FIGHT! Ted Cruz Lays Out New Election Battle Plan! | Good Morning #MugClub
|
Time
Text
yet.
Oh, well, you know, hey, blaze, you know what, you're gonna act like you didn't see any of this.
Yeah, we're going to stop this and restart and restart.
We are live on Facebook.
Oh, fuck yourself.
Because we have like 2000 people.
That's what happens as well.
Yeah.
We'll have like 200,000 people on YouTube and then two on Facebook because they want to label us misinformation.
We don't like the people.
Alright, let's hit pause on this stream.
We're gonna restart from the top and then start streaming to YouTube.
Facebook, you can go screw yourself.
Everyone on Blaze, please stand by.
Bye, it'll be about a minute.
Oh, there we go!
I thought I lost it, and then I got it again.
And that's because I want to make this a fantastic show, a grand old show, because Senator Ted Cruz is going to be on the show.
And folks in the control room, please do let Senator Ted Cruz know to blast it out on social.
We are broadcasting in the studio for five minutes.
But the stream wasn't going to you.
We had the little wheel, though!
It already started, I had no idea!
We just ruined everything, so I apologize that we're late.
It wasn't that we were late, we were doing the show!
We were!
We were here performing, where were you?
But if a hack screams in a forest with no one there to hear it...
So we do.
We have Senator Ted Cruz on the show, and send in exclusively your chat.
If you're watching at the blaze, loudestcracker.com slash mugclub, that's how you join up, and we'll try and ask him some specific questions, because there's been a general conversation regarding election fraud right now, and I don't know if you know, no dead people have ever voted, of course.
Oh yeah, they fact-checked that.
CNN, thank you for letting us know that.
Also, poll watchers, they were all allowed into the election centers, despite video evidence of several not.
So that was also a false claim.
CNN, just give yourself some room.
Exactly.
Don't say all of them are false.
Never!
What?
You don't think that we can find a little election fraud?
Just a little bit?
That looks really close to white supremacy.
It's the NBA three-point thing.
That's what they all do.
They put threes up when they hit a three running down the court and I was like I didn't realize so many NBA players were black or white supremacists.
I didn't know.
Every time I hit a three I just do this.
Do you?
It's funny, because every time I go for a layup, that's what, when I go, I just kind of go off the map, where I say, okay, I am going for the layup!
Oh, wow.
Mark Pompeo.
You throw it to what?
I don't know.
This whole thing is a nightmare.
So, we are going to be talking.
It's okay, Tim from HR.
Quarterback Garrett is home with potentially COVID.
Well, our TriCaster doesn't like Nazi symbolism, so, you know.
Is that what's actually happening?
As an aversion.
So we have a bunch to get to.
We will be talking about Joe Biden, if he's a president, his COVID czar.
We're back in the era of czars.
I hate czars.
They're just very Russian.
Most of the show will be Senator Ted Cruz.
But before any of that, in case you missed it, it was a highlight of my day, Mike Pompeo yesterday.
Hi.
Is the State Department currently preparing to engage with the Biden transition team?
And if not, at what point does a delay hamper a smooth transition or pose a risk to national security?
There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
I think it's called a gat.
Heater?
Oh, this and pull out my heater. I think it's called a gap.
No, it's not heater. You guys are idiot.
I don't know the slang!
Heater, Gap, Peace.
Thug Life is not heaters.
You know about NBA symbols, but you don't know about gun culture.
What is that, like a 1950s reference to guns?
Here's the thing, anyway.
A lot of people don't know what they saw.
The best part, actually, was a reverse shot of the reporters.
So, yeah, for people who don't know what they were watching, let me explain it to you here.
The reporters were watching it, and yeah, but let me stop.
I don't know if any of you here are necessarily policy wonks, but when they first thought that Mike Pompeo was going to concede, we see that this is where they were mostly carrying their chi.
And then when he says, there you go, that's what happened in the second Trump administration, and down there is a nice little bit of CNN.
That was a smooth transition.
Yeah, I know, it gets a little nerdy, a little wonkish, a little micro-politic.
But I feel like I need to inform you.
Also, I should let you know, before we go into CNN, the RNC Chair, Ronna McDaniel, has now stated that 11,000 people have come forward with claims of voter fraud so far.
And then just in Allegheny County, their Board of Elections voted to count over 2,000 undated ballots.
Undated?
So here's the thing, like maybe it's 1,940.
That's 1,940.
Right.
But CNN said zero.
They said entirely false.
They said absolutely nothing.
There is nothing here.
It's not like look behind the curtain.
They don't even have a curtain.
They're just sunbathing nude on the roof and asking you not to look.
Yeah, at some point they gotta get sued again, right?
Like Sandman, don't they?
I don't know.
I just hope I'm never subpoenaed.
So again, we have Ted Cruz on the show.
But one other thing, if you don't have the dough, the free cash from Mug Club, you can always support by buying some sick It's so sick!
Sick merch!
Look at that sick merch!
CNN vote counting continues in close battleground states, but I thought you called them!
Yeah, why do you care anymore?
heaters.
So let me ask you this before we go to Ted Cruz and before we... what are they talking
about on CNN?
Hold on a second.
CNN vote counting continues in close battleground states, but I thought you called them.
Yeah, why do you care anymore?
You declared Joe Biden the president.
And don't you love in every press conference Joe Biden does now it says behind him, office
of the president-elect.
Right.
There is no office of the President-Elect.
No, there is not.
There is no office, nor President-Elect.
Yeah, you can just be President-Elect for a while and be happy with that.
Here's one thing that I hope you guys understand.
When we have people like Senator Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and you have Mike Pompeo, these people all going in pretty hard, that's a really good sign.
These aren't totally unreasonable people.
I know the left will try to make you think that anyone who's a Republican is unreasonable while they throw Molotov cocktails into a Walgreens.
I think that the fact that these people, one is a doctor, Rand Paul, who's actually treated patients, and then one is an actual lawyer who worked as a lawyer, Ted Cruz.
So this is something that, again, I'm not just saying this so you guys feel good about where we are.
There's a 50-50 shot right now how this ends up.
But it's not over.
It's not over.
If Joe Biden wins this thing honestly, then he will be our president.
But I don't see that... Honestly?
That's the hitch word.
Do you think he'll go by President-Elect?
Will he keep that title even if he loses?
Oh, I thought you meant even if he's President.
No, no, no.
You know what?
Listen.
You don't have to... I get it.
You don't have to call me Dad.
I just want to be your elect!
Is Kamala going to be in a bar 20 years from now?
I was the first woman of color as the vice president!
That didn't happen.
You're not my real president.
And I had all the slaves in the world.
It was Jamaica!
We had slaves!
Miss Harris, you should leave.
You know what?
You know what?
If I would have my slaves make you leave, I would say, hey, make him leave, and they would go watch.
Amistad.
So what do you think Donald Trump's best path to victory is here?
I will say this, a state needs to flip soon because the media is lying so much.
The media is spinning this so much and Americans who aren't engaged need to see that this is actually something that is verified, that is something that has gone through the legal, you know, the courts.
So there needs to be one state where All hands on deck, and I don't know which state that is.
We'll talk with Senator Ted Cruz about that.
I think it's Pennsylvania.
I think that's the strongest legal argument that I've heard.
I'm not a legal scholar, obviously, but the strongest argument that I've heard is that they violated their own state laws in counting votes, and I think that's the easiest.
Go for voter fraud, fine, but that's harder to prove.
This is easy.
I think you're wrong.
Which one?
I think it's Georgia, because it's so close.
Well, I know it's close, but what are they going to use as the argument?
Well, they still have the same thing about outstanding ballots and the acceptance rates.
So I actually think Arizona and Georgia are easier because the margins are so close.
But I don't know.
We'll talk with Senator Ted Cruz about it.
Yeah, so you think if Georgia flips and it might make people go, ah, we should look into this?
If one state right now, they pull back and go, actually, we can't call this because we just had to discount however many, 230,000 ballots, it will make Americans go, oh!
That is illegal.
Maybe this is real.
Wait, that is illegal.
Hey, while I have your attention, what about rioting?
No, no, no.
I'm a little murky on the rule book.
I used to believe that burning down people's shit was illegal.
No, mm-mm.
Now I'm unclear.
Your thoughts?
New rules.
So, uh, before we get to that... Oh, hold on a second.
