Supreme Court Justice Alito Makes BOMBSHELL Move Paving Way To TOSS Biden's Electoral Votes In PA
Supreme Court Justice Alito Makes BOMBSHELL Move Paving Way To TOSS Biden's Electoral Votes In PA. Alito amended his request for response from PA state lawyers by one day pushing the deadline back before the safe harbor deadline.This means that Joe Biden's electors could be disputed on December 8th and into the 9th by way of SCOTUS challenge and a lawsuit.Democrats had argued that the previous deadline meant that the lawsuit challenging mail in voting in Pennsylvania was moot.Now if may be exactly what Republicans and Trump need to reject the electoral college votes from PA.Republicans are counting on Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Chief Justice Roberts to give Trump a major win changing the game entirely
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently made a move that many on the right said could up-end Pennsylvania's Electoral College vote, effectively throwing out 20 electoral votes from Biden, knocking him down to 286 electoral votes.
Doesn't mean that Biden will lose or Trump will win, but it is a major component of Trump's Electoral College victory if he can bring it about.
But the left had a counter-argument.
You see, Samuel Alito said, That they were docketing this challenge to mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, but he wanted the state of Pennsylvania's lawyers to respond by December 9th.
For those that don't know, December 8th is the safe harbor deadline, meaning if disputes are not resolved, then it's too late Certification happens.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that.
And the argument from the left was that because he said December 9th, the case was moot.
December 8th would come and go.
Safe Harbor is met.
Certification's on the table.
And boom, we're done!
Joe Biden wins all 20 electoral votes.
Now Alito has issued a new, updated request.
He wants the response on the morning of the 8th, knocking out any arguments about Safe Harbor blocking the Supreme Court from issuing a ruling.
It may be, ladies and gentlemen, that Alito actually is taking this seriously.
No electors coming from Pennsylvania.
as to why they were going to challenge his ruling or the Supreme Court's ruling and said,
fine, move it up a day before the safe harbor deadline.
The dispute will remain active and boom, no electors coming from Pennsylvania.
I know it's kind of confusing.
So let me actually read through this and break down what it means and show you the arguments.
But the bigger picture in all of this is the conflict we're seeing arise out of this.
For one, Senate Republicans are saying they don't think anything is going to change.
Joe Biden's going to be the president.
They don't think Trump's challenges and Republican challenges to electoral vote counts or constitutionality is going to make a difference.
That doesn't mean that it's a guarantee that Trump will fail.
But I do think most people are looking at this like, eh, I don't really see anything happening.
But then Alito comes out and changes the date, Sunday, at about noon, and people immediately say, eh, wait a minute.
Now he just knocked out the safe harbor argument from the left, meaning, it's entirely possible, there will be an active dispute in Pennsylvania, and the electors will be in dispute as well, and not get counted.
What I see coming after this, no matter what, with the Supreme Court Justice, with Amy Coney Barrett getting pushed through just last month, we're seeing a lot of conflict arise around people fighting in the streets.
And I don't want to get too much into it because I do want to focus on the Supreme Court.
But, my friends, there are two realities on this.
I'm desperately trying to break down and better understand the truth, but the left is saying straight up, Alito, his moves are meaningless.
But if that was true, why is he doing it?
The right is saying, this is it.
Justice will be had.
And perhaps, but man, it is down to the wire.
At the end of all this, what do we see?
Antifa and right-wing individuals fighting in the streets.
Some dude got shot the other day, a glancing wound, so they're okay, but like, the tensions are escalating.
I know this may seem kind of unrelated, but I think it's important, based on the clash that's about to come.
There was a brawl at a Florida, I think it was a high school football match, between people waving Blue Lives Matter and the other team kneeling, and the teams are fighting in the field.
The fights have come down to regular people and regular circumstances.
It goes all the way to the bottom and all the way to the top.
This is the most important thing I've been trying to stress to people.
When you have small town high school football players fighting on the football field over their ideology, that's the lowest tier.
