Sean Hannity Show - Losing the Constitution

Dec. 9, 2020 - Sean Hannity Show

01:37:06

Losing the Constitution

Greg Teufel, the founder of OGC Law, LLC based in Pittsburgh and Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania’s 16th district are here to discuss their lawsuit and the Supreme Court’s decision to rule against them. The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is an iHeart podcast.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz.
	And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, thanks, Scott Shanning.
	Glad you're with us.
	Evidence election fraud grows more and more substantial every day.
	Percentage of Republicans who now believe the election was stolen seems to be growing.
	Only 24% of GOP respondents.
	NPR, PBS, NewsHour Maris poll expressed confidence in last month's election results.
	72% say they do not trust the election results.
	Count me among them.
	Overall, 65% of those surveyed think the president should formally concede to Biden.
	That was opposite of what we had the poll yesterday, but among Republicans, 62% said they do not think the president should concede.
	And 67% of Republicans say they want to see President Trump run again.
	Only 32% said, compared to 32% who said they do, but 67% of Republicans say they do want to see Trump run again.
	8% of Democrats, 26% of Independents say they want to see another Trump campaign.
	That's interesting.
	We're getting some.
	Apparently, Biden, if he becomes president on January 20th, after tens of millions of Americans have been inoculated with President Trump's 95% effective COVID vaccine.
	But anyway, apparently he's too frail, apparently, to subject himself to the risks of a real presidential inauguration ceremony.
	So he's going to almost entirely do the thing virtually, which will be the model for the rest of his presidency.
	Rumor going around that there will only be one inaugural ball, which would take place in the Biden basement in the Delaware mansion.
	Only 10 people have been invited.
	They'll be ordered to stay parked in the Biden driveway and honk their horns.
	Is that how we're going to do it?
	What Joe and Joe Biden will dance alone on closed-circuit TV?
	Unbelievable.
	By the way, I mean, now they, I mean, it's a big freaking deal.
	What is going on here with this with this whole COVID vaccine?
	Now we're going to have six of them by the time this is all said and we're going to have six of them.
	Anyway, so we'll watch and monitor all of this, but I can't stop reading about it.
	They actually had a picture in the New York Post today about the world's first coronavirus vaccine recipient, a 90-year-old woman by the name of Margaret Keenan, University of Hospital of Coventry in England.
	And Trump signed an order that says, yeah, we're going to be the priority.
	We talked a lot about that yesterday.
	I'm not sure what's going on in Cornell University.
	Apparently, they had a mandated flu shot this year, but not if you're not white.
	I mean, why are we dividing a campus along racial lines like that?
	What's the point?
	Students rush to a medical school in coronavirus error because doctor shortages now are being predicted.
	U.K. issues an allergy warning about the FISA vaccine after one patient fell ill.
	You know, there are going to be things that we're going to read, but the one thing that we did find is 95% efficacy rate, efficiency rate, effective, and then, of course, with limited side effects, and nobody's dying, and antibodies are formed, which is what you want.
	That's everything you're looking for.
	And now we have a military operation, logistics operation to get this out.
	So we're watching all this very, very closely.
	And I think it's really important for the country and the world that we've been able to once again step up and do this.
	So we're going to watch.
	So just to update you on where we are with these voter fraud challenges.
	Now, yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the emergency appeal by Pennsylvania Republicans that sought to void the election.
	This was a strong legal challenge.
	Personally, I'm disappointed in what they're going to continue to pursue a quick action on this.
	But this dealt with the Pennsylvania legislature and what is known as Act 77, which massively expanded mail-in voting.
	Remember, the rejection rate was 27% less than it was in 2016.
	That alone ought to raise eyebrows for everybody.
	And anyway, but the Constitution of Pennsylvania is very clear.
	And that is, while the legislature and Democrats in the state and the Democratic governor in the state signed Act 77, they did it in what was a direct violation of Pennsylvania's Constitution.
	The Constitution of Pennsylvania features extremely specific and carefully documented restrictions surrounding all mail-in voting.
	And that can only be changed through a constitutional amendment.
	So in other words, the division and acrimony everybody had predicted from the Baker and Carter commissions to the New York Times, everybody in between.
	This was one thing, again, everybody agreed on.
	They all agreed that they didn't trust Dominion voting machines, and they all agreed that large amounts of mail-in ballots lend itself towards corruption, fraud, ballot harvesting, and everything else that we now have been following more closely than any of us wish to ever have had to carry.
	And it's very, very, you know, it's beyond frustrating and angering to everybody.
	You got nearly two dozen House Republicans urging the president's attorney general, Bill Barr, to appoint a special counsel to investigate election integrity.
	Well, if we don't get it fixed, we're never going to have a free, fair election that we can have faith and confidence in ever again in the country.
	I think the Texas case, I'm not going to overinterpret what the court decided yesterday.
	They could have just done exactly what they did with the Pennsylvania case and just outright reject the emergency appeal.
	They did not.
	They're asking these four states.
	Perhaps it's related to whether or not they viewed Pennsylvania alone as outcome determinative.
	I'm not sure, but that would be my best guess.
	I still disagree with it strongly.
	But in the case of Texas suing as a result of Georgia and Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, well, that would be outcome determinative.
	And these other states now are required to respond to all of this.
	I'm not going to go over all of the things that we explained in great detail yesterday.
	One is the jurisdiction issue and original jurisdiction.
	And that would mean the issue of standing, which I would argue they absolutely have, because if those states were forced to follow the constitutional process, which Texas very articulately lays out, the Attorney General Paxton in his case, then in fact, that would be outcome determinative, but it would also result in the disenfranchisement of every Texas voter.
	And frankly, now we have other states, Alabama, others now have all joined in.
	I think we have six more states now that are filing amicus briefs on behalf of the Texas AG.
	And then we get into the issue of the first violation.
	That would be the clause, Article II, Constitution, the Electors Clause, and how each state shall appoint presidential electors in the matter the legislature therefore may direct.
	Well, then that goes to the heart of the Georgia case and the consent agreement with the Secretary of State after the lawsuit by the Democratic Party from earlier this year.
	Then it gets to the heart of the case and a lot of other states as well, or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extending by three days the deadline.
	That would be, again, a decision that only state legislators can make, not a Supreme Court decision in the state.
	And then we have, again, straightforward language in the state of Wisconsin where, for example, they don't allow early voting, but yet the ballots were handed out anyway.
	That would have been a decision that would have had to have been made by the state legislature, which didn't happen.
	So we'll watch all of this, and there's a lot of developments.
	Apparently, there's more people that are out there telling as whistleblowers their stories about the things that they have said, just like all the other people that we've had on this program, for example.
	You know, it's one thing that Kaylee McEnaney had pointed out in an analysis, and I've often pointed out, okay, if you look statistically, do you really believe Joe Biden got 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton or 15 million more than Barack Obama, Ethan?
	I find that hard to believe.
	If you believe that he underperformed with minorities in pretty much every liberal city in the country except for the states we're talking about, and that would be Fulton County, Georgia, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan, Pennsylvania, the Philly area, and then other places like Milwaukee and Nevada.
	Oh, well, that's a little bit, that's a little bit too convenient for my analysis.
	Expert analysis using commonly accepted statistical tests further raise other issues about it, meaning the probability of the former vice president winning the popular vote in the four defendant states in the AG case of Texas, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, independently.
	If you look at 3 a.m. November 4th, while the vote counting is going on, you know, it would be less than one in a quadrillion that Joe Biden can come back, win all four of those states collectively with that big of a deficit at that point in time in the counting.
	I mean, basically what they're saying then is 7 million votes cast, mail-in ballots cast, mostly for Biden, mostly in the states that we're all talking about.
	Statistically, that then becomes very difficult to buy.
	At least from my perspective, it becomes difficult to buy.
	Maybe some of you don't have a problem with it.
	The state Alabama-Louisiana attorney generals backed the Supreme Court challenge by Texas.
	Missouri joined the fight along Texas to challenge the result.
	The Nevada Supreme Court did reject the Trump campaign appeal affirming a Biden win.
	That didn't surprise us out there, but statistically, there's more anomalies out in Nevada than any other state that I've seen.
	You've got Republican attorneys general setting their sights on checking Joe and Kamala, if in fact they get into office.
	Democrats now promising, vote, if we bring him back Lois Lerner as the IRS had, because they're now pushing to expand the IRS's enforcement activities and already looking to add $5.2 billion.
	Here we go.
	They're coming for your money.
	And Republicans scoff at the Biden plan to create a conservative outreach post.
	There's no outreach with Democrats.
	They don't want outreach.
	Now, I'm not going to even get into the whole issue of whether or not what the result of this is going to be.
	What I am going to tell you is that if we don't fix it and we don't get it right, then the country is going to be in big trouble.
