All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2020 - Praying Medic
43:40
137V Supreme Court Update - December 9, 2020

Observations on U.S. Supreme Court activities for December 8, 2020. Join CloutHub: https://www.getclouthub.com/prayingmedic

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Bertie.
Cooper Mama, Mary Robert.
Oh look, Lisa Perna's on here.
Touched by prayer.
Alex.
Alabama River.
Hey, how's everybody doing?
What is going on?
I hope Greg is on here.
And I might be stepping on Mary Grace.
She might be broadcasting.
Hey, look, you had an hour.
Say what you gotta say and then don't go on any longer.
Hey, what's up?
All right.
North Carolina's here.
South Carolina.
Southern California.
Twisted Sister.
We're not gonna take it.
That is correct.
We got a drop from military intelligence today.
Yes, we did.
You know, I haven't... Hey from Texas!
What's going on?
Oh, hey Pepper!
Thanks for the sharing it out.
Yeah, if you want to share this out with your friends, I would be grateful.
If you just want to keep it between us, I'm cool with that.
It doesn't matter to me.
Whatever.
So yeah, we got a drop from Q.
And that's Twisted Sister.
We're not going to take it.
And watch the video.
It's a mash-up of a lot of different things that have been happening during the last couple of months, during the election cycle.
It's actually pretty interesting.
That video, by the way, it looks like it was uploaded on November 4th, the day after the election.
So that's pretty cool.
Hey Derek, So we have the Q-Drop covered!
And we've got some news in the Supreme Court.
And I'm going to talk about a couple of different things concerning the Supreme Court.
And you know what?
I can talk better with my glasses off, even though I can't read comments.
Regarding the Supreme Court, so there's a lot of fake news coming out over the last hour because the Supreme Court denied the injunctive relief that Kelly and Sean Parnell and I think five or six other litigants We're asking for in their case that went to the Supreme Court.
Now, I'm going to break this thing down in as much as I can in layman's terms and let you know what that means.
So, Kelly, Sean Parnell, several other people who were members of Congress in Pennsylvania, they filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania court And there's two components to the lawsuit.
There is the merits of the lawsuit, and there is the relief that the plaintiffs are seeking.
There's two different things.
Two different parts of a lawsuit.
So, that case was heard at the lower court level, and the case is based on, and if you didn't catch Mark Levin's Explanation of that case, I think it was this weekend, Sunday, I think, really worth listening to.
President Trump tweeted out that Mark Levin segment, I think three or four 10-minute segments, and Levin explained the foundation of the case really well.
I'll give you my two-minute version of it.
Pennsylvania, the state of Pennsylvania, In order to change their election laws, they have to amend their Constitution first.
All right?
If the state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, sorry, you live in Pennsylvania, and I call it the state, and you call it the Commonwealth, please don't get angry.
You know, some of the older states, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, they call themselves the Commonwealth.
I call it a state.
Hey.
Anyway, in order for Pennsylvania to change their election laws, they have to amend the Constitution first.
And they didn't do that.
They created this new law, Act 77, which changed the way in which elections are administered, right?
So Parnell and Kelly and the other plaintiffs in this case filed a suit seeking to overturn the results of the election in Pennsylvania because the Secretary of State's office, or Secretary of the Commonwealth, whatever, they violated the Constitution, changing the way elections are they violated the Constitution, changing the way elections are administered, and didn't follow the prescribed way of doing it.
Now, I covered this in my last broadcast, so I'm not going to go into real depth in that whole thing.
That's what the case is about.
Now, I also said in my last broadcast that at the lower court level, the judge granted, accepted the case and granted an injunction because the judge said the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case.
All right?
And that's important.
Now listen to what I said.
Parnell and Kelly were seeking an injunction to stop the state of Pennsylvania from certifying its election and potentially to overturn the election.
I think in the lower court case they were seeking to decertify the election.
That was the original case that they filed.
The judge issued an injunction and stopped the state of Pennsylvania from certifying the election because the judge said the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their case.
All right, that's important.
So what happened then was the judge issued an injunction stopped the state of Pennsylvania from any further certification.
Then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court got involved They took up the case and then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the lower court.
They dismissed the case and they offered no injunctive relief.
So they dismissed the case and that's it.
That was the end of the case in the state of Pennsylvania.
Kelly then filed with the Supreme Court.