Right here.
This is fact-checking disinformation and claims of fraud post-election from CNN.
They're talking about this show right here because we're fact-checking them.
But it's us fact-checking their misinformation.
It's almost like the opposite day.
Yeah, they're saying what they're doing.
Right.
Let's see what this guy has to talk about.
I think his name is Takashi.
Oh, let's check him out.
That's not Takashi.
Hold on a second, hold on a second, hold on a second.
Did you just hear that on CNN?
Everyone there, rewind this if you're watching this.
I think you can rewind it on YouTube.
He just said Facebook has taken some steps.
He didn't say Facebook has taken some steps to remove flagrantly false disinformation, because they cannot claim that.
He said, Mr. Takashi, whatever, on CNN, Kuzushi, whatever it is, he said Facebook has taken some steps to remove accounts associated with Steve Bannon making views seem more popular than they are.
Well, hold on a second.
Truth is not governed by consensus or popularity.
It doesn't make any difference.
That is totalitarianism.
That is saying the information that is dictated that you can hear The only voices in the town square must be the popular voices.
That is just like Hong Kong, folks.
That is unreal to me that we just caught that on CNN.
Views that are more popular.
I don't give a shit if it's more popular or not.
For crying out loud!
This is the standard they use.
When the mask is off, it's not about truth.
It's about, can we snuff out views that may, if it hasn't crossed that threshold of critical mass, if it's not popular enough, can we silence it?
Just like saying, no evidence at all of voter fraud.
No evidence of voting irregularity.
Well, that's false.
But what you try and do is say, well, it's not really false because most of the people who are posting about it aren't as popular as me at CNN, and we have a relationship with Facebook.
Yeah, exactly.
So just to give you an idea, Americans right now are looking at Hong Kong, you brought them up, and saying, I can't believe what's going on there.
Four people just resigned because China gave the person who's in charge of Hong Kong the power, if somebody is not loyal enough, if they're a dissident, to silence their views and basically get rid of them out of government for no recourse whatsoever.
You can't go to courts or anything like that.
And everybody's up in arms.
Susan Wojcicki's on CNN.
Sorry, we have a whole bunch to get to today, but this is just like, I hit the jackpot.
I hit the bullshit jackpot.
We don't have the results of the election.
You just said so.
If they're fraud, we don't have the results of the election.
You just said so.
Right.
And they or their campaign or someone posts that video on YouTube, will it stay on YouTube
or will you take it down?
Right now, this is us.
You know, it's really hard to talk about hypotheticals because we would have to actually look at
the video.
Look at our video right now, sweetheart.
There are more people watching this than CNN.
This is October 8th.
Oh, it's from October 8th.
Okay, it's not live.
Well, no, no, no, but it's relevant because she's saying these videos wouldn't be allowed if Joe Biden prematurely claims victory.
So I think they're tying themselves in knots again and they don't mean to?
For crying out loud.
It is remarkable to me they said that Facebook has taken steps to remove views that aren't as popular as they may seem.
Well you know why they may not be as popular?
Because you stop them.
You silence them.
Who cares if it's popular?
No, that's not the standard that we use, by the way.
You have to let this process play out, and you can't claim to be the unbiased source and then do stuff like that.
We're like, yeah, let's just silence views.
Let's let everybody be in the marketplace on this technology stuff, and then CNN's going to come along and say, fact check.
Let's go through a bunch of unpopular opinions that perhaps may have been correct.
Hitler, not always correct up to B.
At the time, he was man of the year, right?
Stalin probably won't be able to do the farming as well as he thinks.
Che Guevara, maybe he's not going to be the revolutionary that you think so.
They might actually find him in Bolivia with a loaded rifle that's never been fired, so he's not even a warlord.
Let me think, what else?
That ricin was okay to ingest, I'm sure at some point.
Cocaine helped even out the mood.
Cocaine helped even out the mood and it was in Coca-Cola.
Right.
Heroin was good for people.
Heroin was a painkiller.
Opium was good.
These were popular viewpoints.
CNN is news.
See a pattern?
There have been many unpopular viewpoints that have been correct.
And by the way, almost every great breakthrough comes from an unpopular opinion.
I don't know all of these by heart, but if you look at probably the polio vaccine, if you look at the way people, at some point when someone said the earth is a globe, now it's been that way for a long time.
The whole idea of flat earth is actually blown out of proportion.
That wasn't always accepted.
Unilaterally.
However, at some point, someone said, oh, look, maybe those stars are not angels, but they're burning balls of gas millions of miles away.
And they burned them at the stake.
And then a few generations later, someone came in and confirmed it.
And they said, ooh, our bad.
But CNN, Facebook, Twitter, they want popular opinion to dictate what you are allowed to watch, what you are allowed to hear.
And that's also why they want to make sure that programs like this don't get popular.
Well, it's too late.
That genie's already out of the fuck you bottle.
And it's all under the guise of fact-checking.
It's not any longer fact-check true or fact-check false, it's fact-check not popular.
Fact-check not popular.
Do we just fact-check all of CNN's primetime lineup?
Pretty much.
Somebody needs to be fact-checking them.
Is anybody else offended that they brought the Asian guy on to talk about technology?
I'm not offended, but it's a good point and I'll allow it.
So let's go into new news here.
Biden is now appointing a new COVID czar if he's actually president.
We're back to the era of czars.
That was a really big thing.
More czars.
Do we really need more czars?
Depends on the spelling.
Do we really need more czars?
Need you ask such an absurd question?
More czars for everything!
Oh boy.
So the guy's name is Ezekiel Emanuel.
Also was, that name was an archetype in one of Mel Gibson's rejected spec scripts.
Oh really?
Which side was that character on?
So his name is Ezekiel Emanuel, and before I go through some information on him, let's set this up so you find out who he is.
I know that he's a very bright, capable guy, and I think that's a great choice to have, uh, represent, uh, doctors in general and addressing this epidemic.
Philadelphia Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley, this morning on Eyewitness News, he praised President-elect Joe Biden's transition... This runs out like Bray Mysterio.
...to join his coronavirus task force.
He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
Okay, so they didn't mention everything there.
Ezekiel Emanuel also served as the Obamacare director.
And by the way, he's one of the architects, and now he's like, yeah, we screwed up, we really need to bring down costs.
And then he says, he recently said this, but this is a bipartisan issue.
Well yeah, bringing down costs is a bipartisan issue, but before you guys created it we said it's gotta bring up costs!
Yeah, if you were a literal architect we'd be in some serious trouble too.
Right!
Can you imagine if you built a freeway loop and it's just cars going into other cars?
We need to cut down on accidents, right?
This is a bipartisan issue.
This is a bipartisan issue.
We need to stop people from dying on that loop.
But before you created the loop, every single Republican voted against the loop.
Oh, if you want to play politics with us.
You're right, I do.
Unpopular opinion.
So here's another thing.
When COVID hit, Emanuel did push for lockdowns, and then he found a way to make money off of it.
Here's the thing.
People get so mad at Donald Trump saying that some people profited off it.
It doesn't mean that people created COVID in a lab to try and make money, but it does mean that you get more money off of patients who have COVID in hospitals.
This is the same thing with grants for environmental research.
If you say, I want to study, I don't know, the worm-gathering patterns of the North American Blue Jay, We're going to give you about five bucks if you want to study the North American blue jay worm gathering pattern in relation to climate change.
Fifty million dollars.
There you go.
Magic words.
That's a good trick.
We're just going to take it from where we were going to give it to Elon Musk.
But you, sir, I like the cut of your chip.
Here's what he did.
He worked for COVID-19 Recovery Consulting.
It was a company that charges... So this is a guy who advocates for lockdowns.
This is why this is so sinister.
He advocated for lockdowns.
the company that he worked for profited off of COVID specifically
by providing advice for businesses on how to reopen.
Sounds about right.
Also, by the way, hit the notification bell if you are subscribed on YouTube, because subscriptions don't mean a whole lot.
And of course, every weekday morning right now at 10 a.m.
Eastern, there's a lot that's been developing, and it's been crazy.
I'm very tired.
A little bit.
But think about this.
It's not just that COVID came out, he advocated for lockdowns, and then he made money off of, I don't know, some kind of a treatment or therapeutic.
He advocated lockdowns.
Yeah.
