom line is what they're saying is we intend to cheat, we're going to cheat, and you can't stop us from cheating.
We're cheaters.
And we can get the governor who's a Democrat, we can get the Secretary of State who's a Democrat, we can get the Board of Elections who are Democrats, and we can get the Supreme Court of the state who are Democrats, all of whom to say, cheated at will.
In fact, don't even bother holding a vote.
Just tell us what you think who won.
We don't need any stinking election.
That's where we're headed.
Yeah, this goes through.
If they win, if the Democrats win this case, we'll never have another election.
Because with these wacky rules, they'll just do whatever they want to.
The Pennsylvania Election Code provides detailed procedures for the casting of absentee and mail-in ballots, in that the electors shall in secret proceed to mark the ballot.
And it says, further, the law Then fold the ballot and close and securely seal the ballot in the envelope which is printed, stamped, or endorsed official election ballot.
This envelope shall then be placed in the second one on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, the address of the elector's county board of election, and the local election district of the elector.
The elector shall then fill out, date, and sign the declaration printed on the envelope.
such envelopes shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail postage prepaid
except where franked or uh deliver it in person to the said county board okay that sounds like
tight procedures okay But, uh, the board of elections, uh, you know, basically was required by this law continuing to examine the declaration on each ballot, compare the information there and contained in the registered absentee and mail in voters file.
The absentee voters list in the vet military veterans and emergency civilians, absentee voters file.
The declaration includes a signature as provided by 1306 and 1306 D of the election code.
Despite all these textual requirements, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court eviscerated the signature matching.
We don't need no stinking matching signatures.
The county boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting any ballot or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison.
Just throw the stinking envelopes away!
Or as a result of third party challenges, we don't need any third party challenges.
We can throw the Republicans out in Philadelphia and while we're all wearing our Biden gear, we can jeer at them and swear at them and throw fingers at them and every other thing because we rule.
I don't think so.
Having dispensed with the signature verification requirement, in a later case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed the term, quote, fill out ambiguous and then held that an absentee or mail-in ballots failure to handwrite the voter's name and or address on the security envelope was not a material violation of the statute to fill out the declaration, thereby removing the last of the procedure.
Well, don't fill out anything!
Just ballot in, boom, here it comes, and throw the envelopes away.
We don't need those stinking envelopes.
We don't verify those stinking decisions.
In fact, we don't require any, and nobody can challenge this.
Well, Dr. Corsi, why didn't Pennsylvania just do it by voice vote?
Everybody raise your hand who wants Biden.
Biden's president.
Well, that's coming.
But what they did mostly was they just said they have out of here an ability.
To print out all the mail-in ballots they want and bring them in late at night on election night after they've stopped counting.
These rules permit that.
Because nobody's going to check in.
Conclusion.
This conclusion here, page eight.
So in about seven pages, Biden is decimated.
He's pulverized.
By these two Pennsylvania state legislators, which by the way, buttress the argument that when the legislators meet on Saturday, there's going to be discussion about not appointing the Biden legislators, the electors, Biden electors, because these guys, they know how crooked this was.
And they're not going to say that Biden's going to get the electors of the state by cheating.
Conclusion, the unimpeachability of our elections requires clear procedures of administration so everybody gets a fair shake.
What do you think of that, Craig?
That sounds like a principle that's been in effect until the Democrats destroyed it.
Yeah, I mean, that maybe comes out of the Bible, you know, tell the truth, don't lie.
Do unto others as you would yourself, all kinds of things.
Don't cheat.
Don't go after your neighbor's wife.
I think it's called the Ten Commandments.
Oh, yes, that's correct.
But that's been removed from all the courthouses.
We don't need any of those stinkin' Ten Commandments.
We don't need any stinkin' Bibles.
They get in our way.
You don't think the demons are in charge here, do you?
Oh, they are out in full force and effect.
The army of darkness.
