All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2020 - Dennis Prager Show
07:47
President Trump & John Eastman Join the Fight
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That one state claims that another has violated its own laws.
Do I have that correct?
Yes.
Okay.
What's significant about it is when you're dealing with elections for presidential electors, a state violating its own laws violates the federal constitution.
The federal constitution in Article 2 gives plenary power to the state legislatures to decide the manner of choosing electors.
And when executive officials in those states on their own have altered those state statutes, then they are taking upon themselves a constitutional authority that they don't have, which is to choose the manner of selecting electors.
So theoretically, couldn't this lawsuit have been brought before the election?
Well, it wasn't clear.
That they were going to violate state law or the extent that they were going to violate state law before the election.
So it likely would have gotten dismissed as not yet right.
Did each of the states allegedly violate its own laws in the same way?
No, different ways.
So, for example, in Georgia, state officials there altered the signature verification process on absentee ballots in Wisconsin.
State officials there just unilaterally decided to let everybody in the state claim that they were indefinitely confined, which allowed them to cast absentee ballots without proving their identification.
Wait, I'm sorry, forgive me.
I don't know what, indefinitely what?
Indefinitely confined.
Well, I don't know what that means.
Well, so if you're hospitalized, if you're in a nursing home.
And are indefinitely confined.
You're allowed to cast an absentee ballot without proving identification.
And the state statutes allow that in only certain narrow circumstances.
But the state officials said anybody who has a fear of COVID can claim indefinitely confined and therefore avoid our voter identification requirements.
That's preposterous.
And it created the potential for massive fraud.
Do you believe that that created massive fraud or just the potential?
I do.
The statistical analyses that have been done are just irrefutable.
That in several counties in Wisconsin, in four or five counties in Michigan, in half a dozen counties in Pennsylvania, and in Fulton County in Georgia, the statistical anomalies are so profound as to be impossible to explain on grounds other than fraud.
I know this is not your, so to speak, jurisdiction, but just a knowledgeable observer to me.
Do you believe that these change the results?
I do.
I do.
And what we've done is carefully limit the suit to the states where the hard evidence of violations and the ability to connect that to a certain number of ballots.
That are greater than the current margins in those states, and therefore affects the outcome of the election.
So what is the status now?
The Supreme Court has agreed to take the case?
No, I think they have to.
Several justices on the court have written that when you have a state on state suit, it's mandatory jurisdiction.
The other members of the court think they still have discretion.
So Texas has a motion for leave to file the complaint, and we have a motion for permission to intervene.
And I expect we'll know fairly soon in both of those instances whether the court's going to agree to accept the case.
I'm sorry, who has permission to intervene?
I filed on behalf of President Trump yesterday.
Oh, that's who the we is.
I see.
If it's state versus state, what is the relevance of the president?
Well, state versus state, of course, gives you the ground for jurisdiction.
Texas' argument about the injury is that if unlawful votes for electors are...
No, no, forgive me, John.
I followed that.
I'm asking about what relevance is the president joining the suit if it's a state versus state issue?
The president is not a state.
It's a state versus state issue about the illegality of the conduct of the election.
Obviously, the president is a candidate has an even more direct interest in ensuring that electors are properly certified in accord with state law.
The state law that is issued pursuant to constitutional authority.
So it's it's not actually about the cheating.
It's about making...
Violating their own state laws to enable voting.
Violating their own state laws to enable voting.
And those laws are designed to protect against the risks of fraud.
And for the state officials to just ignore those state laws creates a huge problem for the conduct of this election.
Do you have to show that it matters?
In other words, that it had an effect on the election results?
Well, practically, the relief that we're seeking is for the court to say, look, these were done in violation of state law, and then to remand to the states to try and determine the scope and extent and take their own remedy.
And at that point, the state legislature has constitutional and federal statutory authority to deal with the problem.
So that's what we're asking.
We're not asking the court to decide the election.
We're asking the court to simply look at...
Were there significant violations of state law that may well have affected this election?
And if there are, we can't tolerate that.
Right, so fine.
Let's say that's found to be the case.
Wait, so let me back up.
Does the Supreme Court then have to decide, in fact, your state violated your own laws in selecting electors?
Is that what you're asking?
That's what we're asking, because even though there are state laws, there are state laws in a federal election implemented under the authority of the federal constitution, in Article 2. And that's what makes it a very significant federal constitutional matter.
Okay, so let's say the Supreme Court says, yes, that's in fact what happened.
Then it goes to the state legislature to do what?
Well, so for example, let's say in Wisconsin...
The failure of the states to do voter identification before those ballots were cast.
We should now have the ability to review those absentee ballot envelopes and find out where those legal voters are not.
And if they weren't, not count them.
And you could then prorate, you know, based on the valid absentee ballots that were received, how many that affected each of the candidates.
And if at the end of the day...
The current margin is altered so that the results of the outcome are different.
The state legislature should weigh in.
We improperly certified the wrong slate of electors.
All right, we'll be back in a moment if you can stay with me for a few moments.
Obviously, my listeners and I would appreciate Professor John Eastman spending a semester at the University of Colorado Boulder.
He's a professor of law at Chapman University on the legal team with the Texas Challenge.
▲
Export Selection