And the company that he worked for made money by coaching people on how to avoid lockdowns.
Hmm.
It seems weird.
I'm not making the connection.
This guy's more swampy than my ass after a pickup game.
And I don't do that very often.
No.
Thankfully.
So that's why it's so bad.
I'm not conditioned.
Hey, by the way, just to let you know, Ted Cruz is running about 10 minutes behind, so we have a little bit more time.
A little bit more time here.
Speaking of sports, by the way, we will be playing Stephen Knows Sports later on in the show.
Do you?
Exclusively from Mug Club.
No, I know nothing about sports.
I was about to say.
I know precisely zero about sports.
I spelled Drew Brees like the actual breeze.
Did you really?
I actually did.
Did you seriously?
I seriously did.
When?
I didn't even know he was a quarterback.
So we're going to play this later.
Uh, and you guys can play along with me before Senator, uh, Ted Cruz.
Apparently the Senator doesn't know that it's a live show.
This is a pro- They're all so used to, like, podcasts, where it's like, we can just record whatever.
Or Dan Crenshaw editing out the joke.
Okay, before Ted Cruz- Wait, did he edit out a joke?
Yeah, remind me.
I'll tell you the joke with Dan Crenshaw.
Just, he is the bane of my existence.
Oh, come on!
But you love him!
Mr. Crenshaw.
A little disgruntled there?
Comes in, plays tough guy, then every time I challenge him he runs behind that patch.
Wow.
Obviously I love Dan Crenshaw.
I know you do, yeah.
Obviously I can take or leave Dan Crenshaw.
We love Dan Crenshaw!
We love Dan Crenshaw!
C'mon!
Crenshaw Boulevard!
So!
This guy, too, Ezekiel Emanuel.
Emanuel Ezekiel?
Ezekiel Emanuel?
One way or the other.
Doesn't matter.
Yeah.
Double E. Ezekiel Emanuel.
Just pick the most Jewish name you possibly can.
And I don't say that.
Sure.
Because, but, like, even Ben Shapiro is looking at his name going, like, well, that's a little severe.
It's... Yeah.
Brother of Rahm.
Yeah, he is.
He really is.
Exactly.
I know.
Brother of Rahm Emanuel, whose greatest accomplishment is poking people in the chest in the shower to intimidate them in Chicago.
Yeah, while naked, I think, is fun, obviously.
Well, he's definitely doing the never let a crisis go to waste thing.
Never let a crisis go to waste.
Don't.
Make money off the crisis.
So here's another fast fact for you on Mr. Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel's brother.
He's actually right now, right, he's going to be one of the czars for Biden, assuming that he's president.
And he's actually the person who's laying out kind of the plan on what we do to get over COVID.
This is the guy who advocated for lockdowns and then profited off of telling businesses how they could avoid lockdowns.
He wants the vaccine to be available.
Now, this term globalist is often thrown around.
Sometimes I avoid it because people just use it to... they attribute it to anything they don't like.
But this is actually, so what do I actually mean when we talk about this?
Well, there is a nationalist view, now this has nothing to do with race, but a nationalist view, for example, with a vaccine.
If we get a COVID vaccine, Pfizer, right, 90% effective vaccine, we create the vaccine, we develop the vaccine, that a nationalist view is we take care of Americans first.
We make sure that Americans are taken care of so that they don't get COVID, and we cut down on our deaths, and then we benefit the rest of the world.
A globalist viewpoint puts all of us on even footing.
Which, you know, Pfizer!
Here in the United- We develop the drugs!
We create the drugs, we spend money on the drugs, you bitch about how we have a for-profit healthcare system, then you subsidize your healthcare systems off of us, and then we're supposed to give the drugs to everyone else first?
No!
Get your own drugs!
We partnered with a German company, so maybe they'll get a few.
Yeah, that's right.
Just a few.
But that's okay, just Germany.
Well, is Pfizer actually based in Germany?
No, it was BioNTech or something like that that they partnered with that I think is based in Germany.
Well, you know what, Germany, that's one for you.
Even though we're keeping an eye on you, BioNTech.
Every half a century or so.
You guys really screw things up.
So this is the point of view from, because this man, Emanuel, Ezekiel Emanuel, uses the language national, nationalist versus a global approach in his write-up.
So you can go and read his paper.
I think we have a link to it somewhere on the description here, where he talks about how We are not going to prioritize Americans getting the vaccine.
We will only give enough Americans the vaccine to reach herd immunity, to minimize deaths, and then distribute it globally before we distribute the maximum amount to the United States.
This is the plan for the rollout, because he believes it's fair.
You can read his own language.
It's about fair global distribution.
So here's something else that was very interesting to me when I read this proposal from him.
Herd immunity.
Do you guys remember Donald Trump was talking about herd immunity and everyone else said it was... I don't know if you remember, herd immunity is not science, it's racist.
I feel deep pain and shame, frankly, that 67 million Americans voted for herd immunity and the person who ran an explicitly racist campaign.
Are they still at the White House?
I know that some of the advisors have said that they're not doing this, but are they talking about herd immunity and the risks, though, that are associated with that kind of rhetoric about herd immunity?
You kind of have the herd protection as an umbrella.
We're not there yet.
that's not a fundamental strategy that we're using.
Yeah, and he also read the right act to Rand Paul for even discussing it. Remember in that
hearing, you don't know anything about herd immunity. Well, what percentage is needed?
Ah, words. So here's the thing. They're talking about this is what's so dangerous.
They excoriated the idea of herd immunity is racist, which most Americans were saying. Think
about let's go through the sequence. Most Americans were saying, well, hold on a second.
Instead of doing a total lockdown, how about we protect the vulnerable, the elderly and the sick,
we quarantine the sick so that those who aren't super vulnerable can actually reach some kind of
a herd immunity. And that remains to be seen. There have been some different figures that
were thrown around and instead.
This guy, Ezekiel Emanuel, and people of his ilk said, no, no, no, no, lock everything down while simultaneously making money, obviously, during the lockdown by advising businesses on how to avoid the lockdown.
And now they come out and say, when we get the vaccine developed and created, and obviously Americans here, you're going to benefit last because of herd immunity, which we don't know yet.
And we said was racist.
What cosmic bunny hole did I fall into?
I mean, these satin pajamas, they're slippery!
CNN just fact-checked you as lying.
As lying?
Yes.
I'm a racist liar.
Just everything you say, not just this specific story.
Keep bringing on... I am A-OK with your fact-check, CNN.
And, you know, this is just... take it as a... it is a dog whistle.
I think Home Alone 2 is better than the original.
Wow!
Oh, wow, that's an unpopular opinion.
It's the Godfather 2 of the series.
It's the Godfather 2 of Home Alone.
Home Alone 3 with French Stewart, I just don't think it didn't exist.
It doesn't exist.
French Stewart from 3rd Rock's Missing Persons.
Oh boy, can I rob your houses?
No.
You can't.
No.
Not at all.
Stop it.
Here's something else that's interesting about Ezekiel Emanuel.
So he's argued obviously that we should benefit last from the vaccine.
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
He's also argued that life isn't worth living After the age of 75.
I know you think I'm making it up.
Before you fact-check me again, good thing we have the source.
Here's a quote.
These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80... This could also just read, these pricks who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age, when I look at what these people do, almost all of it is what I classify as play.
It's not meaningful work.
They're riding motorcycles.
They're... How many 90-year-olds do you see riding motorcycles?
Yeah, no kidding.
like he has you need to remove your own personal biases.
Yeah, no kidding.
He just happens to live next door to the only 90 plus motorcycle club in the country.
They always go for rides at 4am so they don't you are not getting a vaccine.
What?
I can't hear you!
Oh, you can hear me, Errol!
He's sitting there typing this paper, like, Errol.
These people who have a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age.
It's from Ezekiel Emanuel.
He's writing this.
When I look at what most of these people do, it's almost all of what I would classify as play.
It's not meaningful work.
They're riding motorcycles.
They're hiking.
Which can all have value, don't get me wrong.
But if it's the main thing in your life, that's probably not a meaningful life.
This can also just be communist language.
It's decadent.
It is decadence of the West and unnecessary.
It was in answer to the question, what's wrong with enjoying life?
What's wrong with enjoying an extended life?
That's what we call a softball question.
Oh, nothing's wrong with that.
Let me screw this up for you really quickly.
