Trump Files ANOTHER Suit Blocking Michigan Results, Media Finally Realizes Trump Can STILL Win This
The media is finally starting to realize Trump is not out and will not give up.The latest lawsuit in Michigan will block the certification of the results. This is similar to his lawsuit in PA alleging impropriety over court order violations and violations of the 14th amendment.Democrats and media however have spent too much time gloating failing to realize that Trump is in it to win it and will not back down.He has a legal path to victory in the electoral college, a state republican electoral college victory, and a house delegation path to victory.Trump and the Republicans are all in and Democrats better start paying attention or soon there will be no President-elect joe Biden.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The honeymoon is over and people in media are starting to realize that Donald Trump isn't giving up.
And in fact, he does have multiple paths to victory.
You see, many of these people were playing checkers while Donald Trump was playing 4D chess.
And I'm not saying this as a compliment.
I'm just saying Donald Trump seems to have multiple legal challenges and plan B and plan C to win this election and not leave.
My personal opinion so far, and I'll tell you, maybe I'll be wrong about this, is that Joe Biden will end up the president.
But who am I to know what the future holds?
You see, for a long time, well, for several days after they declared that Joe Biden was the victor and president-elect, we've seen many people in media and journalists, people on CNN, for instance, saying, there is no way Donald Trump could possibly win this election.
It's over.
Joe Biden's president, and he needs to just accept it.
But now we're starting to see the journalists recognize, uh, actually Trump has a plan.
He's got several lawsuits, and they could actually work.
Axios calls it the electoral college play.
That's one of the strategies.
Vox says Trump's attempt to overturn the election result is ramping up.
Here's what comes next.
Watch the state certifications, the state legislatures, and the courts.
You know what?
I don't know exactly who said it, but they were like, Donald Trump's not just gonna leave if he loses.
And I'm like, you know, I was wrong.
I assumed, and this is, look, fair criticism to me.
I assumed the results would come in, they'd say, look, Joe Biden's the winner, and Trump would say, all right, all right.
But he's not doing that.
Granted, it's been a very weird election, and I don't think it's fair to say necessarily that, as of right now, Trump lost.
For one reason.
We're not dealing with a landslide in either direction.
If this was clearly a Joe Biden victory, then it's a Joe Biden victory, but it's not clear.
Now, the margins in many of these states are kinda over the top.
And if we're gonna go by a standard set in 2016 with Trump himself, the media called it for Trump, Trump said he won, and he won by razor-thin margins.
But Trump's under no obligation to actually do that, and so he's fighting back.
And with the race still being this close in many states, Trump has a right to pursue a legal avenue to challenge the votes.
And I think he should.
We shouldn't just roll over and assume that everything is fine.
We want to make sure that we have election integrity and security, and Trump is going for it.
More importantly, we got 72.3 million, I think it's 72.3 million people who voted for Donald Trump and 77 who voted for Joe Biden as it stands right now.
We want to make sure we do not undermine the presidency of whoever ends up winning.
I'm not sure we can actually get a clean victory for anyone at this point.
No matter what happens, no one's going to accept the results.
Certainly now, Donald Trump is challenging them in court, but he also has other paths to victory.
You see, while people were sitting here screaming fraud, because Trump probably distracted them in my opinion, They're ignoring Trump's actual legal salvo.
He's going after the 14th Amendment.
Votes not being treated equally.
And it makes sense.
And from this, he also has an electoral college play.
The Republican states can just give Trump the electoral votes.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention to the Supreme Court ruling from, I think it was June, where they said the states Legislation will ultimately decide.
That means the states can say, we don't care about a popular vote.
We want to certify the electors for Trump.
It could happen.
And it's already starting to line up that way.
Now, the big move Trump is making right now is that he is suing Michigan to block certification.
He already sued Pennsylvania.
With those two states frozen as of right now, I believe that would knock Joe Biden under 270, creating another Path to victory.
Trump doesn't need the electoral college votes in the states, and Trump doesn't need to actually overturn votes.
He could also win by jamming up certification and then getting a House delegation election.
This is gonna get weird.
But the members of the media kept saying, Trump can't win, he can't win, it's over, and now they're going, uh, Trump doesn't think he's leaving.
He's acting like he's gonna stay.
So let's do this.
The big breaking news first is that Trump is suing in Michigan.
Let's go through this and see what the breaking news is, and then I'll show you what the long-term strategy is as Vox breaks down.
And granted, Vox is not pro-Trump, okay?
But we'll go through this, and I'll break it down.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I got a P.O.
box if you'd like to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video and I'll tell you why.
I am not here to placate anyone's emotions or anybody from the Trump side to the anti-Trump side.
I simply want to let you know what's actually happening.
Now many of you may view me as biased and that's totally fine, but please just hear what I have to say and let other people know.
Trump is going after actual paths to victory.
As the media tells you over and over again, it can never happen.
They are pulling the wool over your eyes.
You will not see what's coming.
I have talked to many of my friends.
They're like, it's over.
Trump lost.
And I'm like, probably.
OK, I absolutely.
The results were the projected winner is Joe Biden.
But it's not over until someone is inaugurated.
Or I guess until December 14th and the deadline hits.
If you are not paying attention, you go back to sleep, you will wake up one day and not understand why it is that Donald Trump won.
There are probably many people who aren't paying attention who want Trump to win and might wake up one day pleasantly surprised.
But either way, you better pay attention to this stuff.
So if you want to support my work and think this is important information, please consider sharing this.
But don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
Here's the story from Bloomberg.
Trump campaign sues to stop Michigan from certifying the election.
President Donald Trump's campaign has filed another lawsuit in Michigan challenging the election results.
The federal lawsuit, which the campaign said it filed late Tuesday, Seeks to stop the state from certifying results that show Democrat Joe Biden leading by almost 146,000 votes.
The campaign asked a judge to stop Michigan from certifying fraudulent ballots, those received after Election Day, those processed when observers weren't present, and any counted with defective tabulating machines or software.
At least two prior suits contesting the state's election results have already been rejected by Michigan judges.
And now, I believe, this is a federal lawsuit.
This is the process.
They go through Michigan.
Michigan says no.
They escalate.
Trump has said he doesn't accept results showing that Biden won, and his campaign and Republican supporters have sued in at least four states.
Legal experts say the suits will fail to substantially change the vote tally or provide enough votes to give Trump a win in the Electoral College.
And that may be, and it doesn't matter because Trump will still have a legal path to victory.
Now, I gotta stop because the leftists are saying, haha, cope, MAGA, cope, blah, blah, blah, as if I'm saying all these things because I'm like, oh, please, Trump, please win.
I'm not saying that.
Like I already said several times, if Joe Biden wins, I'll laugh.
I've been through an Obama-Biden presidency.
I'm not going to cry about it.
But I tell you this, the news is happening.
The article from Bloomberg, the article from Vox telling you Trump is going to do this.
You better pay attention.
Too many of these leftists just think, we did it, we won, we can go back to sleep now.
I was expecting that, to be honest, because I've seen it before.
Please, by all means, go back to sleep.
And then Trump will have no opposition when he jams up the certification process and gets a House delegation victory.
He's not just going to roll over.
This is not normal times.
They say, Trump's campaign has provided no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
Which is really funny, they put that in there, because the lawsuits they're citing don't care about voter fraud.
I mean, they mention it.
But I think Donald Trump is saying fraud over and over again, because he's a master of distraction.
And now these leftists are like, there's no fraud, where's the fraud?
And they're all laughing, haha, and high-fiving each other.
Meanwhile, Trump's legal team is saying, disqualify these 300,000 ballots, disqualify these 150,000 ballots.
Not because of fraud.
Because of impropriety.
Notably in Pennsylvania.
450,000 ballots they're citing.
Potentially more.
Rudy Giuliani says, a court ordered you allow our observers within six feet and you denied us.
That's a violation of a court order.
You tabulated 450,000 votes during that time.
We have 50-plus witnesses.
We want these votes thrown out.
Maybe the court will say, no, that's ridiculous.
Or maybe they'll say, yes.
And then Pennsylvania turns Republican.
I hope y'all are paying attention, because these things can happen.
I'm not here to make probability predictions on what might happen, but I kind of have to, because people are going to be like, look what Tim was claiming was going to happen!
I'm reading you Vox and Bloomberg, dude, please.
And this is for the leftists, because I know the conservatives and the moderates for the most part are like, I'm listening, tell me what's going on.
But these leftists, man, they're posting on Twitter.
When I post this stuff, I'm like, Trump's going for the legal victory.
They're like, heh heh, cope!
I don't care if Trump loses.
I mean, I do.
But if he loses an election, he loses an election.
But man, the hubris of these people.
Anyway, the point is, fraud isn't the major player right now.
And if the left is distracted arguing about fraud, Trump can get a process victory.
Not to mention an electoral college victory and a delegation victory, come on!
The delegation is also like a lawfare victory.
Trump sued Monday to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results, claiming that voting irregularities justify keeping the winner undeclared while the case proceeds.
Biden leads in Pennsylvania, which has 20 electoral votes by nearly 46,000 votes, according to the Associated Press.
The campaign supplied a copy of the 31-page complaint, which couldn't immediately be verified in federal court in the Western District of Michigan.
We shall see.
But here's what Vox is saying.
Vox is fairly progressive.
They're a leftist, VC-funded digital media venture.
They're saying Trump's attempt to overturn the election result is ramping up.
Here's what comes next.
The author, Andrew Prokop, said, while he believes the chances Trump can succeed at this is very, very slim, you better pay attention.
Hey, Andrew, I've been saying the same thing the whole time.
And I agree.
I think we're looking at a Joe Biden presidency, but Trump has ordered federal agencies to prepare budgets for February as if he's not leaving.
Mike Pompeo said there's going to be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
When we go through the Constitution and count all the votes, we will get a smooth transition, blah, blah, blah.
So yeah, Trump seems to think he's not going anywhere.
Here's why.
Vox says, President Trump is refusing to concede the election.
Most Republican senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, won't yet acknowledge that President-elect Joe Biden won.
And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration, though perhaps he was joking.
I don't know.
Some people say he was joking.
Fine.
So you may be wondering, what's going to happen?
With GOP politicians' rhetoric all over the place, it's useful to focus on concrete matters.
Two things will happen over the next five weeks that ordinarily would be formalities, but in a disputed election will be crucial.
First, states will certify their election results.
December 8th is the deadline set by federal law, but most states have set earlier deadlines.
Second, once state results are certified, the Electoral College will cast the votes that will officially choose the next president on December 14th.
Both of these processes are currently on track to make Biden the next president.
And despite all the sound and fury, nothing happening yet appears likely to get in the way of either process.
I would like to note, I agree with Andrew.
Nothing happening yet appears likely to get in the way of either process.
But possible.
And Trump is not backing down.
They say that could change, however.
The dangerous scenario would be if some combination of Republican state officials, Republican legislators, and Republican-appointed judges attempts to block the certification of results in key states Biden won, or to replace Biden electors with Trump electors, likely citing assertions that the election results were plagued by some type of fraud.
But up to this point, Trump's lawsuits have had little success.
Republican state officials involved in the counts have insisted they've found no fraud.
And there are no solid plans among GOP state legislators to change the outcome.
To assess whether Trump's ploy to overturn the election results is successful, keep an eye on whether any of these change in the coming weeks.
Please listen.
It's Vox.