It's the grassroots.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful.
It's the grassroots of individuals at odds with each other.
And it reaches all the way up to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, in the presidency.
We have now covered every single aspect of our society in this culture war.
And I think, no matter who wins or loses, chaos is set to follow.
But let me slow down and break down for you what this ruling means, why what Alito just did is serious.
And before we do, make sure you head over to timcast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I've got a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video, subscribe to this channel, But look, I'm not the mainstream media.
I'm competing with the mainstream media, and they've got the resources to push back, and of course, their view on this is all left-wing.
If you think I'm doing a good job and it's rational, reasonable, please consider sharing this with your friends or family to just, I don't know, maybe help them understand or support my work.
But again, don't forget to like, subscribe, notification bell.
Let's read first.
The simple news.
Alito moves up response date on emergency application to 12-8.
Now let's stop and take a look at what that really means.
There's a lot to break down.
Going back in time, we have this story, again from Legal Insurrection that says, Pennsylvania Don't assume Alito giving until 12-9 to respond to emergency application means he's letting it die on the vine.
More likely, Alito's action means he and some other justices take the matter seriously and plan to rule on the merits once the opposition is submitted.
Okay, full stop.
What is the lawsuit?
There is something called Act 77, which was passed in Pennsylvania back in last October in 2019.
It created what's called no-excuse mail-in voting.
However, recently Republicans filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law because in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Constitution has specific Uh, criteria for what an absentee ballot is.
It's supposed to be like if you're in the military and you can't come, but the Pennsylvania Constitution wants you to vote in person.
Well, the Republicans in Pennsylvania passed this law.
They added the no-excuse mail-in voting.
Apparently, it was a negotiation with Democrats, but they knew they needed to amend the Constitution.
They began the constitutional amendment process, but stopped halfway through, and then passed the law anyway, signaling to most people, hey, wait a minute.
They knew they were violating the constitutional rights of Pennsylvania, and through this, they have just disenfranchised 2.5 million voters who thought their votes would be legal, And now they may not be.
A lower court judge in Pennsylvania said, likely, issued an emergency injunction saying you can't certify.
And said, so after that, okay, let me slow down.
After that, the state and the Democrats challenged it to the Supreme Court.
And while that challenge was going through, the judge said, here's why I issued the injunction, and it is very likely that the plaintiffs, the Republicans, who are saying it's unconstitutional, will win on the merits.
Meaning, it is unconstitutional and there must be some relief, maybe even throwing out the entire election.
That could block Joe Biden getting these 20 electoral votes.
However, a ruling then came down from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court saying that they were dismissing this case on narrow grounds that it was too late to sue, and they dismissed it with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs couldn't sue again.
They've taken their challenge to the Supreme Court.
The challenge has been docketed, meaning it is awaiting a response from the Supreme Court.
Samuel Alito said, I want the state to respond to this charge by December 9th.
Many on the left said this means it would not be going through, and let me show you.
This is Steve Vladeck.
I said he's the law expert.
I'm not.
I defer to him.
But, you know, my personal opinion is I don't think he's correct on this.
Here's what he said.
In response to Lawrence Hurley saying, Justice Alito has asked PA officials to file a response due December 9th, Vladek, who is a Texas law professor, tweeted, Pennsylvania has already certified its electors, and the timing of Alito's order means SCOTUS wouldn't even be able to act on this nonsense before the federal safe harbor deadline, which is December 8th.
In response, Liam Martin said, doesn't Alito's timeline create a problem for the state because it can't clear up the legal challenges before December 8th?
Or am I misreading the safe harbor law?
Vladek said you're misreading it.
The electors have been certified and now there's no way that certification will be disturbed before the safe harbor deadline.
Perhaps.
But I'm not entirely convinced that's how the law actually works, far be it from me to criticize an actual law professor, mind you, I'm just some dude on the internet.