How badly can I answer this?
Have you seen a 90 year old motorcycling?
Does it not make you as well furious?
What the hell are you talking about?
By the way, keep in mind, Joe Biden's 77.
Yeah.
So let's just keep this up.
Joe Biden is going to appoint, if he's president, a COVID czar who doesn't even think he has the right to exist.
Yeah.
Someone wants a President Harris.
What do you think he's going to move that line back once he gets to 75?
I don't know.
You know what?
Look, 80.
Let's go to 80 now.
I think he'll get in the pass if he uses a moped.
He has to wear the really terrible helmet.
I cannot believe this.
This is the guy who's going to be the COVID czar.
This could be straight out of the Communist Manifesto.
These old people, they're no longer of value.
They aren't laborers.
That's the view of the collective.
And I understand this too, by the way.
This is why when people always say, are you going to pull back your mischaracterization of Nazis as socialists?
No, I absolutely won't.
They were the National Socialist Workers Party.
What does that mean?
You see it with neo-Nazis here in the United States.
They're socialists who just had racism.
Here's what they believe.
They believe that if you remove brown and black people from the United States, that you could make all the social safety networks.
So a lot of the neo-Nazis here in the United States actually believe in socialized health care.
They actually believe in a welfare state, but only for white people.
That's also what you saw with Nazi Germany.
They believed that they could have productive contributors if they removed certain sectors of society.
And you read this right here, same thing with communism, 70, 80, 90-year-olds riding motorcycles.
Yeah.
Alright, I see you.
I believe we have an update from Reg, a quick breaking story.
Oh, we have an update, breaking news.
Alright, Reg the Bandit, we have breaking news here.
What's going on?
Yeah, so I think you're going to want to watch this.
Georgia has just held a press conference, and the Georgia Secretary of State made a pretty big announcement regarding a presidential race.
I think we can cue it up here.
Okay, let me know.
Do we guys have it?
Are we ready?
Can we cue it?
This is the Georgia, this is the governor you just said, Reg?
Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State.
Secretary of State, but it's a man, right?
It's a male secretary?
Yes.
Correct.
starting off week, but let's watch.
Subject of the RLA.
At that time, I will designate that the ROA will be the presidential race.
With the margin being so close, it will require a full by-hand recount in each county.
This will help build confidence.
It will be an audit, a recount, and a re-canvas all at once.
It will be a heavy lift, but we will work with the counties to get this done in time for our state certification.
Many of these workers, we work in plenty of overtime.
We have all worked hard to bring fair and accurate counts to a subject of the RL.
Wow.
Wow.
That is remarkable.
We talked about this early on in the show.
You said Pennsylvania.
I said, I think Georgia, because there are enough issues in Georgia, and it's a really close margin.
And I think it's an uphill battle with Pennsylvania and the corruption.
I think Reg the Bandit.
Is there something else that we need to know, Reg the Bandit?
No, I mean, I just think that's pretty huge that they're going to conduct a hand recount of the presidential race.
And so I think that, you know, that's what I was thinking.
You know, you said at the beginning of the show that something needs to flip soon.
You know, probably Georgia.
It looks like that may happen.
Yeah.
Thank you, Reg the Bandit.
We'll check in with you later.
My problem with the recount is that it doesn't do anything about potential voter fraud.
No, it does.
The whole point is that with the recount, you can see ballots that, for example, now they might not have been postdated properly.
Or signature checks and things like that.
that. But that's also where circumstantial evidence would come into play. And we can also
look at a certain number of ballots if they came in, for example, in an unrealistic period of time.
If there's a disproportional number of ballots that are just Joe Biden and nothing else down
the ticket. So this gives us more detail. We can check and see if these people are actually
residents of the state. We can check and see at least with some of them if they arrived in time
on election night. And this is something too, a lot of people are saying, oh, this is dangerous.
If Donald Trump does this, you know, the American people will feel as though the election is still
on. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Where did he do?
Let's go through this.
What are you mad about?
Well, maybe that my vote wouldn't count.
Okay, so you think your vote should count?
Yes!
I understand it.
So let's say you hate Donald Trump and let's say we go through these and we toss out some votes and you want to make sure that your vote counts.
Well, how do you know that your vote counts?
What is a vote?
It's what I cast for an election.
For a president?
Okay.
What determines that vote?
What do you mean?
What determines whether that vote is legal or not?
Why did you mail it in?
Why did you go early to a specific precinct?
Why did you go same day?
Why did you have to present an ID?
Or why did you have to list an address?
Because there are legal parameters that we've always had for voting.
And now, to make sure your vote counts, we're going to enforce those legal parameters.
That's the message that the GOP needs to be clear about.
It's not stealing votes away.
It's, hey listen, you voted.
There's a system.
There's a reason it's actually tallied as a vote.
If it was illegally cast, it is not a vote.
So you cannot benefit from a system that ensures that there's some integrity, at least to your vote, and not abide by that system that ensures that the totality of votes are just as legitimate as yours.
Somewhere down the line, a court determines What a vote is, meaning what is allowed, what is permissible.
Now you may want that to be 11 million illegal immigrants, fine, but that's not the law.
You may want people to be able to vote after 8 p.m.
on election.
You may want them to be able to vote 2, 3, 4 days later.
You may want them to be able to vote in any state that they feel they'd like to vote in, but guess what?
That's not the law.
And the law is the same law that protects you and ensures that you have a vote and there's any tally whatsoever to begin with. It just
comes down to degrees. So if we want to argue that in the future, well, you know what, people should be
able to vote two, three days after election day, fine. You can argue that. But that wasn't the
law on election day this go around.
Yeah. Every single American right now should be willing to lose to make sure that we have the
right count. You should be willing to lose the person that you wanted to go into whatever office
you're talking about, Senate, whatever, President.
Yes.
You should be willing to walk away from that right now to make sure that we have the accurate count by law.
Because like you said, the laws are there to make sure that your vote does count.
Right.
Otherwise, I can just stuff it with a bunch of ballots and your vote will never be seen.
The only reason the American public voted for Joe Biden, who may feel that an election is stolen if it's actually properly observed, is because of the media.
Right now, how confused do you think CNN viewers are in Georgia?
What?
What are you talking about?
I've never heard of this.
Why would they have to do a hand recount when I have only seen fact checking with no facts?
Let me tell you one thing.
I hate to toot my own horn, but one thing I will say when you look at the election coverage and how many of you tuned in and we appreciate how many of you have joined up at Mug Club, which will allow us to go for another four years.
When you have on this show, when you have a broadcast where CNN is broadcasting on our show The message that there is absolutely no voting irregularities that have taken place.
As we provide you with concrete evidence of voting irregularities, that's a special time in history.
This is something that has never happened before.
CNN used to be able to say without consequence, no voting irregularities whatsoever.
None of this.
Right now we go to President-elect Joe Biden and Ezekiel Emanuel to talk about how you're not going to get a vaccine.
Your thoughts, Scott?
This is what they're used to doing, and they don't expect someone like us to be going, hold on a second, that's actually not true.
That didn't happen before, and that is why the war, the ideological war that is coming, is truly coming in the form of information.
Big tech is what worries me most regardless of the outcome of this election because we just heard CNN effectively tipping their hand saying, well you know it's a good thing that Facebook is going to start censoring unpopular opinions.
That is correct.
We are in a very unique time in history.
I would say right now what is changing with media, it's about the change to the media landscape.
The change to the way that Americans consume information is just as significant as the Industrial Revolution was to the way that Americans consumed goods and services.
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
It's that big of a shift, and they know it.
Yeah, and this could be one of those inflection points in history where you see a pivot.
You see people go, wait a minute, they said that these were baseless claims, and it went through a court that is not dominated by Republicans, and that court said, wait a minute, these claims are legit.
Right.
This could be one of those moments in history where the curtain does get pulled back just a little bit on a national scale.
I don't know.
Do we know, did CNN run that at all?
The Secretary of State from Georgia?
No, I didn't see that at all.
I haven't seen it on there.
They haven't run it at all?
I've been watching all morning.
I didn't see that.
It's kind of a big deal.
It's kind of a big deal.
They're running footage of a non-president elect talking about what he may or may not do, but they're not running an actual Secretary of State right now talking about potential voting irregularities and ensuring that they're corrected or at the very least they're examined in the state of Georgia.