They're framing this as, those darn Republicans are trying to steal the election.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what their framing is.
What they're telling us is sound.
Okay?
There is a possible path for a Trump victory.
He could get an electoral victory through nullifying votes, okay?
He can get a victory through Republican legislators choosing electors for Trump, so not through votes.
And he could get a lawfare victory by stopping certification and forcing a House delegation vote.
That's my understanding.
I could be wrong, but that's where we're at.
Let's read.
Andrew says.
says.
Currently, Biden leads by about 146,000 votes in Michigan, 48,000 in Pennsylvania, 36,000
in Nevada, 20,000 in Wisconsin, 14,000 in Georgia, and 12,000 in Arizona.
All of these states, except Georgia and Arizona, have been called for Biden by every major
election analyst desk.
For Trump to get 270 electoral votes, he would have to change the outcome in at least three
of those states, a very tall order.
Counting is still continuing, but it's nearly done in all of these states.
He doesn't need to change the outcome, but they filed multiple lawsuits.
If they can disqualify these votes, Then Trump is winning, and he will get 270.
In some of these states, there could be recounts for a much closer election in only one state.
It would be possible that a recount could change the outcome, but recounts typically don't change the initial tally that much.
Out of more than two dozen statewide recounts since 2000, the most an initial vote count has changed after the recount was 1,247 from the Bush v. Gore incident.
So don't expect recounts to save Trump when he's down by 12,000 or more votes in all these states.
Now I'll stop.
Trump could be trying to run out the clock.
That's the point of recounts.
Let's continue.
Certifications and electors are the two crucial next steps.
Once the counting, and in some cases recounting, is completed, the next step is for these state officials to officially certify the vote totals, and then officially appoint the winner's chosen slate of electors, the people who make up the electoral college to vote for the president.
Republicans who have been sympathetic toward Trump's refusal to concede, such as McConnell, have pointed to these two processes, certifications and elections, as a deadline of sorts for challenges.
At some point here we will have to find out finally who is certified in each of these states, and the Electoral College will determine the winner.
So for Trump to overturn the results of the election, he would have to prevent at least three of the six key swing states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia—from certifying their results, showing Biden winning, and or appointing Biden electors.
Full stop.
We got news.
Georgia is doing a full-hand recount.
Don't know what that will yield, but it's happening.
We also have this news from Lancaster Online out of PA.
House committee to audit election as a cloud looms over PA, Cutler says.
Stories from today.
The state legislature in Pennsylvania, Republicans by the way, is going to audit their election.
I don't know what that will mean.
They say it's not to change the outcome of any election, but just to trust that it's working properly.
It could very well jam up the process and freeze certification.
We'll see.
State officials appear unlikely to go along, they say.
If the law and the facts were all that mattered, Trump's prospects for blocking the certification of results or the appointing of electors would be nil.
But one question is whether Trump can harness the power of raw partisan politics to make it happen anyway, by asserting that the election is fraudulent and getting various Republican legislators, state officials, or GOP-appointed judges to fall in line.
As far as certifications are concerned, the early signs have not been encouraging for Trump.
One Republican Secretary of State in a key swing state is Brad Raffensperger of Georgia, and he has pushed back against assertions that voter fraud changed the outcome.
Doesn't matter, however.
He's also ordered a full-hand recount.
Some say he was pressured into doing it, because Perdue and Loeffler said he should resign.
Now he's calling for a full-hand recount.
Maybe Trump will end up finding some discrepancies, maybe not.
We'll see how it plays out.
They say in Arizona, though, Republicans control the state government.
Democrat Katie Hobbs, the elected Secretary of State, is in charge of certifying the state's elections.
We have no irregularities.
We have no fraud, Hobbs said last week.
Nevada has a Republican Secretary of State, but Biden has a lead of nearly three percentage points, which looks safe.
Pennsylvania has a Democratic Secretary of State as well.
In Wisconsin and Michigan, bipartisan boards are in charge of certifications.
All four states have Democratic governors.
None of them are going to go along with Trump's baseless claims that the election was stolen.
However, I believe they have Republican legislatures, which could challenge this, create more lawsuits, and freeze certification.
That's something Trump may be going after.
Accordingly, the Trump campaign has also been filing a flurry of lawsuits in state and federal court, attempting to challenge the outcomes and delay state certifications of results.
None have been particularly successful, but it's possible that some will land before conservative judges, who will find reasons to side with the Trump campaign.
And of course, the last stop of any federal lawsuit is the Supreme Court. Ask yourself, my friends, why was it
that they confirmed Amy Coney Barrett the 11th hour just before the election? Perhaps because
Trump was on the way out, they were worried we got to get it in. But couldn't they
have confirmed her in the lame duck session? Yes, they could do it now. And Democrats said
as much. Whatever the reason may be, Amy Coney Barrett is now on the Supreme Court
creating a five to four advantage for I say 5-4 because Roberts has already sided with the liberal justices on a proceeding pertaining to Pennsylvania.
Well, now you've got Amy Coney Barrett.
They say there are also Republican legislators and GOP-appointed judges.
I'm not going to go through all this because I do want to show you more, so I'll just give you the gist.
They say if three other Supreme Court justices agree with this line of thinking, they could potentially grant partisan state legislatures far more leeway to do what they want with elections, without having to worry about governors' vetoes, secretaries of states, or election boards.
And if those partisan state legislatures want to appoint electors who will give Trump a second term, well, maybe the Supreme Court will let them do it.
You see, This goes back to a ruling that happened earlier this year.
Fact check.
State legislators pick electors.
Supreme Court ruled against faithless electors.
Long story short, our rating true.
That's right.
Mark Levin said the states should appoint Trump legislators.
Whether or not you want him to do it, it's not the point.
He said it.
They claimed it on Twitter.
Twitter claimed, this is not true, it's disputed.
USA Today fact check.
True.
They say the Constitution grants state legislators the power to choose the electors for electoral college.
But the electors do have the final say.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that if there is a law saying what the people, the electors need to vote for, they have to.
They ruled against faithless electors.
My friends, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona could all just say, you know what?
Vote for Trump.
We said so.
Maybe the governors will say, no, I veto.
It'll go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will say, state legislators decide.
We've already ruled on this, didn't we?
And thus, Fox is pointing out, Trump's got a path to victory.
Watch the certifications, the state legislatures, and the courts.
To recap, a scenario for Trump overturning the election's outcome is for Republican legislatures in multiple states to go around their governors and defy their state laws by appointing Trump's electors rather than Biden's, and for the conservative Supreme Court justices to then agree with legislators.
It's a far-fetched scenario.
Biden appears to have secured leads in too many states for this to work out.
But it's difficult to outright declare it won't happen.
Partisanship can be a powerful thing, and Trump is trying to make the election with stolen the standard Republican position.
If Republican voters believe him and demand their representatives take action, then it will become harder for state legislators to explain why they're not doing anything about it.
My friends, we've got a USPS whistleblower.
We have statistical anomalies.
We have several sworn affidavits noting impropriety.
Perhaps the reason Trump is saying fraud is because there is evidence, maybe not widespread, but enough to convince the population that this is not a fair election.
And thus they will demand of their states, certify Trump, or they will jam up the process.
What they don't mention here is something brought up by the co-founder of MSNBC, which I've cited several times.
My understanding is that this is the case.
I don't have the source pulled up in front of me.
The argument is that if there's no certification, and we reach that deadline, the Supreme Court will say, enough.
No more fighting.
House delegations vote.
One vote per state.
And there are 50 votes, and I believe as of right now, before the election, 26 were Republicans.
I don't know when they certify.
I believe the state legislators certify their results well before federal, so it may be that there will be 28 votes for Trump and 22 votes for Joe Biden, thus creating a House delegation path to victory.
That could be wrong.
I've read a bunch of, like, legal articles about it suggesting that could be the case.
And then there was the Newsweek article claiming that was the case.
But I'm not a lawyer, so, you know, I'm not entirely sure if that will pan out.
But while all these lefties keep telling me over and over again, Tim, you're crazy!
MAGA COPE!
You just want Trump to win!
You can't accept he lost!
Blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, I can't accept he lost.
If Joe Biden wins, he wins, man.
I'm gonna keep doing my thing.
I think the world will move on.
I think I'll complain about the warmongering that he's doing.
He's already bringing on big corporate executives and multinational billion-dollar interests, so surprise, surprise.
But whatever, man, I've lived through this before.
You want to come to me?
You want to come to Trump supporters and say, MagaCulp?
Sure.
How about the ACLU next?
Breaking.
We are joining a lawsuit to stop the Trump campaign from trying to illegally throw out votes in Pennsylvania.
Every vote counts.
Voters decide the winner.
We'll see him in court.
That's right.
The ACLU is suggesting it's entirely possible.
That Trump could get these votes thrown out, could win Pennsylvania, and as of right now, with the racist call, Joe Biden would be under 270 votes.
He'd be at 259.
We don't know how Georgia, Arizona will end up being called.
I believe some outlets have already called Arizona.
Georgia is probably going to go to Joe Biden.
But Georgia's called for a hand recount.
That could get jammed up.
We could end up in a scenario where they certify all the results and Joe Biden doesn't get 270 because several states are held up in court or Pennsylvania flips to Donald Trump.
In which case, Trump wins a House delegation victory.
I believe that is a nightmare scenario.
I believe we're in the nightmare.
We're in a place where we are inching towards two presidents declaring victory.
I hope you are paying attention.
Biden says transition can proceed without Trump administration's cooperation.
Let me ask you, what happens if Joe Biden, who says he won, who has announced himself the president-elect, and as has the media, continues on with calling up foreign leaders?
Which he's been doing, which I was told was a violation of the Logan Act, but sure, whatever.
He continues.
The Supreme Court comes out and says, no, Trump wins.
Then Trump says, I was ruled the president by the courts.
But Biden's already begun his transition without Trump's cooperation.
Do we end up with two men both declaring themselves the president?
I mean, we kind of are already there.
At what point do we get to the counting heads phase, where Donald Trump is acting as though he's not going to leave and is filing these challenges?
Will he come to a point where he just says, okay, my legal challenges are exhausted, I'm out?
Or will Trump say, no, I want the states to certify me and not Joe Biden?
And what if the courts agree?
Donald Trump has a case and thus he wins.
And Joe Biden says Trump got 450,000 ballots thrown out in Pennsylvania, stealing the election.
I am the winner and I refuse to back down.
Come on, man.
Trump threw out the votes.
I won this one.
I refuse.
What happens?
Who sides with who?
Counting heads.
Who's loyal to you?
Well, my friends, Donald Trump just fired the top leadership at the Pentagon, so one has to wonder why and what's coming next.
Don't think it can't happen here.
People win the lottery.
You ever think about that?
I don't base my decisions off of astronomical odds, but I want to make sure I'm talking about what's going on and what might happen.
Of course, there are many people who say, Tim, you shouldn't talk about this stuff because it's never gonna happen.
Dude, Vox wrote the article, so don't come to me.
I agree with Vox's assessment.
Far-fetched astronomical odds.
Joe Biden likely going to take the office on the 20th of January.
But Trump isn't backing down, and it can happen here.
And I don't know what to expect, other than this is what's currently happening.
And unless we get some major breakthrough from a court saying, Trump, no, you lose, So far, it's moving along exactly as we'd expect it to for Trump.
