All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 13, 2020 - Praying Medic
01:09:49
138V The Path to Inauguration - Election Update December 12, 2020

A timeline of events that are likely to play out between now and the inauguration. Join CloutHub: https://www.getclouthub.com/prayingmedic

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
What's up?
Alright, I am going to break down for all of you the likely path to Inauguration Day, January 20th.
If you've watched any of my previous broadcasts, I've discussed The likely scenarios that we're probably going to see over the next month, month and a half.
And I haven't gone full on.
This is the whole picture.
Last update, I talked primarily about the Supreme Court and what the Supreme Court could do.
But in this broadcast, I'm going to lay out the big picture view.
What are the most likely scenarios that are going to play out?
What are the dates that we know they're going to happen?
Events that are going to happen on a certain timeline over the next month and a half.
And what events are people not anticipating that are probably going to happen over the next month and a half?
Most likely, least likely scenarios.
Which players are likely to have The most impact on the election.
Alright.
If you want to share this out on Periscope and Twitter, it's great.
I'll have this video available on Rumble and then on my website later on today.
Alright.
So, I guess let me begin by just saying this.
Every four years when we have a presidential election, There is a constitutionally prescribed process through which we choose our president.
Now, I'm just going to focus on the presidential election in this broadcast.
There are some things that are still at play that could change the outcome of House and Senate races and some state races.
I'm just going to focus on the constitutionally prescribed path So, a lot of people think, incorrectly, that the popular vote decides who is president.
And a lot of, especially progressives, are trying to push for the removal of the Electoral College.
That's not going to happen.
In order to, you'd have to change the Constitution.
And changing, amending the Constitution is not easy to do.
Progressives would love to get rid of the Electoral College because they're in the minority.
And they're in the minority in the way that matters most.
Let me say that.
They have massive advantages in urban areas.
Right?
So, New York, Chicago, Philly, L.A.
But those urban areas take up a small geographic size.
And the Electoral College gives weight to lesser populated areas.
And it's kind of the equalizing force.
And people who live in urban areas don't like the Electoral College.
However, the Electoral College is The way in which the Constitution prescribes that we elect our president, like it or not.
There is a constitutionally prescribed path that happens every four years and most people are completely unaware of it.
What most people perceive is we vote on the first Tuesday in November for the president and the vice president and senators and congresspeople and then on January 20th The winner of the vote is inaugurated president.
Well, that's not actually how it happens.
That is not the process that is prescribed by the Constitution.
There are many steps between Election Day and Inauguration Day that happen every four years.
It's just that most people aren't aware of the fact that those steps happen.
They happen every four years.
And normally, those steps are ignored.
Most people aren't paying attention to them.
Most people aren't aware of what the steps are, what the dates are, how does the process work, how does the Electoral College meet, when do they vote, what happens to the vote, who certifies the vote, how is it taken to Congress, how is it recorded, all that.
Well, that process is largely ignored every four years.
It's not going to be ignored this year.
It is going to be scrutinized under the microscope every little tiny step along the way is going to be under massive scrutiny this year.
And there's going to be steps in that process added this year that aren't normally there.
And I'll cover some of those.
So, let's start with, and what I'm going to do in this broadcast is break down the various players in the process, what their roles and responsibilities are, And how likely they are to impact the election.
So just briefly, putting them into groups.
The state legislatures have a role in deciding who the next president is going to be.
Governors of states have a role in deciding who the next president is going to be.
The courts could potentially have a role in deciding who the next president is going to be, if they choose to.
The courts don't normally get involved in the process, but they could get involved if they want to.
That's an optional component.
Congress has a role, U.S.
Congress, the House and the Senate, they have a role in deciding who the president is going to be, and so does Vice President Mike Pence.
He has a role in deciding who the next resident is going to be.
So I'm going to cover all of those roles and responsibilities and the timelines.
And I'm going to just use game theory and kind of game out the most likely scenario over the next month and a half.
All right.
So over the last week, week and a half, There have been hearings in state legislatures and they're not done.
I believe either Virginia or Georgia is going to have a hearing tomorrow to talk about election irregularities.
Arizona, I just saw that Mark Fincham tweeted out this morning, Arizona is going to hold a hearing on election irregularities on Monday.
That'll be, I think, 9 a.m.
Mountain Time.
So, we've been watching these hearings going on, these public hearings, where they're bringing out evidence of election irregularities.
Whether it's, you know, mathematical irregularities, anomalies, or personal testimony of people watching fraud happen.
Those hearings are having an effect on the public.
They're having an effect on how people perceive the election.
Even a lot of people who voted for Joe Biden are now convinced that Trump was cheated.
And it's because of those public hearings.
So, the hearings are having an effect.
They are exposing the problems with our election system.
The hearings are Shaking the confidence people have in our election.
So, the responsibility of state legislatures is to put up a slate of electors that vote in the Electoral College on Monday.
Now, normally what happens is the legislatures simply put forth the electors that support the popular vote in their state.
That's normally what happens.