They're not even covering it.
Again, you tell me.
Is it newsworthy?
I don't know, maybe I'm nuts.
And yeah, the next step is probably going to be like, recounts are voter suppression or something.
Yeah, you'll see that, right?
Yeah, it's an insane worldview and they can't allow it to seem legitimate even if, again, it's not media versus media now, it's legitimate court decisions, it's secretaries of specific states.
You know what else was an unpopular view while we're talking about those?
That there should be a recount in Florida, which went on for 37 days.
I'm glad that we did it both ways.
Ted Cruz actually worked on that legal team.
We'll be talking with him in a little bit.
Oh, I didn't know that.
Yeah, on the Florida case.
Yeah.
You were about to say something interesting.
Well, I think, you know, when we talk about this, everybody was saying before the election that we should be patient and that nobody should claim victory, right?
Until their guy looked like he could claim victory.
Right.
I have no idea how they live in a world where they can have hour after hour after hour of video where they're saying this and then doing the exact opposite.
And by the way, while we're talking about media, this is my favorite clip from It Just Happened Yesterday, an anchor at MSN.
Have you seen this?
I don't know why it's not more viral than this correspondent on MSNBC.
having a really bad day.
Reinian has some new reporting on something that we talked about at the top of the hour,
how the Trump administration is handling the transition with the incoming Biden team or
not handling it, we should say, to a certain extent. This time,
it involves our intelligence community. Ken, what have you learned, sir?
Oh, ****. ****.
Okay I think we lost Ken for a second.
What I love is the escalation of the cuss words.
Because everyone knows when you've been in a situation where you're like, I don't know, you're like, I got the biopsy results back.
Like, oh shit.
And then it's like, It's positive.
Oh, that's the thing.
There's an escalation that it got worse.
But here's the thing.
Yeah, it actually and I know we like to have a laugh, but it actually makes more sense.
We have exclusive when you understand the context because that was something that a lot of people didn't cover.
How the Trump administration is handling the transition with the incoming Biden team or Not handling it, we should say, to a certain extent.
It involves our intelligence community.
Is it not working?
Today is an absolute disaster.
Really?
What happened?
Well, Quarterback Garrett, he got the COVID.
Did he put COVID in the TriCaster?
I think the TriCaster has the coronavirus.
The TriCaster has the coronavirus.
You can no longer smell or taste.
You know what might have been the mistake?
After he left, we sprayed down the TriCaster to try and sanitize it.
Well, I thought you said dip the TriCaster.
You told me to spray?
Yeah, no.
Stop trying to act like you're a janitor.
...show for 45 minutes and then say, can I leave early?
30 minutes?
Ted Cruz?
Alright, so we do have the context now.
And hopefully it still matters.
That MSNBC reporter, I understand why he was so... The context makes it more understandable.
How the Trump administration is handling the transition with the incoming Biden team, or not handling it, we should say, to a certain extent.
This time, it involves our intelligence community.
Ken, what have you learned, sir?
Oh, sh**.
there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
Okay.
You know what?
I think it was worth it.
It was.
It definitely was worth it.
That's awesome.
I apologize for the technical difficulties.
I will say we far out-punted our coverage with you, the viewer-ship, than our technical capabilities sometimes.
We'll fix that.
But we're glad you're here.
Oh look right now, hold on, on CNN, state election officials, no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
Again, for people who missed it, does Rhonda McDaniel, Rhonda McDaniel, sorry I've never heard that name before, said 11,000 people have come forward with claims.
We have thousands of people who voted who are out-of-state residents or potentially dead.
We have many, many thousands of votes in question.
By the way, From election officials.
I don't know.
Is the Secretary of State of Georgia not considered an election official?
Because we just ran that video they didn't show you.
And widespread is not the issue, it's whether it's targeted.
Whether it's strategic and aimed at the places where it can make a difference.
They're trying to try out this widespread thing to be like, oh there's no widespread and you have to agree with that.
Let me give you some context because I talked about how mail-in ballots were accepted at a rate of about 30 times.
And I'm not very good at math, so yesterday I said, like, OK, it's like if 100,000 votes come in, and 1,000 were accepted before, and now 30,000 are coming.
And people are like, whoa, I told you it wasn't the right ratio.
The rejection for Maryland ballots previously was about 1%, OK?
And now it's about 0.03%.
So people say, well, maybe it's not widespread.
Sure, if you just, okay, that doesn't sound widespread, the rejection of .03%.
But let's say that what happened, let's use, this is closer to the actual ratio.
100,000 votes.
Okay?
100,000 votes in 2016, and you also see this in other primaries in California, 100,000 ballots alone in a primary they were rejected.
100,000 votes used to be 1,000 of them would be rejected.
Okay?
Now it's...
337-ish.
337-ish.
Yeah.
How many people vote in a state like Georgia?
So you add up a hundred, so at the end of a million votes, now that differential... Bigger number.
Is what? 10,000.
Potentially.
Now we go to a state that maybe has, I don't know, 4 million votes?
6 million votes?
9 million votes?
Those aren't technical numbers.
Those are fighting numbers, to be really clear.
When you're talking about states that are separated by only 20,000 votes, We're talking about states that are only separated by... At that point, even 100,000 is not outside the realm of possibility.
It matters why these ballots were accepted as opposed to rejected, and it matters where this occurred, and what really matters is the oversight.
What kind of accountability has there been?
And as far as we know, there hasn't been any accountability, because who's going to hold them accountable?
Well, we can't have poll watchers.
They're not allowed in.
Well, we can't have the media, because they're just saying nothing has happened.
And apparently the media says that no election officials are chiming in on this.
So the RNC chair, the Secretary of State in Georgia, these are merely images of the past.
Well, when they do, Fox News cuts them off and says that we can't air this in good conscience because they're about to give you specific examples in a minute and we don't want to see that.
There's probably not going to be any evidence presented.
Listen, we don't know what Kayleigh McEnany is going to say, but you know what?
Let's just fill in the blanks. Nothing. Yeah, exactly. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Look, I have a crucifix on
my head. And instead she's like, 4,500 here, 6,200 there.
Look, blah blah blah. Yeah. Well look, there are 72 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump, roughly, right now,
that want an answer to this question And so people are thinking, oh, we're going to disenfranchise half the country.
Okay, by your own example, you'll just disenfranchise the other half into thinking that the election was stolen.
So one way or another, this is going to happen.
I just want to know the real results.
If we feel like it was stolen and we have the best results possible, fine, we'll deal with that.
But I cannot think that we don't have actual legitimate elections anymore.
And we are waiting on Senator Ted Cruz to come in.
Do we have the chats of questions that people would like to see?
So these are some of your chats.
Exclusive again.
We don't do it on YouTube because screw them.
But these are from people on Mug Club, The Blaze.
What would they like me to ask Ted Cruz?
So Jesse says a question for Ted Cruz.
With social media fact-checking everything, YouTube hiding content, and news channels leaning far left, should conservatives move to apps like Parler, Blaze, and The Daily Wire, or stay in the trenches and try to change some minds?
Both.
Both.
Think of it as a hedge fund.
Diversify your portfolio.
You should be doing both.
That's what we do.
We're actually, I think, looking, because there are some other people who've run Parler accounts that aren't us, by the way, and we would like to get those accounts, but we just haven't been able to start any account on Parler, but we do have accounts on other social media platforms.
That's why we're on Facebook, we're on YouTube, we're on Instagram.
Obviously, the most important thing is Mug Club because it's what allows us to continue, but that is a good question, and as far as I know right now, can you guys, do we have, Senator?
We do have Senator Ted Cruz.
Senator Ted Cruz is his podcast, I should say, in case you guys need some other information on him.
People are like, who?
If I say his podcast is Verdict, where you can, you know, download whatever podcast, people go, oh, Senator Ted Cruz!
Of course!
No, they already know.
It's Senator Ted Cruz.
The Cruz-a-reen.
The Wolver-Cruz.
This guy, I will say, has absolutely been on this like a dog on a bone, and I highly recommend that you do pay attention to his podcast.
Senator Ted Cruz, can you hear me, sir?
I can.
Stephen, good to be with you.
I am glad to have you on the show as well.
You know, something just remarkable just happened live while we were broadcasting.
CNN was saying there's no evidence whatsoever of any kind of voter fraud or irregularities.