But many other people, and people who work in the legal professions of sorts, not professors but lawyers and such, have made an argument, that's not the case.
Take a look at this.
I highlighted this in the last segment talking about Alito's ruling.
From congress.gov they say, The December 8th Safe Harbor Deadline.
U.S.
Code 3 U.S.C.
5 provides that if election results are contested in any state, and if the state prior to Election Day has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if these procedures have been applied, and the results have been determined six days before the electors' meetings, Then these results are considered to be conclusive and will apply in the counting of the electoral votes.
This date, known as the safe harbor deadline, falls on December 8th in 2020.
The governor of any state where there was a contest, and in which the contest was decided according to established state procedures, is required to send a certificate describing the form and manner by which the determination was made to the archivists as soon as practicable.
Okay, stop, stop.
What does this mean?
It means there needs to be something in place to resolve a dispute before the election happens.
Pennsylvania has that.
If somebody contests the election, there is a legal process by which we can resolve this.
Okay, did Pennsylvania apply these procedures before the electoral votes were counted?
The answer is yes, they did.
This is all good news for Democrats, but wait, hear me out.
One of the arguments from the right.
The left is saying, there was a contest, the procedure was the courts, the Supreme Court shot it down, therefore they have applied the proper procedures, and this is now legitimate, certified, we're done.
Nothing can change that, and mostly because Alito is at the deadline to be a day afterwards.
Well, there is an argument from the right that says, If the state, prior to Election Day, has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if they've been applied, the results have been determined, blah blah blah, here's the problem.
According to several different pundits, there is no process by which Pennsylvania can resolve a Supreme Court challenge.
Meaning, so long as this is docketed, The case is sitting before the Supreme Court.
That means the contest is active.
And it means that Pennsylvania has not, prior to Election Day, created a way by which they could resolve this.
And they could.
Pennsylvania could have passed a law saying, if at any point a contested election finds its way to a federal court, then we shall do X or Y. Then apply those procedures, and then they can move forward.
That seems to be reasonable.
But because this moved to SCOTUS, which many people didn't think it would because it's a state matter now reaching the federal courts, there's no procedure by which they can resolve this, meaning they will not meet the safe harbor deadline and the electors are in dispute.
Of course, that may not be correct.
It's just one of the arguments being brought forward.
This is where the breaking news comes in.
Alito moves up response date to an emergency application to 12-8.
Meaning, the argument from the left when they said that it's pretty clever of Alito and a clear sign this has no chance, 9th. Too bad. The safe harbor deadline is the 8th.
Therefore, Alito said we're letting it die on the vine. Well, he just changed that. Legal insurrection says a
lot of people read a lot into Justice Samuel Alito setting December 9th as the date for the
Pennsylvania and its officials to respond to the emergency application for injunctive relief filed by
people challenging the Pennsylvania certification. The argument was that Alito was going to let
the application die on the vine, so to speak, by putting the response date after the federal
safe harbor date.
I didn't read any such intention to it.
If anything, I conjectured, perhaps it was a sign that at least some of the justices were taking it seriously, because a quick denial would be easy.
Taking it seriously doesn't mean they would grant relief, but there may be opinions issued by various justices, and that would require a few days.
Basically, This has been docketed by the Supreme Court.
But I've spoken to those involved in the case to get their comments and opinions.
And the general idea is the Supreme Court did not just knock it out.
They're considering it.
They're taking it very seriously.
No joke.
That means Pennsylvania is still in play to some degree.
Legal insurrection goes on to say, I don't think the safe harbor date would preclude the Supreme Court from acting.
But it may have been something weighing on the minds of some justices, because an updated entry on the Supreme Court docket just moved the deadline to 9 a.m.
Tuesday, December 8th.
Response to Application 20A-98, requested by Justice Alito due Tuesday, December 8th by 9 a.m., docketed entry updated 12-6-20.
So what is this about?
More mind reading.
It takes the safe harbor issue off the table if that were impediment to SCOTUS issuing a substantive ruling.