Run around throwing feces at each other, screaming in your face, burning things, spray painting everything.
These are devils.
This is Satan.
A march.
Well, send him back to hell.
You think he belongs back in hell?
Let's send him back in hell and seal that place up so he never comes out again.
How about that, Craig?
I'm all for it.
Unfortunately, outside actors have so markedly twisted and gerrymandered Made spaghetti out of the commonwealth's election code to the point that amici find it unrecognizable from the laws they enacted.
Boom.
Case closed.
Next case.
Case closed.
This isn't an election.
It's a sealection.
It's a sealection.
It's a devil's delight party.
Devils dancing on top of tombs.
The plaintiffs and others while defiling the gravestones and holding a black mass.
The plaintiff and others have just raised important questions about how this procedural malfeasance affected the 2020 election.
Huh?
Joke?
I'm making a hope that this additional background of the events and circumstances that have happened in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which have given rise to this lawsuit, will aid the court in resolving this matter expeditiously, you damn fools!
Wake up!
Slap around.
Anybody awake up here?
Okay.
Well, I think that, that one right there seals the deal.
That's all they that's all Trump needed right there.
Cause you got now Pennsylvania coming out and saying, this is not just a, uh, travesty.
This is a, um, unholy unholy trend travesty that if you allow this to go forward, we will never have another election in America again.
That's all I read.
Yeah, FUBAR.
It's messed up beyond all recovery.
Throw it out.
Throw the entire election out of Pennsylvania.
I think that's where it's headed.
Now, let's take a look at what the, let's see what Pennsylvania says when they say they're defending themselves.
Let's find a good one for Pennsylvania.
I think the best one is this Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, that was, I think that's the one we just read.
Yeah, that's the one we just read.
Let me just make sure.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Hold on.
One second.
I just want to make sure I get the right one.
There's so many briefs now being filed by the court.
It takes a while to, uh, okay.
Okay.
Hold on.
Uh, I think there, let's see, wait a second.
I'm just trying to decide if this is one of the, let me see the conclusion to this argument too.
I think there's another one in favor of Trump.
Yeah, I think it, yeah, this is another one.
Okay, Craig.
There's a second one, evidently, here, which includes quite a few representatives.
This is very interesting.
Give me a date, and I'll put it up.
Yeah, this is the one on the Supreme Court—by the way, there is a Supreme Court site you can go to.
Craig, you're on it now.
You might show it.
It's SupremeCourt.gov.
Yeah, and it's listing for the case you're looking for is Texas, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania et al.
Et al means and the others.
It's Latin.
Et alia.
And the others.
What date was that filed?
I'm just looking for it again.
Hold on a second.
There's so many, it does take a minute to find it.
I think December 10th.
Motion for leave to file is amicus brief and brief for members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
As it's got it.
Okay, that one's up.
Okay, because that one is.
There's quite a few of these actually from Pennsylvania.
Yes, several.
Assembly.
Well, I think Pennsylvania is weighing in very heavily.
Pennsylvania is the first mentioned case here.
And so let's look at the opposition to motion to leave.
Some of these are confusing in terms of exactly.
Where they are.
Okay, I want the December 10th one.
Motion for Lee to file a brief with the members of the Pennsylvania Assembly.
That one.
Okay, Craig?
But I got up.
Okay.
And you can see this is a lot of the members here.
Members of the General Assembly respectfully move for Lee to file the accompanying amica brief.
Okay, so they want to file this brief.
They're asking permission to file it.
And There's strict forms in which you have to approach the Supreme Court.
When you go to the interest of members, look at how many of the, this is on page one, got quite a few members of the State General Assembly.
I think this is indication that Pennsylvania is gonna have a hard time appointing the Biden electors.
Okay, so on page, Three, the summary of the argument.
Under Article 1, Clause 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution, state legislatures are given the singular authority to prescribe the times, places, and manners of elections for federal office.
Contrary to that authority, the General Assembly, by statute, enacted and has from time to time amended the election code, which in turn derails the times, places, and manners of conducting elections.
And let's see.
Amended it.
They violated.
Okay.
So basically they're saying essentially that the argument, this is on page four, the parties, this case present two sides of an argument concerning the administration of 2020 election under the electors clause, article two, section one, the 14th amendment.
And they're saying the General Assembly amended it to pass Act 77, expanded the voting by mail end, no excuse vote by mail provisions.
This brief argues that the intervening actions of the Supreme Court and the Commonwealth fundamentally altered the meaning of key provisions, thereby abrogating the constitutional prerogative of the Pennsylvania legislature to be the exclusive maker.
Same argument.
They're saying The Supreme Court interfered, and so therefore the rules set by the Supreme Court overrode the Pennsylvania Election Code as amended by the legislature in Acts 77, and therefore changes made less than seven weeks before Election Day
By the Supreme Court unilaterally, and in contravention of the wording of Act 77, extended the deadline to three days.
This is the case that supposedly was rejected.
That case is squarely back at him again.
And that is the court.
That probably is the basis on which this case is decided.
And by not introducing an injunction, it didn't mean that Alito and the others were rejecting the argument.
They didn't want to present it as a state argument.
They wanted to present it as an article two argument by the filing of the Texas case, the way the president filed this case, which I think I continue to say is brilliant.
It's a genius case.
They have now brought, given a reason for the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania legislators in the house to say, This was all messed up in Pennsylvania by politics of the governor and the others who are Supreme Court and the Secretary of State, all Democrats.
So I think a very, very strong case here on Pennsylvania.
What do you think, Craig?
Absolutely.
And bottom line is, everybody joining in on the sign of the light, it's going to be really difficult for, as you've been outlining in our previous broadcast, Dr. Corsi, for people like John Roberts to turn around and to go in a completely different direction than defending the Constitution on this point.
I think the way I see Justice Roberts, he may not like this.
You may not like having to go with President Trump, but I think the law here is so clear he's not going to have a choice.
Okay, now there's one other, I think this is one that is, that is, I want to just take a quick scan of this.
I think I found the one I want that is the Pennsylvania state defending itself and saying, oh no, we did everything right.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah, this is the one I want.
This is the one, Craig, that says, this is the, let's see, there's so many of these, I get lost in looking at them all for a second.
Okay, it's December 10th too, a couple days ago, yesterday.
It's the opposition to motion for leave to file the bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or stay.
From defendant, Pennsylvania filed.
Okay.
Do you see that?
Opposition.
Okay.
Let's pull that up and up right now.
Okay.
Now this, this is one that's filed by Josh Shapiro.
Who's the attorney general, Pennsylvania read Democrat.
I still got a lot of attorney generals here, all Democrats.
And they're going to argue this was just fine.
What they did.
Let's see why they think it was just fine.
Okay, now here we come down to all these court cases they're citing.
They can cite everything they want, but if their argument's no good, it won't work.
So preliminary statement and statement of the case.
Okay, let's look at the preliminary statement.
This is on page... I'm already there.
Okay, great.
Since election day, state and federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits.
Sound like the mainstream media already?
Aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election.
I'm going to tell you, this is so amazing to me, how these demons can argue that God is the one who's violated, God's the one.
God's really confusing you.
He's not letting everybody do what they want.
He said he had free will, and yet we don't get to do what we want.
There's something wrong with this guy.
He's stupid.
He's frivolous.
His arguments are ridiculous.
We should be able to do exactly what we want.
Isn't that what this says, Craig?
Right, absolutely.
Bottom line is, don't worry about what the words on the paper of the Constitution say.
We want to do something different, therefore we shall.
And because we, the people, want to express our views as insane as they may be, Give me a break.
Okay, so the state of Texas has now added his voice to the cacophony of bogus claims.
I mean, okay, so could they have figured out any more metaphorical way to say that they don't like the truth?