Right, so in all the contested states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada, normally what would happen is, whatever candidate won the popular vote in those states, those states, the legislatures, would put forward a slate of electors Those electors have to be certified by the governors of those states.
In the same way that the election has to be certified by the governor, electors also have to be certified.
And that is one area where governors could come into play in the next month and a half.
Governors may or may not decide to Certify electors from a given state.
Now, I'm not going to speculate on which governors in which states may or may not choose to certify electors.
I'm just going to point out to you the fact that once the state legislature puts forward a slate of electors for their state to vote in the Electoral College, the governor may or may not certify those electors.
All right, so that's a potential unknown that we really don't know what the outcome of that's gonna be.
And I don't know what the likelihood is of a governor deciding not to certify the electors.
Because if a governor decides they're not gonna certify the electors that the legislature puts forward, they're not gonna vote in the Electoral College, all right?
And all of, a lot of these scenarios I'm gonna talk about this morning have to do with Whether or not the electors are going to vote in the Electoral College and whether their vote is going to be accepted or rejected.
All right.
Now, like I said, this process every four years, this process goes on every four years.
There's always The legislature has to put forward the slate of electors.
The electors have to vote.
They have to be certified by the governor.
This process always happens.
It's always going on every four years.
Like I said, people just aren't aware that it happens.
And this year, that process is going to be under a lot of scrutiny.
And people are going to be made aware of a process.
And a lot of people are going to say, well, you know, there's all these people trying to interfere and steal and overturn the election.
No, well, Yeah, maybe, maybe not.
The election, from my perspective, the election isn't going to be overturned because it hasn't been decided yet.
In order to overturn the results of an election, it has to be decided.
The certification of the vote in a state is not definitive.
It's definitive in the sense of the popular vote.
It's not definitive or determinative as to who's going to be president.
That is determined by the Electoral College.
And that hasn't been decided yet.
Electoral College votes on Monday.
So, the state legislatures have been having these hearings and are going to have more of them over the next couple of days.
But, I'm going to be quite honest, just put this out there, I don't have a lot of confidence in the state legislatures.
There are some good people, Mark Fincham and Doug Mastriano are a couple, but there are many more in these states who are putting forth a valiant effort to try to get this fraud exposed and to try to convince their governors and the secretary of state and the legislatures to take their but there are many more in these states who are putting forth a valiant effort to try to get this fraud exposed
But that idea is not...
I don't think there's enough people in the state legislatures who are willing to be courageous and take a stand...
I don't think the state legislatures are going to Overturn or let me put it this way.
I don't I I don't think the state legislatures Are going to put forward a A slate of electors in their states that contradict the popular vote.
Let's put it that way.
So in all those states, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, states that are under contention, I'm very doubtful where Biden is leading in all those states.
I'm very doubtful that the legislatures are going to put forward a slate of electors for Trump.
I just don't think they're going to do it.
There's not enough of a groundswell of support in the legislature.
There's a ton of support from the people.
The people have done their part.
People are making calls, emailing their legislatures, and we need to keep doing that.
We need to continue to pressure our local state legislators to have these hearings and to consider putting forth A state of electors that represents the true legal vote, even if that contradicts the official popular vote, which may have been arrived at through fraud.
We need to continue talking to our legislators, our local state reps and senators, calling them, emailing them.
But we're getting to a point this week, probably Tuesday, Wednesday, Where the focus is gonna shift, and we need to start calling our U.S.
legislators, U.S.
Congress and Senators.
And that's because things are gonna, after the legislatures put forward their slates of electors, then it moves to Congress.
Right.
Let me talk briefly about the courts.
So, everyone's aware now that the Supreme Court decided not to hear The case that Texas brought against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
And, you know, I tell people there is no disappointment without expectation.
And I think a lot of people are disappointed because they expected that the Supreme Court was going to take this case.
And further, they expected that the Supreme Court was going to issue a ruling that would change the outcome of the election.
I was not ever very convinced of that.
I think the courts are the least likely, of all the groups that have anything to say about this election, I think the courts are the least likely to step in and intervene and do anything.
And if you just think about it logically, just ask yourself, do you really want the court Determining the outcome of the election.
I don't know anybody.
I don't know anybody who wants our elections to be decided by judges the election should be decided by the will of the people and Unelected judges should not be the ones who are determining the outcomes of elections now the Supreme Court could rule that
to against these states and tell them your electors aren't voting in the Electoral College and then it could happen that the Electoral College gets torpedoed and it ends up going to Congress and the Congress decides to elect re-elect President Trump.
You might like that outcome but that's that is the ends justify the means That is... I don't like that philosophical view that the ends justify the means.
I like the outcome.
I don't care what pathway gets me to the outcome that I like.
It's moral relativism.
Whether you're talking about state courts, federal courts, or Supreme Court, I don't think that anybody really wants the courts to decide the election.
The courts have a role They have a constitutional role in interpreting the Constitution and making sure that the rule of law is followed.
But I don't know anyone who really wants the Supreme Court or a state Supreme Court or a federal court to decide the outcome of an election.
Most people would feel that If the court decided the outcome of the election, they would feel like their vote doesn't matter.