Which means we may get a Supreme Court ruling on the 8th!
Don't know for sure.
But what legal insurrection is arguing is that maybe some of the justices who want to consider this are saying the safe harbor thing is going to be an issue and we will get challenges.
Okay, move it up a day.
Then we have the 8th to take it, issue some opinions or act upon it.
And then, at the very least, they may not issue it on the 8th, but If the state of Pennsylvania files their response on the 8th, and the Supreme Court says, we are now officially in dispute, and we will be reading through this, and we will eventually give you our opinion on the matter, it would mean that safe harbor wasn't met, there's an active challenge that is not being remedied, and Pennsylvania will not make the deadline.
This sounds to me like a massive victory for Donald Trump.
There's a lot to go through here, okay?
Like I mentioned, the weird chaos and stuff, but maybe I'll do that for another segment.
I just want to point out, while all this may be good news, we have this from the Hill.
Senate GOP brushes off long-shot attempt to fight Biden win.
Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, a member of the Conservative Freedom Caucus, grabbed headlines when he announced that he would challenge the votes when Congress officially certifies President-elect Joe Biden's victory on January 6th.
But GOP senators are dismissing the effort, even as President Trump publicly praises Brooks.
GOP Senator John Cornyn of Texas said the January meeting of Congress is really a formality, after the Electoral College votes in mid-December, a date many Republicans have pointed to as when they will formally acknowledge Biden's victory.
That's December 14th.
Safe Harbor is six days before the 14th.
If Pennsylvania doesn't meet the safe harbor deadline, they have an active dispute.
Well, there you go.
The left's argument was predicated upon Alito saying the 9th.
Now that he said the 8th, that's it.
The dispute can be active so long as the Supreme Court says, yes, we agree to hear this.
And it sounds like they do.
Or maybe they just dismiss it right off the bat.
I'm not entirely convinced they would because they could have outright when they got the first The suit in the first place.
But the lower court judge in Pennsylvania, many of you probably know this, already said that the plaintiffs will likely win on the merits.
The Republicans will likely be able to justifiably say mail-in voting was unconstitutional.
I hope you're ready for the insanity that erupts following a ruling like that if it were to happen, but the left is going to tell you it's not going to happen.
I'm reading for you this story from the Hill because I'm trying to be reasonable.
I can't predict the future.
Republicans are even saying, quote, nobody likes to lose, but we have to respect the judgment of the American people, the voters.
So I don't support, I don't endorse, I don't really like just making a show just to make a show, Cornyn said.
Asked if he saw the 11th hour attempt to overturn the results of the election going anywhere.
Mike Braun of Indiana, who has linked himself closely to Trump, replied, I do not.
I think that December 14th is a critical date.
Braun said, adding that by January 6th, if there's not enough other stuff in place, I doubt that would be a maneuver that would seem to work.
But maybe we're gonna see some action.
A signature audit has been announced for Georgia.
That could theoretically put the state in dispute, and if they have not rectified that dispute because there's a signature audit happening, they might miss the deadline as well.
My friends, we are two days away!
So what about these other suits?
Other states?
Look, men.
I've said it over and over again.
I don't think Trump is going to be able to pull this off.
He's on his track.
Even though Republicans are saying this, you don't gotta get mad at me because I just don't see it.
It's just how I feel.
Trump could maybe do it, but we're talking about lightning striking three times in a row.
And that, my friends, is just... I don't know.
I just don't see it happening.
But I can point to things and at least say the door is open.
I highlighted this the other day as well from the Washington Post.
Which candidate Republican lawmakers say won the election?
27 Republicans have said Biden won.
And you see how they put actual winner underneath?
We then see that two Republican lawmakers have said Trump won, and 220 are not giving an answer.
Trump is fighting right now for legitimacy.
The other day, he had a rally that was referred to by many as a victory rally.
He said if he lost, he would graciously accept the results, but he did not lose!