Now, as Vox said, in which I agree, everything is moving in such a way that we can expect Joe Biden to become president.
And thus, we may be coming to a point where Trump finds a way to overtake Joe Biden.
And then, as some people have pointed out on Twitter, and I know, I'm going to say it, if Trump overturns the current media narrative, I don't want to say the results because the results haven't been certified, but if Trump flips the script and then they say the votes are disqualified, Joe Biden's going to say these are legitimate votes that Trump got disqualified through technicality.
Trump did not win the popular vote, he did not win the electoral college, he got a court victory and then won.
Civil War.
At least that's what other people have already brought up in response to Axios.
I tweeted about it.
And I think it's funny, the left is like, here goes Tim talking about it again.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Because when I talk to these lefties, I'm like, did you read the lawsuit?
Did you read the lawsuit from Pennsylvania?
No.
There's no fraud.
He's got you.
Trump has dangled the fraud over here while gone after process over here.
And you're sitting there saying, why do I care about his lawsuit?
There's no fraud.
He'll never win.
He's just flailing about.
Now Vox and Axios are starting to say, guys, guys, listen, it's not over.
It's not over until the certification process happens, and Joe Biden is inaugurated, or Donald Trump is.
But I hope all of you are paying attention, because maybe nothing happens.
Maybe nothing.
But we're in unprecedented times, to say the least.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6pm over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel from this one.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there.
Project Veritas received information from a whistleblower, a man who worked for the U.S.
Postal Service.
He said that there was backdating of ballots going on.
What this means is that a ballot came in late, past the deadline, and was not eligible, and they started putting wrong dates on it to make it look like they actually came in before the deadline.
This is fraud.
Well, this whistleblower signed a sworn affidavit.
The affidavit was cited by Republicans as evidence of fraud.
And now something very, very weird is going on.
Take a look at this tweet I have on the screen, for those that are watching.
Donald Trump says a brave patriot.
More and more people are stepping forward to expose this rigged election.
If you look to the bottom right where it says, What's happening?
This is Twitter's editorial choice to put this news in front of everyone where it says
Pennsylvania postal worker recants allegations of ballot tampering.
Washington Post, Washington Examiner and New York Times report.
Why, he's quoting James O'Keefe, who has a video of that postal worker, and a quote, I did not recant.
In fact, he doubles down.
He does another interview with Veritas, which they released, including recordings of federal agents interrogating this man and telling him they want to plant false memories.
I know, it sounds insane!
That's what I'm saying.
What is happening?
Of course, I've asked some friends and they say, dude, Project Veritas lies all the time.
Why should I believe them?
And I'm like, Prove it!
Prove they made it up!
I don't know what you want me to do about it.
Project Veritas has won all of their defamation suits as far as I can tell.
I've looked into the allegations against them and I found like one thing that James O'Keefe has said maybe they could have done a better job.
But aside from that, we've got a postal worker who signed a sworn affidavit.
Now you can argue, he's making it up Tim, he's unreliable, he's a liar.
Fine!
Now we gotta investigate.
That's it.
We have to investigate, right?
Donald Trump is fighting as hard as possible to challenge many ballots that are improper, to challenge a lot of what he sees as fraud, or what may be fraud, I should say.
I think it's fair to say there's absolute evidence of fraud, but evidence doesn't mean proof, necessarily.
What I mean by that is we have, I think, They released something like 234 pages of sworn testimony from a variety of poll workers alleging weird things going on, violations of procedure and standard, and one woman actually signed a sworn affidavit saying her dead son voted.
So this stuff exists.
I gotta say...
I think it warrants an investigation.
And I'll tell you what's really worrying about all of this.
Look, there may be voter fraud, but I think that's not the important question.
The important question is whether or not Trump's legal actions will make a difference.
I don't know.
The media is absolutely opposed in every way.
To what Trump is saying.
And that's weird to me.
I don't care about your tribe.
And that includes Trump supporters.
And the left says, Tim, you're a Trump supporter.
I voted for the guy.
No problem.
But I don't care about the people who are... There's people mad at me, I guess.
Because they're like, why won't you show the statistical anomalies and talk about the watermark?
And I'm like, dude...
I want to make sure we're getting to the root of what's going on with the hard evidence, the strange media stories, and I don't want to play any tribalist games that don't make sense to regular people.
So there may be, I've talked about Benford's law, there's like a weird anomaly in Biden votes.
I've talked about, I've tweeted about it, that there are certain counties with over 100% voter turnout.
These things are very weird.
And I am talking about the evidence presented by Donald Trump, but I guess some people aren't satisfied with that.
But anyway, the point is.
The media is absolutely in the bag for Democrats, and everyone knows it.
The way they were ideologically invested in the riots, for instance, didn't want to report on what was really going on.
And now we have this story from the Washington Post.
Postal worker recanted allegations of ballot tampering, officials say.
Okay.
Maybe he did, but he says he didn't.
Well, now we've got a problem, I suppose.
The Washington Post ran a story from anonymous sources, according—they say three officials briefed on the investigation and a statement from a House congressional committee.
A Pennsylvania postal worker, whose claims have been cited by top Republicans as potential evidence of widespread voting irregularities, admitted to U.S.
Postal Service investigators that he fabricated the allegations, according to three officials briefed on the investigation, in a statement from a House congressional committee.
All right, hold on a minute.
You mean to tell me that we got three people and a House committee, we're not party to the actual investigation, we don't know who these individuals are, and we don't know exactly what happened in this meeting, and the guy is saying he did not recant?
I gotta tell you, Washington Post, your standards are really low!
I'd say something like, the bar couldn't get any lower, but I'm pretty sure you buried it!
This is crazy.
They even say, look at this, Hopkins did not respond to messages from the Washington Post seeking comment through his social media accounts, but family members and phone messages earlier this week.
Or, but in a YouTube video he posted Tuesday night, he denied recanting.
I'm here to say I did not recant my statements.
That did not happen.
The reversal to investigators comes as Trump has refused to concede.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe he did?
Maybe he signed something?
But Project Veritas has put out this video, and I want to make sure you guys will be able to hear it.
This is creepy stuff.
You need to hear the recording Veritas put out.
Let me play this for you.
unidentified
And so let me make good on that promise right away, okay?
This storm is getting crazy, right?
And it's out of a lot of people's control.
And so the reason they called me in is to try to harness that storm.
Try to reel it back in before it gets really crazy.
I understand.
Because we have senators involved.
We have the Department of Justice involved.
We have all... Trump's lawyer's team's gotten a hold of me.
I'm not...
Well, I am actually.
I am trying to twist you a little bit, because in that, believe it or not, your mind will kick in.
We like to control our mind, and when we do that, we can convince ourselves of a memory.
But when you're under a little bit of stress, which is what I'm doing to you all purposely, your mind can be a little- We're trying to convince you- what did he say?
Look, I'm not going to tell you what you can or can't believe, but it certainly doesn't make
sense that they're claiming this guy recanted to federal agents in an investigation and is
now publicly coming out and saying he didn't actually recant.
I can only imagine if they're saying there was an investigation and this guy recorded
this guy from the office of the IG.
I have no reason to distrust this video.
But I tell you, man.
It's getting weird, isn't it?
Let me tell you how weird it's getting.
Check this out.
PredictIt has Donald Trump's odds improving.
That's right.
They say the race is over, but right now they say presidential election winner, and PredictIt hasn't called it.
For those that aren't familiar, PredictIt is a betting website.
The idea is you buy a share in some outcome.
And then you cash out a dollar per share if you were right, or zero if you were wrong.
In this instance, what they're saying is, for 18 cents, you can buy a share that says, Donald Trump will win the election.
And if he does, you will get a dollar back for every 18 cents.
It's going up.
Now, I suppose there's probably people making value bets, like, I don't mind losing 18 cents if I get a dollar, you know?
Spend a certain amount of money, you could greatly get more.
But are the odds really that good that people are willing to spend 18 cents per share?
Shouldn't it be zero?
I thought the race was already over.
Certainly many people are not acting that way.
And that's where things get weird.
And look, I gotta be honest, I run the risk of getting banned off YouTube for saying this, for bringing this stuff up, but it is what it is, so be it.
The Washington Post is a tribalist actor.
Just like the Trump supporters coming out with videos, you know, and they do, like, mathematical analysis and they're like, this proves it.
You've got two sides trying to say, here's what's really happening.
What I'm concerned with is what happens in the courts, what are the actual allegations, and what is Trump's reasonable and rational path to a legal victory.
Right now we're seeing people in media saying, look, there's a lawsuit and Trump's team says, aha, no fraud.
You see the game they're playing is that you've got these people tweeting out, now with 20,000 retweets, it says they've highlighted this text and it's like, the judge asks them point blank, is there fraud?
And they say, no, not that I know of.
But this specific lawsuit that they're highlighting was about mail-in ballots that were improper.
So what the left and the tribalists and the media are doing is just, it's plain as day.
This is not real.
This is not true information.
They're manipulating.
They have powerful positions in media, and they're putting out misinformation.
I'm trying to get through it.
Now, look, as for these videos of mathematical statistics or whatever that people keep sending me, look, I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.
It's not hard evidence.
We've got affidavits from individuals alleging certain actions were taken, and that, I believe, is where we need to go.
Case in point.
RNC Chair says 11,000 people have come forward with voter fraud claims.
I don't even think voter fraud is the appropriate battleground for this.
I think it's a distraction, and maybe one on purpose.
This USPS mail guy, for all I know, he's making it up.
They say he's recanting.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
That audio's really creepy!
We want to control our minds.
We can convince ourselves of a memory.
That's straight up, like, false memory.
That's a manipulation technique.
I'm familiar with this stuff.
I used to do non-profit fundraising.
I'm familiar.
Not exactly what he was doing, but we know about Pressure tactics for making people take action.
It's sales 101.
That is something else.
But you can see it if you know what you're looking for.
That's weird!
Maybe it's all fake.
I don't know.
But I tell you this, 71 million people probably do want to know, and it's getting weird right now.
It's getting weird when you have people in the media just saying over and over and over again, everything's normal, go back to bad America, your government is in control again.
Donald Trump hasn't conceded the race.
Donald Trump just fired top leadership from the Pentagon.
Donald Trump has instructed federal agencies to operate as though they... to prepare budgets through February as though Trump isn't going anywhere.
And we had Mike Pompeo the other day say, when asked, there will be a smooth transition into a second Trump administration, and then he chuckles.
So they tell me, you know, MAGA COPE.
I'm not sitting here saying that Trump won.
I've actually been saying over and over again that I think, in the end, Joe Biden will be president.
But I tell you, man, all of this news that keeps coming out is getting weird.
It's getting weird.
If they came out and said, Joe Biden presidential elect, when they did, I was like, well, you know, there it is.
Trump didn't concede.
We'll see how that plays out.
He's got some long shot legal tactics.
That's what I said.
Then they put out these weird stories!
Then they put out this story saying the postal worker recanted when he puts out a video saying he didn't, and I'm like, what?
That's really weird!
Shouldn't the title of the video say, Postal Worker Denies Recanting Allegations?
They didn't put that!
Even though in the story, they say straight up he's denying it.
But you see how they've chosen to frame it.
They published this story originally without a comment from the guy.
And apparently he was trying to give them one.
I think it's really strange.
But we have more than one sworn affidavit from individuals alleging voter fraud.
In fact, we have 11,000 now, apparently.