If you have a lot of people who vote one way, and the court decides to just negate their vote, it leaves a lot of people feeling disenfranchised.
Like the process isn't working if it has to be decided by the courts.
And we've seen in the last week or two with all the cases that have gone to these courts, there isn't really a whole lot of Enthusiasm by judges to get involved in the outcome of an election.
They just don't want to do it.
And you can criticize the judges for that.
That's fine.
They have, I think, collectively sent a big signal to America.
They don't want to be involved in the election process.
Okay?
And this discussion is about who wants to be involved in the process and who doesn't.
I think we know now that the courts are very reluctant to get involved in this process.
They just don't want to do it.
All right, so I just explained that it looks to me like the state legislatures really don't want to be the ones who determine the outcome of the election.
They just don't.
There are, you know, 10 or 12 members of the state legislatures who are passionate and want to be involved and want to take this responsibility seriously.
The majority of the state legislatures, they don't want to be involved.
They don't want to be the ones who make this call.
They're going to play Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of this and the people voted and we have the popular vote and we're not going to overturn that.
At the local level, the state legislatures just don't want to be involved.
Not in sufficient numbers.
Courts, same thing.
It's apparent to me that the courts have very little interest in deciding the outcome of the election.
They just don't want to do it.
So we're narrowing down the number of players who are interested in deciding the outcome of the election.
Someone's going to make the decision.
It's probably not going to be the courts, and it's probably not going to be the state legislatures.
Well then, who's it going to be?
Alright, so we're moving down the process.
This is a constitutionally prescribed process.
We're just going to go right through the process.
Legislatures have a chance to make an impact, and they're probably going to pass.
Courts have a chance.
They're probably going to pass.
Now, there are other cases that are going to the Supreme Court.
Sidney Powell's got some cases.
There's two cases in Arizona that the Arizona GOP and Kelly Ward are going to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Will the Supreme Court hear those cases?
I don't know.
They might.
Maybe they'll make a ruling on one of them.
Maybe one of those cases, the justices will say, yeah, you guys have standing and we'll hear your arguments and we'll issue a ruling.
That might happen.
I'm not terribly optimistic about it.
And it doesn't really matter.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
Because the constitutionally prescribed path to getting to Inauguration Day doesn't really account for the courts being involved.
So if you take nothing else away from this broadcast, just realize that the courts are not a prescribed, a normal part of the process.
They're sort of, normally they're irrelevant.
Now they might decide to get involved this year.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
I kind of doubt it.
All right, so what's going to happen this week?
The Electoral College is supposed to vote on Monday, the 14th.
Will that happen?
Probably.
There are some things that could interfere in that.
States are not required to submit their electors and the votes on the 14th.
It's not required.
The states have freedom to delay or not submit their slate of electors.
It normally happens on the first Monday after the second Wednesday after the third full moon after the second solstice.
It normally happens on a single day, but it doesn't have to.
There's a window through which the states can put forward the states of electors.
That window starts on the 14th and it ends on December 23rd.
So that is a span of nine days during which the states Let me just throw this out there.
their slate of electors where the electors have to be chosen by the legislature the legislature doesn't have an option not to choose the electors that that's their thing they have to do that um now let me just throw this out there
there are many ways in which the electors can be instructed by their state legislatures and there are many ways in which they can vote in the electoral college It's not a clear process.
I mean, the path is clear, but there's a lot of options.
There's a lot of things that could happen that could cause glitches.
Give me an example.
You've probably heard of a thing called faithless electors.
So, a state legislature has a slate of electors and they put that slate, it's a group of people who are going to vote on behalf of that state in the Electoral College.
That slate of electors has to be certified by the governor.
The governor may or may not decide to certify.
And then the legislature actually instructs the electors how to vote.
One of the possibilities is that the electors could abstain from voting.
I can't think of logically a reason why a slate of electors would choose to abstain from voting in the Electoral College, but they can.
They can choose not to vote.
They can also choose to vote for someone other than who they were instructed to vote for.
So if a slate of electors is chosen for Biden, they can go to the Electoral College and they can vote for Trump.
It's called faithless.
They would be faithless electors.
They would vote contrary to the popular vote and contrary to the instructions of the legislature.
There are certain penalties for doing that, but it has happened that people who were electors voted for someone other than who they were instructed to vote for.
All right, so all of that is to say there are possibilities in the electoral college voting that need to be considered.
I don't know how likely any of that is, but there are possibilities.
There's some unforeseen possibilities that could happen.
Governors could get involved in the process.
The governors have to actually, they're the ones who submit to Congress the votes of the Electoral College.
And the governors have to certify the electors and they have to transmit the votes to Congress.
And they may or may not decide to do that.
So that is one way in which the governors can get involved.
Again, in this whole process, I'm just illustrating all the different people that have responsibilities in this process.
Normally, you never hear about any of this.
This year, All these little parts of the process are going to come under scrutiny and there's potential for people to get involved in the process that normally wouldn't.
There's a lot of unknowns, a lot of variables.
All right.
So that process, the Electoral College voting, starts on the 14th and it goes through the 23rd.