And if I'm not mistaken, they asked for a different form of relief.
They weren't asking for Pennsylvania to be stopped from certifying their election.
They'd already done that.
They already certified the election.
And if they asked for decertification or halting of the certification, when it got to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have said, This is moot, or it's too late because we're not gonna, it's, the election's already been certified.
However, we're gonna get to that in just a minute.
But they ask for the election results to be overturned.
Now that's a, that is a really, really powerful, scary thing for a court to do.
You wouldn't expect, and certainly not a lower court, To overturn the results of an election.
Because that causes all kinds of problems.
It's like you have a legal precedent where a court flipped the entire results of a national or a state election.
And that just doesn't happen very darn often.
Because you're going to disenfranchise a lot of voters.
You're going to piss a lot of people off.
What's happening now with the Kelly case is the Supreme Court accepted Justice Alito.
He is the Supreme Court Justice for that section, that region, that has oversight of Pennsylvania and a bunch of other states.
Alito accepted the case, asked defendants, state of Pennsylvania, to file their briefs by this morning at 9 a.m.
Which they did, and people have been talking about Pennsylvania's response in that case on Twitter all day.
Here's the funny part.
So, in their response to this case, the state of Pennsylvania didn't even acknowledge, didn't dispute, I should say.
They didn't dispute that they violated the Constitution in creating these new election laws.
It's undisputed.
They violated the Constitution.
They didn't dispute that.
What their argument was, here's their argument, you shouldn't overturn the election.
Because that's never been done before, and that would set a terrible precedent.
And they're essentially saying, even though we allowed politicians to cheat, even though we allowed for a rigged election, even though we violated the Constitution, even though we broke state law, you shouldn't rule against us because that's never been done before, and you'd make a lot of people very angry.
That was essentially their argument.
That's the state arguing against Kelly.
So the Supreme Court is hearing this case, and now this afternoon, Alito, not the full court, but Alito, issued a ruling denying the injunctive request.
So what Alito said is, Here's what he said, we're not going to overturn the results of the election.
That's what Kelly and the plaintiffs were asking for, was overturn the election.
Alito said, we're not going to overturn the election, but they didn't dismiss the case.
That is what a lot of mainstream media is reporting now, that that case is dead, that Trump lost, that the Supreme Court isn't going to rule on anything that's going to affect the election.
The mainstream media is gaslighting the hell out of the country right now, thinking that this case has been dismissed.
It hasn't been dismissed.
They did not comment on the merits of the case.
They simply said, you're not going to get the relief you're asking for.
All right, what does that mean?
That means Alito said, we're not going to overturn the results of the election.
But what he didn't say is, we may give you a different form of relief.
What other form of relief could Alito and the Supreme Court give Kelly?
Well, I talked about it in my last broadcast.
Here's the thing.
I don't know anyone who is expecting the Supreme Court to overturn the results of the election.
That was a big ask, and no one was expecting that the court was going to overturn the results of the election.
I was expecting that they would listen to the merits of the case and offer some other form of relief, like perhaps decertifying the results of the election.
That doesn't overturn the results.
If you decertify the election, that means that Pennsylvania can't vote in the Electoral College.
You discipline the legislature by decertifying their election.
And you're not overturning the results of the election, you're just decertifying the results of it.
And then Pennsylvania has to go and figure out what they're going to do.
Do they hold another election?
Do they change your election laws?
Do they get right with the Constitution?
That would be a reasonable relief for the Supreme Court to provide and I think that's what they'll actually do.
This case is not over.
They haven't dismissed the case.
It's still active and it would make no sense for the Supreme Court to accept the case if they were simply going to just dismiss the case out of hand.
That's pointless.
They would never have accepted the case if they were just going to dismiss it.
That's kind of a waste of time and a pointless effort.
I suspect that there is going to be a ruling on the merits of the case and I suspect that Alito and the conservative justices will issue some form of relief other than overturning the election.
I don't believe that case is done.
I could be wrong.
I'm not a constitutional scholar.
But I know a couple of them and I'm gonna be having I talked to a constitutional scholar yesterday and I'm gonna try to set up an interview with a constitutional scholar who can walk through the entire process of the election from November 4th all the way to January 20th and put out a timeline of what to expect.
If Ivan is able to schedule that interview, I'd like to do that in the next week or so.