And not only that, Laura Ingraham had a Nevada poll worker on her show last night, disguised, who has signed a sworn affidavit explaining that she saw weird stuff going on with fraud.
Now, I don't think fraud is even the right battlefield for this.
Like I said, it may be a distraction and may be on purpose.
Because the real battleground, in my opinion, is impropriety.
The actual argument that makes the most sense and is the most powerful is the Bush v. Gore argument that all ballots must be treated equally.
You've got mail-in ballots and in-person ballots, and they are not treated equally.
That's the really weird argument because absentee ballots have existed for a long time.
However, I think the issue is that you could argue, while there are fundamental differences between the ballots, they undergo a bit of scrutiny to guarantee the security features of them, and thus, while they may be different in some respects, fundamentally they are the same.
What I'm trying to say, when you go into a polling place, you have to show ID in many states, 38 states, not everywhere.
They look up your name.
You have to have certain information.
There are people watching you.
You have to do things by the book and legally.
You don't have any observers.
You don't have any name check in person when you do vote by mail.
When you request an absentee ballot, there is a security process you go through, and
there is a chain of custody.
You receive your absentee ballot, you mail it back in, they know who requested it, who
received it, and who sent it back.
In many of these places, that's exactly what happened.
However, in many states where they issued universal mail-in voting, they sent ballots out that no one requested.
Some ballots were going to dead people.
Duplicate ballots have been reported.
Or, maybe not duplicate, but, like, in one area you'll get a ballot.
Like, California will get a ballot for a guy who moved, but he'll get a ballot in his new place of residence as well.
So, duplicates in a certain respect.
I'm trying to make sure I'm being careful and not saying that someone received two of the same ballot in the same place.
No, it's like, someone will move, the ballot will go there.
Anyway, that's the point.
They're now arguing, Trump is, that these mail-in ballots are fundamentally different.
That argument may not work.
They might say, no, listen, not every ballot is identical.
Or, maybe the Supreme Court rules all voting must be done in person with few exceptions for the military or people who, you know, are traveling for work.
Absentee ballots.
That's what it's supposed to be about.
Originally, I believe absentee ballot was supposed to be for military personnel who couldn't be there, and we understood why, so we made that exception.
But maybe the end result of this is that all elections must be done in person.
I don't know.
That seems to be the best attack vector for Trump in terms of some kind of victory.
But we do have 11,000 people coming forward with voter fraud claims.
And thus, right now, I don't know if Donald Trump has filed the lawsuit in Michigan, but Trump is trying to now do another block, the same as we saw in Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, Trump sued to stop the certification process, which I believe happens tomorrow, or the 13th, I'm not entirely sure.
All the dates are mixed up because each state has a different certification deadline.
But I believe Pennsylvania's unofficial result deadline was the 10th, which is why many outlets called Pennsylvania for Joe Biden.
Trump is saying, you can't certify these results.
The left and the media are saying it's over, Joe Biden won, shut up, sit down.
No.
I'm sorry.
It doesn't work that way.
Donald Trump is filing legal challenges, certification hasn't happened yet, and we need to understand what's happening.
That's it.
You can't just say, sit down and shut up.
Now with 11,000 people coming forward with voter fraud claims, Things are going to get weird.
But here's the important part.
Pennsylvania has a Republican legislature, the state itself.
I don't believe they're going to just roll over and say, we're going to ignore all of this.
I think we are dangerously close to the parties splitting in such a way.
That's it.
If Republicans in Pennsylvania are, let's say Donald Trump loses his lawsuit.
He says, I want to block the certification process in Pennsylvania.
So Joe Biden, nobody will get these votes.
Okay.
A court could say, no.
Pennsylvania, certify your results.
And the Republican legislature can say, no.
You know why?
Fraud isn't the right argument.
The Pennsylvania legislature set rules.
The executive leadership in Pennsylvania ignored what the legislature wanted.
And it went to court, and I don't have those foley deals pulled up in front of me, but Basically, you've got an instance where the Republican legislature said, we need to do it this way, and they said no.
You have an instance where a court ordered these poll-counting areas to allow observers within a certain distance.
They said no, violating a court order.
I don't know what your answer is to that.
You know, I had Michael Tracy, good dude, he's a good journalist, we were talking about this, and I don't think we have a good answer as to what to do.
And look at it this way, the Trump campaign is arguing.
300,000 votes approximately in Philadelphia and 150 in Allegheny County were improperly counted when a court order said, you must stop.
They didn't.
So now, Rudy Giuliani says, throw them all out.
The ballots have already been spoiled.
They've been removed from their secrecy envelope.
The secrecy envelope was thrown away and now we just have raw ballots we can't verify.
They're all gone.
That is the very serious challenge.
Do you really throw out 450,000 legitimate ballots?
Wow.
But if they violated a court order, what do you do?
Do we call for a new election?
You can't.
The ballots have to be thrown away!
But then Trump wins on a technicality, and legit ballots get discarded?
Now you can argue that these ballots may have been fraudulent, or they were counting things incorrectly.
I've got so much stuff to go through, so I'm definitely going to do another segment on this and go through all the voter fraud claims.
We've got a big list, all the stuff they've put out.
But this Veritas stuff is really weird.
These polls that are coming out are also very strange.
It's like you have two disparate realities forming.
The Democrat and the media, and the Republicans and independent media, or right-wing media.
Two different factions, completely at odds with each other's version of events.
And I'll tell you this, the media is... they're lying.
It's ridiculous.
They keep saying no evidence of voter fraud.
How many sworn affidavits do we need before we can say, yes, we have evidence, it's circumstantial, now we need an investigation, but they keep saying no evidence.
And it's not just like one or two outlets, it's a ton of outlets saying no evidence.
Sorry man, I've seen the sworn affidavit.
Okay?
This is evidence.
It's not proof.
It's not absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is evidence.
The person may be lying.
Doesn't matter.
When we go to court for criminal trials, a witness testimony is circumstantial evidence.
Does it mean they're telling the truth?
No.
But it adds some credibility to an idea that something may have occurred.
Evidence.
The media keeps saying there's none.
It's weird, man.
I don't know what's gonna happen, but I'll tell you my fear.
Let's say Donald Trump is right, and he goes to court, and they say, look at all this fraud.
We've got to nullify these elections.
What happened in Patterson, New Jersey, when they found bundles of ballots in one mailbox, they were like, uh, this is not right.
One in five ballots were disqualified.
So a federal judge said, do a new election.
What do we do for the presidency?
A new election?
What if Trump is right?
And the Supreme Court says we're ordering Pennsylvania to do a new election in person because they spoiled too many ballots and it's unfair to the people whose ballots have been disqualified and we need clean results.
What happens if they do that?
The left will say Trump cheated.
The media will say Trump just got the courts to overturn his loss.
Two disparate realities.
One in which people like us are looking at the news as skeptics saying, I don't know.
I don't.
I see this and I say, okay, 11,000 people have come forward with voter fraud claims.
Many sworn affidavits, 50 plus witnesses about a violation of a court order and poll watching.
Impropriety.
Okay, it exists.
Yet what do we get from the media?
President-elect Joe Biden.
He won.
Accept it.
Stop coping.
There's no evidence.
But that's fundamentally untrue.
They keep saying it.
If Trump does come out and prove that there was some impropriety or get votes disqualified, The left will just say Trump is the despot who stole the election.
The ACLU has announced they're going to be filing a lawsuit to stop Trump disqualifying votes in Pennsylvania.
Lawfare has begun.
Who wins?
I don't know.
Maybe it'll be Trump, maybe it won't.
But I tell you this, man, people who aren't paying attention, I'm, you know, drive-by politicos, I gotta say.
These are people who don't pay attention to the news, they don't care about what's happening in our country, they just heard on the news that the orange man is bad, so they went and voted, and then they left.
And now we're here holding the bag, confused as to what's going on, who's gonna be our president, and they're saying, oh, just deal with it, it's Joe Biden.
You are wrong.
This is not just going away.
I believe there is a massive likelihood, like the overwhelming majority to an extreme degree, that it's Joe Biden.
That's it.
Trump is trying to pull out some legal stops, but I'm not discounting Trump because we have probable cause, absolutely probable cause.
So what happens at the very least, Trump is able to sue Michigan and Pennsylvania to stop the certification process.
If he does, Joe Biden does not win.
If they can't get a certification done with the electoral votes, House delegates will vote in Trump as president.
And Trump certainly seems to be confident that's going to happen.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
I fully expect counting down the minutes until YouTube bans me.
Because this is out of line with what is supposed to be talked about, I suppose.
But I'll tell you what I do.
This is Newsweek.
Newsguard certified.
You see, I use these sources on purpose.
Now Veritas is not.
But I'm not discounting videos and sworn affidavits, especially if Republicans in Congress are bringing these things up.
I try to make sure that everything I do is within the confines of, you know, certified and fact-checkable claims, which is why I'm trying to highlight the stories that I think present the most obvious and rational conflict here.
Newsweek is saying, RNC Chair says, 11,000 people have come forward with voter fraud claims.
This is not some fly-by-night, some random clickbait, ragebait, garbage website.
And the RNC Chair is not some random person on the street corner yelling, it's been stolen, it's been stolen.
We're talking about the Republican National Committee versus the DNC.
We're talking about the second largest, one of the two big parties of our country saying, no, and we have evidence.
We don't just say, oh, the DNC is right.
The RNC has made the claims.
The investigation must now occur.
I'll leave it there.
I'll follow up more on a lot of this stuff at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
So stick around and I will see you all then.
The Secretary of State in Georgia has announced there will be a hand recount of the ballots in Georgia.
Now, many people have said this was pre-planned.
It's a risk-limiting audit.
They were always going to do it.
They're just happening to do it now.
But it matters.
There are a lot of people who believe that computer programs were used to flip the votes.
And thus, a hand recount will reveal this.
In most elections, where we've seen a recount, it's only been a few hundred.
The most notable, I think, was Bush v. Gore, where it was like a 1,200 shift in a recount.
So I don't know if this will actually end up doing anything, to be completely honest, but it doesn't matter what my thoughts and opinions are, it matters that it's happening.
If you're someone who believes there's widespread fraud or impropriety, you want to see a hand recount.
Makes sense.
The state is going to do it.
I don't see why anyone should be complaining about it.
But of course, many Democrats actually are.
And they use an absurd analogy that I find quite funny.
And they try to do this all the time.
First of all, the question is very obvious.
If we want transparency and certification of our elections, why would anyone reject transparency and certification of our elections?
What I mean by that is Democrats have long said, Russia, Russia, Russia, foreign interference.
So how about we go through everything with a fine-tooth comb and make sure we're good?
You see, both parties, in my opinion, play games for power.
Donald Trump and the Republicans are not complaining about the results where they won.
They're complaining about the results where Trump is down.
I think, if we want to be fair, let's do a hand recount everywhere.
Everywhere it's close, at least.
And that would include some Republican victories.
And guess what?
I'm willing to bet Trump supporters are going to say, do it!
Because they're confident they've won.
Democrats should be saying the same thing, because it might help them win, but for some reason, they're not.
You see how the game is being played?
Look, let me put it this way.
I think, you know, when Trump won in 2016, he came out and said, I've won, and within a few days, Hillary Clinton conceded.
But the Democrats on the left went insane trying to get the Electoral College not to certify the results, trying to get faithless electors, of which I believe we had a few, Jill Stein calling for a recount.