They cheated, it was rigged, and all that stuff.
Well, there are many Republicans who seem to be waiting, saying nothing.
And I wonder what that's all about.
To me that says, first of all, Republicans don't like Trump for the most part.
These two who said he won clearly do like him.
But many Republicans are scared that if they defy Trump, they'll get punished in the electorate.
The Republicans love Trump.
Like the Republican voters, I'm sorry.
The politicians seem to be ambivalent.
And that's, you know, it's mostly about them just wanting the keys to the castle.
So what's happening now is, these 220 Republicans, in my opinion, are waiting to figure out if it's safe.
Is it safe to say Trump won?
Is it safe to say he lost?
They don't know.
So long as Trump wins one victory, maybe come the 6th, 7th, or 8th, other states may follow.
Republicans may start coming out and saying, no, no, we've seen the evidence.
And it really comes down to the state legislatures.
I don't know what the Supreme Court's going to say, but I'll tell you this.
If the Supreme Court issues a bold and broad opinion, saying that mail-in voting at the last minute, these changes are unconstitutional outright, it could affect the entire election.
Just a ruling, theoretically, could affect many other states.
I'm not entirely convinced, and it seems like it would be a magical moment if that were to actually happen.
Now, Alito's conservative.
He's complained about free speech issues and, you know, American values and stuff like that before, so many people think he's on Team Trump.
You've got Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Roberts, who all helped George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore.
Amy Coney Barrett oversees the circuit with Wisconsin, Kavanaugh with Michigan, and Alito with Pennsylvania, and Clarence Thomas with Georgia.
These are the justices Trump would need to be in these states to accept these emergency applications.
It was all good news for Trump, and now it seems to be paying off.
When it was announced that they did these new assignments, and you had these justices overseeing these circuits, everybody pointed out that's exactly what Trump would need.
He may not get a 6-3 Supreme Court because Roberts, many people believe, is siding with the left on basically everything.
But, when an emergency application comes in in Pennsylvania, it's Aledo, and he'll probably be favorable to it.
All this leads us to, I guess, what I would just call like the dark times.
You know, Joe Biden called it a very dark winter before us, and he was referring to COVID.
I certainly think with what we're seeing with this deputy in Staten Island who got run over, I call them oath breakers, by the bar owner.
I don't believe it was intentional, but it's shocking.
People aren't standing up for this.
I'm sorry, they're not laying down for this.
They're standing up to this.
But let me show you something really, really crazy.
Florida High School football game descends into a brawl after one side ran onto the field with a Blue Lives Matter flag, and the other took a knee during the National Anthem.
Wekiva High School took on Mitchell High on November 27th in the state playoffs.
The game was won by Mitchell High 24-18.
This seems to be a stupid story, right?
players ran into the field with a blue Lives Matter flag.
Waikiva players knelt during the national anthem in response.
There's allegations of slurs, several people, 10 players were suspended.
Waikiva was fined $500.
This seems to be a stupid story, right?
I saw it and I thought it was kind of like, I don't wanna say funny, ha ha,
but funny like, whoa, that's crazy.
I just spent the first 20 minutes telling you that the highest court in the land
is considering a ruling on these elections.
And while that is happening, at the lowest level of politics, high school football matches, like maybe not the lowest, but one of the lowest, maybe the lowest you could argue is like, you know, a dude sitting in a park or something, like no policy impact whatsoever.
But the lowest level of just regular people living their regular lives, they're fighting over cultural politics.
We just had a major brawl in Washington and in California.
In Washington, people were walking around with guns.
They got ARs, they got handguns.
Somebody took a glancing shot to the abdomen.
They're very, very, very fortunate.
Some guy was waving his gun around as the brawls were breaking out.
And I'll tell you this, Antifa got stomped out.
These are just regular people who are coming out and protesting.
And Antifa are these weirdo far-left fringe whatever.
Whatever you want to call them.
Antifa got just brutally beaten.
We've seen the factional violence.