On the 23rd of December, Mike Pence, Vice President Mike Pence.
He's also the president of the Senate.
He presides over the Senate.
He is the one who actually receives the Electoral College votes from the states, from the governors.
The governors have to certify.
They have to create a bunch of certificates.
They have to certify it.
Copies have to go to the archivists and one copy has to be transmitted to Mike Pence.
Now, If any of the governors decide not to, or they decide to delay the transmission of the votes of the electors to Congress, to Pence, he then has to contact the state, he has to contact the governor and or the archivist and get a copy of the votes of the of the electors for that state.
And so this is a, again, it's part of the process people are not aware of, But these parts of the process are going to become important to understand how this all works.
As the President of the Senate, Pence has certain responsibilities and obligations that are normally not under scrutiny.
This year, they're going to come under scrutiny.
The President of the Senate can reject Now, I'm not saying that Pence is going to reject the electors from any given state, but he can if he wants to.
If he has a legitimate reason, he can reject the electors from any state.
It's his responsibility to get the information, the votes transmitted to Congress, but then what he does with them Is up to him.
And I'm not going down a conspiracy rabbit trail.
I'm not saying that Pence is going to disqualify the electors from six states.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying he has a responsibility that a lot of people don't understand.
And if he has a legitimate constitutionally verifiable Substantiated reason, he could reject electors from a certain state if you wanted to, if you had a reason for it.
All right, so if by December 23rd, he doesn't have the electoral votes from a particular state, he has to go and try to get those votes.
Let's go to January 3rd.
All right.
Timeline.
So, January 3rd, the new session of Congress is sworn in.
And right now, last count, I think, in the House, Democrats have a 10-seat lead over Republicans.
And there's, I think, one race that's still outstanding.
It's New York District 22.
And the Republicans leading, but that election has been thrown into disarray because a judge issued an order requiring several counties in New York Last count, Democrats have a 10-seat lead in the House.
And you are aware that there are new allegations coming out about members of Congress, mayors and governors playing footsie with China.
Taking bribes, potentially being in too close a contact with Chinese spies, perhaps knowingly, collaborating with Chinese spies, intelligence assets, right?
This is all starting to come and hit the front burner with Eric Swalwell being the one who kind of set it all off.
Rick Grinnell has been telling us for the last three or four days there are many Political people in the U.S.
who have been a little bit too close to China.
So we don't know what information is going to come out in the next six weeks about members of Congress who may have been compromised by China, Communist Chinese Party.
All that is to say that on January 3rd, we may or may not have That same balance, that 10-seat lead that Democrats have.
We could lose some members of Congress.
The other thing is, on January 3rd, when the new session of Congress is sworn in, they're going to vote on the rules for the next session of Congress.
They're going to vote on who's going to be the Speaker.
Everybody has to show up in person.
If a member of Congress doesn't show up in person on January 3rd, they're not voting for who's going to be the Speaker of the House.
And there are a lot of members of Congress who haven't shown up in person at Congress probably since July.
Again, I'm not saying that Republicans are suddenly going to magically take the lead in the House or get a Republican speaker.
I am saying that it's not a done deal.
It's not an absolute rock-solid thing that All of the Democrats are going to show up that they're all going to be sworn in and they're all going to vote for Nancy Pelosi.
There are some possible contingencies that could affect how that all works out.
And part of that is the exposure of politicians who are connected to China.
Just leave it at that.
So that's January 3rd.
We need to see what happens when Congress is sworn in.
How many people actually show up?
January 6th is the next day on the calendar that we need to look at.
I'm going to come back to some dates in December, but we're going to go to January 6th.
So January 6th, the results of the votes from the Electoral College are read into the record in Congress in Washington and Mike Pence reads the Electoral College votes into the record At that time it goes by each state.
So Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, right?
It goes alphabetically.
So you start with the early states and the votes of their electors are read into the record.
All right, so Alabama goes and they read theirs in.
Alaska, they read theirs in.
And there's no There's probably not going to be any objections to those votes until he gets to Arizona.
And then Pence reads Arizona's votes into the record.
And then maybe Mo Brooks from the House and Ron Johnson from the Senate say that they're going to object to the votes of the state of Arizona.
And if one member of the House and one member of the Senate object to those votes, the chambers break in.
They go into their own chambers.
The Senate goes in for an hour or two, and they just debate on whether or not they're going to accept the electoral votes from that state.
And if the Senate votes, and if we keep Republicans in the Senate, This is a big reason why people in Georgia need to show up and vote in that runoff election on January 5th.
Because on January 6th, the Senate, if we have a majority in the Senate, we have an ability to object to and sustain a vote against these electors.
Chambers of Congress, Congress come back and There's going to be determination on whether or not the electors from that state are going to be accepted.
And if not, then it goes to the House to vote on who is going to be the president.
Now, let me, there's, this is a, this is a very, it's an intricate process.
I'm going to explain the whole thing.
So they're going to go through state by state, and they're going to read into the record the votes from each state.
And it seems likely right now that Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will probably have members of Congress, both in the House and the Senate, who are going to object to those electors.