They refused to accept the results of the election.
I'm not going to, I'm not going to play a partisan game where I'm like, well, now the Republicans aren't allowed to do it and everyone's allowed.
We're going to do it anyway.
We've also got Jim Jordan calling for a full audit of the vote.
We counted all of these ballots very, very quickly.
It took us about, you know, a day to count the in-person ballots.
And then it took us several days to count the mail-in ballots.
But why not?
Why not give it another week just to Do it!
Just to get it done.
I kind of glossed over this, but the left, what they're saying now is, Why don't we investigate whether or not the moon landing happened?
We're so smart.
Right now you have 72.3 million people who voted for Donald Trump, probably more.
77 million who voted for Joe Biden.
This is not some argument in an academic setting about what is or isn't.
It's literally half the country saying, we do not trust the results.
We went through the Russiagate investigation for years.
I entertained that.
I now want us to entertain this.
Makes sense, doesn't it?
Yeah, well, maybe that's why when they do all their hit pieces on conservatives talking about fraud, they tend to exclude me because I'm not here actually arguing the widespread fraud shift of the election.
My argument is very simple.
Whether there is or isn't, it would be reasonable to make sure that 72.3 million people do not feel disenfranchised.
And if that means we spend some extra time to make sure in our hyper-polarized environment, it means we make sure that everything is good, then we do it!
Well, here's what's happening in Georgia.
Georgia will recount presidential election ballots by hand as Biden's lead over Trump grows.
Now, already, I know there's a lot of people saying this is good news.
They're going to sort them by hand, and then they're going to feed them into a machine to tally the counts.
So, yeah.
If you really care about a hard recount, you might want to tell them not to do that and just write down the numbers on paper and then send those numbers somewhere.
I don't know.
That's what's being reported.
They say.
Georgia will conduct a statewide recount of ballots cast in the election between President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Wednesday.
With the margin being so close, it will require a full, by-hand recount in each county, Raffensperger said at a press conference.
Raffensperger, a Republican, said the state will work with county officials to complete the recount in time to meet its November 20th deadline for certifying statewide election results.
It'll take every bit of time we have left for sure.
Biden's lead over Trump in Georgia has grown to more than 14,000 votes among nearly 5 million cast, according to NBC News, which has not projected a winner in the Peach State.
Raffensperger had previously telegraphed that a recount was likely in the state, which has traditionally voted for Republican presidential nominees.
Trump supporters, including GOP Rep Doug Collins, asked the Georgia official earlier this week for a hand recount.
This will help build confidence.
It will be an audit, a recount, and a re-canvas all at once, Raffensperger said.
It will be a heavy lift, but we will work with the counties to get this done in time for our state certification.
Good.
Because if you got people who are complaining, maybe they won't accept the results no matter what happens, just like the Democrats.
Fine.
But at least we'll put in a good faith effort to make sure we're taking these claims seriously and going through the vote.
Trump, on the day after the November 3rd election, falsely asserted that his campaign had claimed for electoral vote purposes Georgia and other states.
With Biden now projected to secure more than 270 electoral votes required to clinch the presidency, Trump and his surrogates have already demanded recounts in states including Georgia and Washington.
My understanding is that he's also filed a lawsuit in Michigan.
We know about the lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
Trump is moving to stop the certification process.
They also have launched a flurry of accusations of electoral fraud without citing evidence.
This is a lie!
Isn't that insane?
That CNBC puts a blunt, bald-faced lie right in that story!
That's freaky, isn't it?
The RNC has said 11,000 people have come forward.
They have sworn affidavits, okay?
There is a postal worker who has signed a sworn affidavit saying they were backdating ballots.
That is called evidence.
It's not proof positive.
It is a bit of information that corroborates a claim.
Doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is evidence.
Does it mean the election results will change?
No.
Does the evidence mean that it's enough to make a difference for Trump?
No.
But it does mean we have people who have straight-up said, one woman signed an affidavit, sworn under oath, her dead son was listed as having voted.
That is evidence!
They're just lying over and over and over again.
This is just insane.
Trump has refused to concede to Biden and is falsely claiming he won the election.
The transition of power to a Biden administration cannot formally begin until the General Services Administration makes an ascertainment of the winner, which it has so far refused to do.
When we say the media projects a winner, it is tradition more than anything else.
The media doesn't call who the winner really is.
They look at the numbers.
Donald Trump is going to challenge hundreds of thousands of ballots in many states.
He has a multi-tiered legal plan, and I think they've been preparing for it.
I gotta be honest.
Listen, I want you to think about something.
Just think about this.
Also, actually, share this video with people you know to help them get an understanding of what's going on.
If you think I do a good job.
Under Bush v. Gore, all ballots must be treated the same, right?
Okay.
I tweeted, isn't it weird how we can count millions of ballots in a day and then we have to stop and spend three days counting hundreds of thousands?
And all of a sudden I get inundated with these, as Michael Malice likes to call them, midwits.
They're just like, Low information individuals saying, you clearly don't know how elections work, you're so dumb.
Including Oliver Darcy of CNN saying, your lack of understanding of the process is blah blah blah.
I didn't say anything about absentee ballots.
I literally said, isn't it funny?
It is funny, at least to me.
We count all these millions of votes and then we gotta stop for three days to count the absentee ballots.
The official explanation is that absentee ballots, when you vote in person, you go through that check and that process to a certain degree, you fill out the vote, the vote's good, they can count it.
With absentee, they gotta open it, match signatures, and then, you know, verify.
It takes longer to count an absentee ballot than an in-person ballot.
Especially when in-person is being, you know, tallied in the machines in real time.
Okay.
I didn't say that wasn't the case.
I just think it was funny that we were able to go through millions on day one.
But you see, therein lies the point with these low-information individuals who don't understand how this works and they're all laughing and gloating.
But anyway, I digress.
I can rag on those people all day and night.
The real issue is that under Bush v. Gore, all ballots must be treated the same.
But if we're coming out and saying that it takes three days to count hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots versus millions of in-person, they are not being treated the same.
They are getting absolutely different treatment.
Now, that might not be enough, because the official ruling might say that's not unequal treatment.
They're both getting some kind of security process, and for all intents and purposes, it's legit.
Okay, fine.
But the issue is curing, and this is the lawsuit in Pennsylvania.
Now, you got, I don't know if I have it pulled up, but Chris Evans took a video from Fox News, and he is the perfect example of, like, Tweedledee laughing how he thinks he's so smart, and he doesn't even know what he's talking about.
And then he misinforms a whole bunch of people who also don't know what they're talking about.
Fox News ran a segment where they said, I think it was John Roberts, I'm not sure.
Trump is saying all the legal votes have not been counted and all the illegal votes have not been excluded.
But where they run into a problem is evidence.
So far, no evidence.
First of all, the RNC has already come out with like a ton of sworn affidavits and they're making the assertion 11,000 people.
234 pages of accusations.
What do you think you get?
Someone calls a cop, says, I'd like to report a crime.
I watched a guy running out of a building.
Well, that's not evidence.
You just watched a guy running out of a building with a bunch of money and it was running out of a bank with a bunch of money.
That's not evidence.
Bring me the actual dollar that was stolen.
No, that's ridiculous.
You report your allegation of fraud.
We investigate and try and dig up evidence.
Fox News was wrong.
But more importantly, the Trump lawsuits in question that could swing this are not about fraud.
I kind of feel like Trump is doing this on purpose.
He's saying fraud over and over again because then these low information morons are all dancing around laughing like there's no fraud.
Meanwhile, Trump's legal team is actually going after disqualifying ballots.
And this is a tried and true Trump tactic.
I'm not kidding.
You go back to when Donald Trump wanted to change the rules on refugee status.
What does he do?
The day it's supposed to drop, this executive order, he tweets something about AOC and the squad going back to the countries they came from or something like that.
And then the media was like, oh, Trump's a racist.
And then Trump, while they're all distracted, he signs an executive order saying, I'm changing what it means to be a refugee.
And they fall for it every time.
Trump comes out now and he tweets, widespread fraud, the radical left in this country, and the widespread fraud, and he goes for it.
And then the media says it over and over again.
And all of these low-information leftists are all laughing and giddy and high-fiving each other.
He's feeding the media what they want, no evidence of fraud.
And then he goes, alright boys, send in the lawsuit to disqualify those votes.
Not for fraud.
He's arguing that they were counted improperly and thus are spoiled and can't remain and that would flip Pennsylvania for Trump.
These people are not bright.
Man, I'm telling you.
Anyway, I digress.
Okay, I saw that without evidence.
Trump campaign lawyers have filed lawsuits in multiple key states related to those claims.
Many of those cases have already been thrown out.
They say Raffensperger said at the press conference that at 1 p.m.
he will declare the presidential race in his state subject to a risk-limiting audit, will count every single piece of paper, every single ballot, every single lawfully cast legal ballot.
When a reporter noted that such an audit usually involves just a sample of the ballots, rather
than the entire body of votes, Raffensperger said, you actually have to do a full hand-by-hand
recount of all ballots because the margin is so close.
Raffensperger has recently come under fire.
Within his own party, Georgia's two Republican senators, Loeffler and Perdue, on Monday demanded
his resignation.
The senators claimed in a joint statement that there have been too many failures in
Georgia elections this year, without citing any specific examples.
All senators are closely allied with Trump, likely facing runoff elections in January
against their respective Democratic challengers.
Well, you know, Jim Jordan comes out, audit the vote, I guess he's saying everywhere, and so be it.
Over in Texas, however, Texas Lieutenant Governor offering $1 million for evidence of voter fraud.
Is this on purpose?
Trump's legal battles right now are not about fraud.
They got one going through where there's 529 ballots in Pennsylvania that didn't have addresses on them.
And they were counted anyway, because apparently what the elections tabulators did was they saw there was no address, so they scanned it and the address popped up and they filled it in.
Trump's legal team is saying, you can't do that.
It's a really, really interesting debate.
I think they could possibly win.
Now it's going to come down to the judge's interpretation.
529 ballots, I don't believe, is going to swing anything for Trump.
But how many grains of sand make a heap?
If Trump files 100 legal challenges, each pertaining to 500 or so ballots, we're talking about 50,000 ballots being disqualified, and Trump's currently down by like 45.
You see the point?
If they keep doing this, all of these legal battles, they could whittle away at these ballots and eventually win.
The interesting argument, however, was the judge said, what's wrong, you know, why can't the ballot be counted?
You know, is this really part, you know, that important?
What the legal team basically said was, it doesn't matter.
What matters is it's a requirement in the election code.
And there's a lot of reasons why people would tell you why the election code is why it is.
But those are their opinions.
We must operate on.
If it is within the confines of the code, we must uphold it.
Period.
And therefore, with no address, ya gone.
Well, we'll see what happens to those 529 votes.
I will say, I am, uh...
I'm torn, you know?
The normalcy bias and the optimism bias in me says that, look, the election's over.
We're seeing the media say President-elect Joe Biden over and over again.
I'll tell you one of the funniest things.
Fox News is spinning in circles, desperately trying to figure out what to say, and I love it!
I don't really have that problem.
I'll just tell you what's going on.
But Fox News doesn't know where the chips are going to fall, right?
So they actually had, I can't remember, I think it was Peter Doocy, he's like, President-elect Joe Biden, blah blah blah, but also we'll note, he hasn't been certified the winner.
You just called him president-elect, then said he wasn't certified the winner.
They are freaking out.
You've got Sandra Smith.
She's on America's Newsroom, I believe.
And there was this leaked audio where one of the guests was saying, we're going to audit and see what happens.
And then she, under her breath, like on a hot mic, goes, what is happening?
We called it for Biden already.
And it's like, yeah, you did.
Doesn't mean anything.
You called it.
Then you get Laura Ingraham, who's putting on the Nevada Poll Watcher whistleblower who signed a sworn affidavit saying that a Biden-Harris van was pulling out ballots or, you know, and signing them or something.
Then you have Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
When Kayleigh McEnany was giving a press conference on fraud, he cuts away and says, no, no, I can't allow this.
She's lying to you.
And then Tucker Carlson passively calls him out by saying you can't just turn away when you're hearing something you don't like.
Fox News is fracturing.
I think they've got a mainstream bias where they're desperate to be like, we don't want to be the odd people out.
You get all these news outlets saying Biden won, it's over.
And they're now stuck between what do we say?
Do we say there's fraud?
What do we do?
I love it.
So there is this thread from a couple journalism professors who are overtly pro-establishment lefties and they live in bubble world saying there's no evidence of fraud.
The New York Times said no evidence of fraud and it's just not true.
But they say it over and over again probably because Well, I feel like we're in some kind of counting heads phase.
Kind of.
We're not necessarily there yet, but Donald Trump recently fired the leadership from the Pentagon and has replaced them with what the media is calling Trump loyalists.
Sound like a counting heads phase to you so far?
I don't know what happens, I don't know why they're doing it, but it is freaking me out!
Who knows what's going to happen.
Trump is certainly acting like he's not going to be leaving.
He's refusing to concede, and he's fighting these legal battles.
Maybe he's acting like he's not leaving because he's still in the process of fighting legal battles to try and win.
Okay.
But I tell you, man, the media laying it all on so thick, putting out these fake stories saying there's no evidence, and I'm seeing all of these people just eat it up.
I mean, look, the first story I brought up where CNBC says, with no evidence, it would say, They also launched a flurry of accusations of electoral fraud without evidence.
What do you think is going on?
We have sworn affidavits, but the media is just lying.
We have videos.
We have clear anomalies.
We have more than enough evidence to launch some kind of inquiry or investigation.
We have mathematical improbabilities that raise questions.
So Benford's law has been used To look at other elections in other countries to claim that there has been impropriety.
Well, several of our jurisdictions violate Benford's Law as well.
Does it mean we launch an investigation?
No.
But when you add all of these things together, we're looking at a heap of sand.
And someone's going to have to explain how it got there.
And it may just be this tiny little molehill that people are making a mountain out of.
Just still got to investigate it.
Anyway, this GOP Texas lieutenant governor is offering a million dollars for evidence of voter fraud.
That is bold.
From his campaign.
Does he have a million dollars to give away?
Geez, dude.
Apparently, it's the minimum is $25,000.
They say, Patrick said he is offering the reward to incentivize, encourage, and reward people who come forward and report voter fraud.
Anyone who provides information that ultimately ends in an arrest and final conviction will be paid $25,000 minimum.
Okay, so up to $1,000,000.
Perhaps a bunch of people might get $25,000.
Project Veritas has also offered $25,000 for tipsters.
I'll tell you what's going on, man.
It's freaky.
You've got The Hill auto-reloading and playing audio.
Ignore that.
You've got Project Veritas.
They get a USPS whistleblower.
This guy came out and said fraud, right?
Signed a sworn affidavit.
The media then came out and claimed he lied.
And the money they raised on GoFundMe for this guy?
Deleted.
And GoFundMe said, we've taken it back, the guy's a liar!
It is all tribalist ideological insanity, and I'll tell you what.
There's no good guys.
There's no bad guys.
The people on the left, the Democrats, they think they're the good guys.
Unfortunately, they're surrounded by low-information voters.
On the right, you've got people who are fighting against what they say is fraud.
They think they're the good guys.
And I know a lot of people are probably mad at me saying, Tim, why won't you say that we're the... I'm not playing this game.
I'm not playing a game.
I'm saying there's clearly evidence.
It needs to be investigated.
We'll get to the bottom of it.
It's not about taking sides.
It's about being real.
Unfortunately, our news outlets are too scared to talk about what's actually going on.
I run the risk of getting banned every video I do following the election.
Whatever!
If they ban me, then, you know, I'm gone.
But I'm gonna call it like I see it, and I'm going to call out when I see lies in the media.
But man, are they lying like crazy.
And it's starting to freak me out.
I'll tell you what's really funny, and I mentioned this before, is they did this poll.
80% of Americans think Joe Biden won.
Only 13% think that the election isn't over.
And I'm like...
Am I supposed to care about that?
Is that their goal?
That they want to go to people who might bring this stuff up and say, you're in the minority and you're gonna lose?
Because I honestly don't care!
I've always been the minority of myself.
And I'll call it like I see it, no matter what.
And if I see evidence of impropriety, it doesn't matter if literally every single person says I'm wrong.
If I'm looking at something that I see to be evidence, then I'll say it's evidence.
I'm reminded, Chris Evans, of Captain America's famous line, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree and say, no, you move.
So literally every single person can scream in my face, there are five lights and I will say, no, there are four lights.
I think I got that one right, I don't know, whatever.
It's from Star Trek, where Captain Picard is being, he's got four lights, and they're torturing him saying, say five, say there are five and he won't do it.
I'm gonna tell it like it is.
Ain't no person's gonna come sit down with me and say, I am not scaring you, but I am scaring you.
Okay, dude.
Just ban me from every platform already, because I'm not gonna stop saying it, like, calling it like I see it.
We'll see how things play out, as per usual.
We'll see how the recount goes in Georgia.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel from this one.
Hopefully it'll still be around, but go check it out, and I'll be there at 4.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
In addendum to my main channel segment from 4 p.m., we have a story about a GOP lawmaker suggesting that Wisconsin electors choose the presidential winner because they don't trust the results.
And truth be told, there are some pretty strange irregularities and indicators in Wisconsin.
Now, I'm not saying there's widespread fraud, but this guy is basically saying something doesn't make sense.
And as I noted, Trump could win because states could be like, nah, his election don't make sense.
Let me tell you something.
You know what a bellwether district is, or a bellwether town?
These are places that always vote for the president.
Like, the winner of the election.
This time around, most of the bellwethers got it wrong.
Everyone's kind of like, wow, that's never happened.
There are instances where bellwether towns don't get it right.
And we had the longest running streak finally lose because they backed Trump.
This is like a big deal for a lot of these small towns because they know whenever they say, our town voted for this president, the president wins.
Now, they're not choosing the president.
It's just that they tend to be in alignment with kind of moderates in this country, I guess.
This time around, like 80 plus percent got it wrong.
Everyone's kind of like, that's strange.
In Wisconsin, for instance, there are several different jurisdictions that reported more than 100% voter turnout.
This is explained because you have new registration and same-day registration, plus people changing their addresses.
That's the official explanation.
I'm not saying any of this is indicative of widespread fraud.
I'm just saying these irregularities are causing mistrust.
I actually think there's a really easy way to understand why we're seeing a lot of dramatic differences, and it's COVID.
People moved around because of COVID and the riots, thus mixing and matching different demographics in different areas.
It makes a lot of sense.
But it doesn't matter what I think, as I often say, the GOP lawmaker wants Wisconsin electors to choose the presidential winner.
Now, I want to read this, but I want to tell you something really, really crazy.
What if I were to tell you that three of the Supreme Court justices today were on George W. Bush's legal team during Bush v. Gore?
Why, that would be a fact.
From CNN, Supreme Court is about to have three Bush v. Gore alumni from October.
They say, three who assisted Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts, Pretty sure he got appointed by Bush as well, so that's interesting.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who now, of course, is a justice.
I don't know what that means, but man, does it feel like we are lining up the pins for a SCOTUS legal victory for Trump to win.
It's very strange.
But let me read you about the GOP lawmaker who wants Wisconsin to choose A Wisconsin Republican is suggesting the state's electors choose whether President Trump or Joe Biden receive their 10 electoral votes.
Biden won the state with more than 20,000.
State Rep.
Joe Sanfilippo of New Berlin said he doesn't trust the election process or the outcome of the results.
He is a member of the Assembly Committee tasked by Speaker Robin Vos with investigating the election.
Sanfilippo is calling for an outside audit into what he said was a wide range of irregularities that cast doubt on the results.
There has been no evidence of any election fraud.
He was re-elected last Tuesday.
Tuesday.
Quote, you either have to toss the election out and have a whole new election, or we have
our delegates to the electoral college vote for the person they think legitimately should
have won, San Filippo said.
He suggested electors could decide on their own to award Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes
to Trump instead of Biden.
They would effectively be nullifying the votes of 3 million plus Wisconsinites, UW medicine
law professor Rob Yablon said.
He added, that is not allowed under current Wisconsin law and can't see the legislature trying to change it.
The electors that were chosen on Election Day are legally bound to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in Wisconsin.
And if the legislature attempted to appoint its own substitute slate of electors, it's hard to see how that would be legitimate.
Legitimate is not the same as legal.
You might call it illegitimate.
It might still happen.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission agreed.
In Wisconsin, the state legislature plays no role in certifying or deciding which slate of electors vote in the Electoral College.
Those electors must vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them.
I think it is sickening for someone to take it that far and say we have to declare an election null and void because, again, it assaulted your sensibilities that your candidate didn't win.
Democrats have created a cloud of suspicion over this election because they refuse to follow state election laws.
Conducting such an investigation prior to certifying the election is essential and the only way our citizens will believe the results reported are legitimate.
The state election commission does not have any authority over the electoral process.
In its election guidelines, it clearly states, quote, in Wisconsin, the state legislature plays no role in certifying or deciding which slate of electors vote in the electoral college.
Nevertheless, the process will continue to play out until the vote in Wisconsin is certified next month.
And maybe it will be, and maybe it won't.
But I bring you now to the very strange, maybe not strange at all, circumstance around Supreme Court is about to have three Bush v. Gore alumni sitting on the bench.
Why, what's this?
From CNN.
Supreme Court Bush v. Gore, and that's a young Brett Kavanaugh giving an update to CNN, they say.
Three who assisted Bush.
Roberts flew to Florida in November 2000 to assist Bush's legal team.
He helped prepare the lawyer who presented Bush's case to the Florida State Supreme Court and offered advice throughout.
Roberts also faced a singular personal challenge during the 36-day ordeal that extended from the November 7th election day to the court's late-hour December 12th ruling.
Then in private practice, Roberts was preparing to argue before the justices in a separate business case on November 29th, and within days in December, the baby boy he and his wife had planned to adopt was born.
After Bush became president, he nominated Roberts to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit.
The Senate confirmed him in 2003.
Bush then elevated Roberts to the chief justice position in 2005 to succeed William Rehnquist.
During the Senate confirmation hearing, Roberts declined to reveal his view of the justices' 2000 decision, saying a disputed election could come to the court again.
Could it now?
Could it now?
Good sir.
Obviously, the particular parameters in that case won't return to the court, he said, but it is a very recent precedent, and that type of decision is one where I thought it inappropriate to comment on whether I think they were correct.
Brett Kavanaugh also in private practice in 2000 and helped the Bush legal team.
He wrote on a 2018 Senate questionnaire that his work related to recounts in Volusia County, Florida.
In an interview with CNN in Washington, after the justices had heard oral arguments but before they ruled, Kavanaugh said the justices were concerned about the arbitrary, standardless nature of the recount process in Florida.
He dismissed a question about political differences, saying, I don't think the justices care if it's Bush v. Gore or if it were Gore v. Bush.
What they care about is how to interpret the Constitution and what are the enduring values that are going to stand a generation from now.
Let me tell you.
In Pennsylvania, Trump has filed a suit alleging, not alleging, stating the fact, there was a court order.
Let the observers watch the tabulation process.
The board commission or the election commission or whatever, the people there didn't allow it.
They put up barricades and stopped them.
The Trump legal team is saying all of those ballots counted were in violation of a court order.
You probably know this, I've said it several times.
That's one of their bases for throwing out many of these ballots.
It may be a question of what are the enduring values that are going to stand a generation from now.
If the elections can be held in such a way that the vote count is done in violation of a court order, how will we have future elections?
And therein lies the deepest problem we face now.
Pennsylvania.
450,000 votes, they claim, are hanging in balance.
The court may say, it's fine, they violated a court order, let it stand.
Are those the values we're going to leave a generation from now?
Or maybe they'll say, we can't allow this to stand.
We must make sure everyone knows if you violate a court order, you nullify the votes.
That also presents a problem, because then, if you've got, you know, you want someone to lose, you can purposefully nullify their votes.
Therein lies the big challenge of how we decide this.
I don't know.
Don't ask me.
But don't forget Judge Amy Coney Barrett was also there.
Barrett wrote in the questionnaire she submitted to the Senate for her Supreme Court confirmation
review, one significant case on which I provided research and
briefing assistance was Bush v. Gore.
I love it.
She said the law firm where she was working at the time represented Bush and that she
had gone down to Florida for about a week at the outset of the litigation.
When the dispute was in the Florida courts, she said she had not continued on the case after she returned to Washington.
During her hearings this week, she told senators she could not recall specifics of her involvement.
I did work on Bush v. Gore.
I did work on behalf of the Republican side.
To be totally honest, I can't remember exactly what piece of the case it was.
There were a number of challenges.
And to be honest, it was 20 years ago.
But isn't this a little weird?
Trump chose Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett?
It's almost like Trump has been planning this for a long time.
And that's creepy.
But hey, I'll tell you what.
I'll give a shout-out to Michael Moore when he said, I think it was Michael Moore, Donald Trump won't leave, he'll never leave.
And I said, that's ridiculous.
Now it looks like Donald Trump's not gonna leave.
I don't know what the cases are gonna be, and I'll tell you this.
If it turns out Trump has a legitimate legal path to victory, and that there was impropriety, we gotta weed it out.
We can't allow voter fraud or manipulations of our election to get in someone's candidate.
We need our courts to uphold the rule of law.
If they do, that ruling must stand.
But I'll tell you this.
If somehow, for some reason, we get to a point where the Supreme Court upholds that Trump, in fact, won in violation of the votes of the people, And I'm saying, like, they don't actually find fraud or something.
There's gonna be bedlam in this country.
It is gonna be madness.
But I think, I think, I think that's where we're headed.
Come on.
Doesn't it feel like all the pieces are being lined up?
I mean, maybe it's not true, but Vox is now starting to say it like, this might happen!
Vox, you didn't mention the three people in the Supreme Court right now worked on Bush v. Gore.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
What is going on in Florida?
Florida's dissent is moves to allow citizens to shoot looters, rioters, targeting businesses.
Okay, okay.
Stand your ground, I get.
And I don't completely disagree.
Actually, I probably lean more towards agreeing, and I'll tell you why.
You don't know if someone's prepared to use lethal force against you, but if they're breaking the law and entering your property, you need to protect yourself.
I think it's really weird we have these states where they're like, you have a duty to retreat from your own home, and they exist.
Isn't that nuts?
Like, where am I supposed to go?
I'm in my house, somebody broke in, I gotta defend myself.
Well...
You have a duty to retreat to the middle of the woods or the middle of the street?
What are you gonna do?
Same applies for businesses.
If I'm in my business and someone's breaking in, like, where am I supposed to go?
If you were in someone else's property, I could understand.
Go to your property.
Anyway, I wonder if this has something to do with the upcoming results of an election in Florida, where there may be riots.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Let's read the story.
They say, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has drafted anti-mob legislation that would expand the state's Stand Your Ground law, a move that some worry would allow armed citizens to shoot and potentially kill anyone they suspect of looting.
DeSantis's new legislation comes in response to months of protesting that frequently lead
to rioting this summer in Florida and across the U.S.
following the death of George Floyd.
The legislation is an attempt to prevent violent and disorderly assemblies
by permitting violence against anyone involved in the interruption or impairment of a business
reportedly described in the draft as being a burglary within 500 feet of a violent or
disorderly assembly, according to reporting by the Miami Herald Tuesday.
I guess that means, if y'all are walking down the street, and you see someone looting a store, you can go, pop!
That's crazy.
It allows for vigilantes to justify their actions, a former Miami-Dade County prosecutor, Denise Georges, who has worked with the Stand Your Ground cases, told the Miami Publication.
It also allows for death to be the punishment for a property crime, and that is cruel and unusual punishment.
We cannot live in a lawless society where taking a life is done so casually and recklessly.
It's an interesting way to phrase it, but I don't agree that it's cruel and unusual.
Excessive.
I oppose it, for sure.
Well, let me clarify.
If somebody is running away with a TV, don't!
Let them take the TV!
But, if someone is breaking into your property or threatening your life in some way, that I understand.
So maybe I was wrong.
Maybe I don't agree with the full premise of what this is.
You shouldn't loot.
You shouldn't riot.
But what do we do to stop the looting and the rioting?
And maybe that's the real goal here.
But I don't like the idea that you could be like, well, you know, I was allowed to do it because he was stealing a small piece of, you know, some kind of, you know, some item or such.
People shouldn't die for this stuff, man.
They say the draft legislation also includes measures that would make protesting which disrupts the public by blocking traffic a third-degree felony.
The law would also reportedly grant immunity to drivers who unintentionally kill or injure protesters who are blocking traffic.
Additionally, the law would allow the state to withhold funds from local governments that cut police budgets.
DeSantis, an ardent supporter of President Trump, who won in Florida by just over three points, reportedly submitted copies of the legislation to the State Senate Committee on Criminal Justice and the House Judiciary Committee, according to emails obtained by the Miami Herald.
It's clear that the Trump beauty pageant is still going on with governors and senators who all want to be the next Trump.
Miami Beach Mayor Dan Gelber told the publication.
And the governor is very clearly a very good contestant.
Gelber, a former federal prosecutor, was also a critic of the Stand Your Ground law when it first passed in 2005.
DeSantis could not be immediately reached by Fox News for comment.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I don't like it when people die.
I don't like it when people get hurt.
And I wish it didn't have to happen.
But I don't know what to tell you if someone's attacking you and you stand your ground.
If someone breaks into your house and you're trying to defend yourself, you stand your ground.
What do you do?
Back in the day, people used to die all the time.
Isn't that weird?
Like, seriously, we would, like, people would just be dead, and you'd probably never hear from them again.
I remember I was at Glenn Beck's studio, and he had this newspaper on the wall, really old newspapers from the 1800s, and I was reading one where it was like, a guy was standing outside a bar, a dude ran out, put a gun to his chest and pulled the trigger and ran off.
It's like, that's crazy!
Why did that happen?
But people would just die.
Like, dude took a blast in the heart.
I don't know if this is the right move.
Shooting looters targeting businesses.
There's gotta be some restraint, but the challenge is, I guess, there's no easy middle ground.
You want to stop looters and rioters.
You don't want them to die.
I don't know what the answer is.
If you constrain people and say they have no recourse, then the looters and rioters are emboldened.
Maybe the goal with this is to say, if you loot, you will die, and then maybe people won't, I don't know.
I wouldn't call it cruel and unusual, but I know that I don't want to kill anybody.
If I saw someone, like, running out of my house with a TV, and I got criticized by conservatives for saying this, I'm not going to shoot the guy.
You know, that's ridiculous.
I lost my TV, that's messed up.
This dude, what's he doing?
But I've had people tell me like, nope.
There was like a saying or something.
Look, I don't know exactly why he's bringing this about now.
There's been similar conversations about laws in Florida that would do something similar.
Like, if you're pulling up your car and there's a protest around you, you can run them over if they're blocking traffic.
This is something different.
This makes it illegal and maybe excessive.
I don't know though, man.
The challenge is always a balance between freedom and security.
And what this law says is that you can defend yourself and others.
Which is kind of not necessarily a security thing.
It's not telling the government they have more power to stop people, it's telling the individuals they do.
I don't know, though.
I don't like the idea of shooting people who are stealing stuff.
You know what I mean?
Within reason, of course.
Like, if you were stealing someone's, like, insulin, I guess.
Like, they could die, you know what I mean?
But check this out.
I wonder if this is why this is coming about.
John Voigt says fighting Biden lie.
Biden won is, quote, greatest fight since the Civil War.
Ah, he said it!
Now you got me saying it.
Now they're going to get mad at me saying Tim's talking about Civil War again.
No, but it happens.
They're talking about it.
Is there a real concern that we're going to see widespread rioting and looting?
Perhaps.
Perhaps.
I just covered in my previous segment, three Supreme Court justices helped George W. Bush win his case in 2000, and now they're on the Supreme Court.
Not that I think Chief Justice Roberts has any loyalty to the Republican Party or Donald Trump, but Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, they're there, and they were also on the court.
So I wonder if we are being lined up for some kind of Trump electoral victory, which results in mass widespread chaos.
Maybe the case.
And I don't think we should want that, but it doesn't matter.
The lines are drawn.
There's nothing you can say or do.
If this happens, it happens, and people are going to go nuts!
And it's going to get scary.
It will.
I don't know if it'll be violence or the greatest fight since the Civil War, but some people certainly think so.
John Voight thinks it's so.
They say, Actor Jon Voight released a video Tuesday attacking the results of the presidential election and Joe Biden, saying the U.S.
is now entering the greatest fight since the Civil War.
I wonder what fight that would be called.
I don't know.
The Boogaloo or something.
The Academy Award winning winner and longtime Trump supporter took to Twitter to condemn what he alleged was a rigged White House race, calling the aftermath a battle of righteousness versus Satan.
In the almost two-minute video posted with the caption, we all know the truth, Voight said he's disgusted with the lie that Biden is president-elect and claimed there will be a price to pay for those who are trying to deceive the American public.
We must fight this corruption that has taken over and fight for the good that seems lost.
Let us give our trust to God and fight now for Trump's victory because we all know that this ballot count is corruption like they are.
So let us not back down.
Let us fight this fight as if it is our last fight on earth.
President Trump has refused to concede this, we know.
Voight has referred to Trump as one of our nation's greatest presidents.
Trump previously awarded Voight the National Media of Arts for his contribution to American culture.
Civil war, civil war.
I don't know if there's going to be a civil war.
Maybe we're already in it.
Trump is certainly challenging our institutional norms.
Usually, when the media says someone won, the other person just concedes like Hillary Clinton did.
This time around, Trump's saying, no, that's not how it works.
It goes to certification, the Electoral College, of course.
Joe Biden is adamant that he won as well, and I don't know what's going to happen.
Perhaps we will see the results in favor of Trump.
They say Trump wants to overturn the results, but the results aren't in.
Nothing certified yet.
Maybe by tomorrow or the next day we might start to get some real results, but Trump is saying by next week we'll see it.
I think the left's hubris is blinding them the same as it did in 2016.
And while I certainly think it's a long shot for Trump, I'll tell you this, it's certainly possible.
Let me just say, for now, if it really does come to blows, as it were, to conflict, The scariest thing to me is the left.
I mean, they're talking about truth and reconciliation commissions.
They're talking about people being put under, held to, having tribunals for people and stuff like this.
They are making a really good case for people to say, please Trump, win this, because we don't want them to have their tribunals or gulags.
Not that they've literally called for gulags, but they're saying tribunals?
Truth and reconciliation?
Nah, y'all have crossed the line on this one.
And now I'm sure lots of people are probably hoping Donald Trump does win by any means necessary.
It's worrisome to me.
I want our institutions to be upheld, but the problem is, there's no fence.
There's no middle ground.
Either you think Joe Biden won and Trump is cheating, or you think Trump won and Joe Biden is cheating.
If you side with Joe Biden, the right's gonna say you're supporting a cheater.
If you side with Donald Trump, the left is gonna say you're supporting a cheater.
So, what do you do?
There is no leave me alone in this case.
Because everyone's going to blame, you know, I'll put it this way.
I truly believe if something happened where the right took over, most people would be absolutely fine.
If the left took over, they're gonna put people, they're gonna have tribunals for people.
That's why this is all so scary.
I stand on the side of liberty and freedom, and if there's a legal victory and the Supreme Court rules, that's the law of the land.
We are not a democracy.
If the left claims otherwise, it's because they're desperate for power.
So, we'll see how that plays out.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
And here comes mass lockdown round two.
Surprisingly, just after the election.
Isn't that weird?
They started to ease up on the lockdowns as we entered election season.
Go out and vote, they said.
Don't trust the mail-in ballots.
And now, just after the election, New York and New Jersey and many other states are announcing they're going to be locking down.
I actually just found out.
Someone came to me and said, hey, they're going to be locking down in New Jersey soon.
And I didn't believe it.
Here we go.
It's happening all over again.
Lockdown fears for New Yorkers after Governor Cuomo orders all gyms, bars, and restaurants to shut by 10 p.m.
across the state as COVID-19 positivity rate jumps to 2.9 percent.
From NJ.com, New Jersey bars, restaurants must close indoor service by 10 p.m.
under new COVID-19 restrictions.
Governor Murphy to announce.
That's what you get.
Joe Biden is the candidate of the lockdown.
Donald Trump was the candidate of opening back up.
But the governors have the ultimate say in their states.
And now here we go.
They say.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has ordered that all bars and restaurants across the state must close at 10 p.m., starting from Friday, in an effort to stave off the second wave of COVID.
He is also limiting gatherings in private residences to 10 people, and say he may reduce the capacity restaurants and bars can have indoors if numbers continue.
The statewide COVID-19 rate increased to 2.9%, which is the highest it has been for months,
and deaths are increasing in some parts of the state, but not all.
In New York City, deaths have been holding steady, as have hospitalizations despite the
rising infection rate.
But Cuomo on Wednesday issued an order for the entire state and said anyone who doesn't
comply with it will receive a summons ordering them to shut down.
Losing money hurts, but money can be replaced.
Losing a loved one is forever.
If the lights are on and people are drinking, they get summons, he said.
It delivers yet another blow to the restaurant and bar industry, which was only allowed to resume indoor dining at a 25% capacity last month after being ignored for months.
My friends, I understand there's a major spike.
We got huge news that in Pennsylvania they got a massive number of people getting COVID, but they're saying the hospitalization rate is reigning steady.
I do not believe lockdowns make sense, and I'm basing this off of the World Health Organization, who said lockdowns are a last resort and we should not be doing them.
But here we go.
It's happening.
Another lockdown.
Let me ask you something.
When you read those novels, those books about a dystopian future, when you read 1984, or Animal Farm, or Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451, did you think that the authoritarian regimes, whether it be the corporation, whether it be the government, would have no excuse?
Did you think that when authoritarianism came to your home, you would clearly identify it as being an obstruction of our freedom and rights?
Did you think that when they tried to seize power, you would say, hey, wait a minute!
They're seizing power!
Well, you'd be wrong.
They always have an excuse.
I mean, in each and every one of these stories, they have an excuse.
Take V for Vendetta, for instance.
What was their excuse?
In this dystopian graphic novel and film, the excuse was a virus.
The St.
Mary's virus, they called it.
And it was so dangerous that you needed the government to protect you.
And now that's what's happening.
But it's not the right thing.
We can certainly take protective measures to stop spikes in COVID and guard people from, you know, the vulnerable, without destroying our economies and destroying, essentially, our standard of living.
But that is what's happening.
And nothing will be done about it, I guess.
I don't know what you do.
Do you defy the lockdowns?
I mean...
I guess you leave New York and New Jersey.
Joe Biden said we're in for a dark winter.
That's what he called it.
A dark winter.
What does that mean?
I believe, assuming Joe Biden gets inaugurated on the 20th, he is going to lock this country down with a nationwide mandate, and it'll be worse than anyone has seen.
And it makes me really worried now.
I see what the Democrats are doing.
It's a combination of changing the election rules, mail-in ballots.
I see them now locking down the states once again.
And my friends, it is despotism.
Okay, it's not despotism, literally, because there's not like one person.
But it is some kind of freakish authoritarian edict going on.
They changed the rules to win an election.
It worked for them.
They ease the lockdown before the election, tell everyone go to vote in person, then they do, then they come back and say, OK, time to lock down again.
It's crazy.
And sure, maybe it all correlates.
I can already hear the leftist saying, well, duh, this spike is due to the election.
You see, we shouldn't have done it.
We should've done mail-in voting.
Fine.
But the UN has already said not to lock down.
Why are they doing it?
And what does that mean for the rest of us?
I don't know, man.
But, uh, this is why, you know, I still do live in Jersey, but we've been setting up the new studio with the, with this last month, with the election coming up, I decided to stay away from this area, notably because I had received threats, someone had come, you know, tried to break into my house previously, and I'm like, I don't want to be around here when there's violence because people can find out where I live.
So, uh, went out to the middle of nowhere for the time being, and probably will, you know, move officially, uh, soon, depending on what happens.
But with this lockdown, it probably will be sooner than I realized.
They're locking down in New Jersey again, same as New York.
I mean, New Jersey and New York being next to each other, it's, you know, not uncommon to see they act kind of in concert.
Here's what New Jersey says.
Oh, they're doing an ad.
announced the new restrictions Monday during his 1 p.m.
COVID-19 briefing in Trenton, which was the other day. An official with knowledge of the
announcement told NJ Advanced Media the latest round of restrictions were first reported on NJ.com's
exclusive text messaging service include. Oh, they're doing that. I'm not going to
read it. We'll tweak some of the rules of the road, Murphy said during a morning
interview.
This is not where we were in the spring, when we were shutting the whole place down.
Yes, it's just the beginning.
I was told that they're going to be doing phases, and this is just the beginning.
That eventually they will start to increase the amount of lockdowns.
But I tell you this, I ask you this.
If the lockdowns didn't work the first time, why are we doing it again?
We locked down before the peak period, and we still had people getting sick.
That now we're locking down again?
It's not gonna do anything!
And that's why the World Health Organization, it was a WHO and UN doctor who said, don't do this!
Here we go, baby.
I hope everybody who voted for Joe Biden recognizes they voted for this.
He said he wanted to do it.
He's a Democrat.
And you know, this is what I explain to people when they say, Tim, the riots are Trump's America.
If we vote for Joe Biden, it won't be, you know, then it'll all stop, I guess.
What, do you think the rioters are going to stop because Joe Biden won?
That's ridiculous.
But I bring this up for a reason.
A lot of people thought all of these problems were due to Trump.
And if we just vote for somebody else, it'll get better.
The dark winter is coming, says Joe Biden, and they're not going to stop, no matter who's the president.
No, in fact, as the Republicans resisted the lockdowns and Donald Trump sought to end the riots and did deputize many police so they can go and arrest these rioters and actually charge them, the Democrats were locking down their states and letting these rioters go.
So you know what you get with a Joe Biden?
Joe Biden will call for a national lockdown.
I'm sure some people are cheering for it.
But let me ask, I'll say it again.
Did you think that the authoritarianism would just show up one day unannounced with no reason?
No, of course not.
They were always going to have a reason why they needed absolute authority over what's going on in this country.
Now they've got it.
They got the pandemic.
I think it's serious.
I think the pandemic is an issue.
I know people who have been personally affected, and I hear the stories, and it's terrifying.
But there's got to be a balance, right?
We can't just say, give the government all the power, shut everything down.
Let's stop working.
But of course, that's what's happening.
So, I don't know.
I'm not going to make any ridiculous predictions and just say, you know, that they're going to lock us down for seven months and then they're going to demand papers or anything like that, but they're doing it in France.
What I'll say is, Joe Biden said he's the candidate of lockdowns.
Okay, no, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Trump said Joe Biden is the candidate of lockdowns.
That's what I meant to say.
Joe Biden said to listen to the scientists.
Scientists say we need more lockdowns and a mask mandate.
Joe Biden said he'll call for a mask mandate.
How do you do that?
I guess everyone will start doing it just because the president-elect or the new president will say so.
But this will be the end of our economy for quite some time.
I mean, these restrictions that Cuomo and Murphy are already putting down, it's going to be devastating.
I can only imagine it's only a matter of time for you and your state.
Now see, here's the problem.
Here's the problem with a Trump presidency for, you know, I guess, these people and their ideology.
The Republicans weren't going to lock down.
They didn't.
People had to parade for Kristi Noem in South Dakota because she resisted.
And everything was, for the most part, fine.
Now with Joe Biden as president, he's gonna probably use war powers or something to mandate some kind of national lockdown, thus forcing all of the Republican states in line as well.
Now, look, I really don't think it's gonna work out, actually, because in, I think, in several states, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, the lockdowns were ruled unconstitutional.
So I don't know what Joe Biden will be able to do, because these standings are in the lower courts, and then someone will sue, and it'll go to the higher court, maybe Supreme Court's gonna be like, get out of here!
We got, you know, Trump was able to put on three Supreme Court justices.
Or maybe, everybody locks down.
Europe's doing it, and there are riots going off in Prague, in Paris, in Italy, in the UK.
People are rioting over this stuff.
In France, you can't leave your home without your papers.
No joke!
Not an exaggeration.
I don't know to what extent it's going to come to the U.S.
But we already had it one time.
15 days to slow the spread, they said.
It feels like they are trying to bottle us up to make us extremely angry.
What do you think's going to happen if you take a whole bunch of urban liberals and you put them in cubicle apartments and you tell them they can't go outside like they were when we were doing the lockdown?
In a month from now, the Supreme Court rules that Trump actually won.
What do you think these people are going to do?
They are going to explode.
I don't know if that's going to happen, but it does feel like the pieces are at least being lined up whether, you know, on purpose or otherwise, and it's a recipe for disaster.
I guess we'll just wait and see.
I hope you're all taking your precautions for the coming lockdowns because it seems they are.