	And that means long term.
	You've got, for example, the latest lawsuit in Georgia.
	They actually documented tens of thousands of illegal votes.
	This is similar to what they did out in Nevada.
	And instead of properly updating voter registration rolls, now if we're going to go forward as a country, the media mob's never going to tell you these things.
	We're going to go forward and get elections right.
	We better understand the Federalists did a good job on this today.
	Remember, he won Georgia.
	Supposedly, if you believe that, Biden won by 12,000 votes.
	Okay.
	The lawsuit points out that they have identified, instead of updating their voter registration lists, 66,247 underage registrants, 40,279 people had moved counties without re-registering, 10,315 people who were deceased on Election Day, 8,718 of whom had been registered as dead before their votes were accepted.
	2,423 who were not on the state voter rolls, 4,926 voters who had registered in another state after they registered in Georgia.
	That would make them ineligible.
	15,700 voters who had filed a national change of address form without re-registering.
	And I mean, it goes on from there.
	Well, Governor, do you care?
	I'm talking about the governor of Georgia.
	Apparently not.
	By the way, details of Senate candidate Warnock's obstruction in a child abuse probe was a little scary.
	And by the way, have you heard the details of Congressman Swalwell?
	We're going to get into that.
	800-941-Sean is our number if you want to be a part of the program.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hale.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, as we roll along, 800-941, Sean, you want to be a part of the program?
	This is getting very, very, very interesting to me, this whole Eric Swalwell story.
	Now, the backdrop of this is a FoxNews.com article out today about Pompeo, our Secretary of State, warning of a Chinese threat.
	to U.S. colleges, saying many are basically bought by Beijing.
	Well, there's one family I can think of that's more bought and paid for by China than any other.
	That would be the Bidens.
	Anyway, it's like what's happening with Swalwell and what apparently has gone on here is pretty unbelievable.
	And Kevin McCarthy, by the way, demanding Pelosi boot Swalwell from the House Intelligence Committee.
	And what you have is, I mean, this is the guy that was Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, along with Nadler and, you know, the shift show himself.
	Anyway, you have accused Chinese government spy, a woman by the name of Fang Fang, Christine Fang, entering the U.S. through California as a college student, 2011, spends the next four years wooing everyone, local politicos and Swalwell, according to Axios, and citing current former U.S. intelligence officials.
	Anyway, even like slept with two small town mayors.
	And you can't write this in a novel.
	Anyway, got close to Eric Swalwell, who's on the House Intel Committee.
	Quote, she was on a mission.
	A U.S. counterintelligence official said of Fang, including plenty of seduction before the feds got wind of her antics and she vanished.
	And Fang raised funds for Swalwell back in the day and interacted with the congressman at a number of events for several years.
	Why the hell is he on this House Intel Committee?
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hale, and I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, so now we have more states joining the Texas Attorney General.
	West Virginia's Attorney General has joined the Texas brief as it relates to the case that they're bringing there.
	Now the state of Missouri has filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and 16 other states in support of Texas's application in terms of the lawsuit that was filed yesterday.
	You know, this is it.
	This is the one that now we're going to watch very, very closely, especially in light of what the court did yesterday with the Pennsylvania case.
	Now, we're going to get into more detail with that.
	That's a case that's brought by Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania's 16th District.
	So, you know, obviously, we'll have more details coming up with our panel of legal experts in a little bit here, but I'm back to this Holwell thing.
	So, you know, when you look at, I call it the Joe Biden candidate protection program.
	And when you really think about it, this is the media today.
	And I don't want to be a broken record about this, but it bears repeating, is that the media is not objective.
	They're not fair.
	They're not balanced.
	They have an agenda.
	They're abusively biased.
	They're corrupt.
	They fed this country nothing but lies about Trump and Russia for three long years.
	You know, they advanced and pushed every Democratic radical socialist talking point as it related to their phony impeachment hoax, all while ignoring Quid Pro quo, Joe, and Zero Experience Hunter.
	They ignored vetting Obama.
	They ignored what was real Russian interference.
	Hillary's bought and paid for dirty dossier, the dirty dossier, not only unverifiable, now debunked, used for four FISA applications without which they wouldn't have gotten the application.
	You know, we have Comey and even, what, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, oh, knowing what we know now, no, I would never have signed it.
	Little late guys, and where's Durham, by the way?
	Side note.
	All of that happened, but the media pushed it all.
	The media had an agenda.
	You know, Peter Schweitzer in Secret Empires, this book was blockbuster.
	We did the first interview on radio, the first interview on TV.
	And that's when we first heard about Burisma.
	You know, then we got, you know, culminating in the dumbest interview of a 49-year-old in GMA's history.
	Any experience?
	Oil, gas, energy?
	Nope.
	Ukraine?
	Nope.
	Any experience at all?
	Nope.
	Why do you think you got paid millions?
	I don't know.
	Maybe because your dad is the vice president in charge of Ukrainian policy?
	Probably.
	It's like an admission.
	You've got six hours.
	You're not getting a billion U.S. tax dollars.
	Unbelievable.
	And they went with one hearsay, anonymous non-whistleblower as the pretense of it all.
	We only had one fact witness in that whole sham impeachment.
	And they dragged the country through hell.
	And then they dragged the country three years of Russia hell.
	They were all wrong.
	I mean, that's how corrupt the media is.
	Then the media is so corrupt they let Biden hide in the basement the entire time.
	Joe Biden in his basement bunker.
	And they did Biden's job for him.
	He didn't need to do anything because they were out there pounding Trump every day and beating him up every day.
	You know, they're like giddy.
	We finally got Trump to answer a question for the first time in three weeks.
	And I'm like, you let this guy go the entire campaign.
	By the way, he's botching up his cabinet officials' names and even what they're going to be secretaries of yesterday.
	And I'm grateful to the members of my COVID team that I'd like to introduce to you now who will lead the way.
	I'm really proud of this group.
	For Secretary of Health and Education Service, I nominate Javier Baccaria, you know, Javier Bashira, excuse me.
	Yeah, well, we'll get it right eventually.
	This just in two, Tennessee's Attorney General has signed an Amicus brief.
	That's big news supporting the Texas election results.
	That's another big one.
	Oh, hang on, Borton.
	I'm writing somebody here.
	Anyway, so now I'm looking at, you know, all these people that are involved in this corruption, they don't do their job.
	They're going to allow this guy to be, you know, hiding Biden the whole time.
	Then you look at all these phony hypocrites that were so upset about foreign election interference.
	How do you ignore the Russian First Lady of Moscow and the wire transfers with Hunter and his company?
	How do you ignore a Kazakh oligarch and wire transfers there?
	How do you ignore no experience that anybody can find in private equity and the $1 billion, later $1.5 billion Bank of China deal?
	How do you not look at any of this and say, well, why would the mob protect it?
	Well, the same thing is happening.
	I guess you got this honey trap set by Chinese, by the Chinese government against us.
	And then I'm reading this story and what Pompeo is warning that Chinese is threatening U.S. colleges and saying these colleges are being basically bought off by Beijing.
	Now, okay, that censor themselves to avoid upsetting the communist regime.
	And he said it's poisoning the well of our higher education institutions.
	If we don't educate ourselves, if we're not honest about it, we're getting schooled by Beijing.
	He's probably right.
	Makes you wonder about this virus.
	How come nobody ever talks about, well, what price is China going to pay for all the murder and mayhem caused by them and their handling of this virus?
	They knew it was bad.
	How do we know?
	They wouldn't allow travel out of Wuhan province into any other part of China.
	You couldn't travel from any part of China into Wuhan.
	But they left wide open their international travel.
	In other words, you could leave Wuhan province and go to Italy or any other part of the world.
	Look at what the result has been.
	And I know we've got the vaccine, but still.
	Anyway, Pompeo goes on to say scholars are lured into their recruitment programs, paid to do research in or for China, while other easy targets for their anti-American messaging do their own anti-American bias.
	We see it too seldom, he goes on to say.
	He said administrators would be up in arms.
	You would expect that.
	But they're not.
	And they often do it out of fear of offending China.
	Now, let me tell you something.
	Yeah, Putin is a hostile actor.
	Russia is a hostile regime, no question.
	I think a bigger threat is China.
	Now we got, you know, a guy, Joe Biden, that is completely compromised by this country with his son.
	God only knows what they probably have on tape somewhere.
	And we find out that this guy on the, you know, we're supposed to care about foreign interference in the United States.
	And you got Eric Swalwell, who was on the House Intelligence Committee.
	Kevin McCarthy took aim at him earlier today, arguing he should no longer serve on the House Intelligence Committee.
	This is the guy that took the leading role for the Democrats' impeachment efforts and the Russia hoax lies.
	He's long been disqualified from serving on the Intel community, peddling Russian disinformation.
	And, you know, it was all an effort by a reported spy he's a part of to gather information for China.
	Swalwall being a national security liability.
	Well, so is Joe Biden.
	I mean, let me tell you something.
	These countries play for keeps.
	You know, I've talked to some friends of mine that have done business abroad with some of the countries that we discuss here.
	And what they tell you is just chilling in terms of the amount of spying that goes on if you visit these countries, the amount of corruption that exists within these countries, that the level of sophistication in terms of their efforts to undermine the United States.
	So now you've got a congressman along with mayors.
	Apparently, a couple of mayors were sleeping with this accused Chinese government spy.
	Swalwell is taking money that was raised by this accused Chinese government spy.
	And then, by the way, they treat Democrats so differently than they do, say, a Donald Trump.
	They actually went to Swalwell and said, yeah, you might not want to associate with this person.
	Why didn't they do that with anybody in the Trump campaign?
	What did they assume that he wouldn't want to be patriotic?
	Because apparently documents exist, I've been told by my sources that said they did exactly that with Hillary Clinton's campaign to protect information that might be classified.
	Is there any possible compromising materials on Swalwell?
	What is the nature of the compromise?
	This is Adam Schiff.
	But the compromising materials.
	Compromising.
	Really?
	What's the nature of the compromise?
	Two is ordinating in the bed.
	They call peepees in the bed.
	That actually was in the stupid Hillary Clinton dossier that threw the country into this turmoil for three years, and they got away with it.
	Does Vladimir know?
	But of course.
	Buceva met with Trump in New York at some point after the 2013 Miss Universe.
	Yes.
	Pageant.
	Absolutely.
	And she got compromising materials on Trump after their short relations.
	Okay.
	And what's the nature of the compromise?
	Well, there were a piece of Trump.
	Naked Trump.
	Okay.
	And so Putin was made aware of the availability of the compromising material?
	Yes, of course.
	Bousova shared those materials with Sobchak, and Sovchak shares those materials with Putin because she's a goddaughter of Putin and Putin decided to press on Trump.
	And the materials that you can provide to the committee or to the FBI, would they corroborate this allegation?
	Sure, of course.
	When they were in Ukraine, we got their conversation by the phone where they discussed those compromising materials.
	We are ready to provide it to FBI.
	So you have recordings of both Sovchek and Buseva where they're discussing the compromising material on Mr. Trump?
	Absolutely.
	He's coordinating with somebody that he thinks is a Russian.
	What for?
	To get compromising materials on Trump, naked Trump.
	Good gosh.
	What a dope.
	Now Swalwell is suggesting Trump is behind the Axis report.
	These people are freaking deranged, man.
	Oh, gosh.
	Anyway, Swalwell warned of an influx of Russians in U.S. politics under Trump.
	What about his compromising materials?
	I wonder if there's any compromising materials on Trump and, you know, this honeypot, apparently, scandal that went on.
	These mayors apparently slept with this person.
	Unbelievable.
	But that's the nature of your Democratic Party.
	You know, there was an interesting story.
	It looks like China is already, you know, they want to try and pick up where they left off with the Biden corruption family.
	And remember, all the money they paid to Hunter, the email outlining how it's going to be distributed.
	$20 million a Hunter, $10 million for the big guy.
	Remember that?
	Holding it.
	Hunter will hold it for the big guy.
	Well, it's like the time that Biden, you know, are going to return the favor.
	There is a Daily Wire piece out.
	A top U.S. official told the think tank last week that U.S. intelligence has seen a sharp uptick in the Chinese Communist Party to influence Joe Biden's team and those around him.
	And National Counterintelligence Security Center director William Nina told the Aspen Institute that the think tank, that China has launched an influence campaign on steroids targeting Biden.
	Quote, we predicted China would now literally re-emphasize their influence in the campaigns to the new administration.
	We're starting to see that now play across the country to not only the folks that are in the administration, those around the folks of the administration.
	That's one area we're going to be very keen on making sure the new administration understands that influence, what it looks like, what it tastes like, what it feels like.
	Robert O'Brien, the National Security Advisor, had warned back in August that China was trying to elect Biden and that China had the most sophisticated global influence programs and strategies and abilities and capabilities in the world.
	Wow.
	By the way, China apparently is amassing large quantities of private American health care data, including sensitive genetic information as the coronavirus pandemic is now put more people in the medical system.
	They've made collecting health-related data a national priority according to a new report submitted to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission.
	Great.
	That's good news.
	And by the way, it looks like Mayor Pete may get a China post.
	38-year-old former mayor of South Bend.
	Apparently, letting him deepen his foreign policy chops, Buddha Judge's future.
	Anyway, they believe that, you know, giving him that prestigious position.
	I just, I don't trust any of these people.
	Everybody's so corrupt.
	You know, my faith, my confidence in government is at the lowest point it's ever been.
	I never really had faith in it anyway.
	I think most intelligent Americans have a healthy distrust of all things government.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Howe, and I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, Leonard Skinner's simple man can mean only one thing, and that is all things...
	He's really not simple.
	The fact that it's a great irony, he considers himself a simple man, but it means all things.
	Bill O'Reilly, of course, at BillO'Reilly.com, his book continues to do well on every bestseller list, Killing a Crazy Horse, 15 in a Series of Killing Books.
	By my count, Killing Hannity will be version 19 or 20.
	Hopefully, it'll be very late in life when he finally gets around to it.
	Mr. O'Reilly, sir, how are you?
	You know, Skinner, they owe us big.
	They owe us big.
	Every week you run that.
	No, that's your intro.
	Imagine this.
	So you're going to do a Bill O'Reilly tour.
	I mean, you go on tour still fairly regularly.
	And the house is going to go dark.
	And all of a sudden, up comes Leonard Skinner's simple man.
	And the music gets louder.
	And it gets louder and louder and louder.
	Then a spotlight comes on and out walks the giant.
	And that's you, six foot, what are you, four or five, Bill O'Reilly?
	Yeah, and you know, you should be a producer of these shows, but I want staff to play the talk.
	No record.
	We'll just have the guys over here.
	They're good guys.
	Let me, before you come on with your agenda, you see, I didn't even ask Bill a question.
	He was about to launch into what he wants to talk about.
	But I want to ask you a question I'm a little curious about.
	When it comes your time, we don't want to go ahead of any list.
	You know, health professionals and those with pre-existing conditions and compromised immune systems.
	And whoever deserves it before us, they get it first, right?
	Okay.
	But when it comes your turn and you have a chance, would you take it?
	Yes, I'm going to take it.
	And I'm an old guy, so I should get it pretty soon.
	That's probably true.
	You're ahead of me on that list, just for the record.
	You know, they're going, I understand, by age and intelligence.
	So I'm way up there.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	On the age part, you're totally qualified.
	On the intelligence part, that's up for debate.
	But go ahead.
	Oh, come on now.
	The reason I'm going to get it is because I don't care whether I turn into a werewolf or not.
	It doesn't matter to me.
	You're not an anti-vaxxer guy, I mean, because Linda's kind of...
	No, I mean, any side effect, it'll be fine, because then I won't have to pay my taxes.
	So if I'm a vampire, I mean, I'm not going to file a tax.
	Hey, Bill, I hate to tell you, when you die, you're going to be paying more in taxes.
	Not if I move to Bolivia.
	By the way, you see Joe Biden's people are saying, yeah, we want to add another $5 billion to IRS enforcement.
	Like with my account, we're good, right?
	I told you, pay everything, overpay.
	And he goes, yeah, we overpay still, yes.
	Yeah, and the $5 billion is just to protect the IRS from the popular uprising that's going to happen if they continue down this road.
	Because now it's seizure of private property, which is what the progressive left wants, desperately wants.
	They want to be able to pass wealth taxes all over the place and basically come in, assess whatever you have, and then take a piece of it, even though what you have has been bought by post-tax dollars.
	So it's unconstitutional, but that's what they want to do.
	And that's why this election was so important.
	But people who don't have much, they don't care about that issue.
	They want more given to them by the federal government.
	And that's the struggle in America between the haves and the have-nots.
	And you saw it play out in this election.
	What was your take?
	And then I want to get to Georgia, but what was your take?
	I read this suit by the Attorney General of Texas.
	I had him on TV last night.
	I asked him a lot of questions.
	It was well written.
	It was well thought out.
	It was well argued.
	It has real legitimacy.
	If the law and the Constitution are truly followed, they win, Bill.
	Yes, but it won't be because the Supreme Court is going to rule that the state of Texas has no standing.
	That's what the ruling will be.
	But the problem, if I may, very gently.
	But the reason, this is one of those cases, there's a very small number of categories, as you know, I'm not telling you anything you don't know, in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
	One of them is controversies between two or more states.
	That's why.
	That's right.
	And they could do something about it.
	But the state of Texas is basically saying when you cut through all the legalisms, our citizens in Texas were disenfranchised in the presidential election because it was cheating in at least four states.
	And you, the Supreme Court, have to remedy that.
	Keyword remedy.
	That's the lawsuit.
	And it's a good lawsuit.
	It's smart.
	It is smart because it's not successful.
	It's not going to be successful.
	Look, the odds are with you.
	And I'm not the Pollyannish person, Bill.
	I think you know I'm pretty rooted in reality.
	But if the law and the Constitution were truly followed in its straightforward language, and the way this was argued and laid out in all 90, whatever pages of this thing yesterday, if that mattered, you see, because I think the court's tainted by politics like everything else.
	I mean, John Roberts, you know, every report was that he was going to rule against Obamacare, but then decided it was too political for the court to be involved in it and changed his view.
	Yeah, and I think he's a liberal man anyway.
	But getting back to the election, the Pennsylvania situation was clearly a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
	Yep.
	All right.
	There's no legitimate argument that it was not.
	But the courts, both state and federal today, Alito and the Supreme Court, said, you had a year to do this.
	You had a year to challenge this mail-in thing, and you didn't do it.
	Therefore, we're not going to hear it.
	They didn't say it was wrong.
	They said, we're not going to hear it because it's filed too late.
	These are the little rationalizations that creep into the Supreme Court all the time.
	People should know, listening to us right now, Hannity, the most powerful entity in this country is the Supreme Court.
	Far more powerful than the Congress or the president because they're the last word.
	It may not be fair.
	It may not be right.
	It might not be based on the Constitution.
	But what those nine people say is what's going to happen.
	And so people should understand that none of the nine justices want to overturn this election.
	Psychologically and emotionally, they don't want to do it.
	So they're going to find a reason not to do it.
	And that's where we are.
	I wish I could dispute what I think would ultimately be the outcome.
	Now, I do think there will be some brave Supreme Court justices.
	If I were to anticipate it would be Alito, it would be Clarence Thomas.
	It will be Amy Coney Barrett.
	But it won't be John Roberts, I can tell you that.
	And to be honest, I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are still question marks, and I really don't have the, I don't believe they'll go there.
	That's my guess.
	It's not going to get there.
	They're not going to hear it.
	Okay.
	It'll be interesting.
	Now, they could have killed it off yesterday, Bill, and they didn't.
	And they're asking these states to respond.
	So they're going to take a look at it.
	And we don't have any indication of.
	They're not going to hear it.
	And I mean, if there was a betting thing, I would put a lot of money on this.
	They're not going to hear it just as they didn't hear the Pennsylvania.
	And you're right.
	The Pennsylvania case, legislators in that state went against the direct wording of their own state constitution.
	That's a slam-dunk legal issue.
	That wasn't even in dispute.
	That's absolutely correct.
	But the court found a way not to hear it, and they'll find a way not to hear the Texas challenge.
	Well, this is where you're right.
	We live.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Like Levin years ago wrote the book Men in Black.
	It laid all of this out.
	Let me go to the state of Georgia.
	You got the runoff races there, Loffler and Purdue, against Ossaf and Warnock, two really radical hardcore leftists.
	But then you've got this intramural battle going on between the dopey governor, the dopey Secretary of State.
	Can you imagine the Secretary of State?
	And again, this goes to the heart of the constitutional issue in terms of election law is constitutionally only in the hands of the state legislature, but independent of the state legislature.
	The Secretary of State went into a consent agreement with Democrats that sued earlier this year, the Georgia Democratic Party, the Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the congressional committees and allowed this two system of signature verification.
	That would be the sole role of the legislature.
	With that said, they don't want to admit they made a mistake, so they kind of have aligned and they won't come back into session and fix the problems that are quite obvious and transparent after November 3rd, which would be necessary to have free, fair elections in Georgia, which is a big mistake, in my view.
	Well, they're not going to admit a mistake now.
	They're just not going to do it.
	I think that the two senators on the Republican side will win.
	You do.
	I'm not so sure I agree with you.
	Well, Hannity, you know, you're disagreeing with a guy who is a fat baby.
	And I'm going to go to the next step.
	Just stop.
	Stop.
	You've actually come a long way this year.
	This is the first time you ever said I could never even think about running for a Democrat.
	We've beginning to hannotize you.
	Your appearances on this show have helped you.
	Listen, I want people to understand that Georgia is not some crazy state.
	It's essentially a conservative, traditional state.
	And here's the backup: there was one man who ran for the state senate.
	That's a statewide race in Georgia, a Republican.
	He won by 54% of the vote.
	That couldn't have happened in a liberal state.
	So I think that Georgians are going to, they know the Democratic candidates are far left.
	We're not talking about moderate people, as you just pointed out.
	And I think they're going to go in.
	And it's not going to be a landslide, but I think both Senate GOP candidates will win.
	But before you have to take a break and sell the humongous stuff that you sell, I have a provocative thing that I'm going to say to my audience on billoreilly.com tonight.
	I want to know if you agree with this.
	You ready?
	Okay.
	I want Attorney General Barr to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the election.
	I do too.
	I agree with you.
	Okay.
	I don't even think it's controversial.
	This becomes vital, okay, because Trump can't do it.
	Barr's got to do it because nobody's going to investigate this once the inauguration takes place.
	The states aren't going to investigate their own screw-ups.
	The press won't investigate.
	And certainly the Justice Department under Biden's not going to investigate.
	In order for this country to function, we've got to get to the bottom of this fraud stuff.
	And a special prosecutor should be appointed.
	I've got to take that break, but I'll say this too.
	If you look at what they did to this country in the last four years, Russia, Russia, Trump-Russia collusion that never happened, premeditated fraud, FISA court abuse, using Killery's dirty dossier, the whole ignore quid pro quo Joe, zero experience, hunter, but will impeach the president based on an anonymous hearsay whistleblower.
	I mean, the damage that has been done in the last four years by the left is incalculable, Bill.
	We'll come back more with Bill O'Reilly, allthings O'Reilly, BillO'Reilly.com, 800-941.
	Sean, you want to be a part of this extravaganza?
	We're going to go to the heart of that Pennsylvania case with Congressman Mike Kelly.
	He's the one that brought it in the next half hour.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	All right, as we continue, Bill O'Reilly, allthingso Reilly at billo'reilly.com.
	So I agree with you on bar, but I want to look at the big picture, Bill.
	You know, I spent three years, and I mean, I think you actually gave me a compliment in the coverage being proven right on Trump and Russia and collusion, FISA abuse, and the dirty dossier.
	Nobody else in the media really went and dug that deep.
	And I appreciated your nice comments about that.
	And it happened, just like they ignored Joe and Hunter and China and Russia and Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
	And it happened, Bill.
	And then you add election fraud and all the mess we've witnessed.
	I'm worried about the country.
	So am I.
	And that's why we need a real tough special prosecutor to look into this election.
	And I'll give you one solid thing that has to be done.
	You got to do forensics on the Dominion voting machines.
	And that means those machines have to be brought in, have to be examined by the federal government to see if there was any fraud, if they were calibrated in a way that wasn't fair.
	The only people who can do that work for the federal government.
	You need a subpoena.
	You've got to bring it in.
	You need the best electronic experts in the world.
	That is the key to this whole thing.
	I have called for the same thing, Bill.
	But you know, and I know they're already shredding the hard drives of these machines in Georgia, Bill.
	Well, they don't see that.
	Oh, they are.
	We already know that.
	You know, people have got to go to jail, Hannity.
	Okay, well, you know, listen, I support your call for a special prosecutor.
	What did Durham do?
	There was so much.
	All he needed was the Horowitz report, and he had enough indictments to make.
	I understand.
	But you have two reasons.
	You have two choices.
	You can stay in America and be a loyal, patriotic citizen, or you can move to another country.
	But I'm going to scream as loud as I can scream for justice.
	I want to know what happened to you.
	Well, then I'll tell you what, O'Reilly.
	I'll partner with you.
	And I think every American patriot that believes in free, fair, honest elections with integrity that will have confidence in will join with us.
	You and I will partner on this.
	Do it on your TV shoot tonight if you can.
	And then I'll steer everybody in there.
	And then we'll pick out certain politicians that will call the Attorney General and ask for this.
	I just, you know, for those friends of mine that are just so disappointed, and they are, and for all the right reasons, and I am too.
	I'm just like, it's not in me, Bill, to quit.
	It's not in me to say, oh, okay.
	We're going to accept this corruption.
	No, the fight for too many people have paid such a larger price than what we'll ever pay.
	But all right, all things, O'Reilly, billoreilly.com, simple man.
	And Mr. O'Reilly, it's always a pleasure, honor to have you on the program.
	Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	And I'm Carol Markowitz.
	We've been in political media for a long time.
	Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
	That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
	We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
	We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
	So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
	Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
	I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
	25 till the top of the hour, 800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
	And the president's not backing down, not giving up the battle.
	Even though the Supreme Court yesterday, not on the Texas case, the opposite result happening there, but in the case Tuesday yesterday rejected what I thought was constitutionally, probably the strongest case in the country as it relates to the state of Pennsylvania, where Republicans had a strong, powerful legal argument, constitutional argument,
	as it relates to the state constitution and what was known as Pennsylvania Act 77.
	But in spite of the facts of the case, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal without comment by Pennsylvania Republicans that sought to void the results of the election in that big battleground state.
	Not a good decision in my view.
	Here's what the president is asking lawmakers in the Supreme Court to do.
	Hopefully the next administration will be the Trump administration because you can't steal hundreds of thousands of votes.
	You can't have fraud and deception and all of the things that they did and then slightly win a swing state.
	And you just have to look at the numbers, look at what's been on tape, look at all the corruption, and we'll see.
	You can't win an election like that.
	Now let's see whether or not somebody has the courage, whether it's a legislator or legislature or whether it's a justice of the Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court.
	Let's see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right.
	Anyway, so this, by the way, this is the case that Ted Cruz, the one they rejected, not the Texas case, which they are now seeking input from the four states that Texas has mentioned.
	But this is the one Ted Cruz was willing to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court.
	This is the Congressman Mike Kelly suit.
	And this was the suit that went after Pennsylvania Act 77.
	Now, that act passed by the Democratic state legislatures or Democratic legislators, signed by the Democratic governor.
	And the problem is it was in direct violation of Pennsylvania's own constitution.
	Their state constitution features carefully documented restrictions surrounding mail-in voting.
	And that can only be changed through a constitutional amendment, a far more difficult process, that which we have described in detail.
	And by the way, for all the good reasons that the New York Times pointed out, the Carter-Baker Commission pointed out, and so many others had pointed out prior to this election that massive use of mail-in balloting lends itself towards all this fraud.
	You take away mail-in balloting.
	We're not in this mess that we have today, where such high percentages of the American people and some polls in the 80% range rejecting the honesty and integrity and have no confidence in the real outcome of this election.
	Anyway, Greg Tufel is with us.
	He is the lawyer based in Pittsburgh.
	Congressman Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania's 16th district.
	He's the one that brought this case.
	That was a pretty disappointing decision, Congressman, yesterday.
	Yeah, but you know.
	Yeah, we were very disappointed.
	Thank you for having me on the show.
	We were disappointed that the court was unwilling to grant interim injunctive relief pending our petition for certiori.
	However, all they denied was entering injunctive relief, preserving the status quo while they consider our petition for a certari.
	We are still proceeding with this week filing our petition for certiori.
	We do still hope that the Supreme Court will see fit to grant relief with respect to the unconstitutional Act 77.
	And by the way, Mike Kelly, I mean, it was pretty much a simple slam-dunk case.
	It's not a complicated legal or complicated constitutional question here.
	It's pretty straightforward.
	Yeah, we sure thought it was.
	And Greg has done great work on this.
	But when it comes down to it, this is the fact, this is either it's either constitutional or unconstitutional.
	Act 77, which was passed in October of 2019.
	And so you've got to look at what happened and say, listen, forget about any allegations of fraud.
	Forget about all that.
	Let's just concentrate on what Pennsylvania did in October of 2019 by changing our voter laws, but not doing it the proper way.
	And that is by an amendment, which is an onerous effort.
	You have to do it the right way.
	And Greg can feel something.
	But honestly, it really comes down to this was an unconstitutional movement or event that took place in Pennsylvania's legislature.
	And we really didn't have standing on it until after we were harmed.
	So when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is a 52D court, by the way, said, oh, no, no, no, no, you guys came too late.
	And by the way, you're not allowed to bring this up ever again, but you should have contacted us beforehand.
	And so how would you file a lawsuit before you were harmed?
	That would even be people would say, no, you can't sue somebody for something that hasn't happened.
	I think.
	Well, I think that was the rationale.
	I'm watching some of the analysis of these armchair lawyers on TV and some commentators, and that was their suggestion.
	Well, you should have brought this issue up about Act 77 in 2019 when it first happened.
	The problem from my perspective with that argument is I mean, maybe you could have done it, and pointed out the unconstitutionality of it at the point.
	I don't know.
	Well, but we didn't have standing, Sean.
	We didn't have any standing because we hadn't been harmed.
	So you really can't file a lawsuit against something you think may happen.
	Procedurally, I'm still scratching my head to find out or to try to figure out what the world Pennsylvania's legislature was thinking of.
	But then to compound all that, even after this takes place, you have the governor then changing.
	November the 3rd at 8 o'clock was supposed to be the drop dead time.
	No, we're going to let it go to November 4th, November 5th, and we're going to finish up on Friday, November the 6th at 5 o'clock.
	And by the way, the signatures don't have to match.
	The postmarks don't have to be on there.
	Nobody's allowed to also, we didn't have people able to watch the polls, what they did, and you saw that in Philadelphia.
	So I think when Greg talked about this early on, he said, this is as plain as the nose on your face when it comes to this being unconstitutional.
	And that's what we're challenging right now.
	And while we didn't get, listen, we didn't get our temporary injunctive relief, but we should be able to have the case heard on the basic merits of the case.
	When would we likely hear about that, Greg Tufel?
	Well, we're going to file a motion for expedited review.
	The court could go along with that and treat it in an expedited fashion.
	If the court is still willing to consider any relief with respect to the 2020 election, as opposed to only granting relief with respect to future elections, then one would hope that they would handle it on an expedited basis, but that's entirely up to the court.
	They're not held in any particular schedule.
	When they rejected your emergency appeal yesterday, but then opened the door for the Texas AG case and for the four states that Texas has filed against, how do you interpret those two minor decisions, if you will?
	So they're not actually related.
	They're not related, but why one, not the other?
	Well, on the motion to accept the complaint in original jurisdiction, my understanding is all they've done so far is direct the opposing parties to respond.
	They haven't yet decided whether they're going to take that case yet either.
	They directed the opposing party to respond to our application, and then ultimately denied the application.
	So it's not yet clear whether the Supreme Court is going to be willing to hear that case in its original jurisdiction.
	It doesn't appear to be obligated to take it.
	So I hope the court does take it.
	But we are on a very tight calendar right now.
	So if they were going to take it, we would know fairly quickly, correct?
	Oh, I imagine they will on an expedited basis.
	And I didn't see the schedule, but I'm sure they required a response on an expedited schedule.
	Okay.
	So I guess we're just going to have to wait and see.
	All right.
	So what is the next step, Mike, for you and Greg moving forward?
	I think we follow the law and do what we think we can do or what we know we can do.
	But, you know, Sean, it really does come down to who is it now that we have faith in when it comes to deciding these things.
	So if it didn't take place in Pennsylvania, it was unconstitutional, what they did, Act 77.
	There's no question about it.
	It's unconstitutional.
	It violates every one of the outlines of what you have to do to make an amendment to this.
	They had to amend it, and they had to amend it according to what the law says they have to do.
	So now we look at this, and I've got to tell you, it's just a regular ⁇ I don't have a law degree, but you know what?
	You look at this and say there's something wrong here when no court will touch it because of what?
	And the answer is, well, you just don't understand how this works.
	And I said, bingo, I don't.
	You tell me why she wears a blindfold over her eyes and holds a scale that's even and says, I will judge it on the basis of the merits of the case.
	If we can't rely on this going forward, what in the world can America rely on it?
	And what does the world think of the greatest nation the world has ever known not be able to figure out how to run its own elections fairly and squarely and counting every legitimate and lawful vote, but then looking at what took place?
	Listen, Sean, you and I know this.
	What happened on November the 3rd wasn't magic.
	It was math.
	This was all planted way before that day.
	What we're saying now is because of the no excuse mail-in ballot that was passed by the Pennsylvania legislature and signed by the governor of Pennsylvania, it was unconstitutional, and that should throw out that specific part of what it is that was relied upon on November the 3rd and months before that when it came to no excuse mail-in ballots.
	That is not part of Pennsylvania's voting procedure.
	It's unconstitutional, and it needs to be revealed as that, and it needs to be thrown out.
	There's just no way you can look at that and say, I'm satisfied with that.
	There's no way it has to be taken up by the Supreme Court, and they have to rule according to the constitutional facts.
	Greg, what are the next legal steps for hopefully the Supreme Court immediately taking it up?
	But long term, this is such a clear-cut constitutional violation of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.
	Yeah, when the federal government delegates power to the states to direct the time, place, and manner of federal elections, it's not a blank check to do it any way you want.
	A state legislature is still obligated to follow its own state constitution.
	And when a state Supreme Court like Pennsylvania State Supreme Court punt on ridiculous procedural grounds, on latches in this case, and refuses to enforce its own constitution in the administration of the elections of federal elections, that's a federal question that the Supreme Court should care about, should rectify.
	It shouldn't allow a lawless Pennsylvania legislature to ignore its own constitution, enact an unconstitutional law, and proceed to implement that law in the 2020 election and in all the elections coming up.
	At the bare minimum, there should be relief granted as to future elections, and one would hope they wouldn't stand by and put a stamp of approval on an election that was conducted illegally.
	And, Sean, one of the more ridiculous aspects of this case, Pennsylvania actually started the amendment process in apparent recognition of the fact that an amendment was necessary to do this.
	So, if that process continues, all of us Pennsylvanians will get to vote by no excuse mail-in ballot on whether we're allowed to vote by no excuse mail-in ballot.
	And if we vote it down, if we vote down the amendment, doesn't matter.
	We will still continue to vote by no excuse mail-in ballot, which is just absolutely ridiculous.
	Well, listen, I wish you a lot of luck, both of you, because this is a critical constitutional issue in Pennsylvania.
	More importantly, everybody knew, understood completely and fully what would happen.
	And if you had this widespread mail-in ballot, this is not a surprise, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
	Everybody had predicted it, everybody had warned about it, and it was actually a point of agreement, Democrats and Republicans, on this one issue, just like Dominion machines.
	Thank you both for being with us.
	Greg Tufel, thank you.
	Mike Kelly will continue to follow the case closely.
	All right, we've got time for a call here.
	Florida, Chuck standing by.
	Chuck, how are you?
	It says you're a veteran.
	Thank you for serving your country.
	Welcome to the program.
	Thank you very much, Sean.
	Not being PC, but I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, sir.
	Yeah, you can say Jesus and Christmas and God on this program.
	It's not banned.
	I've always known that.
	I am a veteran, and I am most importantly what we refer to as an oath keeper.
	And upon entering service, we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not any particular political party whatsoever or the government itself, but that piece of paper.
	And unfortunately, part of the government has found a way to circumvent what holds our country together.
	And those in charge don't seem to be willing to do anything to offset that.
	And unfortunately, it's getting to be time where oath keepers and those who truly believe in the way this country started need to come out of the woodwork because if our elected leaders aren't going to do it, the very first three words of the Constitution say it all.
	We the people.
	I got to tell you, and this is where, you know, I know we have elections and people go away and we forget about it, and it's still a problem the next time because we didn't resolve the issues that were discovered.
	Now, you know, we've learned from a state like Florida that, you know, you can have problems and then resolve them.
	And we had problems in 2000.
	We have problems in 2016.
	Governor DeSantis resolved them.
	Same with Ohio, same with other states.
	Now that we know where the problems are, Georgia, we know we have problems in Nevada, big problems there.
	Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
	Fix it now.
	And don't say, oh, and then we'll scratch our wooden conservative.
	How could this ever have happened?
	How could this ever happen again?
	Because we didn't fix it.
	And that's why understanding what happened and getting to the bottom of it is critical.
	On top of everything else, the injustice of it all, the anger that's associated with it all.
	It's real.
	Anyway, appreciate the call.
	Thanks for all you do.
	Thanks for serving your country.
	800-941-Sean, our number.
	Quick break.
	We'll come back.
	And at the top of the hour, we'll analyze the legal aspect of the AG case in Texas and much more as we continue.
	All right, news roundup information overload hour, Sean Hannity Show, 800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, so as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case was rejected, the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting a look at the Pennsylvania case, which I thought had great constitutional merit, as we were discussing, we are following this new lawsuit.
	And while yesterday the court had the choice, they could have denied any look at at all of the Attorney General of Texas and his complaint that was filed.
	We had the Attorney General on last night, Ken Paxton of Texas, and here is what he said to me.
	So it's a really important point that you're bringing up.
	In a state-on-state suit, our only place to go is the U.S. Supreme Court.
	We can't be heard anywhere else.
	Other lawsuits start at a district court level, and they have a right to be heard at least once, whether they have a good case or a bad case.
	So our request is we want to be heard.
	The only place we can go is the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And so we're pleading with the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Please hear our case.
	Give us a chance at least to argue what we think is right.
	We want to argue the Constitution.
	It is the responsibility of state legislatures per the Constitution to set the rules for election of electors.
	And in this case, those were overridden in the four states we're talking about were overridden by other officials, whether they were judges or other governmental officials.
	And that's not the way our Constitution works.
	And that's the challenge we have in front of the court.
	Can this be overridden by people who are not responsible under the Constitution for doing this?
	Mr. Attorney General, can you explain how the electors clause in Georgia, Michigan, PA, and Wisconsin were violated?
	Yeah, so in almost all those cases that we have, we have states that allowed mail-in ballots in cases they were not supposed to.
	They allowed for non-signature verification, which is really important.
	So when you request a mail-in ballot, you have to sign for that application.
	And then they'll verify when you send your ballot in on a sleeve of the ballot.
	Usually they'll verify that signature to ensure that those two signatures match.
	Well, if you just waive those requirements, you have no way to go back and verify that the person that requested the application is the person voting.
	That's a pretty important thing when in Pennsylvania, you go from 233,000 mail-in ballots four years ago to 2.5 million, and the difference in the election was only 81,000.
	That's a very important issue to ignore.
	All right.
	Now, if we get to the heart of the voting here, we have certain things now that we know.
	We know that, for example, if you look at the margin of difference, Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, it's about 44,000 votes.
	You have 7 million absentee votes cast, mostly for Biden.
	If you look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and I mean, that is a lot and a lot of votes.
	But remember, Wisconsin doesn't even allow early voting like this.
	Yet those ballots were given.
	And the procedures that would secure an absentee ballot were bypassed.
	Again, another separate suit.
	And the presidents, rightly trying to point these things out simultaneously while this Texas case, based on the other merits that we were discussing with the Attorney General of Texas.
	Anyway, here to weigh in on it, Julie Kelly, a political commentator, wrote the book, Disloyal Opposition, How the Never Trump Right Tried and Failed to Take Down the President, Greg Jarrett.
	He's the host of his new podcast, two number one bestsellers, Witch Hunt and The Russia Hoax.
	Welcome both of you.
	As you look at this from the legal side of things, Greg Jarrett, where do you see things at this moment?
	Well, it's a difficult case to convince the Supreme Court to take.
	They do have what's called original jurisdiction.
	So if there's a dispute between two states, they can take the case, but it's discretionary.
	So that's, I think, and I was watching your interview last night.
	I think that's the biggest obstacle that Texas has to overcome.
	But they have so much evidence here.
	We have invalid ballots that were backdated, late ballots illegally counted, blank ballots assigned random names and filled in.
	Ballots didn't matching, didn't match the valid voters.
	Signatures were missing or didn't match.
	And some of this place, some of this was cured illegally, for example, in Wisconsin by election workers.
	They're not allowed to cure ballots like that.
	So I think that if Texas can present a sufficient amount of evidence, the Supreme Court just might take the case.
	But frankly, I mean, I've got to be totally honest with you.
	The chances of the Supreme Court taking this case are not good.
	All right.
	So, and your take, Julie?
	That's what I, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that what Greg says is pretty accurate in terms of the court taking the case.
	But look, you can't unsee what they laid out in that lawsuit.
	A lot of us have been covering that.
	I've written a few articles about Pennsylvania and Wisconsin myself.
	To your point, what Greg was saying, there's no ballot curing provision in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.
	You also had unelected officials, which includes the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania, who is appointed, not elected like in most states, just rewriting the law arbitrarily on their own and changing the state legislature's legislation and the election laws that they set out.
	So this is a very damning bill of particulars that the Texas Attorney General laid out.
	And it has to be considered when the legislatures plan to vote on December 14th for their electoral rate.
	All right.
	So let me go back to Greg.
	Even though the Supreme Court yesterday, they turned down the Pennsylvania case, which I thought was a very strong constitutional case, which should be something I would believe of great importance that the Supreme Court would prioritize and take up.
	And that being, of course, the state legislature and basically going against the statutory legal language within the Constitution, which would have taken a constitutional amendment to accomplish if the Constitution were followed.
	I guess probably their reason, if I had to guess, is that, well, why didn't you do it before the election?
	But that's my only guess, and I think it's a weak answer.
	But now you're saying specifically about the Texas AG case, you don't see a good chance to taking it up, even though they asked for arguments from the other four states.
	Well, just alleging that there's a violation of the Constitution, that's not enough to have standing to sue.
	Texas really has to establish that it's been injured, and their claim here...
	Well, hang on, but it's outcome...
	These four states would be outcome determinative in the election.
	And their state has a decided interest in this when the citizens of Texas then would be disenfranchised based on that violation.
	You're absolutely right, Sean.
	And Texas is presenting that argument.
	They are saying that the constitutional rights of our citizens in Texas have been violated by other states that have not followed constitutional rules and laws that they set for the election.
	So they've been injured.
	And I, you know, as a lawyer, I think that's a really great argument.
	However, I know the Supreme Court.
	I've followed the Supreme Court for decades, and I know what they do.
	They try to avoid getting involved in politically oriented cases.
	And they are still stinging from the Gore versus Bush 2000 election contest, which I covered down in Florida for 37 long days and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	And they will do anything to avoid getting involved in this.
	And so, you know, as much as I think as a lawyer and legally they should be involved, I'm telling you that historically they're just not going to do it.
	Your take, Julie.
	That's just such a disappointing thing to hear.
	Greg is probably right.
	But, you know, as we went through these battles, Supreme Court justice battles, especially Brett Kavanaugh, to have a constitutionalist on the Supreme Court to think that they would punt on what is arguably one of the most important cases that they would ever consider,
	restoring the integrity of our national election, rebuking this plan of Democrats by Democrats to steal elections by breaking the law, violating laws, making up their own laws.
	That's really going to be a hard pill for 74 million Trump voters to swallow.
	All right, let's go to what you've been looking at, and that is on some of the more technical side of the voting machines and other investigations involved in the election.
	Because I think the polls are right.
	I think the people of this country have accurately identified that these elections are full of fraud and laws being just cast aside, abandoned.
	I mean, partisan observers never allowed to observe.
	All sorts of irregularities happen, and people don't have faith in the confidence and integrity of the vote.
	And we never will.
	I don't see it ever happening.
	So where do you stand in your investigation?
	Well, I will say a couple of things really stood out in that Texas lawsuit.
	One was in Georgia.
	The rejection rate for mail-in ballots in 2016 was about 6.4%.
	This year, it was 0.37%, even though there were something like six times as many mail-in ballots used.
	In Pennsylvania, obviously, Kathy Buchvar changing all the rules at the last second, apparently defying another Supreme Court order, Justice Leto's order to segregate those ballots.
	I don't even know if that's been decided.
	In Wisconsin, the idea of Milwaukee County election workers filling in missing addresses on the certification envelope and allowing those ballots to be illegally cured and inspected before the deadline.
	Those are some of the major issues.
	And then, of course, in Michigan, the Secretary State mailing out 7.7 million mail-in ballot applications without proper authority.
	I mean, that's a point.
	I mean, seven million without look at, for example, and again, it's outcome determinative div in a place like Wisconsin or the signature verification issue in Georgia or the constitutional issue that's emerged in Pennsylvania or the statistical information, you know.
	one-in-one quadrillionth of an opportunity in terms of the anomalies in the results that ultimately came out and the unlikelihood that any of this would have happened, which we've gone over in great specificity and detail.
	Now the problem is, you know, as Jonathan Turley was on the line, the president's running out of runway, and I was going to have to land a 757 on a postage stamp at this point because of real-time considerations, Greg.
	Yeah, the job of investigating is demanding, is time-consuming.
	The clock is ticking.
	I mean, today is actually the date, Sean, as you well know, of the safe harbor deadline.
	And so electors are being selected by the states.
	And, you know, in less than a week, of course, the Electoral College meets.
	Well, that would be next Monday.
	But even Ruth Bader Ginsburg had really said the drop-dead date is Congress on January 6th.
	And then inauguration day scheduled for the 20th.
	You know, the core question is, there was no question that there was rampant fraud.
	Did it happen in sufficient numbers that changed the outcome?
	So that's the core question.
	And it's almost impossible.
	I can tell you this as a lawyer for 40 years.
	You cannot dig up the evidence and present it in court of law to stop this runaway train without breaks in the six-week period of time that is allotted.
	It just cannot be done.
	So what's going to happen is that lawyers and investigators and historians will end up judging who actually won the 2020 presidential election, notwithstanding who's inaugurated on January 20th.
	Weren't there varying analysis after 2000 in terms of some saying Gore won, some saying Bush won?
	Yeah, there were.
	And, you know, anybody with a brain could see this coming a mile away.
	There have been three separate studies and commissions that said this was going to happen.
	You know, years ago, they concluded that universal mail-in balloting is a recipe for corruption and electoral disaster.
	There are too many ways to trifle with mail-in ballots.
	And it certainly happened here.
	And I identified a few minutes ago all the way.
	Look, you're talking about the Baker-Carter Commission.
	You talk about the New York Times.
	You're talking about, you know, everybody had said the same thing.
	And then they used COVID as an excuse the one time they didn't, you know, quote the great Dr. Fauci that he said it was safe to vote in person, you know, with social distancing, et cetera.
	We've got a bunch of judges in Pennsylvania who are saying, oh, forget the law that we passed.
	Forget the lawsuit.
	Exactly.
	Legislature.
	That's their Supreme Court, Greg.
	All right.
	Thank you both.
	Julie, thank you.
	Greg Jarrett, thank you.
	800-941 Sean, you want to be a part of the program.
	All right, 25 till the top of the hour.
	We'll get to your calls coming up here.
	I see that Goya Foods named Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, employee of the month, after sales spiked with her calls to boycott the company's product because the president of the company actually praised the Trump economy.
	What a terrible thing.
	And when she boycotted us, our sales increased 1,000%.
	Did we ever send any Goya products to the local food bank that I like to work with, Linda?
	Do you remember?
	Yes, Linda.
	I've been here for 15 years.
	All right.
	All right.
	Stop.
	Yes, we did.
	We did, right?
	We bought Riley did too, right?
	That's right.
	And we bought.
	And by the way, they're great foods.
	And I now buy them.
	I never bought them before.
	They actually are great, great beans and stuff.
	And, you know, especially if you like them.
	They make awesome chili.
	Their beans make awesome chilies.
	I make the best chili, by the way.
	My chili is better than Wendy.
	I'm just chili.
	Yes, I do.
	I really do.
	No, you do not.
	It says who?
	Says me, because you already know I'm a good cook.
	Why are you acting like I'm not?
	You might be a good cook.
	Doesn't mean you make the best chili.
	I make the best chili.
	I make the best corned beef.
	And I make the best breakfast.
	I make the best everything.
	And I grow the best steaks.
	Any more questions?
	Anything else?
	No.
	Okay.
	Just checking.
	Yeah, but she's busy selling her tax the rich gear.
	What does she have?
	Sweatshirts, 59 bucks, tax the rich sweatshirts.
	Can you imagine?
	Did you see, by the way, that the Democrats now they want to give the IRS another $5.2 billion dedicated to enforcement activities?
	What is this?
	Lois Lerner 2.0 now?
	Go after every conservative?
	What do I always tell my financial guys?
	Pay it, pay it, pay it.
	Ding, ding, ding, pay.
	I think, what's the point?
	I know so many conservatives that just get, you know, attacked.
	Unbelievable.
	800-941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program here.
	I don't know if you saw the list of crimes out in Los Angeles that they now have a DA's Do Not Prosecute list.
	Misdemeanor cases will be declined or dismissed prior to arraignment.
	Factors for consideration.
	The list includes trespassing, disturbing the peace, a minor in possession of alcohol, driving without a license, driving with a suspended license.
	You're not going to get in trouble.
	Making criminal threats, drug and paraphernalia possession.
	I guess a crackpipe and needles are okay.
	Being under the influence of a controlled substance.
	Public intoxication is okay.
	Loitering to commit prostitution and resisting arrest is okay.
	And they'll not seek the death penalty.
	And those accused of misdemeanors, low-level felonies, will be referred to community-based programs.
	For juveniles, those accused of any misdemeanor, no longer, there's no consequences.
	Our prosecutorial approach should be based towards keeping youth out of the juvenile justice system.
	Well, if you just keep letting them go, they'll be out.
	And with the employing the lightest touch necessary to provide for public safety, you know, you add this to the massive defunding of the police effort.
	It's getting to be the Wild West out there.
	It's going to become the Wild West.
	2020, you know, for all the liberals that don't want citizens that don't believe in the Second Amendment to have firearms.
	Well, we've sold more firearms in 2020 than any other year on record.
	And, you know, the shooting rate in New York jumped nearly 125%.
	Does that surprise you?
	By the way, Black Lives Matter's co-founder is firing back at Obama for criticizing defund the police.
	That's where this is all headed.
	You have an emergency medical team unit robbed in Brooklyn, lured by a fake phony phone call.
	I mean, you can't make this up.
	You look at House and Senate Democrats, they're prioritizing foreign nationals and bills while Americans remain jobless.
	And they're more concerned about bringing in people from other parts of the world.
	How about we hire Americans first?
	Unbelievable.
	This is now, well, you know, welcome to this.
	The language is now evolved according to dictionary.com in response to the court packing definition change.
	So, in other words, dictionary.com changed their definition of court packing in response to a Twitter user's acknowledgement of the change that language evolves.
	And apparently, this new definition, responding to a tweet criticizing a Playboy reporter for implying Republicans packed the courts, presumably with the vacancy that, by the way, had happened all those other times in the past, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
	And anyway, language evolves, so do we.
	And a November 1st archive shows a definition of court packing based on the U.S. history.
	Franklin, the FDR trying unsuccessfully 1937 to add six additional justices, which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws.
	But anyway, now they want to just change the name.
	It's unbelievable.
	Cornell University is offering race-based exemptions to the flu vaccine mandate.
	And they said students who identify as a person of color can seek an exemption to the school's flu vaccination mandate for on-campus residents because of historical injustices and current events.
	And it required all students attending its campus to receive a flu vaccine according to its COVID-19 behavioral compact.
	And the school allowed wiggle room for students who identify as, quote, black, indigenous, or as a person of color and may have personal concerns about fulfilling the compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events.
	That does not exist to all students.
	That would be called discrimination.
	I'm not quite sure if they got, I don't even like the policy to begin with, to be honest.
	Anyway, unbelievable times we're living in.
	It's getting nuttier.
	Did you see what's going on out in Portland?
	Portland exploded in violence again.
	Hundreds of protesters attempting to set up another autonomous zone, reclaim a home that was sold by an African-American family to pay for legal fees when their son was arrested.
	So they outraged with a dozen arrests, more violence, apparently.
	Family was removed in September.
	They're throwing rocks at officers.
	Again, why would they stop?
	They didn't get in trouble the last time, people out there sprayed a fire extinguisher at them, damaged police vehicles.
	And this happened all in broad daylight.
	And that genius mayor Wheeler out there sent out a statement.
	He's authorizing Portland police to use all lawful means to end the occupation.
	And not going to be another autonomous zone in Portland.
	Okay.
	I would have him explain what he means by lawful.
	I want to know what he means by that.
	He doesn't mean what you and I mean.
	I can tell you right now.
	Exactly right.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, I would say, you know what, Wheeler?
	It's now the, it's the era of anarchists and radicals.
	They're just taking over.
	And they don't care about.
	Yeah, but see, this is the problem, right?
	So there's a bunch of innocent people trying to just live their lives and raise their kids.
	And then you got Wheeler out there freewheeling it, pardon the pun.
	Let's have Wheeler handle it.
	You put together the police that you want.
	You put together the people that you want to enforce the lawful exchange that you want to see happen.
	And then we'll talk.
	Cornell University, you got to get vaccinated, but not if you're not white.
	Okay.
	Why are we dividing people at Cornell?
	Shouldn't they be one glorious student body and eventually would be proud Cornell graduates, an Ivy League school graduate?
	I mean, I don't understand the written in discrimination in school policy.
	By the way, why are they making people get vaccinated anyway?
	That should be a personal medical choice between a student and their doctor.
	It's not like you're telling them to wear a mask in a classroom, which they, I would say, have the right to do.
	Are you going to now demand that everybody get vaccinated, but not if you're not white?
	How does that bring people together?
	But that's what they're doing.
	You can't even make this stuff up.
	Then you got this woman, Cynthia Johnson.
	We've been passing notes about this back and forth all day.
	Have you been following this?
	So let me just go back and play part of this.
	And look, there's some context to it.
	But anyway, she's a member of the Michigan House of Representatives, and she makes a call out to her soldiers to make you Trump people pay.
	Now, it was an original post.
	She made the comments, got a lot of press pickup because she apparently has been getting threatening voicemails.
	I don't want anybody threatening anybody out there.
	Anyway, she started it with, you know, pretty ugly speech and anyone who criticized her.
	But anyway, while she does end the video with this threat, she says at the top, be smart.
	You don't have to yell.
	You don't have to curse at anyone.
	Hit their asses in the pocketbook.
	And then she goes on to explain how the FBI found someone who wished to threaten her.
	I don't want her to get threatened.
	I don't want anybody to get threatened.
	I mean, why don't we just leave people the hell alone?
	She's now been removed from her committee assignments.
	She's awaiting further discipline action, according to some published reports now.
	But listen to what she says in this threat.
	You don't have to yell.
	You don't have to curse anybody out.
	You don't have to call people names.
	Hit their asses in the pocketbook.
	So this is just a warning to you Trumpers.
	Be careful.
	Walk lightly.
	We ain't playing with you.
	Enough of the shenanigans.
	Enough is enough.
	And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it.
	Do it right.
	Be in order.
	Make them pay.
	I love y'all.
	Do you know what to do?
	Do it right.
	Make them pay.
	I don't know.
	Maybe I'm just too, maybe I'm become a snowflake and it sounds like a threat to me, Linda.
	Oh, it's a threat.
	It is 100% a threat.
	But the problem is that we're not allowed to call it that because we're on the other side of the argument.
	How about a threat is wrong, period?
	If anybody that says there are conservatives out there threatening liberals, I would say don't do it.
	No, 100%.
	I mean, this is what we say to everybody, you know?
	So now we're creating this hatred and this horrible way of thinking instead of saying, hey, you're all children of God and you should all love each other.
	We should all be kind to each other and stop trying to hurt each other because we all got to live here.
	But there's none of that anymore.
	Now it's just divisiveness.
	Those days, I think, sadly are gone.
	And I mean, sadly, too.
	I mean, you would think that I know everybody that is a graduate of whatever school they went to.
	They're all proud of their university.
	They all, you know.
	I'm not proud.
	I didn't even walk.
	Where I got my UK, they'd be a bitch.
	You're not normal.
	Let's put it.
	Most normal people usually, they're proud.
	They graduated and they're one, you know, if you are, well, whatever.
	You know, you name the school, whatever your mascot happens to be.
	You know, you just identify with it, and it's something that people have in common.
	It's not about the racial component of this.
	Man, it's like, you know, one glorious Cornell family.
	Apparently, forget it.
	Let's go to Christian in California.
	What's up, Christian?
	How are you?
	I wish I could say that I was good, but I'm really not.
	Your heart is troubled.
	What's up?
	I'm in trouble.
	I live in Sherman Oaks, and my wife and I are moving my son from preschool to kindergarten above.
	And we are crossing off schools faster than we can find them.
	That is teaching the anti-racist critical race theory curriculum, which has now come in this new form of Pollyanna curriculum, which everyone needs to learn about right away.
	There was this like Pollyanna conference.
	It took place at the big independent private schools out here.
	And it literally, it sounds fluffy.
	And then you get the second page.
	It's like to teach your child's racial identity and the racial identity of others.
	And it's grades K through eight.
	It is beyond disturbing.
	There's a school that I'm going to do.
	Look, I've covered a lot of this.
	I've seen this and it's happening everywhere.
	You know what?
	The hardest and saddest thing in all this is, how about you just teach kids to respect other kids and leave them alone?
	And that's easy to do.
	And keep it basic.
	And then how about we focus on reading, writing, math, and some version of normal history that is accurate?
	And we don't do the simple, basic things.
	And they spend all this time on all of this other stuff.
	And, you know, it's like it's.
	I'm not really understanding what the purpose of it is except to turn, you know, kids and indoctrinate them in a good little socialist as quickly as you possibly can because this may be the only opportunity you have and to groupthink and to, you know, total, complete conformity.
	But at the same time, don't ever think about mentioning God in school.
	That's too controversial.
	Kick him out.
	It's if you're going to, how about just teach the simple value of love God and your neighbor as yourself?
	I guess you have to eliminate God.
	How about you treat your neighbor as yourself?
	Simple.
	Keep it there.
	And leave everybody, then stick to the reading, writing, math, and history.
	And let's get our kids educated so they have the rungs of the ladder that they can climb and tap their God-given abilities and live life and be the best they can be at whatever they choose to do.
	All right, Hennon's tonight, Nine Eastern on the Fox News channel, Saudi DVR.
	I love this statement.
	Under Biden, I learned yesterday the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, they are investigating my tax affairs.
	I take it seriously.
	Okay.
	And Joe is deeply proud of his son who gets all these millions with zero experience.
	Anyway, we'll have the latest on that, the election.
	Kaylee McEnany, Laura Trump, Pete Hagseth, Congressman Gates joins us.
	Leo Terrell, Rick Rennell, Chris Kobach, and Reince Prievis.
	News you won't get from the mob.
	Nine Eastern tonight.
	We'll see you then back here tomorrow.
	Thanks for being with us.
	You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
	We got you.
	I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
	We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
	Normally is about real conversations.
	Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
	We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
	Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
	I'm Ben Ferguson.
	And I'm Ted Cruz.
	Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
	Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
	Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
	And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
	We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
	So download Verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.

▲