All right, so they're going to read the roll, have each state vote.
They come up to Pennsylvania.
They come up to Wisconsin, very likely.
There are going to be members of Congress who are going to object.
And the net result of this voting, I suspect, is that it's going to torpedo the Electoral College.
And I think it's going to be very difficult for the Electoral College to determine the outcome of the election.
The farther this process goes, the more I kind of look at what members of Congress are doing, I think there is going to be a significant effort by members of Congress to object to the electoral college votes.
Now, let me explain how that whole thing works.
So, there's 538 Electoral College votes.
That's based on the number of representatives, the number of Senate seats, and the District of Columbia gets a few votes in the Electoral College.
So you get 538 total.
That's the number of votes in the Electoral College.
In order to win the presidency, a candidate needs a simple majority.
So, a simple majority of 538 is 270.
So, 270 is a number that we're all trained to think, if a candidate gets 270 electoral votes, they're in.
That's true.
However, that number could change.
Alright?
So, how does that number change?
Well, that number changes if a state's electors are not allowed to vote.
There's a number of ways in which a state's electors could be prevented from voting.
Number one, if a governor decides not to certify those electors, those electors are probably not going to be voting in the Electoral College.
That state's electoral vote is set aside and they don't count toward the 538.
Right, so if Pennsylvania, just to give you an example, if Pennsylvania's electors are not allowed to vote in the Electoral College, that 538 is decreased by 20 electoral votes, it becomes 518.
Then it takes a simple majority of 518 to win elections.
So it's gonna be 260 instead of 270, right?
is going to be 260 instead of 270.
And each state that is not allowed, if their electors are not allowed to vote, that 538 goes to 518, down to 508, down to 485, down to 475.
As more states, if their electors are not allowed to vote, then the total number of electoral votes needed to win decreases because it's a simple majority of however many states are allowed to vote.
If you're getting a headache, I apologize.
But this is, like I said, this is a process that normally goes on every four years.
It's normally not a hitch.
This year, there could be some hitches.
All right?
So, that total number of votes that's needed to win the 270 could be reduced by states not, their electors not being allowed to vote.
Now, Here is where it gets a little even trickier, because if a state votes in the Electoral College, and let's say all the states, all 50 states are able to vote in the Electoral College, then the total number of electoral votes stays at 538, and then votes needed to win stays at 270.
Votes needed to win stays at 270.
Okay, but here's the problem.
If a state votes, but for some reason the vote doesn't go the way that it's supposed to go, it sets up a situation where neither candidate might get 270.
There's an easy possibility.
If you look at the situation with the states, if, I think, I did this calculation about three weeks ago, and I don't, I forget what the states are, but if Nevada, I think, if Nevada and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania I'll go for Trump and Biden gets the rest of the states.
Neither candidate gets 270.
It stays at 269.
Neither candidate gets a majority and then it's going to end up in the House.
And the House will end up deciding who gets, who's going to be the next president.
There's also a possibility that because of the way that the electoral votes are read into the record and the way that it can be objected to, I think it's a very real possibility that neither candidate is going to get the majority that they need to win the election.
I think that there are enough possible scenarios where the Electoral College decision can be torpedoed I think it's very likely that the House is going to end up deciding who's going to be the president.
Again, I think that the state legislatures, they had an opportunity to have a significant impact in this election, and I think most of them are going to decide not to do that.
The courts have an opportunity.
I think the courts are going to decide not to do that.
The governors have an opportunity.
I doubt that the governors are going to get that involved.
Members of Congress, in the House and the Senate, they have an opportunity and I think they're going to take it.
I think that the egos are big enough in Congress that they don't have a problem being the ones who make the decision about the election.
Now, you may or may not like that, but my opinion is that I think that there are enough people in Congress who have the wherewithal And the testicular fortitude to call the ball that I think if Congress gets a chance to have an impact on this election, they're going to take it.
And we're already seeing that happen.
So we're talking about Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, members of the Freedom Caucus, Jim Jordan, you know, people of that caliber.
They're totally supporting President Trump.
They understand the realities of election fraud.
And I don't think, if they're convinced that election fraud changed the outcome of the popular vote, I don't think they're going to allow it to stand.
I think they will exercise their authority, constitutional authority, and I think they will take the steps that are necessary to correct the problem.
And here's what it comes down to.
I think that these people, right, so in the Senate you have people like Ron Johnson and you've got Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.
You've got some good senators who understand the constitutional process.
And they support the president.
In the House, like I said, Freedom Caucus, you've got Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs.
Those guys, I think they're going to take this seriously.
I think they're going to look at the courts and say, well, the courts didn't want to get involved.
The state legislatures didn't want to get involved.
All of these people had a chance to fix the problem and they decided not to do it.
And I think that we have enough people in President Trump's corner in Congress, they're going to fix the problem.
When everybody else decides we don't want to solve it, I suspect that there are people in Congress who are on Trump's side.
They will fix the problem if no one else wants to do it.
So there's, like I said, there's a mechanism through which, a constitutional mechanism, through which members of Congress can take this on their own responsibility.