That'll be coming up.
So, like I said, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Kelly case is done at the Supreme Court.
Now, let's move on to the other case.
So the big news today is that Texas, the Attorney General of Texas, filed a case directly with the Supreme Court, and Texas is suing Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.
Four states.
So, let me say that again.
The state of Texas is suing the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
One state suing four states.
They didn't include Arizona because Arizona didn't actually.
And the case involves changing election laws.
And Arizona did not change its election laws the way that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia did.
Arizona has had mail-in voting for a long time.
There weren't a whole lot of changes made to the mail-in voting system in Arizona.
Most of our state votes by mail.
It's been that way for a long time.
And there's safeguards in place.
So Arizona is not involved in that suit, at least not right now.
The other states, the other four states, they did change our election laws regarding mail-in voting.
And so Texas is suing those states because They all changed their election laws without following the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, the Elector's Clause, and their own state constitutions.
Again, these states changed election laws and they didn't follow the prescribed way of doing it.
So they're being sued.
And that case has been filed with the Supreme Court and it has been docketed by the Supreme Court.
So they're going to hear the case.
They put it on the docket this afternoon.
We don't know when the case is going to be heard.
We don't know if they're going to be presenting oral arguments or if the state court is just going to rule based on the documents submitted.
We don't know.
Now, don't worry.
If you're worried that it's not going to happen in time.
Oh, there's not enough time.
We're running out of time.
Look, we are not running out of time.
Do not let the fake news tell you we're running out of time.
We got all the freaking time in the world.
We literally do.
I mean, there's plenty of time for all this stuff to happen.
So, since today is a safe harbor day, right?
December 8th, the last day In which states can choose electors, and if they do, they're essentially protected from legal ramifications after today.
But here's the caveat about the safe harbor.
States can still choose electors after today.
States can choose electors after tomorrow, the 10th, the 11th, whatever they want.
They have to do it before the 14th, because the 14th is when the Electoral College votes.
Now, all the states have already chosen their electors.
Most states are just looking at the popular vote, and when the popular vote comes in, there's a slate of electors for Trump, a slate of electors for Biden, and if Biden wins the popular vote in that state, they send their slate of electors to the Electoral College for Biden.
That's how most states do it.
The big push right now is to get states' legislatures To pull their slate of electors for Biden and put forward a slate of electors for Trump on the basis that there's been election fraud.
All right.
That's the push right now.
And if you want to help the movement, if you want to help the president, call and email state legislators.
Do a little bit of internet research, whatever state you live in.
Call them, email the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House in those states, and demand that they call a special session of the legislature.
Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Minnesota, sorry, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
We're not talking a lot about Nevada right now.
Nevada's kind of got its own thing going on.
There are some lawsuits pending there.
But those five states, we should be just politely but firmly telling them we want a special session of the legislature.
Now, the Texas case.
The Texas case is probably the best case for the Supreme Court to hear.
Because, now some of you are not going to like this.
I just know how you are.
You're not going to like hearing this, but I'm going to tell you it's the truth.
All the glitzy, you know, whiz-bang of the Dominion software and the flipping votes And the fact Dominion and their ties to Venezuela and all that stuff, that stuff is really... I hate to say it, but it's irrelevant at the Supreme Court level.
It doesn't matter.
Yeah, it gets clicks.
People like it.
They like to share videos and articles and tweets about all this stuff.
Dominion... Look, and I'm not saying Dominion isn't as crooked as a barrel full of snakes.
They are.
When you're going to court, you can say whatever you want.
The question is, can you prove it?
A. Can you prove it?
B. Is it relevant?
At the Supreme Court level, what the Supreme Court primarily deals with is issues of whether an action taken is constitutional.
So how does Dominion Software have anything to do with the Constitution?
Very little.
It's not relevant.
to a question of the Constitution.
It just isn't.
Whether or not the Dominion machines were hooked up to the internet or not, did they flip votes, it's not a constitutional issue.
What is a constitutional issue is the fact that the states change their voting laws in violation of the Constitution.
And that is not disputed.
In this case, Kelly versus Pennsylvania.
The state did not dispute the fact that they changed their election laws in contravention to their own Constitution.
They didn't dispute it.
They essentially admitted, yeah, we did, but you shouldn't take action against us, even though we violated the Constitution, right?
At the Supreme Court level, the justices are more inclined to issue a ruling if they have a clear cut case that these actions, this law, this procedure was unconstitutional.
That tends to be what the Supreme Court is mostly about.
And the Texas case is relevant and it's a strong case because it doesn't even allege election fraud.
That's the good thing because if you claim that there is fraud then you have to prove it.
And the Texas case doesn't claim fraud.
It claims irregularities.
All right?
It's really easy to say that and prove that there were irregularities in the election.
You have to define irregularities.
Well, there was all these anomalies and weird things and it just wasn't a normal election and there was irregularities.
Well, okay, you can prove that.
Right?
So at the Supreme Court level, saying that there was irregularities, easy to prove, Asserting that the states changed election laws.
Easy to prove.
Paper trails.
Cite all the laws, all the rules, all the procedures.
Which state or county Board of Elections did what, on what date, and Was it approved?
Was it in the Constitution?
Did they go through the legislature to make these changes?
No, no, no.
Right?
So those things are easy to prove.
The Texas case is a really strong case because it's easy.
The allegations in the case are easy to prove.
And it's one state suing another.
One of the big issues with bringing a lawsuit in a high court is you have to watch out because the court is often going to tell you you don't have standing.
So, the issue of standing.
A lot of lower courts, so far, have dismissed lawsuits saying that the plaintiff didn't have standing.
They lacked standing.
They weren't injured.
They weren't an injured party, therefore the court just said, well, you don't have any legal standing to bring this case.
And that happens in a lot of cases that you bring before the election, because until the election has happened, If you take a case before the court claiming that there's going to be election interference, the court can say, well, the election hasn't happened yet, you haven't been disenfranchised, you haven't been injured, you'd like standing dismissed.
After the election, the issue for the courts is, is it moot?
So if a case is asking to stop the certification of an election and the state has already certified the election, the judge is inclined to dismiss that case because it's moot.
The judge is going to say, we're not going to stop you from certifying the election.
You've already certified the election.
We can't stop that process.
So a lot of cases are dismissed either because the case came too early and the judge says you weren't harmed You lack standing, or you brought the case too late for us to do anything about it.
This case is in the perfect window of time, the Texas case, and they're not asking for decertification of the election, which has already happened.
And they're not asking for something that is, it's not before the election.
They're not asking for changes in the electoral process.
Election has already happened.
It's over.
State of Texas is arguing that because Pennsylvania and Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan changed their election laws and allowed massive mail-in balloting and potential fraud, that has
is going to injure the voters of Texas because it is going to potentially allow fraud to change the outcome of the Electoral College vote and that disenfranchises Texas voters.
And the argument is that Texas voters are being disenfranchised and harmed by the illegal votes in other states that the states allowed because they didn't follow the Constitution.
It's a very strong case.
It's really hard to argue against it.
I'll be fascinated to read the arguments of the other states and how they justify that.
It's probably a clear open and shut case as you're going to get in an election thing.
So I think the Texas case has a very good chance of prevailing.
There's a little bit of confusion going on on Twitter right now, I noticed.
Some people are saying that the state of Louisiana joined Texas in this lawsuit.
I don't think they did.
I've read the statement by the Louisiana Attorney General.
He has it on his own website.
He has a statement that he put out.
And he mentions in that statement that he filed a lawsuit Along with eight other states, this was more than a month ago, back in October, they filed a lawsuit against Bookvar, Pennsylvania Secretary of State, along with the Republican Party of Pennsylvania regarding the election.
That case has been dismissed.
I looked it up.
I went on the Supreme Court docket.
Essentially the same thing happened.
with the Kelly case, except, well, when I say dismissed, again, it was Alito, and he simply said, the request for injunctive relief is denied.
And that was on October 18th, I think, that order came out.
So, that's the case referenced in the statement by the Louisiana Attorney General.
Now, people are saying that Louisiana joined Texas because the statement, the rest of the statement says that, I'm just going to paraphrase, the Attorney General said, Louisiana, said that he supports the action that is going on with Texas.
In their case, he supports the action that is going on with Texas.
He did not clearly state that they are joining Texas in this case.
I actually saw no indication in that statement That they're joining with Texas.
I think they should, but I don't think that they are.
And there's actually some very good legal minds out there who I think are misreading this.
I read that statement like two or three times and I'm like, I don't actually see in here where it says that they're joining the case as a...
As a plaintiff.
Maybe they are, but I didn't see that.
So anyway.
Minutia.
I think that... I think this is going to be a very long process.
The election is far from over.
And the farther this process goes, the more it favors Trump.
There's a lot of reasons why The further the process goes, the more it favors Trump.
Trump has a minimum of four paths to victory.
Possibly five, and maybe six.
Which I'll discuss on a different date.
But right now, the Supreme Court... What's the likely outcome in Texas?
Why would the Supreme Court hear the case of Texas suing four other states?
What are they going to do?
I mean, the merits of the case, I think, are pretty clear.
It has merit.
You can't argue that the other states didn't violate the Constitution.
They did.
They pretty much admit it.
So, the question then is, what is the relief?
What does the court do to discipline these bad states that are behaving badly?
What does the court do?
Do they Do they invalidate the elections in those states?
Do they decertify the elections?
Do they instruct them not to let their electors vote in the Electoral College?
I don't know.
But I suspect they're going to do something that's going to have an effect on the election.
And if they're going to rule on that, it would be before the 14th, December, a week from today.
The 14th is when the Electoral College meets and they vote.
I would expect that the Supreme Court is going to rule on that Texas case.
They'd have to do it before the 14th.
They did it after the 14th.
It causes some problems.
It's not that they couldn't, but it causes some problems.
Because then you have the electoral college already voting, and then the Supreme Court jumps in and issues a ruling.
Unless the ruling is not going to affect the electors.
And I don't know what that ruling would be.
But the more that I'm listening to experts and I'm reading articles by experts, I'm not, like I said, I'm not an attorney.
I'm not a constitutional law expert.
But I'm reading people who are former prosecutors, they are attorneys, they are constitutional law experts.
And I'm learning from them.
And I'm just telling you, the farther this process goes, the more it favors Trump.
And I think it's very likely That we're going to run into a situation where the Electoral College does not elect the next president.
I think that's probably an 80% probability right now.
I think it's 80% probability that the Electoral College will not elect the next president.
I don't think it's going to happen.
And there's a couple of reasons for that.
Number one, you have the Supreme Court.
And I think they're likely to take action that is going to negatively affect the ability for electors to either vote at the Electoral College or to have those votes received in Congress.
Right?
So on the 14th of December, Electoral College votes.
And by the 23rd of December, The President of the Senate, that's Mike Pence, has to make sure he has all the electoral votes.
And any that are outstanding, there's a process he goes through to make sure that those electors vote if they can.
Some states may not end up sending electors who vote in the Electoral College.
The other possibility, let's run through some possibilities for you here.
Once a state has their slate of electors, it has to be approved by the governor.
It has to be certified.
And you're getting into a situation where you've got Republican legislatures and Democrat governors.
It's possible that a Republican legislature could put forward a slate of Trump electors And a Democrat governor could refuse to certify and they wouldn't be able to vote.
It's also possible that a Republican legislature could put forward Biden electors for the Electoral College and then instruct them to abstain when they vote.
And then that changes the complexion because if a legislature He said, OK, we're going to put forward Biden electors.
We're just going to tell you that you have to abstain when it goes to electoral college.
You're not going to vote.
Right.
If they abstained, that doesn't change the number of votes, electoral votes, that Trump or Biden would need to win.
Still, it stays at 270.
If a situation came up where a state was not, their electors weren't able to vote in the electoral college, that changes the denominator.
And the number of electoral votes needed to win.
So this whole thing can get very complicated very quickly, depending on whether states are able to allow their electors to vote or abstain, and whether the governor is certified or not.
And then you have, what does Congress do with the electoral vote?
Because you've already got members of Congress who are Stating publicly they're going to object to the votes of certain states.
Wouldn't surprise me if Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona all have objections to their electors in Congress when the vote is received there on January 6th.
I would be very surprised if that doesn't happen.
And if a state's electors get torpedoed by members of the US Congress, It changes everything.
You end up getting down to a place where it becomes more and more likely that Congress itself is going to be the one that's going to decide the election.
And I think that's a very likely possibility.
I really do.
This is just going to be the most bizarre election in your lifetime.
There's so many people who could potentially have an influence on the outcome.
And I'm going to cover this in more depth in a later broadcast when I get my Constitutional Scholar friend, when we can set up a broadcast.