They don't like the Constitution?
Well, since they don't say anything about the Constitution yet, maybe they don't like it.
Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states.
We voted!
How dare you invalidate us?
Yeah, we also cheated you, nasty demons.
We saw you cheat.
We saw you change the rules so you could cheat.
Now you're telling us you're changing the rules so the lunatics are running the insane asylum.
We have to follow your rules because you're We The People.
What Texas is doing is to ask the court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about problems with elections that have already been considered and rejected.
We had fact finders in, and our fact finders say that these claims are spurious.
We brought in Baghdad Bob, and he said, don't worry about Hunter Biden.
Don't worry about Hillary Clinton.
Don't worry about all the Russian collusion.
Don't worry about all the lies we've told.
But Texas obviously lacks standing to bring such claims, which in any event are barred by latches and are moot, meritless, and dangerous.
Oh boy.
Wow.
That Texas boy.
Oh yeah, Texas suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election.
Okay, so that's the entire argument they're going to present right now.
And what is the constitutional basis for what they say?
Zero.
Zeppola.
Oh, they, they have, I mean, they are, I mean, Justice Roberts even is going to have to listen to this stuff and say, uh, couldn't you guys have done a little better?
I didn't want to vote for Trump.
Couldn't you have done better than this?
Because Justice Roberts is going to be made to feel a fool and all this stuff about his previous life.
I remind everybody about Harriet Meyers.
What did you think about when I got Harriet Meyers?
What did you think about that, Craig?
Well, that's interesting, Dr. Corsi, so I wasn't paying attention to WorldNetDaily back in that time frame.
I was a Rush Limbaugh listener, and so what you had done to out her was then echoed by conservatives like Rush, and that's how I picked up on it.
I had no idea that you, once again, were the red chief with your pointed stick, started it.
Okay, so Harriet Meyers was the one that was nominated for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush.
And she was his personal lawyer.
Sandra Day O'Connor retired, and that was his intended replacement.
Yeah, and so I said, who is this Harriet Meyers?
And so I found out she was Trump's, I'm sorry, George Bush's personal lawyer.
And I started to say, that's pretty interesting.
Because see, I knew a lot about the George W. Bush Air National
Guard experience back when I was working on the swipe boat with John O'Neill.
And the swipe boat's unfit for command, co-authored.
Because the whole issue in 2000 was John Kerry, who's the war hero, and George Bush,
who was the war avoider.
And they were going to run on Kerry being this.
Remember, Kerry came into Boston Harbor for the 2000 election.
It's already 20 years ago, almost.
So, you know, a lot of people... He was reporting for duty, Dr. Corsi.
Yeah, he came in with the swift boat guys in a boat, and they were all reporting.
And he got up at the convention, at the convention in Boston, which was going to nominate him for president.
And I had been at that convention for a while.
I was in Boston for a while.
I had a lobster over the union.
I had great, great fun at that time, but I loved Boston.
I went to school in Boston.
I partly grew up in Boston because my grandmother had a sister who lived in Boston from Ireland.
At any rate, I'm half Irish, half Catholic.
I have a whole Catholic race, half Irish, half Italian, all Catholics.
You're not allowed into Boston unless you're partially from Ireland.
Yeah, well, or Italy's not so bad either.
I mean, I haven't been to Southie over there.
Okay, now look.
So John Kerry comes in and he salutes, says, reporting for duty.
Well, John O'Neill and I had written Unfit for Command.
The Swift boats were ready to go after him.
He just put it on the agenda.
And Dr. Corsi is trying to make the comparison, you know, John F. Kerry and John F. Kennedy and the Swift boat versus the PT boat, and he hoped that would stick.
He had a lot of those things going.
Except the guys in Vietnam knew he was a fake and they got together.
John O'Neill was the hero of that.
Admiral Hoffman, those were the heroes of this movement.
I helped them to co-author the book.
At any rate, as it went along, I knew that George W. Bush had gone in the Air National Guard and I knew he had done it through favor of the former lieutenant governor of the state who was involved in this lottery scandal and Harriet Meyers was running the lottery and she covered it all up because the guy who was at the center of it was the same guy who got George W. Bush into the Air National Guard which was a way for him not to go to Vietnam.
Now George W. Bush's credit as he got into the Air National Guard he Kind of developed a little bit of military discipline and began to appreciate what this country was all about.
And he was, before then, pretty heavily drinking all the time and partying.
He was a party boy.
And I knew that, too.
But the bottom line is, when George W. Bush nominated Harriet Meyers, I brought all this out and was going to I have the guy who, Larry Litwin, who was in New York, who'd been under a gag order not to talk about this.
We got the gag order lifted so he could talk to the Senate's confirmation hearing about Harriet Meyers, and he was going to tell the whole story, including George W. Bush and the National Guard.
So George W. Bush said, uh-uh.
He withdrew the nomination of Harriet Meyers real quick and brought in John Roberts.
I said, okay, John Roberts, who's this guy?
John Roberts turns out to be who he is, and I'm strongly recommending that John Roberts do the right thing here and follow the law, because there's lots of allegations about him, and it's not just about the kids he adopted, What do you think this Epstein Island stuff is about?
Yeah, at least he's in the log.
At least one entry, John Roberts to Lolita Island transported there on an airplane with Jeffrey Epstein.
I guess that would catch my attention.
I'd say now, maybe only one trip there.
Well, you know, but they only bring people there who are inclined somehow or other, or part of their little network.
And so my curiosity would be raised.
And that's how they set you up for blackmail right there.
But I typically don't go after people unless they try to go after me or something I care about, like the United States of America, God, or in this case, Donald Trump, in which case I might be interested.
So let's get back to the briefs.
John Roberts better do the right thing here.
Because this case is clear.
There's really no doubt.
These guys are arguing, the states are arguing, very technical grounds.
If you look at, they don't even number their pages, they say Texas claims do not meet the exacting standard necessary for the court to exercise its original jurisdiction.
Trying to say, I think all these technical arguments about original jurisdiction, which is the, when a case is between, article three of the constitution, when a case is between two or more states, it goes directly to the Supreme court, a conflict of laws, diversity of jurisdiction.
It's the only place it can be resolved.
And sometimes, usually there's a very lengthy procedure.
You've got to have appoint some special group to look into it and see if it's really a conflict of laws.
I know that one of the ones I've looked at recently, there was this dispute between New York and New Jersey over the land of the Statue of Liberty's on.
And it was a lengthy diversity jurisdiction case.
And the Supreme Court was kind of saying, well, it looks to us like you guys are both have claims here.
And so it got settled because New York and New Jersey just decided to work it out and not For one of them to get that piece of land versus the other, which is what the suit was about.
They both wanted it exclusively.
And after the Supreme Court got finished with it, they decided to share it.
Probably the best decision anyway.
And in that case, the court, by going through this lengthy procedure, really got to the result the court wanted to.
The court didn't really want to pick one or the other.
Well, Dr. Coors, it sounds to me like they have no case, so they're trying to get it thrown out on a technicality.
That's what they're trying to do, yes.
They're trying to get it that it wasn't presented to the court correctly.
In this kind of a case, and I was concerned about this for a couple of days until we really got into it, but it now seems to me like we've got a very solid case developing here of just a magnitude, a gravitas.
When you get 21 states, and it's going to probably increase, Saying the Supreme Court, hey guys, do your job.
We need an answer to this.
Can we just make up rules or do we have to follow the constitution?
Tell us, what are we going to do here?
Well, I think the Supreme Court's going to say, you guys got to follow the constitution.
Yeah.
I'm sorry about that.
You know, I know it's a little inconvenient for you Marxists, but didn't get rid of it yet.
So you better follow it.
What do you think, Craig?
Right, absolutely.
And bottom line is, this is the last stand.
Donald Trump is the shield protecting us.
If they get rid of him and they put in Biden, our shields are down, then they destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That's their goal.
And they will do it.
They will do it.
Now, Craig, what's this little Chinese group that we've been following?
What's it called again?
Song of Hope.
Song?
Song of Hope.
S-O-N-G?
That's the one.
As in Song of Music.
Okay.
I don't think so.
That didn't pull it up.
Okay, so it's Sound of Hope News.
That's better.
I've got it up on the screen right now.
Well, I want to go to Rumble.
Okay.
I want to go to Rumble because Rumble, they're getting so badly blocked.
Uh, on, um, they're just getting so badly blocked on, on YouTube as, as everybody, as soon as they start showing anything of value, it gets, uh, scrubbed.
And I want to see, where do you want me?
What do you want me to pull up on rumble?
I'm looking for myself.
Uh, there was one here that was the, uh, okay.
It says a scholar.
What Trump is dealing with?
Let me see if that's the one.
There's so many of these.
Constitutional scholar Ivan Recklin?
No.
Oh yeah, here.
Okay, yeah, that's, I think they did actually have one of him alone.
This scholar, I'm looking for it again.
Just give me a second.
If I can find it here.
They've done several on this guy, the Scholar, and he's very good.
I guess this is the one I can find quickly here.
It's Scholar.
Oh, here it is.
Okay, it's the third one down from the top.
CCP Scholar.
I'll give you the link for it here right now.
Just drop the link in.
It'd be easy.
Hold on a second, Craig.
This is the one I want to play.
These guys are very good.
I like these guys.
There are two.
There it is, Craig.
Two Chinese.
They're in San Francisco.
They are not communist Chinese.
They're Taiwanese.
They're nationalist Chinese.
They are with Trump.
They want freedom in China.
This has been being covered by Tucker Carlson.
We were before a couple days ahead of Tucker in finding this and talking about it.
We will be again.
Now this scholar, Has given another long, it's not too terribly long, but it's a couple of minutes long.
And this is a scholar talking about, this guy advises the premier of China, Xi Jinping.
And he is a communist.
Now he came to the United States, he's a scholar.
He's supposedly out of one of their institutes, very bright.
And he's been working in Washington to learn and subvert the United States from within.
And he's figured out who we are and how our corruption really works.
And he's got it figured out better than most of the news media.
He's right.
Unfortunately, he wants to manipulate it and he wants to subvert the United States and destroy us over this.
This is one of my central points that he's going to be making.
And it's why we need to get rid of the bureaucracy.
This is why I say, move the bureaucracy to Death Valley.
OK, Craig, have you got that one ready?
How are we into the time, by the way?
How long have we got?
Fifty three minutes right now.
OK, we're going to play this one in its entirety.
Let's play it.
And let me see how long, see how long it goes.
OK, play two minutes of it.
When you get it up there, we'll play.
This is he's kind of in a relaxed setting.
It looks like probably a hotel or something in Washington, D.C.
That looks like the Fairmont Hotel from the inside of the rooms.
I don't know if that's it or not, but he's talking here about how the deep state works and why they hate Trump.
Okay.
How much do you want?
This is from, I want two minutes.
This is August, 2019.
And it's the deadly war between China and America.
This has been censored on YouTube, but it's available on rumble.
Watch these guys sound of hope on rumble.
I'm going to silent.
I'm going to put my mute here, Craig, so you can play it and let's play two minutes.
Okay.
Here we go, right now.
No one called America.
What really exists is a group of different interests.
The division of American society is particularly serious.
The elite circle, we call it the establishment, the nobility circle.
Especially in this elite circle, there is a group, we call it the deep state, the invisible government.
Who are these people?
Of course, different people have different understandings.
My understanding is that The U.S.
military, the U.S.
intelligence system, the U.S.
State Department, the U.S.
Treasury Department, the U.S.
Commerce Department, the U.S.
Office of the Presidential Trade Representative, the U.S.
judicial system, the middle and high-ranking officials in this circle, pay attention to this group, they are mainly businessmen, he is not a government official, that is to say, in the U.S.
495 highway circle, the big fish in the swamp that Trump hates are them.
American politicians are election passers-by.
But they always stay in the circle of American power.
That's what I just said about this group.
This group, I have a relationship with them.
In my opinion, their characteristics are, first, have a level, have feelings, have ability, have capital, have experience.
This group is all old classmates.
Because they all graduated from a prestigious school.
And then?
At a young age, he entered various ministries.
In the past 70 years, after World War II, he operated the entire United States, operated the entire world capitalist system, fought the Cold War, right?
The one who led our world today is actually this little circle.
So what does this circle think of Trump?
In general, this circle is extremely ungrateful to Trump.
So, Dr. Corsi, it takes a communist to actually out the deep state and explain it to the American public?
Well, the communists understand that the Chinese, first of all, are very smart, and secondly, they know this will subvert the United States.
They know that this elite in Washington, the bureaucracy, who are not elected, they have these positions really permanently, they can't be fired.
They come out of the elite universities, they're taught communism, basically, new world order.
At the lower level, they teach the social justice.
That's for the stupidos.
You know, social justice, racism, that's the stupidos down here in the colleges.
The intellectuals, the Harvard and the Yale's, yeah, everybody taught this social justice critical thinking.
Yeah, okay, but what they're really interested in is you're now, you're the elite.
Here's what we teach the bureaucrats.
Here's where we teach the civil servants.
Here's where we really run the government.
We're really going globalist.
We're really creating one world order.
We're getting land wars.
We're going to have everybody kumbaya.
The multinational corporations will run the world.
So now you got the fourth Reich.
You've got the big businesses and the bureaucracy protecting the multinational corporations.
And you got down here a little medical care for the peasants who, you know, may get an operation, but you don't pay for it.
May get an education, but you don't pay for it.
May get a meal, but you don't pay for it.
Won't be very good, but it'll be free.
So that's the scam, and that's Hitler's idea, National Socialism.
And he wanted to rule all of Europe, including Russia, Asia, and be happy with the EU, what Merkel's got.
Merkel's, it's a recreation in the EU.
Great Britain pulled out of it last year, still trying to.
Let's play two more minutes, okay, Craig?
Play to the end.
They think they are the true master of the United States.
Trump, you are an outsider.
To what extent?
Let me give you an example.
In 2015, I was in Washington, D.C.
I often attend some public seminars in this circle.
One of the advantages of the American system is that it has a certain degree of openness.
What do they want to do?
First of all, to form a consensus.
is to build consensus. This circle often holds public seminars.
For example, what is the most common theme?
The platform is placed in the CSIS, the Center for Strategic Research in the United States.
If a guest mentions Trump in a CSIS conference, the audience will laugh out loud.
This is 2015.
It's already running.
If the audience below the stage doesn't laugh, it looks very low.
This is Washington's political atmosphere.
You can imagine what Trump thinks of this circle.
So at the end of 2016, American democracy suddenly became real.
This is more than they expected.
People like Trump actually got on stage and became their boss.
You can imagine how that group felt at the time.
It was definitely the feeling of the sky collapsing and the sky collapsing, right?
A sense of illusion.
So in the past two years, who has been insisting on fighting Trump?
It's this group.
The people who are fighting against Trump are these people.
They are using their professional advantages, resources and information to play with Trump.
Good time.
It's the exact opposite of Trump's policy.
Trump's policy is actually... What's inside the bottom layer?
It's got a drive shaft.
The US is using the power of the lever.
Trump is giving up the power of the lever.
Trump is destroying the US credit and lever.
The group is trying to maintain the US lever.
The most typical Trump is giving up the TPP.