And like I said, we're seeing this already because On Wednesday, Ron Johnson is going to convene a hearing for Senate Homeland Security to look into election irregularities.
Now, this is highly, highly significant.
This meeting on Wednesday is probably the most important meeting of all the hearings that we're going to have.
So Ron Johnson is the chair of Senate Homeland Security.
He's the one, he and Chuck Grassley, Senate Finance, have been the ones that have been investigating Hunter Biden and the whole Biden thing with Ukraine and China and the money laundering and all that.
All right, so Ron Johnson has more information right now on the Biden family Than anyone in Congress, probably.
Here's the other thing, why this is very important, this hearing on Wednesday.
Senate Homeland Security Committee has oversight over the Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of election integrity.
So, Ron Johnson and his committee, they have oversight over election integrity.
And Homeland Security also has oversight over the Postal Service.
So that committee can subpoena witnesses to testify about what they know about whether the Postal Service was involved in election fraud.
They have the right, the ability to subpoena witnesses from Homeland Security to talk about irregularities in the election.
And I think Ron Johnson has enough testicular fortitude that he is gonna issue subpoenas.
And I think that the committee meetings for the Homeland Security Committee are gonna be very important over the next six weeks.
Now, it's true that Congress is gonna be going on their Christmas break.
Will Senate Judiciary, Senate Intelligence, Uh, and Senate Homeland Security.
Will those committees be willing to hold emergency hearings to look into election fraud issues?
We're going to find out.
Ron Johnson has already scheduled this hearing for Wednesday.
So, and here's the next date and timeline.
So, Electoral College votes on Monday the 14th.
Ron Johnson's committee hearing is scheduled for Wednesday the 16th.
On Friday the 18th, Department of Homeland Security has to deliver its report on election interference.
Now the main thrust of that report, this is the executive order that President Trump signed back in 2018.
Which states that 45 days after the election, Homeland Security has to issue a report on their findings regarding election integrity.
So that report comes out Friday.
It could be out earlier, but it's due by Friday.
And I guarantee you, Ron Johnson is gonna get a copy of that report, and he's gonna look at what kind of interference, specifically focuses on foreign interference in the election.
If there's information in that report, That has evidence of Chinese Communist Party influence in the election.
I guarantee you that there's going to be more hearings.
And I think that Homeland Security Committee is going to be the committee to watch.
Now, Josh Hawley is on that committee, as well as a number of other strong players who are on Trump's side.
That committee has the ability to hold public hearings, publicly expose any... There's issues of election fraud.
Now it's not going to be the state legislature that's putting this out.
It's going to be the U.S.
Congress, Senate, and potentially the House.
Having these hearings and bringing up election.
I'm not anticipating that the House is going to do a whole lot because it's under Democrat control.
But in the Senate, the Senate has the ability to convene hearings that could expose a massive amount of information about election fraud in the next six weeks.
Alright, this is the component that very few people are talking about.
But I think it's very likely that Members of the Senate are going to take the lead in exposing election fraud on a national basis.
Now, what is the press going to do about that?
Are they going to cover the hearings?
Are they going to write articles about what is uncovered regarding fraud?
I don't know.
But the hearings at the state level that have been out on right-side broadcasting and the other People who are putting out those hearings.
That information has gotten out.
It's gotten into the public consciousness on social media.
And it has convinced a lot of people who voted for Joe Biden that people, Biden voters, are convinced that the election was stolen from Trump.
Not all of them, but a significant number of them believe that the election was rigged.
And they're going to get more information.
Right, so as we move toward that January 6th deadline, I suspect we're probably going to have congressional hearings that will expose more issues of election fraud.
If we see those hearings being scheduled, that's a signal that the Senate is going to be taking active steps To expose election fraud, to give them a reason not to accept the electors when they vote on January 6th.
And I think, like I said, I think that it's shaping up to me.
It just looks like Trump's surrogates in Congress are going to do their part and they're going to step up and Do whatever they can to expose all this junk in the next six weeks.
And I think there are... Like I said, I strongly suspect that the Electoral College is just going to get blown up.
And I think members of Congress are going to step up to the plate and they're going to take care of it.
I don't think we should put all of our apples In the Supreme Court basket.
Because you don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do.
I mean, they're kind of flaky.
Flaky is nice if you're a pie and you want good flaky pie crust.
But flaky Supreme Court justices, well, that's not so good.
And I think that state legislators are a little bit too much of an unknown.
I think Supreme Court justices, they're too flaky.
We can't rely on any of them.
We know We know what we've got in certain members in the Senate and the House.
They're known quantities.
They have shown us over the last four years what they're made of and what they're able to do.
And I think that those are the people that I'm looking at to kind of take the lead in this over the next six weeks.
They have constitutional authority to be involved in the process, and I think they're going to exercise it.
I think that And they have egos that are big enough.
I mean, a lot of these people, they don't want to be in the spotlight.
They don't want to be the one who makes the call on the election.
I think that you have egos in Congress that are big enough.
These people want to be in the spotlight.
They want to be the one who calls the ball.