I think the two have been conflated.
And of course, the Georgia Secretary of State just said they're going to do a manual recount.
That was not aired on CNN at any point.
This is really concerning to us.
We've obviously been covering it.
What is the path here?
What is the strategy with specific Senator Ted Cruz?
Because something needs to happen quickly for Americans to not lose faith.
Yeah, look, you're exactly right.
I'm sure the CNN story was amplifying the New York Times headline today.
Banner headline that no voter fraud anywhere in America.
And the basis for this is they called all the election officials, which in these blue states, many of them are hard partisan Democrats, and said, hey, did you guys steal the election?
And they responded, no, no, we didn't steal the election.
This is a legal process.
Don't get too wonky for us, Senator Cruz.
It's a little bizarre.
It's like, you know, we called all the bank robbers and they promised us there are no bank robberies in America.
Right.
If there is fraud, and you're asking the people who are running it, they're going to tell you there's not.
This is not subtle reporting.
But you know what?
The New York Times knows that.
They want to write that headline.
Well, let me ask you this, because they keep saying there's no evidence of fraud.
And I think we understand there's a difference between fraud and irregularity.
So coming up to the election, we document this.
We had a tallying.
We had kind of a total tally.
The latter brand will fix.
Right.
Yes.
What was that?
I didn't hear what you said.
Who will fix?
The latter, irregularities, regular brand will fix.
Oh, and I stepped on your joke and it was a poop joke, which is wonderful.
I know my host.
Yes, absolutely.
It's a crappy show.
But we love having you on.
So they say no, because we were always very clear there were up to 2.7 million ballots that we said could be compromised.
Could be compromised, and we said there's a difference between ineptitude, the post office not being effective enough to get these votes in in time, as well as voter rolls that weren't accurate, as well as people who maybe received double registrations.
We were very clear in saying that The media just keeps saying no hard evidence of voter fraud.
So let me ask you this.
Specifically, what evidence is there either of irregularities?
We've covered quite a few here, right?
How many ballots could have been accepted beyond the actual election date?
Something that's really suspicious, of course, is that mail-in ballots have been accepted.
At a rate of 30 times what they were accepted in 2016.
Allegheny County, you know, their Board of Elections, they just said they had to count over 2,000 undated ballots.
We personally, on this show, went through voter rolls in Michigan, Senator Cruz, and we found obituaries of the people who voted.
Now, I can't say that there are many thousands because I don't have the research crew, but we confirmed dozens.
What hard evidence is there of either irregularities or voter fraud?
What do you plan to take into battle?
Well, Stephen, I'll tell you what evidence matters, and that is the evidence presented by the legal teams in court in the formal challenge.
And here's how this operates.
We had the election eight days ago.
After the election, there have been multiple lawsuits filed across the country in multiple states challenging the results.
Either calling for recounts, mandatory recounts, or contest litigation, other cases challenging the results.
It's now incumbent on the Trump legal team to go and present their evidence, not on Twitter, not on YouTube or on TV, but to present it in a court of law.
That means coming in with expert witnesses, coming in with statistical analysis, coming in with direct witnesses who can testify as to specific fraud and to quantify the case.
And the way our legal system works, look, I got to say, it is hard and frustrating just as an informed citizen To know really what's going on.
You watch Twitter, you see allegations all over the place.
It's not clear, you know, is it zombies rising from the dead all voting what's going on.
What matters is what they can prove in court.
And the process we have to determine what the evidence is, is the legal adjudicatory function.
And so there'll be cases in state court and federal court.
where the fact finders, either the jury or the judge, will listen to the evidence
and conclude what the facts demonstrate. And then from there, if the Trump campaign is able
to demonstrate that a sufficient number of votes were illegally cast, such that they should not be
included, they may be able to flip some or all of the vote totals. But that's what it will take
to change the result from where the tallies are right now.
Well, let me ask you, because that's the legal battle, but what do you believe the strongest
arguments are for Americans?
What should they know here?
Because obviously, you don't want to be on the hook making a claim that hasn't been verified in court yet, and I understand that.
But for Americans out there, what are the strongest claims, arguments, or evidence that you would point them to if they are talking with people regarding voting irregularities or potential fraud?
Because like you said, some people out there are sharing stories that aren't true, but there is a lot of information out there that is true, that is concerning.
Where would you say Americans should look?
What's the strongest point?
So Stephen, the strongest point I would say is start at the beginning, which is wait and let the process play out.
The legal process, these results are still being contested in court.
And I'll give you an example.
So the media has now called it for Joe Biden.
They want everyone to shut up and they say if you dare disagree with their call, that you're somehow undermining democracy.
Well, that's not actually the way our Constitution works.
It's not the media that picks the president.
It's the American people.
It's the voters.
And let me point to a very specific example.
Okay.
Which is in the year 2000.
Bush versus Gore.
The media on election night called the election for Al Gore.
I was working on the George W. Bush campaign.
That's where I met Heidi, my wife.
Right.
I remember that night.
They said, Gore has won Florida.
Al Gore is the next president of the United States.
All sorts of red, white, and blue.
Ta-da!
The media makes the call.
Right.
They just had one problem.
The votes weren't there.
As they counted the votes, George W. Bush had more votes in Florida than Al Gore.
Now, they ended up retracting their call because they realized it was catastrophically wrong, and by the way, every network was catastrophically wrong.
And one thing, too, to be clear about that, a lot of Americans, because, you know, because Kevin Costner made a movie on HBO, they don't know that recounts, there were recounts that went on, and then it just eventually had to halt.
Was it 37 days?
So it was 36 days, and there were a total of four recounts that happened in Florida.
So the Al Gore team came in.
Every time the votes were counted, George W. Bush won.
Won every single recount.
I was part of the legal team and you and I have talked before on your show about my new book, One Vote Away.
Yes, One Vote Away.
There's an entire chapter on One Vote Away on Bush versus Gore.
So if you want to understand really what happens in a recount, what are the legal issues, how does this happen, if you want to understand what's going on right now.
Go to Amazon and buy one vote away.
It's actually been five weeks in the New York Times bestseller list, which, as you know, drives them back.
Yeah, they really don't want you to be in the New York Times bestseller list.
Like, Chelsea Handler, can you write another book about drinking and sleeping with a lot of people, please?
Whatever it takes to bump him off.
Hardcover, softcover, non-fiction, digital.
Give me something!
Let me ask you this.
Because the difference between Florida and this, obviously, there's one state, Florida.
Now there are many.
And really, Florida comes down to too close to call, right?
That's what it was.
That's why we needed the recount.
Nowhere near the kind of widespread irregularities, and I'm using my words carefully here, I would say there's some indications of outright misleading voting practices that you could see in some precincts, but voting irregularities, there wasn't this in Florida.
So now that we're looking at a multi-pronged approach, what should the rollout plan be?
Does there need to be a priority on one specific state?
Is maybe Georgia the right place to try and put all hands on deck since the Secretary of State is starting now?
He started the process with a manual recount.
Look, Georgia is a hugely important fight, not just for the presidential, but we've got two Senate seats, a runoff on January 5th, that is going to decide control of the Senate.
And so those Senate elections It is hard to think of such an epically important election as this January 5th election because the difference between a Chuck Schumer Senate that will unleash the crazies on the far left versus a Republican Senate that will shut down the most damaging ideas of the far left, it's dramatic.
Yeah.
But set aside Georgia for a second.
Let me take your broader question.
Where we are right now, let me give you good news and bad news.
The good news is, one reason to have some degree- Wait, hold on a second, hold on a second.
You didn't ask me if I want the good news first or the bad news first.
My doctor usually does that.
He says you want the good news first or the bad news first, then he tells me about my cholesterol and how I have a fat ass, and that's the good news.
Alright, you can speak first and then I'll amputate.
Okay, alright.
Good.
The good news.
Okay.
If you look at, in this COVID strange election cycle, The ballots cast in person on Election Day, Trump won the significant majority of those ballots.
The early ballots cast by mail, Biden won the significant majority of those.
If you look historically at election recounts or election contests, In-person ballots tend to be pretty reliable.
There's less opportunity for mischief with in-person voting, so typically the votes count on election day stand.