TPP is the group of Deep State.
They have been working hard for 67 years.
It's not easy to get to this point.
But now, Trump is giving up the TPP.
There are many other groups like Trump.
Those groups are the deep state.
They have been working hard for a long time.
They have been destroyed.
There is no one called America.
It's all about leverage and the deep state has it and wants to keep it.
Yeah, and this deep state is a shadow government.
It's actually opposing Trump's policies.
In other words, when Trump says, we're going to pull out of the WHO, he suddenly got the National Institute of Health and the CDC opposing him.
When he says we should try hydroxychloroquine, they oppose him.
I think we'll wrap up here, Craig.
If you like what we're doing, please donate.
And by the books, I've got, I'm signing all of these books here.
And I've got $2, two, two, two different offers.
I really feel like I've written one book in 25 different sections.
Today's time, silent no more.
Two books we're leading up to where we are today.
America for Sale and The Late Great USA.
I really feel like I've written one book in 25 different sections.
And then the other books which are on the bookstore, many of them, the books about hunting
Hitler and the oil.
Oil's not dinosaur soup.
It's the great oil conspiracy.
I have books on, the book on Bastogne is one of my favorite books.
Minutemen, going back to the Battles on the Border.
We'll be featuring many of these over the next year, hopefully, in some reformatted kinds of presentations.
We'll be redoing CorsiNation.com to get it a little bit more robust.
TeleMD program is doing great.
I'm seeing all over the country, they're shutting down again over COVID and our demand.
And again, we're not selling hydroxychloroquine, but we'll get you an interview with an MD who can prescribe hydroxychloroquine even for prevention and a pharmacy that can send you the medications.
We're also doing extremely well with the gold and silver and with the amount of money we're spending these days, Trillion here, trillion there.
Fiat currency, definitely get some gold and silver.
We're going to be doing much more on these in the coming year.
And, you know, I know we're already rapidly burning through December.
This coming week, tomorrow, December 12th, is when the state legislatures are supposed to meet to pick electors.
That's going to be very interesting.
The Supreme Court does not have to hold to the 14th, December 14th, on Monday, the meeting of the Electoral College, which this cabal is going to try to push to get 270 electoral votes for Biden.
Over the weekend, there's a big rally on December 12th, tomorrow, and this Jericho March, jerichomarch.org, if you look at that, there'll be people coming to DC to protest what's going on in this election.
Uh, this is going to go on for quite a while.
It's not going to even, I think the Supreme court will be decisively for Trump, but these demons in the streets aren't going to give up.
They'll have other maneuvers.
They'll be trying to game the vote in Congress.
They'll be trying to game the certification in Congress.
This is going to go on through January.
So you might as well, you know, understand we've got some more chaos to go through, but I do see at the end of this, Donald Trump will be president and he will be re-inaugurated.
On January 20th, 2021.
I'm confident of it, I have been from the beginning.
Craig?
Right, and I've got the JerichoMarch.org website up there, and they've been updating it with some current material.
And bottom line is, Washington D.C.
is going to be where it at, where it is at, that's December 12th, Saturday, they're going to be marching around the Capitol, they're going to be blowing the shofar, and to try to drop those walls, just like happened in Jericho.
I'll try to see if we can't set up a special broadcast tomorrow where we can cover this, and maybe we'll be on some tomorrow, even live streaming.
We'll try it and see how it goes.
Craig and I will work it out today and see what we can come up with.
But this is Dr. Jerome Corsi, and I want to thank everybody for joining us.
It's been quite a week, and our audience is growing, and thank you for your support.
In the end, God always wins.
God will win here too.
God bless all.
Any final thoughts here, Craig?
Just bottom line is, fear not.
You know, the Lord is with us, and stay strong and stay united.
God bless all.
Thank you for joining us, and we will try to do some broadcasting tomorrow, this Jericho March.
God bless.
God bless.
▲
Export Selection