So I'll put it this way.
People talk about the factional violence and say, yeah, yeah, yeah, but the political tribes are going to fight each other.
What do you call it when two high school football teams are fighting each other?
Those aren't political factions.
That's where it comes down to the smallest individual, to the regular people.
I've been talking about some kind of civil conflict for quite some time.
And I've had a lot of people say to me, it'll never happen because the government won't let it.
And I said, what makes you think that these fights won't make it in the government?
Of course they will.
We've seen the videos from Project Veritas.
Remember when Veritas put out those videos showing Government bureaucrats, employees talking about how they were resisting Trump and they were activists against Trump but they're in the government.
You're not supposed to be able to do that.
There's like laws blocking government employees from playing partisan politics.
But they're there.
They exist.
They are there.
They exist and they're fighting.
If I see two people fight in the street, a proud boy and antifa, I can say, hey man, tensions are rising.
And I did.
I talked about it quite a bit in the past several years.
Then it makes its way up the political chain.
You end up with the president fighting with his own staff, firing them, appointing new people, because the ideologies are split.
Trump appointed some loyalists to the Pentagon, and now they're blocking Biden from receiving certain intelligence information.
That fight is there.
It's not physical.
But beyond the factions, it's the regular folk now.
It's the regular people that are starting to fight.
So here's where we end up, in my opinion.
We have Alito on the cusp of, or he opened the door.
The Supreme Court is going to issue one way or another.
If this is dismissed outright, and we move on, it'll be a normal day in the park for most of us, and we'll find out in the next couple of days.
It's going to still be tense, it's going to be a lot of fighting, But if the Supreme Court says no to this, then we're going to be exactly where we are.
Trump insisting he won, Trump supporters yelling, stop the steal, more losses and challenges that may ultimately end up, and I believe it will, with Joe Biden being inaugurated on the 20th, and Trump just saying, I object.
But what happens if the Supreme Court says we're going to be taking this case, putting Pennsylvania in dispute after the safe harbor deadline?
That would mean that it's too late.
They can't certify, they can't just say it is certified, it's contested.
It's legit contested.
They may say it's certified, but the electors, as the law stated, are contested with no remedy, nothing to apply to remedy this.
20 votes out.
They've got, what, two days to figure something out.
I don't know where and when this finally stops, because a lot of people thought it was election day, and it's not.
But tomorrow, I think we might see something get truly crazy, because that's when the Republicans have to pull out all the stops.
Theoretically, you could argue the 14th, but getting to the safe harbor deadline, past it.
So maybe on the 8th we'll see something, all these challenges.
If the 8th comes and goes, and the challenges in these states are not resolved, there may be legal objections to these votes that don't make it through.
Now I'll stress, When it comes to objecting electoral votes, that means that on January 6th, the House and the Senate have to agree to throw out votes.
It is very unlikely they will.
But what if the states don't send electors, or send two sets?
Then there's no way to get resolution.
If Pennsylvania decides, you know, we can't resolve the dispute, so we're sending our electors, and both Republican and Democrat go, they neutralize each other.
No votes for Joe Biden.
That's when I think fists are to fly.
I don't know, man.
I am truly worried about the severity by which the escalation is happening.
It's a fight for legitimacy.
The media has been saying endlessly, President-elect.
Chris Wallace corrected a guest on the show saying, it's President-elect Joe Biden.
If I was on there, I'd be like, excuse me.
What is President-elect?
Define it for me.
When the incoming president is officially certified.
So you mean by January 6th?
Once the votes are counted, then we have a president-elect, because those are the votes that matter.
The media is desperate to convince you.
Twitter is.
I've got Facebook putting fake fact-checks on my videos.
The craziest thing, they put a fact-check on one of my videos saying it was false information, even though I didn't assert anything.
I read the story, I read the fact-check, I gave my opinion, and they said it was fake news.
That's how serious this is.
Milk toasts fence-sitter telling you right now, I don't know what's going to happen.