Where you see in recounts and contests votes being discarded as being illegal as contrary to law are usually early votes and mail-in votes, which means there's some reason to expect as these Right.
ballots are examined more closely that some meaningful percentage of the early mail-in
votes will be discarded as contrary to law, which means more Biden votes are likely to
go away than Trump votes.
So that's good news that we could see these totals shrinking.
The bad news you referred to is twofold.
Number one, some of these margins are pretty big.
In Pennsylvania, it's 45,000 votes.
Look, Bush versus Gore in Florida, we had a couple thousand votes.
45,000 is a lot of votes.
In Michigan, it's 130,000 votes is Biden's lead.
Those are big vote totals.
Because to prevail, you've got to demonstrate in the court that that many ballots are illegally cast, and you can't just make generalities.
It has to be specifically proven up.
Here's also what makes it challenging.
To win, to flip the outcome, the Trump legal team has to run the table.
They can't just win in one state.
They can't just win in Pennsylvania.
They can't just win in Georgia.
They've got to win in multiple states.
And so that becomes harder Because Biden has a lead in several of these states from Georgia to Arizona to Michigan to Pennsylvania to Nevada.
And to get to 270 electoral votes, Trump has to win not just once, and winning once is not easy, but he's got to win multiple times.
And so my advice to everyone is just calm down and relax and let the process play out.
That doesn't mean pop the champagne and celebrate that Trump's gonna win.
We need to let the process play out and see what happens.
But don't also accept what the media is saying, which is, don't even bother with the litigation.
We say it's over, so you must think it's over.
Right.
Well, yeah, and I understand what you're saying.
Obviously the margins are pretty big in some states, but not in all states.
And for example, as far as hard evidence, you know, there have been 3,000 instances of ballots, we've talked about just Nevada, where they appear to have been cast improperly.
Those have actually been referred to, you know, AG Bart.
No, I'm not saying that those are all confirmed, but these are hills people are willing to die on where they are willing to provide sworn testimony.
We also have another 10,000 that's estimated right in Nevada, may have been people who aren't necessarily Nevada residents, and I know sometimes that's hard to identify.
We have how many affidavits now of people who said that votes were delivered from out of state, or poll watchers were not allowed in, right?
This is a concern, too, is how can you tell?
That's something that's hard to prove, for example, if a ballot was tampered with because no poll watchers were allowed in.
We do know that there were scenarios where poll watchers were not allowed in, for example, in Wayne County, where ballots were being handled 45 feet away from him.
But how is that?
How do you walk through that in a court of law?
I think that's the concern of a lot of Americans.
And if it were honest, we could be within those margins, but some of it is tough to prove.
Well, it is difficult.
If you look at excluding poll watchers, we know that happened.
We know that happened in Philadelphia.
We know it happened in Detroit.
In Detroit, they covered up the ballot counting room with poster board so you couldn't look in.
In Pennsylvania, initially what they were insisting is that the Republican ballot watchers be 20 feet away or 25 feet away.
Well, if you ever tried to watch a ballot 25 feet away, you can't actually observe it.
You can't see anything.
You're not Functionally an observer if you're 25 feet away on the other side of the room.
The Trump campaign went to state court in Pennsylvania, got an order that they had to be within six feet.
Even six feet is tough, but six feet is a lot better than 25 feet to be able to see what's going on.
What is challenging in that instance is the remedy.
And as a legal matter, what you do about the violation, it is not Crystal clear what you do about it.
You may, to the extent you can, segregate the votes that were counted without observers.
One remedy may be a recount focused on those votes to go examine them again.
I will say most courts, and this is true of state courts or federal courts, are very reluctant to exclude votes. It's a high threshold
to get votes thrown out.
Right. So the remedy for excluding the ballot watchers legally is a minefield.
And I think the problem is not such a high threshold for votes to be thrown in. It's just
aah, toss them in on a red wagon with the rest of them. And, you know, I think people don't understand.
You're voicing what a lot of Americans are trying to voice right now and don't have your platform.
Their vote is diluted.
Their vote is diluted when other people are not following the same process and we don't know.
But like you're saying, courts are reluctant because they don't want to dilute votes.
But that's precisely what's already happened.
So I spoke yesterday with Catherine Engelbrecht, who is a friend, she's the founder of True the Vote, based here in Houston, that fights voter fraud all across the country.
They just filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania, I believe, yesterday.
With exactly the theory you put forth on behalf of some Pennsylvania voters who say their legal vote was diluted by election officials allowing illegal votes to come in.
And that's what they're trying to present.
And I talked with Catherine.
I've talked with President Trump and with Jared Kushner and with the White House.
What I've told them is they need serious lawyers to present evidence at this point.
It can't be One or lost in the world of social media.
It's got to be facts and evidence in court.
And by the way, you can do it.
You know, I talked about Bush versus Gore, as I describe in the chapter in One Vote Away.
We did that whole thing.
There were, I think, seven different cases in Florida, all challenging the results of the election.
We had a full trial in state court.
We went to the Florida Supreme Court twice.
We went to the U.S.
Supreme Court twice.
And by the way, when I say went to, I mean wrote merits briefs, 50-page merits briefs on both sides, did the oral argument, and got a Supreme Court decision.
And we did all of that in 36 days.
The courts can move quickly.
Uh, when there is urgency, but we need serious legal teams to present that case and to create the basis for the courts to act.
And that's tough to do in Florida, because their Supreme Court is just an alligator in a judge's wake.
So, um, no, but I do, and I know that you're busy, but I really do have to ask you just a couple of questions.
Let's do an apples to apples comparison, because Florida, right, we'll take that, that's a state.
Michigan.
We already have more evidence in Michigan of, again, irregularities or errors.
We have a 6,000 vote flip, and then we have a local official who basically conceded that he lost, and then he won by 1,000 votes.
That's already more than Florida, just in Michigan, and these are just mistakes where people said, whoops.
These aren't the byproducts of investigations.
So I know that you've given us some good news and bad news, but wouldn't you also say it's fair for Americans to think that there's substantially more smoke here than just Florida?
There is.
It's clear there were some hard partisans.
You know, you mentioned the 6,000 vote flip in Michigan.
That's a good example where you had a county in Michigan that had vote counting software that they had what they describe as a quote, glitch.
Right.
That switched 6,000 votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
Right.
The good news is the system caught it.
They saw the results and the results were out of kilter with what they were expecting.
They went back and did a hand recount and they discovered the glitch.
And so they fixed it.
That gives some comfort that they fixed it in that one county.
But that same software just in Michigan is used in a total of 47 counties.
In 30 states.
Now, the local officials there are arguing this glitch was idiosyncratic just to this county and it was based on human error.
Maybe.
But it sure seems to me there needs to be some very careful examination and I hope the Trump lawyers on the ground are doing that right now and pushing for, okay, we know this glitch can happen.
Yeah.
Let's examine each of the other 46 Right.
No, we don't know if it did, but what we do know is it happened there and we had an honest poll worker.
And we do know that we had other poll workers who were boarding up the precinct with Bristol boards and not allowing people in.
So in other words, if that same scenario occurs with someone else who is not and there have been no investigations, that can be a
magnitude of which we've never seen.
Here's one thing that I do, and I know I will let you go because I know how busy you are.
You're a senator. I'm a guy who hosts a show in pajamas packing heat.
But there was this private interaction with Washington Post.
I don't know if you've had experience with him.
Steven, I've got to ask, by the way, those pajamas, were those actually – did you get them from Hef's estate sale?
No, I did not. I got them from – This is actually from the Planet Hollywood.
When you get to the worst towns, like in Schenectady, it's just Tim Allen's pajamas from the Santa Claus.
They don't get the Judge Dredd uniform or the Terminator glasses.
This is a Scott Calvin pajamas!
But remember that glitch that happened?
It ended up being a typo of 128,000 votes that just went to Biden.
All of them went to Biden, right?
Overnight.
I believe this was in Michigan, I believe.
I believe it was Michigan, Wisconsin.
I can't remember the state.
But there was private interaction.
I'm bringing up this image here.
You can't see it, but for the public.
This was sent to Philip Bump of Washington Post before we knew it was a typo.
Senator Cruz and he said we have the counted votes in a mostly pro-biden area. That's not complicated
So in other words at this moment in time, he said the Washington Post their national correspondent
Yeah, 128,000 votes at 4 30 morning all for Biden nothing to investigate here
Which to me says we found out it was a typo, but there is no voter fraud or irregularities
There there There is no voter fraud that would actually warrant investigation from the media.