They want to be the one who saves the republic.
Because a lot of them have aspirations of running for president.
And higher offices.
So, I think that a lot of members of Congress are seeing this as their time in the spotlight, their ability to control the narrative, to establish their narrative, and to establish their case that maybe they should be the next president.
That's just my thought.
Just observing these people and knowing how they think and watching how they're behaving.
That's kind of what I think is going to happen.
I think that as we move forward, members of Congress are going to get more and more involved in this process.
I think it's going to end up in Congress.
If you're looking for assurances and a promise that Trump is going to be re-elected, I can't give you that promise.
I don't know the future.
God is showing me little glimpses of future things, but I don't know that Trump is going to be re-elected.
I can't give you that promise.
And if I did give you that promise, I'd be a liar, because I don't know.
But just evaluating and looking at the timeline, the farther down the road this thing goes, the more it favors Trump.
Because the people who are in control of the decision-making, they're on Trump's side.
And they have enough integrity to look at this election fraud for what it is and say, this can't stand.
Now, what happens down the road long-term with the elections?
I don't know.
Will the Supreme Court get involved?
I don't know.
Will the state legislatures make changes to their election laws?
I don't know.
It's going to be an interesting six weeks between now and January 20th.
Actually, is it five and a half, six weeks?
Whatever it is.
This is not over.
Not over by a long shot.
There's a long way to go.
And I'll say it again, please do not believe the lies of the mainstream media.
Every single time a Supreme Court case gets shot down, the mainstream media is going to be in your face, spiking the football, dancing on your head, telling you that Biden's going to be your next president.
Do not listen to the mainstream media.
They're They have a narrative, and they want to control this narrative, and they want you to accept Joe Biden as your next president.
Biden's best chance of getting into the White House was getting Trump to concede the election, and he failed.
And every part of the process past that favors Trump.
The farther this thing goes, the more likely it is that Trump is going to be reelected.
Like I said, I can't make a promise.
I'm not going to promise you Trump's going to be your next president.
But just looking at the process that we know is going to happen, it seems likely that people who are strongly on Trump's side are going to get involved.
And they do have an ability to control the process to a certain degree.
Alright!
That's my story.
That's all I got for you.
I talked a lot longer than I thought I would.
My voice is kind of sore after discussing all this stuff last night with a bunch of friends, but there you go.
Just, you know, just chill.
It can be an emotional rollercoaster, but it's only an emotional rollercoaster if you let it be.
If you allow your emotions to be jerked around by the mainstream media reports, by, oh, the court isn't going to hear this case, and the court's not, and look, You know, Sidney Powell is doing the best that she can.
But our hopes are not solely based on Sidney Powell's lawsuits or what the Supreme Court may or may not do.
Those lawsuits may end up having zero impact on the election.
And they don't need to.
Because there's a constitutionally prescribed process that's going to end up in Congress On January 6th, they're going to be voting.
And we already know that some people are going to be objecting to the votes as they come in from the states.
That is where it's really going to be.
We're going to see what happens.
That's the date to be looking at.
And there are options beyond that.
There is the question of, does the DOJ start dropping information about Joe Biden I don't know.
That's another wild card we don't know about.
I think there's going to be enough criminality exposed in the hearings, in the congressional hearings.
We may not need the DOJ to get involved.
From a big-picture perspective, there are a number of players who can be involved.
The DOJ can get involved.
Barr could start dropping information about The Biden family corruption, if you wanted to.
But I don't think that that's a good idea at this point.
We want to allow the constitutionally prescribed process to roll out with as little involvement from the courts and as little involvement from the DOJ and the military as possible.
But the DOJ and the military are there.
They're a real possibility.
The DOJ could get involved, but again, if the DOJ gets involved and starts dropping information, there's a whole lot of people who voted for Joe Biden who are Democrats who are going to feel like the DOJ interfered in the election.
And you don't want half of the country feeling like their vote doesn't matter.
You want the constitutionally prescribed process to just roll out.
You don't want the military getting involved.
Because when the military gets involved, now you're talking about banana republic politics.
The military is there, but the military is the last option.
After the constitutionally prescribed process has run its course, and if this thing devolves into massive civil unrest, well, Trump may have to either use the Insurrection Act or, worst case scenario, Marshall Law.
That is, at the very end, the very last thing that we need to consider.
There are many ways in which this election can be decided that don't involve the DOJ or the military.
And yeah, I know that Trump is throwing shade on Barr today.
And look, this is just... I don't know if this is just optics And Trump is trying to get some leverage on Barr to get him to release some information about Biden.
Much of what the president does is optics, okay?
He says and does certain things because he's in the limelight and he's trying to create a certain perspective or a narrative in the public consciousness.
And obviously, Obviously, President Trump would have preferred if the criminality of the Biden family would have come out before the election.
But as the president told us in his rallies a couple of days before the election, he said that he was pushing to get that evidence out into the public.
And the DOJ was telling him, no, you don't want to do this before the election.
We're going to wait till after the election.
And Trump expressed his frustration.
He was frustrated because the DOJ would not make this public, this information public before the election.