We'll do a Zoom thing and then I'll put it out here.
He has a very, very good understanding of this process from start to finish.
All the possibilities, all the dates, the timeline of everything, all the contingencies.
There are many contingencies I haven't even talked about.
There is going to be a lot of stuff happening in the next 30 days.
Between now and January 6th, a lot of stuff happening.
A lot of stuff happening that no one is thinking about or talking about right now.
Here's a good example.
According to that executive order that the President signed back in 2018, 45 days after the election, Director of National Intelligence has to file a report with the White House and several other agencies letting them know what they found out about election interference.
We don't have that report yet.
That comes out on December 18th.
Based on that report, if Ratcliffe comes out and says, well, we found tons and tons of evidence that China influenced the election, China was working with Georgia, China was working with Michigan, and they actually backed some of this election fraud stuff, that completely changes the outcome, the complexion of the election.
And it's hard to predict what's going to be in that report, but Ratcliffe has already been suggesting that China has had a much bigger influence on US politicians than anyone suspects.
Pompeo has been saying that, Ratcliffe has been saying that.
I think in the next month we're going to learn a whole lot more about China, and I suspect that we're going to find out there are some major national security issues In this election that are not public right now, that will become public at some point.
That's just my, that's my gut feeling.
When I saw Barr go into that meeting with Mitch McConnell, he had a 20-30 minute meeting with Mitch, came out and the next day Gina Haspel went in and she had a meeting with Mitch McConnell and she came out and then Mitch McConnell from that day on has insisted that Trump is going to have another term in office.
I suspect that Barr and Haspel told Mitch the national security issues and that gave him the understanding that Biden's not going to be president.
Likely because of the national security issues.
Just my hunch.
Just reading the tea leaves.
I could be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it.
Pompeo and Mitch and a couple other people in the Trump administration.
They seem to know that Biden is not going to be president, and they know why.
We don't know why yet, but I think they have information we don't, and I think it has to do with national security.
And we're going to find out.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if we find out that China was somehow involved in the election fraud on behalf of Biden, and it wouldn't surprise me if Biden knew about it.
And if Biden was complicit in the fraud, and if it was backed by China, and if the intelligence community has evidence of it, ain't no way Biden's gonna be president.
And that's, you know, again, I'm spitballing here.
I suspect that's the most likely outcome from this.
But you know what?
We'll have to wait and see.
All right, I think that's all I have for you.
There's a lot of fake news going out there.
Just don't listen to the fake news.
You know that the mainstream media, their main thrust right now is to try to get us to give up on the election, to surrender.
Oh, Trump's not going to be our president.
Oh, we're just going to have to accept Joe Biden.
That is all the mainstream media wants you to believe right now.
Everything they're putting out is propaganda.
Trying to get us to accept Biden as our next president.
And because the mainstream media is pushing that narrative like 24-7, that tells you this is an op.
It is a controlled operation.
It is an intentional, well-coordinated disinformation campaign.
It's a psy-op.
Psychological operation.
They're trying to brainwash us into accepting Biden.
Why?
Because he didn't win legitimately.
But they want us to accept him because they don't want us to look at all this court stuff.
They don't want us digging into the fraud.
And it's not working.
You know, Biden's best chance was to get Trump to concede.
That was his best chance.
Everything past that Works more and more and more in Trump's favor.
Longer this goes, the more likely it is that Trump's going to be re-elected.
It's just, all the scenarios, if you just look at the game theory and look at all the potential pathways, if you look at all the contingencies, everything past November 3rd, the longer this goes, the more it favors Trump.
And the fact that it hasn't been decided yet, By this point, we're a month past the election and it still hasn't been decided.
The odds are looking better and better for Trump.
And we're going to be getting a lot more information.
Trump told us yesterday, in the next couple of days you're going to be hearing a lot of stuff, a lot of big things coming out.
Texas going to the Supreme Court, that's one of them.
There will be more big things coming out.
Alrighty, that's it.
I'm going to let you go.
Thank you for keeping me and Denise in prayer.
I ask you to keep us, continue to keep us in prayer, keep the President in prayer.
Keep his legal team in prayer.
Keep Q and the team in prayer.
Q keeps posting over the next day or two.
I'll do a, I might do a Twitter thread, who knows?
Get myself suspended.
Love you all, take care.
▲
Export Selection