And that's what concerns me most with big tech.
And we know that we're having these hearings.
Please, please, please don't call me to the floor.
How do you see this playing out with the fact-checking right now when they have no interest in the truth?
Well, listen, as you know, the media Trump broke the media.
They're not even trying.
They hate him so much.
Of course, they're not fact-checking anything other than the only truth they are willing to contemplate is that Joe Biden will be the next president, because stopping Trump is their only objective.
And if possible, big tech is even worse.
I mean, you've had experiences with YouTube demonetizing you, downscaling your viewership.
We've seen... Right now, Big Tech is silencing the President's tweets.
They're putting election warnings on anyone raising a question about the election.
They put warnings and try to silence them and prevent people from seeing it.
There's a warning on this right now, Senator Cruz.
Right now, below this here.
I am sure there is.
By the way, let me say, even as you are, like, Edgy comedian.
Please, please, please don't grow the bizarre Rasputin beard that Jack Dorsey has.
I'm just saying.
No, I'll do my best.
I can't afford to replace the bird feeders.
That guy, I don't know, he showed up looking like he lost his Wilson.
And I don't know if it was something that he staged, but you know, I will say this, it does get frustrating a little bit as someone who has, you know, a lot of information, a lot of contact, where it seems like we have these hearings and they come forward and they say like, well, you know what, we don't really have control over it.
When is something going to get done?
Done.
We just watched on CNN, Senator Cruz.
It happened live.
And this is a very special moment in time because on this show, there's a CNN broadcast, and it's fair use because it's transformative, where they are literally saying there is no evidence of any election irregularities as we simultaneously present them to the audience.
This has never happened before in human history, this ability to actually accurately fact-check information. There was someone on CNN,
an Asian reporter, who said, he said, well, it looks like Facebook have taken some steps
to remove some pages that may be associated with Steve Bannon because those views may appear
more popular than they are. It wasn't.
These are untrue. They said on air, isn't it good that Facebook is removing views
because they're not popular? That to me is terrifying. What can be done?
Look, and as you know, big tech banned the New York Post.
Twitter took down their page for two weeks and wouldn't let them post.
New York Post has the fourth highest circulation of any newspaper in America.
Right.
Big Tech asserts the power to edit and determine what stories you're allowed to publish, and it is completely unhinged.
You look at the media, you talk about CNN.
You know, one moment that captures this, the era of time we're in, is the CNN chyron with the reporter there of peaceful but fiery protest.
The building on fire behind him.
And it's like, At this point, I guess they don't write The Far Side anymore, but I wish The Far Side were still coming.
But I don't even know how you would... That's beyond a Far Side cartoon.
There's nothing left to make fun of because they're self-parodying.
Your question is, what can we do about it?
Alright, there are different players in government that can do different things.
In the Senate, what I can do is support legislation, which I have, but the problem with legislation is the Democrats are all prostitutes defending big tech.
So they have the ability to stop any legislation.
The other thing I can do is shine a light.
I can convene hearings, which I've convened multiple hearings, I can try to educate, I can try to make the public case, and I've done everything within my ability to do that.
The other part of government under a constitutional system is the executive branch.
The executive branch has the ability to convene a grand jury.
The executive branch has the ability to bring an indictment.
The executive branch has the ability to bring an enforcement action.
I can tell you in four years, on the topic of going after big tech, I have met with personally for hours and hours and hours, The President, the Vice President, the White House Chief of Staff, the White House Counsel, the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission.
These are all of the executive branch officials with authority to bring actions.
Right.
The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
The Trump administration has done some of it.
I think the president is frustrated.
He wants them to do more, but his team has not executed nearly as effectively as they need to.
Here's the discouraging piece.
If Joe Biden is elected, the executive branch will do zero.
Big Tech will run the Biden administration if Joe Biden becomes president.
And so that means we've got to wait four years for a president with the guts My final question to this is, I know you just mentioned different paths.
What if there happened to be clear, irrefutable evidence, let's say, of one of these people acting as a publisher directly?
In other words, actually trying to work directly with, let's say, a content creator or someone to try and manipulate or to try and actually publish content, not in a hands-off way, but in no uncertain terms.
Is that something that could circumvent just the state, the legislature, and actually be fought in the courts if it's a criminal action?
So, very possibly.
Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion at the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas's opinion is a big deal.
that the interpretation most of the courts of appeals have put out of section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, which has immunized big tech from legal scrutiny, that that interpretation
is wrong. Justice Thomas's opinion is a big deal. He wrote it out there. I do think,
especially if there's a Biden administration, But regardless, there needs to be litigation with smart, creative lawyers bringing the arguments that courts have misinterpreted Section 230.
And that needs to be litigated.
That is a multi-year process.
That won't be done in 36 days.
That will be done over a course of 2, 3, 4, 5 years.
But we need smart, serious lawyers doing that.
And there is some hope for that.
There is...
Growing Agreement, Section 230.
was designed for a different world and needs to be changed.
Right.
How it needs to be changed is going to be a big legislative argument for a long time.
Yeah, absolutely.
And we'll talk about it more.
I know when you have more time, you're busy.
There's a lot going on.
This is an election.
The state of our constitutional republic just so happened to hang in the balance.
But Senator Ted Cruz, the podcast is Verdict, and the book is One Vote Away.
That is available on Amazon Everywhere books are sold, correct?
It is.
Amazon.
Anywhere books are sold.
I'll also note, since you're in your pajamas, so I'm here in my suit, but I'm at home, and so I will show you the fuzzy slippers I'm wearing.
Very nice.
See, that's much more acceptable than pulling a tube in.
Just some slippers.
Good.
Family-friendly.
We appreciate it, Senator Chris.
Thank you so much.
I know you have work to get to.
Thanks for taking the time, Senator.
Alright.
Take care.
Thanks, David.
Thank you.
You know what, I will say this about Senator Cruz.
I like this Senator Cruz now more than... I feel as though he's a little more fluid, he's loose in the shoulders, he can sit on his punches.
As long as he keeps it this way, you know, it'd be interesting to see him take another crack at a presidential run.
Absolutely.
And doesn't it make you feel better that Ted Cruz is on it?
Yeah, that he's on it.
But I do, I don't know if you folks out there hear, I hear a little bit in his voice of concern that maybe there aren't enough people on it in the Trump circles.
You know what he's saying?
That he needs good lawyers to bring forward these cases and do it quickly, not on Twitter.
And listen, I understand what he's saying.
That's why we are on YouTube.
That's why we are on Twitter.
That's why we are on social media.
We can do that.
We can provide you with the information and third party sources so that you can do your own research.
But it is a different job for the president And it's legal counsel.
And I think it's time for them to get moving and have some results to show for it.
Otherwise, big tech and media, they win.
Because right now it's a battle of he said, she said.
The fact is, that's not where we are.
There is evidence.
They're wrong.
They're lying.
But we need some kind of a ruling or we need something official that's happening with a state legislature so that Americans have to take notice and go, okay, the media, all it takes is one state.
All it takes is one county, by the way, where the media has to—if they have to acknowledge, well, some things just changed and now Georgia is going to go to Donald Trump, or, well, some things changed in Arizona and the military ballots came in—if they have to acknowledge that, they lose credibility with their own viewers.
That's the big difference now is CNN, of course, has lost credibility with the vast majority of the American public because none of you watch CNN unless you're stuck in an airport.
But this is a tipping point where they could lose credibility with all of their own viewers because their own viewers will feel as though the wool have been pulled over their eyes if all of a sudden there's even one substantial example because they haven't given themselves an out.
And if you're on the ground, I'm sure that there are audience members on the ground who have seen some of this voter fraud and have some anecdotes at least or maybe some evidence that people haven't seen yet.
And it might be hard to step forward right now because you're at some level staking some of your reputation on this, but I think it's worth it.
If you see something that is illegal, if you see something that's questionable, it's at least worth bringing to these people who are Yes.
I have something to do about it.
Let's have a Me Too poll workers edition.
Hey, I like it.
All right, well listen, thank you very much everyone who's watching on YouTube.
Of course, send in your comments or questions because we always can have Senator Ted Cruz back.
But right now we are going to go exclusively to those on the blaze and take your chats because YouTube likely already demonetized.