DOJ unilaterally decided they weren't going to make this information publicly available.
All right.
Now you can argue this both ways.
You could say that they interfered with the election by not putting it out or that they would have interfered with the election by putting it out.
And it is what it is.
They didn't put it out, and you can argue either way.
President Trump could be expressing his frustration now that the DOJ decided not to do that.
That's what you're seeing on Twitter.
We don't know enough, I don't think, we know enough about what Barr's intentions are right now.
There's a lot of people who are just hating on Barr right now, and that's fine.
I'm not going to defend Barr.
It's not my job.
Barr doesn't need my defense.
If Barr wants to redeem himself, he will indict criminal people, and that will redeem his view in the public.
If he doesn't, Trump's gonna get rid of him.
It's that simple.
If Trump gets elected, and Barr does not drop the hammer on the deep state, Barr is going to be replaced.
The day after the midterm election in 2018, Trump replaced Sessions because he wasn't getting the job done.
If Barr doesn't get the job done, he's gone.
He's out of here.
And if Trump is smart, if he replaces Barr, his next Attorney General should be Wyatt Earp.
He needs to find someone who's not afraid of the swamp.
And who would actually drop the hammer.
And look, I'm not saying that Barr is deep state.
I know a lot of people are like, oh, look at the Barr's history and the Bush and the Cabal and all that.
Whatever.
It doesn't mean anything.
It means nothing.
You don't know.
If you haven't met Barr personally and haven't talked to him and haven't sat down and discussed things with him, you don't know what he's really about.
Even if you have had personal meetings with Barr, you really don't know what is inside his heart.
I'm reserving judgment.
And look, like I said, if we get to April, May, and there's been no indictments, no arrests, then we have good reason to believe that Barr and the DOJ are still under the control of the Deep State.
I don't think we have enough evidence right now to make that call.
It's just my opinion.
And like I said, it's not my job to defend Barr.
I don't really care.
Bar doesn't seem to care much about what people think about him.
He really is the honey badger in that respect.
Bar doesn't care what people say about him or think about him publicly.
Bar strikes me as the kind of person who he's confident in who he is and his values and what he's doing and he doesn't give a rip what anybody thinks about him.
So I don't have to defend him.
And I think it's too early to make a decision, but a lot of people don't agree with me.
And that's fine.
You can have your opinion.
I'm not going to stop you from having your opinion.
All right.
Well, I think that is all I have for today.
I will continue doing broadcasts on the election.
As we move forward, after the Electoral College votes on Monday, I may do a broadcast on Wednesday after Ron Johnson has his Senate Homeland Security Committee meeting.
If important information comes out of that hearing, I'll probably definitely do a broadcast after that hearing.
On Wednesday, I may or may not do one on Monday.
We'll see.
Just depends on what comes out, what information comes out.
But I'll be around.
Putting in my two cents worth.
And my opinions are free and they're worth every penny that you pay for them.
These videos, in addition to being available on Periscope, I put them on Rumble.
Just go to Rumble, you can put in the search for Prang Medic, and they're on my channel on Rumble.
They're also on my website, prangmedic.com forward slash blog, B-L-O-G.
That's where I put all my videos, articles, all that.
There's also, these broadcasts are made into podcasts, and you can get my podcasts on Podbean, also on Apple Podcasts, and they're also on Google Podcasts for now.
You can listen to the videos, watch the videos, actually, on Apple Podcasts, as well as Rumble.
So, there you go.
Anything else, honey?
Nope?
All right.
I'm gonna get going.
Thank you for tuning in.
Keep the faith.
Do not let your emotions get jerked around by the narrative.
If you want my advice on how to not be continually disappointed, manage your expectations.
There is no disappointment without expectation.
If you have high expectations of something, and that something doesn't come to pass, you're going to be disappointed.
And a lot of people are suffering disappointment because they have unrealistic expectations.
Keep your expectations realistic.
Don't expect that the Supreme Court is going to solve all your problems.
It isn't going to.
Don't expect that your next girlfriend or your next job is going to solve all your problems magically.
They're not going to.
Keeping your expectations realistic will keep you from suffering disappointment and heartache and fear and anxiety.
You've just got to manage your expectations.
Don't have overly high expectations of sinful, flawed people.
Just manage your expectations.
Keep me and Denise in prayer.
We appreciate your prayers.
It's been a hectic schedule the last couple of months.
We appreciate the prayers.
It helps us a lot.
Please keep President Trump in prayer every day.
The attorneys in prayer who are bringing these cases before the courts.
And now it's time to start praying for the patriotic members of Congress in the House and the Senate.
We need to be praying for them to have the courage and the wisdom and the boldness to take the steps necessary to correct the moves that have been made by inept People who lack courage, people who lack common sense, people who are compromised, those people have corrupted our electoral process.
And we need to be praying for members of Congress, the House and the Senate, to have the courage and the boldness to step forward and right these wrongs.
And have the courage to fix this broken election.
Alright?
Lots of things to pray about.
Get out of here.
Enjoy your Saturday.
Love you all.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection