Republicans Announce MAJOR Move That Would Give Trump PA's EC Votes, Trump Lawsuit Heads To SCOTUS
Doug Mastriano, PA State Senator, announced on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast that republicans would file a joint resolution to take back the power to appoint electors.This seems likely to be blocked by the governor but could find its way to the Supreme court giving PA a win as SCOTUS has already ruled the power to appoint electors rests in the legislature.Democrats meanwhile are gloating that Trump lost another appeal ignoring that Trump is now celebrating that they will be moving their suit to appeal to the supreme court.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We have major breaking news in Donald Trump's battle for the Electoral College.
Doug Mastriano of the PA Legislature announced on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast that they would be drafting a joint resolution to reclaim the power to appoint electors, and I think for the obvious reason.
to give them to Donald Trump.
We just saw a hearing in Pennsylvania where many people came forward with evidence of fraud or at least widespread irregularities that demand investigation.
It wasn't done in an official setting.
It was done at a Wyndham hotel.
And I've questioned why that is.
Maybe they're just trying to placate Trump supporters and not actually give them an actual courtroom or legislative hearing.
Or, as some have suggested, maybe they're trying to make something more symbolic, having this event held in Gettysburg.
You know, Civil War stuff, I guess.
This is the really good news for Trump supporters of the Trump campaign, but it doesn't necessarily mean they've won anything.
It's just, right now, the resolution may be put forward to give the power to appoint electors back to the legislature instead of the Secretary of State.
It doesn't mean it'll pass.
I'm not entirely sure how it's going to play out in Pennsylvania.
I'm assuming, as I read this previously, the governor can just veto any attempt to do this, so it might not play out that well.
At the same time, however, there is some bad news for Donald Trump.
They just lost another appeal.
And this one's crazy.
It's on the narrowest of grounds.
They appealed to the federal courts.
This is their lawsuit in Pennsylvania over improper ballot observation.
And they just said, we want to appeal to have the right to amend our complaint.
That's it.
The court said no, and the judge who wrote the opinion was a Trump-appointed judge.
If you listen to the Trump campaign, it's all part of the plan.
They're trying to rush to SCOTUS.
They want to get to the Supreme Court to, you know, litigate their claims.
And maybe that's really why a Donald Trump-appointed judge made this move.
I don't buy it.
I think they're trying as hard as they can, and they're just not gaining ground.
Now, Trump has called for meetings with the state legislatures from Michigan and Pennsylvania, and some are now suggesting that a domino effect might occur.
If the Republican state legislature in Pennsylvania does believe there is widespread fraud, as they've seen evidence, we've heard testimony from some legit people, okay?
There's a retired army veteran who, I believe, worked in psychological operations or military intelligence, and they've talked about how there's missing USB drives and strange phenomena.
We've seen widespread voter fraud allegations and affidavits, sworn statements in other states.
So the PA legislature might say, you know what?
We're not doing this?
We're gonna give it to Trump.
Now, in my opinion, that would be jumping the gun, because the real thing you'd want to do in that case is stop certification, give nobody the votes, because we don't know for sure.
In that case, Trump still wins.
Because I've mentioned it a million times.
House delegation vote.
It's called a contingent election.
If PA and two other states do not appoint electors to anybody, Biden won't get 270, and then it goes to the House delegations.
Each state gets one vote.
That is only possible because Trump won enough to keep this race close.
And I gotta say, it's not even really that close.
Like, we're talking about Trump stopping three states!
It's not that many, but it kind of is.
If it was down to one state, Trump would easily pull it off, and I'd be like, dude, he's gonna get it.
All he's gotta do is lock up one state.
He's gotta lock up three.
So we'll see how it plays out.
But here's where it gets crazy.
Doug Mastriano, when he held this meeting on voter fraud in Pennsylvania, Twitter suspended his account.
We also saw the lawsuit from Sidney Powell, the Kraken, as it's called, banned from Twitter.
This has many Trump supporters saying, quote, over the target.
The censorship is a desperate attempt to block this information from getting out, so let's get right into it.
And I'll play you this quick clip from the War Room podcast of just him saying it.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
There's a P.O.
box if you want to send stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Let people know what's going on.
Listen, I'll put it this way.
On the left, they're saying it's over, Joe Biden's president-elect, and Trump is wasting time.
They say Trump is trying to con his followers out of some extra cash.
I don't believe that's true, because Donald Trump spent $3 million on a recount in Wisconsin and two select areas.
Now, if you listen to the Trump supporters, they're going to tell you outright, this is all part of the plan, and Trump is going to win.
Well, I certainly think it's good news for Trump.
We're not quite there yet, and I'm not convinced Trump is going to win.
I think they're going to try and do this joint resolution, and then ultimately what might actually end up happening, it gets vetoed, it gets blocked.
It's not necessarily a guarantee for victory.
So this was, you know what?
I'm going to be careful here.
Actually, let me just put it this way.
Like, subscribe, hit the notification bell, share the video if you like it.
Now, let me say this.
I'm not actually going to play this.
I don't want to get an automatic copyright strike or something.
And so look, it's going to obviously be a struggle.
We're going to hear the palpitations and the outcries of our Governor Wolf and Secretary Bookvar, whose resignation should have happened months ago, and she should have never been confirmed.
But you know what?
We have that power, and we're going to take that power back because there's so much evidence of shenanigans and fraud.
We can't stand aside and just watch this unfold around us here.
You know, it's not about disenfranchising anybody.
It's making sure that every legal vote counted.
And if there is extensive shenanigans out there, it's up to the General Assembly to step in.
So we have a fight on our hands and we're going to fight.
We're going to take the fight all the way to the U.S.
Now, from the Election Wizard on Twitter, who has been retweeted by many people.
I'm not just saying the Election Wizard is particularly a better expert than anyone else, but they report on this basically right when it happened, saying, while on Steve Bannon's war room, Doug Mastriano announces the PA legislature will draft a joint resolution to take back power from the Secretary of State in the appointment of presidential electors.
The Wizard's Domino Theory.
If one state falls to Trump, others will likely fall too.
Getting the first state to flip is the biggest hurdle.
Once one state goes, the other state legislatures will have sufficient cover to follow suit.
And that's true, but I'm not entirely convinced that's the play.
They might take back the power and say, we refuse to appoint electors because this election was crazy.
And there's way too many sworn statements and affidavits and weird goings-on.
I'll tell you one of the weirdest things.
There's, in these recounts, there's a video, there's a photo, this photo's going viral from the recount in Wisconsin, where people are all standing around each other talking with no problem, where lawyers are talking with clerks face-to-face.
They're wearing masks, mind you.
And then the poll observers are sitting behind plexiglass six feet away.
It makes no sense.
How come the vote counters can stand next to each other, and the observers are behind glass six feet away?
It seems entirely arbitrary, and that on its face is weird.
Now you've got Trump filing this suit, trying to go through the courts to block certification.
Well, they've certified.
It's done.
And there was another lawsuit to declare mail-in ballots unconstitutional, which did get a temporary injunction stopping certification, but then it got overturned on appeal.
All of those things are happening.
But listen, certification already happened in PA.
I don't know what Trump's plan is.
Maybe he's trying to get the Supreme Court, as I've stated previously, and he's happy that his own appointee has kicked it back.
But the crazy thing about what happened with Doug Mastriano is that they actually suspended his account.
And for what reason?
Oops, it was an accident.
That's right.
Oopsie.
No real reason.
Senator Doug Mastrano from his official political account said,
this censorship is unacceptable in America, a nation that I served for most of my adult life.
The point of Twitter suspending this personal account is to prevent me from posting to my
Senate account to silence our voice. That's insane.
Some of the craziest stuff.
This is a tweet that was retweeted by Ryan Hartwig.
Calvin Froch.
I'm not entirely sure who this gentleman is.
He's just on Twitter.
He said, Twitter really screwed up on this one.
They silenced a decorated war hero who was a lead planner for the 2003 Iraq evasion.
In my opinion, this was a major escalation.
One that is going to have consequences.
I'm not entirely sure who Calvin is.
No disrespect.
But I thought it was very important to highlight this point.
Twitter just took the action.
They just decided to suspend the account of a sitting state senator for no reason.
That is huge.
You want to tell me they suspended, you know, a random guy because he said learn to code, and I'm gonna be like, that's crazy.
You come to me and you tell me that Twitter took down the account of a Republican state senator That is nuts.
That is an active, sitting, prominent, important politician.
Now, it's crazy enough that you've got people like Laura Loomer, for instance, who won the Republican primary in Florida, and Twitter says, we're not going to give you access.
There are claims that that's improper donations to the Democrat than giving them access to this platform and denying it to someone else who's running for office.
You want to litigate that in court?
By all means, this is something else.
They said, oops, Twitter says Republican State Senator Doug Mastriano's account was suspended in error.
Oh, in error!
I don't believe it.
I think this guy was holding a hearing on fraud, and I think these issues were going viral, and this guy, he's the state senator who has the power to say, we are filing a joint resolution to take back the power of the electors, and Twitter was like, don't let people see this.
My opinion.
I'm sorry, man.
You can't come at me and say it's an accident.
I just don't buy it.
They did it to Sidney Powell's website, and they blocked Sidney Powell's website and said, oops, it was an accident.
They did it here, oops, it was an accident.
No, it wasn't.
There's no way.
The amount of accidents we see in terms of censorship, if I bought a lottery ticket every time an accident happened, I'd have won the lottery by now, because I would have bought like a hundred thousand.
And then I'd be winning across the board.
I'd win small amounts here and large amounts there.
Sorry, man.
Way too many coincidences for me to believe it was an accident.
A Twitter spokesperson told Newsweek in a statement, This account was mistakenly suspended for perceived
violations of our impersonation policy.
This was an error. We have immediately reversed the decision, and the account has been reinstated.
Reacting to the suspension, Trump compared the actions of Twitter with those of a communist
country and said the social network's decision could not stand. Wow.
Twitter bans highly respected Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano after he did a great job of leading a hearing on the 2020 election fraud.
They and the fake news working together want to silence the truth.
Can't let that happen.
This is what communist countries do.
Trump earlier today tweeted, for national security purposes, we must repeal Section 230.
And that's one of the worst ideas ever.
And it's probably because Trump doesn't understand it.
Now, of course, Trump supporters say it's part of the big ask.
You know, in the art of the deal, you talk about Big ass say, I want to repeal 230 and they go, no, no, no, please don't.
And then you say, okay, fine.
How about we reform it?
And by asking for more than you really want, you walk it back to a comfortable position.
That's not true.
I don't believe that's the case.
I think Trump really wants to repeal it because he doesn't understand what it is.
You know why?
Going to big tech and the Democrats and saying, I want to repeal section 230 is not a big ask.
It's a big give.
It's that they're going to be like, yes, please.
Thank you.
Section 230 allows social media companies to host content without being sued or being responsible for what that content is.
That means if you get rid of 230, YouTube is responsible for everything I say.
So do you know what YouTube's gonna do?
Buh-bye, Tim!
And they're gonna terminate my channel and a bunch of other channels and say, we have to personally vet every account from now on and every piece of content, otherwise we get sued.
Reforming Section 230 is what we want.
But Trump is basically going to big tech and to Democrats saying, I think I should give you everything you want.
And they're going to go, oh, no, Trump, no, don't give us everything we want.
Mainstream corporate news is left.
It's resistance corporate left.
And it's very so leftist in many ways.
Conservative media, almost entirely independent.
That's what's going to get axed.
Sure, you'll lose the likes of, you know, Vox, I guess, but BuzzFeed will be fine.
Uh, Huffington Post, Verizon properties, AT&T properties.
I'm sorry, you know what?
I was wrong.
No, Vox is NBC.
They're gonna be fine.
Daily Wire, gone.
Just, buh-bye.
My channel's independent creators, people like Styx, just gone.
So, not, not good.
Not, not, not, not where we wanna go.
They have since reinstated Doug Mastriano's account, so he's back.
That's good news.
Let's move on to the bad news for the Trump— Well, actually, I shouldn't necessarily say it's bad news.
Whether or not we actually see this joint resolution give the power back to the state legislature and PA, we'll see how things go.
He says we're going to go to the Supreme Court.
It doesn't mean he's going to be able to actually appoint the electors, but keep this in mind.
The Supreme Court previously ruled that the power to appoint electors lies with the state legislatures.
That's it.
A lot of people have said it was a victory for the left and a defeat for Trump.
Smarter people warned, no, this is a huge victory for Trump.
They were worried about faithless electors.
They're like, what happens if they're told to go and they have to vote for Joe Biden, but they vote for Donald Trump?
Supreme Court says, no, you have to vote as it is decided in your state.
Well, in many of these states, the law is that the electors are appointed based on the popular vote.
But what the Supreme Court actually said was that it's determined by the state legislature.
That's where the sole power lies, which means in PA, they could go to the Supreme Court and say, the power is ours no matter what.
And the Supreme Court could say, yep.
And then they say, Donald Trump, it is.
Or nobody.
House delegation contingent victory.
On the other side of things, Donald Trump is trying to fight on his own up to the Supreme Court to try and get PA from having its electoral college certified or maybe even decertified now that they've already made those moves.
But Trump has lost the appeal from CNBC.
And this is really interesting because the judge in the case was appointed by Trump.
The first judge to deny it was appointed, I believe, by Obama.
CNBC reports a federal appeals court on Friday rejected an attempt from President Trump's re-election campaign to keep alive its effort to undo the result of Pennsylvania's election.
The blistering opinion from a panel of judges on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, all three of whom were nominated by Republican presidents, said that the Trump campaign's claims have no merit.
The appellate court's decision affirmed a federal judge's ruling from a week earlier which denied the Trump campaign's request to block the Keystone State from certifying that President-elect Joe Biden won its election.
The opinion marks the latest court loss for Trump, who has refused to concede the election to Biden and is falsely asserting that he won the race.
On Wednesday, Trump flightly stated, we have to turn the election over.
You know, Conservatives and Trump supporters mostly believe Trump did win the race.
It's like 80% believe he won.
Democrats believe he lost.
Truth be told, nothing's been... the electoral college votes haven't happened yet.
Trump is within the constitutional rights to challenge everything at a legal level, and there's a reason why states have the sole power to appoint their... the state legislatures have the power to appoint electors.
We are not a democracy.
We are a republic.
That means this country wasn't designed so that the will of the people was always going to be law.
It was designed in such a way that the will of people have influence, but ultimately it comes down to, and I'm quoting here, better men.
There are many statements from the past about, you know, our senators, they used to be appointed before the 17th amendment.
The state legislature would vote for a senator to go to the federal government to represent the state.
The people would only vote for their local reps or their state reps.
That all changed.
And because of the way we handle popular voting now, you've got the Democrats constantly acting as though we're a direct democracy, and we're not.
Or at least more representative democracy than we are actually republic.
The idea being that if we vote for something, it's supposed to be that way no matter what.
Imagine this.
And this is brilliant on the part of the Founding Fathers.
Imagine foreign influence interferes in the election and it results in someone like Joe Biden who would sell us out to foreign interests.
The states, if they believe it's in the best interest, they can intervene and say, we don't have to do a popular vote.
We can pass a law that says we just choose.
End of story.
They can do that.
Supreme Court ruled it.
I'm not saying it's good.
I'm not a big fan.
If Trump overturns the election, or I should say if Trump wins using this tactic, I think we're in serious trouble and I'm really worried about what's going to happen.
I don't like the idea of a state actually going to one president, or to one person, but then the legislator being like, nah, whatever, we're gonna choose.
Because it could go back the other direction.
You could end up with, you know, Michigan, for instance, or you, well, they're all Republican state legislatures.
But you could have Democrats do something in kind.
I'm not a fan of that.
However, the real problem lies with the fact that There's legitimate evidence of fraud.
Legit.
No doubt.
The media might want to deny it, say it's false, but there is evidence.
Like I mentioned, retired Navy vet saying, I think Navy, saying that there's missing USB drives, that the votes are not popping up properly.
Historic recount margins in Georgia.
There is evidence of fraud.
Now, I'm not saying it's evidence of widespread fraud to the point where it overturned the election, helping Joe Biden, guaranteeing Joe Biden's win, because we don't have evidence of that.
And so I do not agree with the president's assertion in that capacity.
I do think, however, there is enough evidence that would result in some politicians' opinions being, I refuse to certify or appoint electors until these questions are answered.
Deadline hits.
No votes for Joe Biden.
Trump gets a contingent election victory.
I have said it over and over again that I really do believe we are not heading in that direction.
Early on, I did.
And I'll put it this way.
Even though right now, the state senator is saying, we're going to do this, we'll take it all the way to SCOTUS.
We're talking about well beyond, well beyond a constitutional trick shot.
Now, I will happily be wrong if it turns out Trump's planned all this and he's going to get his electoral college victory.
Fine.
We've already seen the tweets from Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur saying Trump's trying to steal the election.
We've already seen it.
Actually, let me go back.
I'd be really surprised if Trump pulls it off.
I really would.
But I do think it's possible.
That's the issue at play.
So now, here's what happens.
Trump loses appeal of Pennsylvania election case.
We have this tweet from Jenna Ellis.
Rudy Giuliani and me on Third Circuit's opinion.
The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud.
We are very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts to the PA state legislature.
On to SCOTUS.
Okay.
We'll see if SCOTUS feels differently.
And they might.
The only issue, these judges first.
We've got Stephanos Bibas, who wrote the opinion saying, we're denying this motion,
appointed by Trump June 19, 2017. Okay, the next two were both, I believe, George W. Bush.
So George W. Bush for Michael Chigueras, and then the other was D. Brooks Smith, who was George W. Bush on September 10th, 2001.
Wow!
September 10th, he was appointed.
Two George Bush appointees and a Trump appointee, and the Trump appointee is the one who kicked it back saying, no dice.
So I'm not convinced this legal route's gonna win, but let me tell you.
I don't think it matters.
I do not believe that Trump is trying to win through lawsuits.
I don't.
Or recounts.
I don't.
I think Trump is trying to win by presenting evidence of fraud, getting his supporters and other individuals to come forth with more and more evidence, using that to convince three states not to present their slate of electors.
That's it.
Certification, at this point, I'm not even sure it matters.
Oh, they've certified PA, but what if the PA state legislature says, we will not be appointing any electors?
Done.
No votes.
Nobody goes, nobody votes, Joe Biden does not reach 270.
I do not believe it is extremely likely, but I believe that is Trump's true strategy right now.
The point of the lawsuit's, in my opinion, buying time.
It would make no sense if Donald Trump said, I refuse to concede, and then did nothing, and just waited until Republican legislatures decided to vote for him.
Trump needs to claim widespread fraud, he needs to claim the courts are blocking him, he needs to blame activist judges, and then say, I am calling on the Republicans to do the right thing.
That's what he needs.
I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm just saying that's what he has to do at this point.
I'm not saying he's going to be successful.
Honestly, I don't know, and I've said it a million times, like, to an absurd degree, the likelihood is for Biden.
But something just feels off.
It's the only way I can really put it.
Something just feels off.
I don't know what else to say.
My gut says I can't count out Trump.
After everything we've been through and everything we've seen this man do, I just can't get myself to believe 100% that Trump will lose.
For the most part, my head is saying, how could he possibly pull this off?
Maybe, look, I read what Trump supporters are saying and they're convinced he's coming in for this victory and nothing can stop what happens next.
I don't know.
He pardoned Michael Flynn.
I guess he had to.
I'm not sure if he really did, if he was thinking he was going to win.
But I'll tell you, Trump's not convinced he's leaving.
He's acting as though he's going to stay.
And maybe he's made these recent moves, allowing the transition for Joe Biden, preliminary, and pardoning Flynn, because he might lose, and he thinks there's a possibility he does.
But he's certainly counting on winning.
He really wants to win.
Now, interestingly, he previously said That if Joe Biden wins the electoral college, she would gladly leave.
Now he's saying something kind of different.
Trump says Biden can only enter the White House as president if he can prove his ridiculous 80 million votes were not obtained by fraud, as he appears to row back peaceful transition claims.
Okay.
I have to wonder.
How much of what Trump is doing is a distraction.
I have to wonder if the reason Trump has been kind of media, you know, radio silent, just not saying anything for a long time is he's been planning out a legit strategy or he's trying to make them think that, you know, he's down and out.
Dan Scavino works in the Trump campaign, published this video.
Where it's from a movie, Christopher Walken is talking about the lion.
It's a video of a lion being surrounded by hyenas.
And he basically explains how the lion, the king of the jungle, not really because they live in the savannah, but sure, whatever, are, you know, will sit back while the jackals surround and nip at him and then eventually he'll snap and he'll go and just mow them all down.
Trump retweeted it and said so much truth or something like that.
As if to imply Trump is biding his time, relaxing, preparing for the final and ultimate salvo.
There is still about two and a half to three weeks before we even have the Electoral College vote.
In that time period, a lot can happen.
We have a holiday week, so a lot of people are probably chilling.
Maybe Trump just doesn't care.
Maybe he's like, you know, we'll try and win.
We'll see what happens.
I'll throw everything I got into it.
And maybe he thinks he might actually lose.
That's why he pardoned Flynn right away.
Not right away, but now.
He certainly could have waited until January 19th, right?
So maybe he's just like, okay, okay, fine.
Maybe I might lose.
Maybe the reason that Sidney Powell was, they clarified, she was not on his legal team, was because he was going to pardon Flynn, and that's the only reason.
I don't know if her lawsuit's going to work, but Sidney Powell is suing on behalf of the electors in Michigan to give them the right to declare Trump the winner.
It's not over, man.
It may not be, in my opinion, likely for Trump.
How am I supposed to know or calculate?
I don't know what Trump's planning.
But it's not over.
Trump's not done fighting.
And so it's very likely some things are going to change.
I'll tell you what, though.
I've seen a lot.
I've gotten my hopes up on a lot.
I think the PA state legislature is going to try to get the power back.
Something's going to block them up, and it's not going to happen.
But I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
They're going for it.
I don't want to jinx it.
I think, you know, the courts might rule something to the effect of, okay, this time you can't, but next time you can.
I guess we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel from this one.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the past couple of days, we have seen major developments in the Trump Electoral College strategy, lawsuits, etc.
The Kraken has been released.
The long-awaited legal challenge by attorney Sidney Powell has dropped There are two Krakens, in fact, and potentially more on the way.
It's a lawsuit in Georgia and a lawsuit in Michigan, and I am not entirely confident these are going to go anywhere.
People are mocking and ridiculing the legal filings because they're laden with typos and it seems like Sidney Powell's space bar is broken.
However, There has been some weird goings on.
Twitter actually banned Sidney Powell's site and then said, oopsie.
Now, when this happens, you try and share the link on Twitter, you get a warning saying, go back, don't go to this site.
This led many Trump supporters to say, we are over the target.
Now, as for the legal filings and their merit, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend to know whether or not this will fly in court, except Like, listen, the remedy in these lawsuits is to declare Donald Trump the winner.
And just based off that, I'm like, come on, you know.
I really doubt you're going to go into court and you're going to be like, I am alleging massive fraud.
Here's evidence.
And there's some legit evidence.
But in the filing, you need stronger citation, stronger sources.
It's brutal.
And it is kind of messed up.
That's very, very hard to get these challenges through.
I just gotta say, I imagine based on my normalcy bias, like, do we really think outrageous and extreme things are going to happen?
I'm gonna say probably not.
I imagine that, look, there's a lot of left-wing pundits, a lot of anti-Trump pundits that are saying, like, for this, that, and this reason, these lawsuits are going to get thrown out in a motion to dismiss.
But we are seeing, you know, we are seeing the weird and typical things like, so Dominion Voting Systems is named in the lawsuit in Georgia, and Sidney Powell alleges that they were flipping votes for Joe Biden, and there's a grand conspiracy, and I'm not saying that to be disrespectful, like literally, these systems were designed for flipping the vote and then hiding the results so that you can't audit them and figure out what's going on.
So Dominion comes out and they're like, help, help, we're being harassed!
And I'm like, that's not an argument.
Sure, they say it's a meritless and baseless conspiracy theory.
That's also not really an argument.
I guess the problem is, if someone comes at you with silly allegations, or they're taking clips of you out of context, what do you do?
It becomes very difficult to disprove an onslaught of fake bits being pushed out by people.
And so, what would Dominion ultimately do?
I guess they're actually going to have to, and there was a left-wing personality on Twitter saying, Dominion's gonna have to put out like a point-by-point refutation of this, because the lawsuit does claim to have witnesses, people who are involved with Dominion voting systems, saying they've witnessed these things.
So it's not something they can just say it's a baseless conspiracy, though the media is certainly trying really hard to do it.
My friends, there are two universes.
There are two.
In one universe, in the staunch Trump supporter universe, Trump is playing everything masterfully.
And no one can stop what is about to come.
You see, the typos in the Sidney Powell lawsuits?
That was on purpose.
Oh yeah?
You want to know why?
Because it tricked the media into actually reporting on them.
But they're reporting on them with or without the typos anyway, so I don't buy it.
I mean, look, man, the simple solution is not that Sidney Powell loaded up typos in this document to try and trick journalists.
It just seems like her spacebar broke.
I mean, that's really what it is.
There are some typos.
They're just typos.
They say, like, it's rife with spelling errors.
I'm like, ah, like, you know, someone hit the wrong button.
It happens.
So maybe it was hastily typed out and no one proofread it.
Cause like, how you, how you, they're like apparently huge sentences with no spacing.
So it's like every word is just next to the next word.
No idea why that is.
Spacebar broke.
Nobody proofread the document before filing it.
I imagine you might get a judge being like, what, what, what is this?
And it might prejudice them or something.
I don't know.
But I'm not expecting I'm not expecting a judge to look at this and say, wow, I'm going to overturn the results to Donald Trump.
You know, Joe Biden clearly didn't win.
Listen, we got some more evidence, okay?
They had the hearing in Pennsylvania, and we had an Army—I believe it was a Navy veteran, actually—who's saying that there's missing USB cards.
And this whole thing, to me, has just been very, very weird.
Why hold a hearing at a Wyndham hotel?
It feels like they're kind of just placating the right.
And maybe that's what the Republican Party is all about.
I mean, think about it.
Can you tell me what the Republican Party does?
Well, I know, I know.
They appointed over 200 federal judges, 3 Supreme Court justices.
That's making a lot of Republicans really, really happy, I get it.
But what about legislation?
What about censorship that is eroding and destroying the Trump-supporting base, the conservative base, and even the anti-war left?
Nothing to see there.
They haven't done anything.
To be completely honest, I talk to a lot of people, especially on the IRL podcast, and everyone's just like, what do the Republicans do, even?
Can you criticize them?
Is there good?
Is there bad?
No idea.
That being said, if you haven't already, check out youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Subscribe.
There's going to be some changes coming to all the channels, but make sure you subscribe to that podcast channel, Monday through Friday, live at 8 p.m.
and then clips up throughout the day.
But let's just, let's go through what's going on.
So, I gave you the gist of the news, right?
Twitter claims it reversed the ban on a link to Sidney Powell's Georgia election lawsuit.
So they banned it, they unbanned it, that's the news there.
But here's the kraken.
Well, here's what the Detroit News says about the kraken.
Citing conspiracy theories, Michigan GOP electors ask court to name Trump the winner.
A new lawsuit brought by a group of Michigan Republicans asks a federal judge to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win in the state based on a bevy of conspiracy theories and claims contradicted by election experts.
I gotta stop right there.
You see, therein lies the very, very serious problem with what's going on in these two universes.
As I mentioned, Go over to thedonald.win, and you will become extremely confident Trump is going to somehow win, or he is going to literally win, it's all part of the plan, and things like that.
I mean, but there's a lot of high-profile Trump supporters on Twitter saying, nah.
Like, you can say that Joe Biden didn't win fair and square, but he's winning in terms of the political war.
And that's what I've been saying.
When I talk about whether or not Donald Trump's gonna win, I don't mean in court.
I mean political warfare.
And Joe Biden figured it out.
I believe the biggest and most powerful thing the Democrats did was mail-in voting, giving themselves basically a month to go.
And I don't want to say ballot harvest.
I would assume there's probably a lot.
We've seen the videos from Veritas.
So there's probably ballot harvesting.
In fact, I would say definitively from the Veritas videos, we've seen literal ballot harvesting.
Enough to flip the election away from Trump.
I'm not entirely sure, but they don't need to do overt ballot harvesting.
They go door-to-door and say, did you vote yet?
I want to watch you vote.
Do your vote.
Okay, bye.
They don't have to take the vote from you.
They can just knock on your door and say, vote, vote, vote.
That was a huge advantage for them.
So right now, okay, this article says, claims contradicted by election experts.
That means literally nothing to me and doesn't need to be in that paragraph.
Let me give you the actual paragraph.
Let me fix this for you.
A new lawsuit brought by a group of Michigan Republicans asks a federal judge to overturn President-elect Joe Biden's win in the state, citing what they say are allegations of widespread voter fraud.
That's it.
There you go.
Or I should say, citing allegations of widespread voter fraud.
If you want to judge the merits, that's up to you.
But they put bevy of conspiracy theories and claims conjured by experts.
What experts, why, who, and what's the point?
Okay?
I can find you an expert who can tell me that the sky is really green!
Just don't trust your eyes!
There are a lot of experts that say a lot of crazy things.
And the left used to talk about this when it came to climate change.
They'd be like, well, you can, you know, the big oil companies hire scientists to do research favorable for them.
Right, great.
So experts aren't necessarily the end-all be-all.
And the same goes for Sidney Powell.
She has her own experts in these legal documents citing and saying things.
And I'm like, sure, okay.
It's expert testimony.
It is what it is.
Light, very weak circumstantial evidence.
They say six Republicans, three who would be Electoral College electors for President Trump, and three local GOP officials filed the suit in federal court Wednesday night, two days after the Board of State Canvassers certified Biden's 154,000-vote victory in Michigan.
Among the attorneys is Sidney Powell, who appeared at a press conference with Trump's legal representatives last week.
Since then, however, the Trump campaign has said that Powell is working on her own.
Now this, I actually heard a reason for this.
You know, I've talked about Sydney Powell, they announced she's no longer on the legal team, she confirmed this, and the media said that she was fired.
Because, you know, the media and these journalists, they're just... and the Democrats, they're not thinking clearly.
They don't think about why this is, okay?
And so, I had someone say, Trump just pardoned Michael Flynn.
Sidney Powell is Michael Flynn's lawyer.
Is it possible that they announced she wasn't working for Trump so that they would avoid the negative press of a conflict of interest?
Yes.
That's the actual simple solution.
That really is a simple solution.
Trump, if he had Sidney Powell on his legal team, and she represented Michael Flynn, and then Trump pardoned Michael Flynn, the media would be like, that's a huge conflict.
I mean, that is a huge conflict of interest.
Now they're not saying anything.
They spent so much time making fun of Trump and Sidney Powell that when Trump then pardons Michael Flynn, where's the narrative of a conflict of interest?
Well, they already spent too much time making fun of, you know, the issue.
So now it's like, you know, I will say, though, I'm looking forward to it.
Trump says that he's going to leave if, you know, if they don't, if the electors don't vote for him, he's going to leave.
Of course he will.
If that happens, I am looking forward to the end of Twitter.
Twitter was a dying platform before Trump.
Many of these media companies were, and Trump saved all of them.
And you know what?
I'm actually kind of mad at Trump about that.
I'm not personal.
I can't be personally mad at him.
It's just funny that it worked out that way.
But Twitter is one of the worst things humans have ever done.
It has taken long and large complex ideas and then just whittled down the window for which we view them into a tiny keyhole so we can't even understand them anymore.
So now you get endless out of context statements or people being taken out of context.
You can tweet a joke and people don't know it's a joke and then they think you're serious.
So I just roll with it.
I just tweet silly things.
And it's funny because these leftists eat it all up and they're like, you're so dumb.
And I'm like, it's so dumb that you're so dumb.
Who cares?
Twitter's awful.
But man, it's shaping the political landscape for the left, at least, and that is freaky.
Okay, so here's the Detroit lawsuit, okay?
Or, I'm sorry, the Michigan lawsuit.
They want, the Republicans want, a court to name Trump the winner.
Now we have, Trump asks Pennsylvania lawmakers to turn around election results during GOP event in Gettysburg.
Trump's lawyers implored Republicans in the Commonwealth to ignore the election results and select a pro-Trump slate of electors instead.
Whoa!
That is not true.
Let me fix this story for you, Market Watch.
Trump's lawyers implored Republicans in the Commonwealth to, citing the widespread evidence, the evidence of widespread voter fraud, vote for Trump instead.
So it's not saying ignore the election results.
They're quite literally saying take into consideration all the evidence.
I'm not saying their evidence is correct and true.
I'm not saying they're right.
But they're not saying ignore the results, just make Trump the winner.
They're saying there's widespread fraud and If you can take that into consideration, Trump is the rightful winner.
That would literally, if you want to get technical, they're saying, take the evidence into consideration and vote accordingly, which would make Trump the winner.
That's the argument in these lawsuits.
That's the argument from Trump's lawyers.
Not, ignore it, we win anyway.
It's quite literally, here's the evidence of fraud, here's the individuals, here's the statements, here's the affidavits.
Take this into consideration when you vote.
That would make Trump the winner.
I'm not sure that's going to fly in a court.
And like I said, normalcy bias, this kind of stuff just doesn't happen.
But I'll tell you at the same time, we're not living in normal times, to put it mildly.
I have no idea what could or would happen.
I didn't think a Joe Biden victory would happen.
And, you know, I'll tell you this.
There's these people putting out clips where it's me saying over and over again, 49 state landslide.
And it's like trying to create the impression that I was always convinced that would be the case.
First and foremost, four hours of content every day.
You're definitely going to find a bunch of different clips going back two years of me saying how we could get to a 49 state landslide.
But a lot of these issues are specifically like, if Trump pardons all, like, I would say something like this.
If Trump pardons all nonviolent drug offenders and then decriminalizes marijuana, I think we might see a 49-state landslide.
And they take that last bit and make it seem like I'm just saying it for no reason, when I'm straight up saying the things that have to come together to make that possible That's crazy.
But it could happen because Trump's kind of a crazy dude, right?
Well, Trump didn't do anything like that, and he should have, and maybe it really would have helped him win.
And a lot of Trump-supporting former liberals were saying, make these moves, Trump.
He could have pardoned Edward Snowden and Assange, and that would have been huge.
The issue, I suppose, is that Trump wasn't convinced that the left would vote for him even if he gave them what they wanted.
But I still think Trump should have gone the route of decriminalizing, you know, executive order, decriminalizing, you know, pot use.
It wouldn't be law, it would just be he could instruct federal agencies to stop investing in drop-off charges, and then he could vow to pardon anybody convicted, and then he could have pardoned not all nonviolent drug offenders, because some might plead down, but many of them after some kind of light review.
What are you in for?
Okay, you're free to go.
He did that for, I think, a couple people.
He should have done it for way, way more.
Maybe more than a couple.
Trump did pardon a lot of people.
But he could have done it for way, way more people, and these things would have helped him.
There's also things I said where, like, if Trump appoints Andrew Yang as an economic advisor and Tulsi Gabbard as national security advisor, considering it was the American conservative that said, fire Bolton, hire Tulsi, I think you might see a 49-state landslide.
And the other thing you need to consider, too, about a 49-state landslide is that it doesn't mean Trump wins, you know, 150 million votes.
The popular vote margins can be the same.
If you look at the actual 49-state landslides with Reagan and Nixon, it wasn't like they won, like, The losing candidates won tens of millions of votes.
But you could win, you know, a certain state by a slim margin and then get all the electoral votes.
The other thing is, most importantly though, is that I was saying over and over again that Biden could actually do this.
I'm surprised he did, to be completely honest.
That caught me off guard.
I really didn't believe it.
And most leftists didn't believe it either.
They were tweeting all the same things.
Biden will never win.
And you had Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks saying, Biden's got dimension, all that stuff.
So anyway, I digress.
I digress.
Just a little tangent.
Right now, you've got Trump's lawyers asking the electors in PA to vote for him.
You've got a lawsuit in Georgia and Michigan where they're basically asking the courts to overturn the results.
I just can't see that happening.
I'm sorry, man.
I mean, these hearings are interesting.
You know, it increases the probability I would give to a Trump electoral victory in some capacity, or some kind of Trump victory.
And I'll tell you, they just fired, the Trump administration ordered the firing of an advisory board, which includes Henry Kissinger over at the Pentagon.
And that stuff makes me feel like Trump still is not planning on leaving, because these things would be pointless.
Absolutely pointless.
If he's going to be leaving in a month, if Joe Biden's being inaugurated, Oh, I'm sorry, in two months.
And so Trump says a lot can happen from now until January 20th.
What's that supposed to mean?
Is there going to be like a Directive 51 overhaul?
I don't know, man, but let me tell you.
Some of the allegations against these elections do cite foreign interference.
Or potential foreign interference.
I mean, look, the Sidney Powell thing claims that's like China, Russia, Iran are colluding, and she says that this software was implemented and used in Venezuela, things like that.
Trump's got an executive order that gives him pretty substantial powers in the event of foreign election meddling.
Maybe the Trump campaign is only just waiting to get to the Supreme Court to drop legitimate, hard allegations.
And the fastest way to get to the Supreme Court is to have garbage, flimsy lawsuits.
Sure, I guess, but that would sound like you've got political favors in the Supreme Court, which sure, Trump appointed three of these people, maybe that's the case, or we're really dealing with a legit political civil war, and that it's not about whether the cases have merit, it's about whether or not the Supreme Court justices will be on Trump's side, or on the side of the political establishment.
I'm not entirely sure.
Maybe.
Trump appointed three people.
And so you add that with Alito and Clarence Thomas.
And Alito has talked about the threats to democracy and our individual liberties and stuff like that.
And maybe what we're really seeing is that there are five Supreme Court justices who say the Democrats can't be allowed to expand their un-American problems.
And the point is un-American policies and creating more problems.
So the point is it's a political issue.
Here's Fox News.
PA poll watcher, Navy vet, alleges missing USB cards up to 120,000 questionable votes.
At a hearing Wednesday, the poll watcher alleged the cards may have been used to add illegal votes to the state's vote count.
Why wasn't this done in an actual legal proceeding?
Legit question.
I don't know.
Maybe there's a real answer.
They did it at the Wyndham.
Were these people placed under oath?
My understanding is that they weren't.
I'm not entirely sure.
Considering they're not in a, uh...
Well, no, to be fair, many of these people signed sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury, so... Okay, they're probably legit making these claims, but why not just have a real legal proceeding?
Part of me thinks that, look, if you go into the mainstream media world, this is just one big ploy by the Trump campaign to siphon off a couple quick bucks from his remaining supporters before he leaves office.
I'm not convinced of that.
Sorry, Trump just dropped $3 million on a recount in Wisconsin.
They're buying time for something, and these lawsuits are absurd.
Maybe they're just trying to get them to the Supreme Court.
Now the reason I'm not so sure about that is, Sidney Powell filed her lawsuit on behalf of electors, not the Trump campaign.
But maybe that's all that matters.
Maybe it goes before electors, and she wants the lawsuits to be absurd and broken, so the judges say, get out of my court, and then she files an appeal and makes her way up.
Maybe.
The Trump campaign doesn't want to get to the Supreme Court right away.
Because if you get a Supreme Court victory right now, the Democrats are going to be given a lot of opportunity, a lot of time to challenge and file back.
But if they do it right at the deadline, they can put the Democrats in a weakened position where they have no time to respond.
Honestly, I don't know.
But I will tell you, again, normalcy bias?
I don't know why they're doing it.
They're probably just trying tooth and nail as hard as possible.
They're fighting tooth and nail to try and win by any means necessary, and it seems extremely unlikely.
I don't know.
Far be it from me to be able to predict the future, because as you've heard with all of those clips of me saying 49 state landslide, no, no, to be real, I can't predict the future.
Like, if people come to my channel taking things out of context, ignoring the cultural relevance of that specific moment, like, I don't care.
By all means, go ahead and do it, because I'll tell you what, you know what's going to happen with this video?
It's going to be like January 21st with Trump being sworn in.
They're going to be like, look how dumb Tim was.
He really thought Trump wasn't going to pull this off.
Yes, I really think Trump isn't going to pull it off, and I could be wrong about it.
You take all the riots, you go back to 2018, you take the Kavanaugh effect, then you take the booming economy, the best numbers of our lives, you take the Moody's analytics things, and yeah, it was looking really, really good for Donald Trump, and then COVID happened.
But then you take all of those riots, you take Fauci saying in March, Trump is doing better than anybody could, and Trump's approval rating during the COVID outbreak was higher in aggregate than at any other time in his presidency, and it stands to reason people were enjoying things.
I mean, people were upset about, I should say, people were confident in what Trump was doing.
Not everybody.
But it's not just that.
It's that on the issue of the economy, Trump was always favored.
So naturally, there's a lot of questions about what really happened.
And because of this, it's why Trump supporters think Trump really did win in a landslide and that it was stolen through fraud and, you know, dirty tricks.
I don't think there was a massive landslide.
I thought it was possible for a few reasons, but mostly only if there were very, very astronomical hypotheticals like Trump pardoning a bunch of people and things like that.
But I think it's fair to point out that while there are many concerns brought up by conservatives, there are simple explanations.
I'm not saying definitive.
Here's an article from The Federalist, Five Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms.
They say 80 million votes.
This is actually funny.
Check this out.
They say Joe Biden got 80 million votes.
Biden also shattered Barack Obama's own popular vote totals, really calling into question whether it was not perhaps Biden who pulled Obama across the finish lines in 08 and 2012.
Ha ha ha, we know that's not true.
They said, look, there's no enthusiasm for Joe Biden.
And I'm like, right, it was all Trump.
I was saying this the entire time, going back several months, while the enthusiasm for Trump was ridiculously high and for Biden it was really, really low.
The anti-Trump enthusiasm was higher than Trump enthusiasm.
That was a huge red flag.
Of course, when these leftists and haters pull out-of-context clips, they're not going to show you me saying that.
They want to push a fake narrative.
So when I say something like, listen, the enthusiasm against Trump is higher, you add that to Biden enthusiasm, and there's probably a diminishing return and overlap in some capacity, and you're going to get more enthusiasm for a Joe Biden vote than a Donald Trump vote because most of it is an anti-Trump vote.
Now, this is interesting.
Winning despite losing most bellwether counties.
There was an analysis that found that Joe Biden, 19 counties in the U.S.
with nearly perfect presidential voting records for over four decades, Trump won every single one except Clallam County in Washington.
That was a huge red flag to a lot of people.
It's not really evidence, it's just weird.
And Florida and Ohio are also bellwether states for the past 60 years have predicted the winner.
It could just be that the riots and COVID made everybody move around and that changed the shape of the electoral system.
I warned about this too.
I said, if you get a bunch of Democrats in New York and they move to suburbs, those suburbs could turn blue, if they're at thin margins.
However, I think most of the people that were moving were probably Republicans and people of means, not the urban liberals for the most part.
But maybe I was wrong, or maybe the first assessment was correct.
Not that I was wrong, because I didn't really give a strong forecast on what might happen.
But maybe it was true.
The Democrats moved out of cities because of COVID and then went to the suburbs and then turned red suburbs blue.
Things like that.
They say Biden trailed Clinton, except in a few select cities.
I saw this, but some people have pushed back, saying it's actually not true.
Far be it from me.
I'm not an election expert.
Biden won despite Democrat losses everywhere is very weird, to be honest.
But I see a lot of people on the left that aren't... You know what?
They're like, why is it that Trump isn't challenging the House and Senate results, but he's challenging the presidential results?
That doesn't make sense.
Which one is it, Trump?
The conservatives are noticing and claiming that there are massively high percentages of ballots with no down ticket voting called an undervote, meaning they only voted Biden and nobody else.
That is a red flag, not just here, but in many countries.
That's why they're not contesting House and Senate races or state legislatures, because the ballots that are in question are the ones where they only voted for Biden and nobody else.
That's the point.
Biden overcame Trump's commanding primary vote.
Also very strange forecast models.
Joe Biden defied all of the forecasts, all of the statistical models in terms of the primary vote, enthusiasm, all of these numbers.
And it's possible for one simple reason.
People were voting against Trump.
Trump, listen, they say because Trump got so many primary votes relative to Joe Biden, it proves Trump is going to win.
But nobody wants Joe Biden.
They still don't.
Joe Biden did some speech the other day.
I didn't even know we did it!
Nor did I care.
And it got like a thousand concurrent viewers.
That's ridiculous.
When I did the IRL podcast last week and a half ago, we had a hundred thousand concurrent viewers.
And you mean the president, president-elect Joe Biden, as the media so claims, with 80 million votes, could not get people to watch his stream?
Sorry, man.
That's weird.
So listen, I think there's a lot of weird stuff going on.
I'm not convinced these lawsuits are going to fly.
Maybe that's the point.
I'm not going to pretend they're playing 4D chess either.
Sometimes spelling errors are spelling errors, and sometimes people do bad jobs.
I have no idea what's to come, but my normalcy bias says expect President Joe Biden because the machine is getting back on track.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
My friends, I hope you have your bingo cards ready, because Tim Pool is about to say, Dystopian Nightmare.
The coronavirus lockdowns, questionable at best, didn't seem to work in the first place, and now everything's supposedly getting worse.
Cases are skyrocketing, hospitalizations have gone up quite a bit, deaths have gone up a little bit, but nowhere near as bad as it was earlier on.
Joe Biden says prepare for a dark winter, and now we're getting into the weird realm of conspiracies, because as soon as Joe Biden said prepare for a dark winter, people start saying, hey, wasn't Operation Dark Winter a bioterror simulation?
How weird.
No, it really is weird.
I mean, I'm not sure it really means anything.
Dark winter just means like it's going to get bad.
Sure.
But check out this story.
You've clicked the thumbnail.
You saw the title.
An elderly woman has chosen to die instead of face another lockdown.
And it is one of the most horrifying stories I've ever read.
Quite short.
So I do want to talk about something else for the most part.
Johns Hopkins put out this newsletter where they analyzed data and found that COVID had a negligible impact upon average death counts for the year.
And they were surprised because they thought you'd see a spike in elderly death rates.
You didn't.
Something strange happened.
When people started sharing the newsletter, they abruptly and quietly deleted it without notification.
I tried looking into why they deleted it, why they took it down.
Can't seem to find it.
But my friends, the internet is forever, and we have archives of this.
I first want to show you just how nightmarish these lockdowns have become.
Because, you know, look, when I first saw the headline that this older lady asked the doctor to kill her, I was like, jeez, that's crazy!
And then I read the actual story, I was like, it's even crazier than that!
Family members standing around her singing songs as the doctor killed this woman.
This is nuts, man.
From the National Review.
An elderly Canadian woman was killed by her doctors because she would rather be dead than go through another COVID lockdown.
When it looked like she would have to be confined to her room for two weeks, she asked for and received the lethal jab due to declining mental health and vitality.
Okay, let me just stop right there.
It's hard to quantify the parameters for which I believe assisted suicide is okay, but I'm for it in certain circumstances.
If there's an older person who's dying, and you're putting on life support, forcing them to suffer, but you know they're going to die, at a certain point, it's a person's choice.
However, this is COVID lockdown.
Entirely a choice!
These individuals could live about their lives somewhere isolated away from COVID and still be able to be around people, but... Look, the lockdown science is questionable at best.
The World Health Organization has said it should only be a last resort.
It's apparently not working anyway.
We shut down movie theaters essentially indefinitely, and that did nothing.
It's still getting worse, right?
Okay, in that case, why are we still doing this?
Here's the story they say.
Russell, described by her family as exceptionally social and spry, was one such person.
Her family said she chose a medically-assisted death after she declined so sharply during lockdown that she didn't want to go through more isolation this winter.
This time, doctors approved her.
Russell would not have to go through another lockdown in her care home.
She just truly did not believe that she wanted to try another one of those two-week confinements in her room.
But note, for her death, she could be surrounded by friends and family.
Yeah.
When 90-year-old Nancy Russell died last month, she was surrounded by friends and family.
They clustered around her bed, singing a song as she had chosen to send her off, as a doctor helped her through a medically-assisted death.
That's some scary, nightmarish, dystopian insanity.
I'm just imagining the family singing songs with smiles on their faces, tears coming down as Nana dies because of the lockdowns.
This is freakish, to say the least.
So companionship to be made dead but not remain alive.
And her family thinks this was a fine option, demonstrating how the social mindset becomes twisted by euthanasia consciousness.
But we are told, killing to end suffering is oh so compassionate, and lockdowns are measures of good public health.
Bah!
Those with eyes to see, let them see, my friends.
There are certain circumstances where I think people have a choice in whether or not they continue.
Someone could be, like, so horrifically maimed and disfigured, struggling to survive and just screaming non-stop.
It's called putting someone out of their misery, for sure.
But this old lady, okay, this is the crazy thing.
If they were really concerned that she, you know, she couldn't socialize with people, so they had to just give her an injection to kill her, why not just let her be with her family and if she gets COVID, then do it?
Why prematurely kill this woman when she's not even sick?
This is some of the craziest and creepiest I've ever seen.
Look at what Cuomo did, and Wolf, and I believe Murphy, I believe all these East Coast Democrat governors sent sick COVID patients into nursing homes, killing thousands.
This is, I mean, we are well beyond a normalcy.
There's no return to normal.
These people are patently, clearly insane.
And I don't know, I don't know, I don't know what you do.
Andrew Cuomo won an Emmy after he killed an estimated, this is from ProPublica, 6,500 elderly by putting sick patients in a nursing home.
6,500.
That's ProPublica.
That's a left-wing investigative source.
They hate Trump!
And they called out Cuomo for this.
Is he gonna get in trouble?
I mean, come on, at a certain point, you've got negligent homicide or something.
Nope.
Nothing happens.
They get away with it.
And when Cuomo does this, where's the ire from the mainstream press and from these activists?
Not on Cuomo for this.
They're screaming out how the Orange Man is bad.
Even though Dr. Fauci said in March that Trump was doing the best he possibly could and no one could do better.
And now look where we are.
This is Canada, mind you.
They're nuts.
Let me show you this story and talk about why it's even crazier than you realize.
NotTheBee.com, okay?
NotTheBee is a website that's making fun of the Babylon Bee as a satire site.
They're calling it NotTheBee as a joke because these stories are so absurd, you'd think it was satire.
It's not.
They say.
A few days ago, John Hopkins published a study saying Corona is NBD.
They then deleted it.
Read it here, it's in entirety.
Doc Holliday writes.
John Hopkins published this study on Sunday, which posits that COVID is nowhere near the disaster we're being told it is.
I would summarize it for you or offer pull quotes, but honestly, you just have to read it yourself because it's mind-blowing.
The original article is now deleted from the John Hopkins website, for some reason.
Luckily, the internet is forever, and it's available via the Wayback Machine.
Well, I actually have it via the Wayback Machine, and I want to read it for you.
It's called, A Closer Look at U.S.
Deaths Due to COVID-19, November 22nd, and it's from the J.H.U.
Newsletter.
I'm terrible at reading jumbled up acronyms.
Okay.
It's the JohnHopkinsUniversityNewsletter.com.
There we go.
A closer look at U.S.
deaths due to COVID.
Okay.
Well, first, let's take a look at the calendar on the Wayback Machine.
On November 26, there were many screenshots.
So I pulled up 22, timestamp, 22-31-19.
We can see the newsletter still existed.
But when you pull up, where you can see it turns yellow, 23-17, so at some point between those 45 or so minutes, they took the article down.
I don't know why.
It's gone.
Let me read it for you.
They say, according to new data, the U.S.
currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day, and deaths.
Genevieve Briand, Assistant Program Director of the Applied Economics Master's Degree Program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S.
deaths using data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in her webinar titled, COVID-19 Deaths, a Look at U.S.
Data.
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S.
total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related.
Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Brand focused on our total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S.
and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained the significance of COVID-19 on U.S.
deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the U.S.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Brand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S.
to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19.
Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups.
However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data.
In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
Let me just tell you, okay?
Let me just make sure this is clear.
They deleted this article, and it may be because it is a bunk.
Because it's a bunk, man.
We don't know.
I do think it's weird that they didn't issue an editorial note explaining the problem, and so I can only assume that there was a political reason behind it, or they couldn't vet the information.
I honestly have no idea why they deleted it.
But I'll tell you, man.
I'm not gonna play selective games, okay?
It's possible the article is trash, and then they realized it was trash, and panicked, and then deleted it.
It's possible that people on the right started sharing this, saying, hey, COVID's not that big of a deal, and then they panicked and said, oh no, and deleted it.
I have no idea why they deleted it.
But I can tell you it does make sense.
What they were reporting before they did delete it.
Because we know that the overwhelming majority, like 90 plus percent of people who died, and it's listed as a COVID death, have comorbidities.
In which case, it may contribute to the death.
But it may have been the person who would die anyway.
There was one, two really famous examples in COVID tracking.
One where a person had total renal failure.
Like, you're like 90 years old with renal failure, you're probably gonna die whether you have COVID or not.
But the person did have COVID, so, or they tested positive for COVID, so they said that's a COVID death.
There was another viral story where a guy died in a motorcycle accident and had COVID, and they listed that as a COVID death apparently.
But those are not, as far as I can tell, the widespread.
The motorcycle one was a weird story.
That was brought up in, like, Illinois or something.
But the fact that the overwhelming majority, like 90 plus percent, have comorbidities means they probably were about to die anyway.
So think about it this way.
Someone's got renal failure.
They get COVID.
Well, with just the renal failure, maybe they would have died in two or three weeks.
With COVID, they died in three days.
Everyone then says, see, COVID killed them.
Well, if someone's dying already and they get sick, they'll probably die faster.
It's just simple logic.
In which case, the death probably still would have occurred in the same year.
But with COVID, it happened a little bit faster.
That's probably the simplest explanation for this.
But think about it.
They're coming out and saying that mortality, the death rate remained stable, and this woman in Canada killed herself over this.
And the doctors helped, and the family sang songs and cheered as it happened.
Yikes, man!
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, quote, The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger is simply because every day in the U.S.
older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged.
Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased.
The total number of deaths.
That's weird.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people's assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming.
In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the U.S.
This comes as a shock to many people.
How is it that all the data lie so far from our perception?
To answer that question, Brianne shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020.
There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19.
There is no surprise, because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S.
in 2020, and thus COVID-19 related deaths increased drastically afterwards.
Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza, and pneumonia.
Quote, This is true every year.
Every year in the U.S., when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all COVID causes.
When Brand looked at the 2020 data, during that seasonal period, COVID-19 related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases.
This was highly unusual, since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths.
However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange.
As Brianne compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in the deaths due to heart disease.
Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
It's because of comorbidities.
People are being listed as dying from COVID because they have COVID, And they're no longer being listed as because of heart disease or otherwise.
I think it's fair to point out the way I just described it.
COVID is killing people probably faster than the other issues, but thus...
They're going to say it's a COVID death.
In the end, we probably want to take COVID seriously more so because of lingering health effects.
Like 20% of people get some kind of ongoing permanent effect.
That's the ultimate problem with it.
There's like scar tissue in people's lungs.
But I'm not convinced it's the apocalypse.
And I've said it over and over again.
We're not talking about airborne Ebola.
We're talking about a new virus with a higher mortality rate than the flu.
But the survival rate is still around 99.9% for all people under 70 years old.
for all people under 70 years old, but for people above 70, it's 97.5.
Why are we destroying the entire economy of the planet for this?
It's political.
It's entirely political.
That's what I'd assume.
They say this trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.
Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.
This suggests, according to Brand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading.
Brand believes that deaths due to heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza, and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
I'm gonna go ahead and say, while it's entirely possible this is just a bunk article, like someone wrote something and was wrong, when you come out and say something like that and there's a political agenda, especially around the Great Reset, Occam's Razor would suggest that the real reason it was polled is because it's true.
They're claiming that people, like, well, I shouldn't say they're claiming, but it's likely that people who have heart disease and get COVID die, and then they say it was COVID instead of heart disease, instead of saying it was a comorbidity and it was both.
I guess you can't do that, huh?
The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID simply as COVID.
Even patients dying from other underlying diseases, but are infected with COVID, count as COVID-19 deaths.
This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased, while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.
All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths.
The total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.
We found no evidence of the contrary.
In an interview with the newsletter, Brianne addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading, since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.
If the COVID-19 death toll was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers.
But a decreased number of heart attacks and all other death causes doesn't give us a choice but to point to some misclassification.
In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on the deaths in the U.S.
is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths, or the true death burden, by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes.
Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Brian's view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.
Let's do this.
They actually linked to the data.
And so, let me pull it open, and I'm not entirely sure it'll work, but let's see if it pulls up and we'll keep reading to see what their conclusion is.
According to Brand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.
During an interview with the newsletter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master's candidate in applied economics, expressed his opinion about Brand's concluding remarks.
At the end of the day, it's still a deadly virus, and over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant.
When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharma Sen has stated that people have a right to know the truth.
However, COVID-19 should still be continuously treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.
Well, are we going to do that for every single disease, if that's the case?
I'm not entirely convinced that makes the most sense.
So they linked to, actually, it's from The Guardian.
Which countries have the most coronavirus cases and deaths?
Creepy stuff, huh?
Absolutely creepy stuff, because here's where we stand.
Well, this is embarrassing.
The website's gone.
John Hopkins University newsletter article, and it's just not there anymore.
Why did they take it down?
Honestly, I don't know.
There's probably a lot of reasons.
But it sounds like with the end of that article, they asked whether the public has a right to know the truth about the over-exaggerations.
They said, sure, but we should treat it seriously.
What human being would be in favor of a lockdown if they knew the death toll was over-exaggerated?
And they delete it.
But let's play some conspiracy games.
Biden warns of very dark winter as U.S.
approaches 10 million coronavirus cases.
The president-elect called for an end to the politicization of mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing.
A very dark winter.
Well, my friends, how about this?
From John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, about the exercise, Dark Winter.
I don't mean anything.
I don't know what it means.
It's just funny because it's being brought up by a lot of people as like evidence of some big conspiracy.
I'll tell you what I think happened.
I think COVID happened.
I think we started seeing these videos out of China where people were passing out in the street because they couldn't breathe.
Yeah, that probably would happen.
I think COVID was a serious ailment, and we saw the doctors, and we saw the panic.
And then it was a novel virus.
We probably developed some kind of herd immunity.
Sweden ignored it, didn't have any major issues.
Now they're saying, oh no, but now Sweden's getting slammed by this.
Oh, really?
At a time when John Hopkins University puts out this newsletter saying the deaths are being exaggerated, it sounds like COVID came and went.
Let me clarify that.
It sounds like COVID is still here, but because it was a novel virus, we got slammed by it.
It seems like 15 days to slow the spread actually worked, but then a bunch of feckless leaders didn't want to actually lift the lockdowns because they were scared they'd be responsible for what came next.
Grow up.
Now it's become political.
Now I think they've got an agenda, and it works out really well for them.
They like the Great Reset.
They say COVID-19 is their opportunity for a Great Reset.
So they don't want you to know the truth.
They don't want to tell you what's really going on, and they're going to lie to you.
There are people who are dying from COVID, and there's a lot of them.
And it's probably important that we wear our masks and follow through on this stuff.
But the fact is, the lockdowns don't make sense.
To have some lady Choose to die as her family sings songs is what nightmares are made of.
But people are doing it with a smile on their faces!
Yeah, okay, man, I'll tell you what.
I'm gonna mind my own business, and I'm gonna call it out.
And, uh, as I often say, eventually I'll just get banned from YouTube or something.
Or some lunatic will start pulling quotes out of context, and then people won't be able to figure out what the truth is.
They'll try and confuse you to the best of their abilities because this kind of stuff, they don't want it around.
The article's been deleted.
Maybe the article was BS.
Sure.
Okay, fine.
Yeah, absolutely.
I'm not one to cite things that don't exist anymore.
But isn't it weird?
And then, Dark Winter, for those that aren't familiar, was an exercise on how the U.S.
would respond to a pandemic, or a bioterror incident.
They made a video game based on the premise.
It's called The Division.
And The Division 2.
Really fun games, by the way.
I played them quite a bit back in the day.
It was a while ago.
It was like six years ago now, or longer.
Then Joe Biden comes out and says, we're going to face a very dark winter.
Sure.
Poor choice of words, Biden.
I don't believe there's a grand conspiracy to create or disseminate this virus.
I think that politicians are exploiting it because we know that they're all like, the world's going to end in 12 years, you know, unless we... climate change.
To be fair, okay, what has been said by Greta Thunberg and the likes of AOC is that in 12 years, there's going to be irreparable damage to the planet.
But they keep saying that, so it's like people don't believe it anymore.
They said it 10 years ago and 10 years before, and 10 years it'll happen, and 10 years it'll happen.
Predicting rising oceans, and then you end up with these wealthy individuals buying beachfront property on islands and stuff, like they actually believe it.
These politicians.
Are telling us the end is nigh and the sky is falling, but then they themselves go out and party without masks.
Like they don't care and they're not scared.
I think they're just exploiting this to transfer wealth from the poor, from the working class, to the upper class, and to have their great reset dreams.
Whatever, man.
It's creepy stuff.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is, in fact, a different channel from this one.
It says Tim... I said, go to YouTube.com slash TimCast.
You type it in your address bar, and poof!
You will be in a different YouTube channel.
Isn't that weird?
Don't ask me why YouTube did it that way.
That's what YouTube did.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
The Trump campaign has vowed to appeal their lawsuit to the Supreme Court.
Now, this video will be kind of an add-on to my earlier segment over at my other channel, which is the Tim Pool YouTube channel, which you can find at youtube.com slash timcast.
Type that in, and you'll get a different channel.
And I talked about Donald Trump losing his appeal to the Third Circuit.
Now, they've vowed, the Trump campaign has vowed to go to the Supreme Court, but one lawyer, Will Chamberlain, who is a pretty avid Trump supporter, says he doesn't think they're going to win.
Now, that's important, but I don't think this lawsuit is actually Trump's real legal strategy.
I'm not convinced, and I haven't been for a while, and I said it like a week and a half ago on the IRL podcast, I'm not convinced the lawsuits are anything but Trump buying time.
Now, of course, if you're on the left, you can say, Cope, and Tim's trying to justify why Trump might win or whatever.
It's like, dude, I'm not saying it's a good thing, and I'm not saying it's gonna guarantee anything for Trump, and I'm not saying that Trump is a good person for trying this.
I think Trump is trying to buy time to justify the Republicans in these swing states flipping the electoral votes to Trump, and it looks like it's working.
Doesn't mean Trump's gonna win, but as per my main segment on my other channel, Republicans in Pennsylvania want to file a joint resolution to take back the power to appoint electors.
The only reason this is happening is because Trump is making these claims and asserting fraud, and that's why I don't think these lawsuits matter all that much.
Trump is buying time, otherwise he'd look ridiculous.
But here's the news from the New York Post.
They say.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the results of Pennsylvania's presidential election, leading President Trump's campaign to vow a final challenge before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel with the Third U.S.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia unanimously rejected Trump's bid to overturn
a lower court ruling, saying that his campaign's claims have no merit, the AP reported.
Free fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy.
Charges of unfairness are serious, but calling an election unfair does not make it so, Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote.
Charges require specific allegations and then proof.
We have neither here.
In response, Trump campaign legal advisor Jenna Ellis tweeted a joint statement from her and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the campaign's lead lawyer, in which they attacked the decision as a whitewash in favor of Joe Biden.
The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud, she wrote.
This judge was appointed by Donald Trump himself, so it doesn't mean all that much, but activist judicial machinery that you guys appointed, that Trump appointed?
That's why I'm saying I don't think this is part of Trump's real strategy.
I just don't.
Ellis added, on to SCOTUS, an acronym for the Supreme Court.
Ellis also said she and Giuliani were very thankful to have had the opportunity to present proof and the facts during a hearing led last week by Republican members of the Pennsylvania State Senate.
Trump phoned into the meeting to claim the election was rigged and has to be turned around.
Quote, this was an election that we won easily, we won it by a lot.
Biden beat Trump by 51.1% to 47.2% in the popular vote, and 3.06% to 2.32% in the electoral college, according to Fox News.
On Saturday, Williamsport, Pennsylvania Federal Judge Matthew Brand issued a scathing ruling that threw out Trump's bid to overturn the results in the Keystone State, saying he was being asked to disenfranchise as many as 6.8 million voters.
Quote, One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, Brand wrote.
That has not happened.
All three of the judges who upheld Brand's decision were appointed by Republican presidents, including Bibas, who was nominated by Trump, AP said.
Think about that for a second.
One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof.
It may be that Giuliani, and I've said this before, and Sidney Powell are bumbling fools, milling about and falling over and slipping on banana peels.
Or it could be that they're actually just trying to get to SCOTUS and they're purposefully floundering so they can get to SCOTUS and then push their real arguments.
Or it could be that this doesn't matter at all.
They're buying time for Trump, as I've said a million times.
The idea being, if Trump wanted to win through the Electoral College, he couldn't just sit there and go, I refuse to concede.
Why do you refuse to concede?
No reason.
I'm going to wait.
And then one by one, Republican legislators just give the Electoral College to Trump.
People would be like, what?
Not only that, you might actually see Democrat states revolt, and then who knows what would happen?
They want to wait till the last minute.
The Republicans then want to say, we see too much fraud and it's too crazy, so we're not going to certify anybody.
Contingent election.
Trump wins.
Now, here's the point.
I have this Twitter thread from Will Chamberlain.
Will Chamberlain is, in fact, a lawyer, so I believe he knows what he's talking about.
Not only that, Will runs humanevents.com, and he is an avid and staunch Trump supporter and defender, and I tell you, For a long time, one of the best.
I say for a long time because he's recently been saying that he thinks Trump is going to lose.
And what I mean by this is, I do not believe Will will blindly defend Trump.
I believe that he is going to tell you the truth the way he sees it, even though he really does support the man.
So I'm not saying he... I'm not trying to...
Disrespect, Will, in any way.
In fact, he's a friend of mine.
I think what he's saying is, look, my honest legal opinion, I don't think Trump is getting anywhere with the Supreme Court, and that's coming from a Trump supporter.
Too many people, I believe, just want to be whispered, they want to hear the sweet nothings whispered into their ears.
You gotta recognize, it may be bad news for Trump, but like I said in the beginning, I don't think this lawsuit is part of the plan.
In PA, they're gonna flip, they're trying to flip the electors, and it doesn't matter if this lawsuit happens or not.
But let's read.
Will says the Third Circuit just ruled on the Trump campaign challenge in Pennsylvania, a 3-0 loss, opinion from three Republican-appointed judges, and written by the lone Trump-appointed judge that has the campaign losing on basically every important point.
The campaign tried to appeal on the narrowest grounds possible, whether the district court should have let them amend their complaint a second time.
Leave to amend should be granted liberally, but the Third Circuit wasn't persuaded.
Reason one why the campaign lost, undue delay.
The campaign had stressed the need to resolve the litigation by the 23rd because that was the certification deadline.
Bibas writes that it can't turn around and demand time to fix its complaint now at this late a date.
That's actually an interesting point.
So Trump said, and this is an indication that Trump is just losing.
Trump's original lawsuit said, we must get this done quickly before the 23rd.
After the 23rd passed, Trump doesn't want to give up, so he keeps filing, and the judge says, I thought you said it had to be done before the 23rd.
Well, now we want to amend.
So I think it's fair they do, because they want to decertify, but that's one point made by the court.
Reason two why the campaign lost, amending the complaint would have been futile.
Basically, Bibas writes that it was simply impossible for the campaign to prevail, that nothing they alleged would have even stated a claim for relief.
Will says, back to the analysis, Bebas states that even if the campaign's proposed amendments were added to the complaint, it still wouldn't meet the Twombly-Iqbal standard of stating a claim relief that is plausible on its face.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really opine further on that.
He says, Bebas notes the campaign has litigated and lost most of their arguments at the state level.
The third big problem.
The complaint tries to make an equal protection claim, but never alleges that the Trump campaign was treated differently from the Biden campaign, only that different counties handled things differently.
Bibas explains that's not enough.
And finally, Bibas notes the relief proposed stopping certification is unprecedented, especially given that the campaign explicitly disclaimed allegations of fraud.
And that is the most important point, and that's actually a point that I made not being a lawyer.
These judges don't want to make these big moves.
Even if you said, here's a picture of a guy committing massive fraud, a judge is going to be like, but I can't do it!
It's unheard of!
It's such a major move to block 7 million votes!
I refuse!
Even though they might have the evidence or good reason, there is still a hurdle to get over of, but your relief requested is disenfranchising 6.8 million people.
And that even if you can prove substantive fraud, how do you disenfranchise all the others?
The problem then becomes, there's no right answer.
Disenfranchise the entire state?
Probably is the right answer, but think about how many millions of people who legitimately voted get discounted.
But if the election isn't, you know, if Joe Biden's ahead by 81,000 votes and 100,000 are bunk, then Trump would win.
In which case, the fraud itself is disenfranchising all of the Trump voters.
You see the problem here?
So the only thing they can do, I guess, what the electors are likely to do, in my opinion, no electors appointed for anybody.
Alright?
Nobody gets anybody.
Will says in conclusion, this is an opinion that basically ends the litigation.
The campaign can go to the Supreme Court, but it's like 99% chance that they will simply deny cert and not hear the case after an opinion like this.
Why?
Because the opinion has the campaign losing on so many alternative grounds.
The Supreme Court would need to be persuaded that the Third Circuit was wrong on both timeliness and on the merits of the underlying claims.
Don't see that happening.
Bibas's analysis looks right to me.
People seem to think I'm happy about this outcome.
I'm not.
I would love to be wrong, but I'm also a lawyer, and I'm not here to BS you.
Rush Limbaugh came out and ragged on the Trump campaign, their lawyers, for saying all this fraud stuff, and then having no evidence to back it up.
Rush Limbaugh did.
Dude got an award from Trump.
Dude loves the man.
Tucker Carlson did.
He got eaten alive.
I think Trump supporters, look, If Will Chamberlain is saying, I don't see it.
If Rush Limbaugh and Tucker are saying like, dude, there's serious problems here.
I think Trump supporters need to recognize that.
And I think the problem is there are many hardcore Trump supporters who are like spamming the dislike button or whatever.
Listen, you can recognize that there are people questioning what's going on and still say we have to keep fighting to the bitter end by any means necessary, and I will totally understand that.
And I think it's a more honest approach to rallying morale than to just say, we're gonna win, don't worry, just keep your blinders on, straight focused.
No, no, no.
I mean like the horse blinders and you can't see left or right.
No.
You want to recognize your weaknesses.
You want to acknowledge where the campaign has faults.
Otherwise, you will walk off a cliff.
If you're walking towards a cliff and people are screaming, you're walking towards a cliff and you're like, no we're not!
We're never gonna stop!
We're gonna win!
It's like, okay, then you'd fall off the cliff.
Or you say, they're right!
Let's adjust and try and find real victory by not walking off the cliff.
Maybe there's another way through.
And if Trump supporters aren't recognizing where their weaknesses are, and where Trump isn't winning, they could pay attention to what's actually happening.
That's why I said, I think the real play, the actual play here is electoral college jammed up by the state legislatures, not through the lawsuits.
We'll see how things play out.
Got a couple more segments coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
More electoral anomalies are popping up, this time from the Washington Examiner.
Historically strange spike in incomplete Nevada voter files.
Casinos as, quote, home.
Interesting.
They say an analysis of Nevada votes has uncovered an unprecedented jump in problem voter registrations, likely providing the Trump campaign with another avenue to challenge Joe Biden's victory in the critical state.
In an affidavit filed in another Republican election challenge, a data scientist found a huge surge of incomplete voter registrations and those giving casinos and temporary RV parks as their home or mailing addresses.
In the third congressional district that covers the southern third of the state and much of Clark County.
Take a look at this.
Dorothy Morgan said that in her initial study of the records of those who voted, there was
a there was a historically strange jump in voter registrations, missing the sex and age
of the voter, making confirmation by poll workers impossible.
I take a look at this.
The first thing I want to say when they mention RVs, casinos or otherwise, it's possible that
some people were forced to flee due to covid and they moved to weird places.
Some people got RVs and then moved because they didn't want to be locked down in a big city.
But I believe the actual data would debunk, for the most part, that idea.
Because the actual data has incomplete registrations, it's not just the faulty addresses, or the strange addresses, they say.
Number of 2020 voters in Nevada, CD3, whose voter registration lists invalid birthdates, birthdate equals zero and birth month equals zero, and unknown sex by year of registration.
In 2020, 13,372 incomplete registrations or improperly filled out registrations.
They say 74% took place between July and September.
Morgan found that in the last presidential election there were 68 voter registrations missing the critical data.
In 2020, it was 13,372.
What's more, 74% of the incomplete registrations took place between July and September this year.
In her two-page affidavit provided to Secrets, Morgan wrote, This investigation found over 13,000 voters whose voter registration information revealed no sex or date of birth.
Not only does this mean we cannot verify whether these voters are old enough to vote, it's also historically strange.
While one does not expect voter registration information to be perfect, it is very strange that there were very, very few of those kinds of imperfect records with missing or invalid information until this year, when there are 13,372 of them.
Several addresses were odd too, she wrote.
I have also identified dozens of voters who listed as their home or mailing addresses a temporary RV park and casino, she wrote.
In a Thanksgiving Day interview from her Texas home, Morgan said, it's weird.
So what I found was that there are just a lot of people who have zero birthdays, zero birth month, and then unknown sex.
Then she said after checking past history of the 2020, I saw is that you have a handful of people, and then all of a sudden you have 13,000 people making that error in 2020, and that's just not right.
Her affidavit was filed on behalf of Dan Rotemer, who lost his election to Rep Susie Lee in Nevada's 3rd congressional district.
He lost by 13,000 votes. A judge this week dismissed Ruddemer's case,
deciding that the court didn't have the jurisdiction to handle it.
The Trump campaign has found multiple examples of problem ballots and voting,
and has been granted a December 3rd hearing to present some evidence and 15 depositions.
Now things are going to get interesting.
You may be following the other news from my main channel in the previous segment about Donald Trump
and Pennsylvania.
The Republicans in Pennsylvania want to... They're going to file a joint resolution to take back the power to appoint electors.
If Trump can get Pennsylvania jammed, meaning no one gets the electoral votes, two more states have to fall.
If Nevada falls, then Trump just needs to get one... I'm not sure Nevada's enough.
What is Nevada?
Six electoral votes?
It might not be enough.
Actually, no.
If he gets... Oh, wow.
If he gets Nevada, Biden falls to 300.
If Trump then knocks out PA, Biden falls to 280.
And then if Trump flips Arizona, Biden falls to 269, just shy of 270.
And then contingent election, Donald Trump wins.
That would be the most insane and dramatic victory Trump could pull off, keeping Biden one electoral vote away.
Because I believe Arizona is 11, Nevada is 6, and Pennsylvania is 20.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe I'm wrong.
If that's what happened, go buy yourselves a lottery ticket.
Astronomical odds.
But could you imagine what the Democrats and left would do if that's how things go down?
Ooh, spicy.
Let me tell you something.
You want to count out Donald Trump?
Baby, we're talking Vegas here.
This is Nevada.
Nevada knows what's up.
Donald Trump's betting odds, 9.7%.
Why?
I don't know.
Because the electoral betting odds have not completed yet.
You see, all these people are like, let me tell you, let me tell you.
The media goes, Joe Biden is president-elect.
And the betting odds and predicted are like, we haven't had the Electoral College vote yet.
So we ain't paying anybody out yet.
So you can still bet that Donald Trump will win the Electoral College.
I don't think that's a good bet, to be honest, even though it's a value bet, because you'll get a huge return.
I see why people would make it.
There's still a little bit more, she says.
Uh, in a Thanksgiving Day interview, she said it's so weird that there are zero birth months.
Then she said, after checking past history, you have a handful of people, then all of a sudden you have 13,000 people making that error in 2020, and that's just not right.
Her affidavit was filed on behalf of Rotemer, who, uh, dismissed his case.
In her affidavit, which has been forwarded to Trump's team, Morgan said that her findings were just scratching the surface.
Based on the results I have found and the limited time I have to analyze this dataset, I expect to find additional oddities in the election data as I conduct further analysis," she wrote.
What if Donald Trump somehow reverses course on the narrative and they've been beating us over the head saying it's over, Trump lost, and then Trump somehow wins.
Look at Las Vegas, okay?
Look at Nevada.
The betting odds have Trump at 9.7% to win.
I'm sorry, to be the next president.
That's really good odds.
1 in 10?
What makes them think 1 in 10?
I've been saying over... You know what I'm gonna do from now on?
I'm gonna say, the percentage that I think Trump has to win, 9.7.
And if people ask, why that number?
I'll say, that's the betting odds.
Because I'm not an expert.
I've been saying I think Trump's got a path to victory, but it's astronomical.
It's going to be Joe Biden winning.
But in Vegas, that's not what they're saying.
And so you know what?
I defer to the betting experts.
Nate Silver was wrong.
All these other outlets were wrong.
All these other pollsters were wrong.
Historical failure across the board.
I'm just going to tell you this.
Betting odds.
We're talking about Nevada flipping and we're talking about what the betting odds, they say it's updated every 20 minutes.
It was actually at 9.3 earlier today.
And so I guess we can only sit back and see how it plays out with Trump's strategy.
But here's the point I was making previously in other segments is that Trump's trying to run out the clock at the last minute.
Think about it this way.
Let's say that you're watching a basketball game.
You got 10 seconds on the clock.
It's down to the wire.
It's like, I don't know what a good point spread is.
Let's say you're looking at like 120 to 119 points or whatever.
Is that?
I don't know.
I don't watch basketball.
And let's say this.
Trump's team needs two points, puts them one point ahead, with ten seconds left on the clock.
So what do they do?
They hold it for seven seconds and then shoot.
You know why?
If they shoot right away and get it in, then they're giving nine seconds to the other team.
Maybe I'm not familiar with the rules of basketball, but you get the point, okay?
I don't watch basketball.
The point is...
They want to run the clock down as long as possible before making the major move to prevent the Democrats from having a chance to respond to whatever it is their actual electoral strike will be.
If Trump comes out right now, a month before the electoral vote, and says, here's my plan, aha, and the courts go, Trump is right, we agree, the Democrats say, we have three weeks to figure this out.
No, it's better right now that Trump is holding the ace up his sleeve, waiting until the very last minute to drop the card and say, you got 10 seconds, make your move fast.
And they're going to run out of time and the courts are going to say, nope, Trump's been litigating this for weeks.
The Democrats had every opportunity and mocked him and belittled him and walked away.
And maybe then Trump wins.
You know what's going to happen though?
These leftists are going to pull all of this stuff out of context.
Because I keep saying over and over again that I think it's like 99.9% Biden.
And I'm only saying that because Trump does have a legitimate legal path to victory.
If he didn't, I would just say, of course Biden won.
But no.
They'll take it out of context and claim I was screaming that Trump will win even though he was losing or whatever.
Look.
If they're giving him 10% rounding up in Vegas, take it up with them.
Don't take it up with me, okay?
They're putting around this video where they're like, Tim Pool predicted a 49 state landslide.
Yeah, a year and a half ago when Moody's Analytics said that Trump is going to win with average turnout, Democrats will never win.
Historical economy, just best numbers of our lives.
And then, what you need to understand about a 49-state landslide is that Trump could win a narrow popular vote victory and get a 49-state landslide.
It's an issue of winning by one vote in each state.
That means Trump could literally be up 50 votes and get a 49-state landslide.
You see how that works?
But they love doing this, I guess just because they want to make everybody hate each other, and they don't want you to understand the full context.
Like, if I said something like, if Donald Trump, right now, you know, does a triple backflip off the White House, superhero landing on the ground, causing a gigantic crater to form, wiping out 99% of the world's global population, then yeah, Trump might actually be able to pull this off and win, defeating Joe Biden.
You see how absurd that sounds?
What they'll do is they'll take that last bit and then make a video where it's like, I'm actually saying that will happen.
If Donald Trump were to have pardoned nonviolent drug offenders and appointed Yang and Tulsi and pulled out of Afghanistan, yeah, we may have seen a 49 state landslide.
They'll take that last bit and make that claim.
All right, I'm not going to rant on that.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
After all the talk about state legislatures changing the slate of electors to support Trump or blocking it, we have this story from Channel 3000.
Could lawmakers mess with Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes?
Possibly.
But they do say the Democratic governor could block the effort.
And that's the most important point, to kind of round things off in this—today's series of segments.
For those that aren't familiar, all of this stuff appears on iTunes and Spotify, and the format of it is, my 4 p.m.
segment is the first, so this'll be the last.
Can this actually happen?
The answer is yes.
It's powerful.
It could be Trump's path to victory, but the governors could try to stop it, which is why the P.A.
Republicans said they would take it up with the Supreme Court if they had to.
And then they could win.
Because the Supreme Court could say, if the state legislature, they're ultimately the ones who have the power to determine who the electors are.
If they vote for it, it's done, regardless of what the current law could be.
Here's the story from Channel 3000.
They say, When Wisconsin voters took to the polls on November 3rd, they were not actually choosing among Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and third-party candidates.
Rather, they were voting for a slate of 10 partisan electors who would pledge their support for the winner of the popular vote at the Electoral College.
The indirect process By which Americans elect a president has been seized upon by some Trump allies, hoping to leverage unsubstantiated allegations of fraud in certain key states, including Wisconsin, to push forward a slate of electors who would support Trump instead of President-elect Biden.
The move would be in defiance of the outcome of the popular vote, which Biden won in Wisconsin by about 20,600 votes, but I must say, doesn't matter.
The popular vote is not how we choose the president.
We are not a democracy.
We are a republic.
In an emergency petition filed Tuesday with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a group of voters is asking for just that.
The group claims that more than 144,000 votes were illegally cast in the November 3rd election.
That includes an estimated 96,000 from voters who listed themselves as indefinitely confined and therefore not required to present a photo ID, but whom the petitioner claimed were not.
The petition also alleges that more than 12,000 votes cast for Republicans were not counted.
The Wisconsin Voter Alliance also claims that election officials violated state law by accepting more than $6 million from a non-profit financed by billionaire Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
The Center for Tech and Civic Life funded activities including boosting absentee voting and poll worker training in Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine.
The group has an ongoing lawsuit against the cities making the same claim.
Days after the election, Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Voss ordered an investigation into Wisconsin's election results alleging mail-in ballot dumps and voter fraud.
Republican State Rep.
Joe Sanfilippo said the results of that investigation could, and perhaps should, lead the state to nullify its outcome.
If an investigation shows these actions affected the outcome of the election, we need to either declare this past election null and void and hold a new election, or require our Electoral College delegates to correct the injustice with their votes, San Filippo said in a November 9th statement.
In a recent statement to the media, Voss said the legislature would not become involved in changing the current system.
Under our statutes, we have no part in the process, he said.
But Tuesday's emergency petition asks the court, which is dominated four to three by conservatives, to void the election and order that the choice of the presidential electors revert back to the state legislature.
This is significant.
They do have over a hundred plus thousand indefinitely confined voters.
That's easily provable.
You could easily look at that and say, makes no sense, we can't accept it.
Void those, Trump wins.
Or say, we gotta do a do-over.
We can't.
Trump wins.
What would happen is they would have no electoral votes.
Contingent election would happen.
Trump would win.
I am not trying to suggest that will happen.
I'm saying that's what they're talking about.
They say the legal action is the latest in a series of more than 30 lawsuits alleging fraud and impropriety filed by the Trump campaign and its allies in battleground states.
It's allies keyword because Trump hasn't filed that many.
Most of those legal challenges have been thrown out or voluntarily withdrawn.
Meanwhile, a partial recount initiated by the Trump campaign in Wisconsin's Milwaukee and Dane counties has challenged several long-standing voting processes with tens of thousands of ballots in question, although legal experts say discarding that many votes would be a long shot.
I agree.
Battleground states that Biden won, but which were subject to legal challenges, have begun to move forward.
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Nevada certified their results this week.
Arizona is due to certify on Monday, and Georgia certified its results on Friday, but is conducting a second recount at the request of the Trump campaign.
After a long delay, the Trump administration also has freed up funds for Biden's transition.
According to state law, the results of Wisconsin's election must be certified by December 1st, Under federal law, the winning slate of electors cast their votes in the Electoral College on December 14th.
Legislators do not have a role in this part of the process, legal experts say.
Nevertheless, legal and political challenges to this year's election have raised questions of whether a state's election outcome can be subverted by officials who favor a different result.
The answer is yes.
The short answer to that question is no, said Paul Nolet, and we'll talk about it.
A professor of political science at Marquette University, the longer answer is technically yes.
Just depends on how your framing goes.
But the reality is, the legal and political challenges may be substantive, but the outcome can be subverted by the state legislature, as I've been talking about, as we've seen.
Quote, much of the law is not clear, and because it's been on the books for so long but not challenged in the way we're seeing now, it creates some avenues for messing around with, in ways that weren't anticipated when these laws were passed.
The electoral college that we have today is not like the one the framers imagined, said Robert Alexander, a professor of political science at Ohio Northern University and the author of the 2019 book, Representation and the Electoral College.
Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution.
lays out the concept of electors, how they are appointed, and when and how they will vote on a given candidate.
At the time, electors were envisioned as having discretion, giving states some amount of control over the electoral results.
But the concept was fragmented in its design, and throughout the ensuing decades, electoral college norms and laws shifted, leading increasingly to the system we see today.
They say members of the U.S.
House and Senate meet in joint session to count electoral votes in 1921, meaning We've really changed the system.
It used to be much more up to the electors to decide who should be the president, and you were nominating the elector because you thought they were the right person for the job, but everything kind of got mashed up and changed, and now we're like, I vote Trump!
And you're giving your vote to the elector who could decide to do what they want.
Now, Supreme Court ruled on this earlier this year.
The electors are appointed by the state legislature, and they're bound by what the legislature wants.
Well, there you go.
There may be laws in the books binding what the legislature can do, but the PA legislature said they're going to take it to the Supreme Court.
Take that power back, they said.
The standard in Wisconsin and in 47 other states is that the winner of the state's popular vote takes all the state's electors.
In Maine and Nebraska, electoral votes are appointed based on the statewide winner and the winner in congressional districts.
State laws do differ on specifics.
For example, the exact process of verifying the results and the precise body that does so.
They say the U.S.
has had contentious elections before.
During the 1886 election, four states' results were disputed, and Congress had to step in.
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 was enacted to provide a framework during disputed elections, and to determine the means by which states certify their election results.
But the law's exact requirements are not entirely clear, because the Electoral College Act is notoriously poorly written.
Casting electoral votes is usually such a pro-forma thing that no one even thinks about it, he said.
But the spirit of the law is clear.
The choice of the electors is meant to reflect the will of the people.
While the state legislatures have the power to set up a system of choosing electors, it doesn't mean that you set up a system of choosing electors, and then if you don't like those electors, you replace them.
It's setting up the process in the first place, then once they're chosen, the state's legislature's role is done.
However...
What if the election is broken?
That's not what they're telling you.
What the Republicans are saying is not, we just don't like the results, so we're gonna change it.
What they're saying is, we can't determine that this was a free and fair election, so we better intervene, and then just block the electoral votes altogether, or appoint them for who we think should get them.
That's actually reasonable.
They say, as established under state law, the first Tuesday in October is in presidential election years.
Officials from both the Democratic and Republican parties convene at Wisconsin State Capitol and nominate one slate of electors per party, according to University of Wisconsin Law School.
Each slate contains 10 electors.
They are typically chosen based on loyalty to the party.
For example, this year's Wisconsin Democratic electors include Governor Tony Evers and Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes, etc., etc.
Barring a significant change under the Electoral Count Act, for example, evidence of widespread interference or fraud, there are no more opportunities for the state legislature to become involved, or to change Wisconsin's handling of electors.
That's technically not true.
And I'll jump to the end on this one.
They're saying the fraud allegations are being dismissed.
Faithless electors are no longer in play because of Supreme Court rulings.
But here's why what they were saying before isn't necessarily true.
The power rests in the state legislature.
As we're seeing in Pennsylvania, they're fighting to get that power back, specifically for them, and they'll go to SCOTUS.
And SCOTUS can say, regardless of what the laws of the state are, if the state legislature decides they're the ones who appoint, the federal government recognizes the state legislature NOT The governor or anyone else.
Meaning, there could be a law in the books.
The state legislature could have passed that law.
And now they could say, we hereby certify these electors.
And the Supreme Court says, we take the electoral votes from those determined by the state legislature, not by Secretary of State or the governor.
So the governor is going to say, here's what the law says.
Supreme Court's going to say, what does the legislature say?
I'm not entirely sure how it's going to play out.
I don't know if that's the argument they'll use.
What I am saying is, this is political war.
That means any and all arguments are on the table, and they will take whatever they can get if they want to win.
Now, I'll tell you, I'm not convinced Republicans are going to be all that, um, excitable, I guess?
I think they're going to lay down and just be like, that's what we saw in Michigan with the certification, so we'll see how things play out.
If you think Donald Trump is done fighting, you're wrong.
If you think he has no path to victory, you're wrong.
I think the likelihood any of this happens is slim to none.
But I've seen crazier things happen, so what can I say?