I don't know who's right.
Here's what the story says.
And here's what's true.
And they called it fake news.
That's how desperate they are to make sure you fall in line with Joe Biden as president-elect.
He's not.
I believe he will be.
I believe he will be inaugurated.
I could be wrong.
That's the best I can put it.
Guess what?
I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter.
How about that?
The reality is, I don't have all the evidence.
I haven't seen everything.
I've seen a lot of evidence.
I can tell you there is a dispute.
Alito has issued this ruling.
It flies in the face of the left's argument.
So we'll see how it plays out.
What they expect, the fact-checkers, is of me and many other people to choose a tribe and just say, yes, I'm not going to lie and claim that a bunch of craziness is going to happen.
People are going to get arrested.
Trump's going to win.
I'm not going to lie and claim that Biden is president-elect.
It's just not true.
That's the best I can do.
But even the powers that be will call that fake news.
That's how you know things are getting spicy.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
I might have some other segments.
I don't know if I feel like it, but I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Check out the podcast on all podcast platforms, Tim Pool Daily Show and TimCast IRL, and I will see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Despite everything the media has told us over and over and over again, Joe Biden is not the president-elect.
I know, it's weird, right?
Because the media came out and said, look, all the votes are in this direction, and all the states are in this direction, and the projections are as such, so Joe Biden is president-elect.
But legally and literally, Joe Biden is not the president-elect.
It's more of a tradition when the media calls it based on projections, we just say, okay.
Until the Electoral College casts their vote on December 14th, Joe Biden is not president-elect.
And in fact, it may even be until January 6th, when there's actual counting of the votes.
You see, on January 6th, there can be a dispute over the electors.
Members of Congress, a senator and a House member, can raise a dispute, and then it has to be debated on, and they have to go through this motion.
And my understanding, based on an article from Just the News, is that it typically never goes anywhere, and it's not likely it will again.
It will go anywhere this time around.
So I've said over and over again that it seems that the likelihood that Trump actually pulls off some victory here is astronomical.
But possible.
There actually still is a clear path to victory that Trump is on.
Again, not saying it is likely in any capacity.
No, I'm saying it's extremely, extremely unlikely.
But there is still this weird... It's like Donald Trump is running.
It's like Indiana Jones.
And then, you know, the wall's coming down.
Is he going to slide and make it into the door and then grab his hat?
Or is the door going to stop and then, you know, he's trapped or whatever?
That's what's likely to happen.
You see, although they're saying that you need a senator and a House member to dispute this, it probably won't go anywhere, there is another contentious bit that could occur, and so it's very likely that the best chance Trump would have is if multiple slates of electors are sent on December 14th, in which case, which ones do they choose to count would likely go to the Supreme Court, and then, in my opinion, Which is not worth all that much, to be completely honest, because I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar.
I think the Supreme Court will take it up and choose the state legislatures.
So right now, in a lot of these states, what happens is the state legislature said, okay, the power to determine our electors is held by the governor or the secretary of state.
But constitutionally, it doesn't matter what they think.
The power can be retained by the state legislature at any time because the constitution does not recognize these other people.
The way I explained it before is, imagine you have a deal with, like, the pizza delivery guy.
He comes every Friday with a large pepperoni and, you know, you pay him ten bucks.
But now you're like, I don't want to be bothered with it, so I'll have my buddy take care of it for me.
Your buddy can't negotiate on your behalf.
The pizza guy might accept the money and give it to him, but if they come up and say, hey, it's going to be $9, we're going to pay you less, he's going to be like, no, no, no, I'm talking to Jim.
I have an agreement with Jim, not you.
Easiest way to put it.
The federal government recognizes the state legislatures, and the laws saying that it could be a governor or secretary of state are irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution.
In which case, if these Republican state legislatures start saying, we're sending Trump electors, and the governors and the secretary of state, the Democrats or whatever, say, no, we're sending Biden, you end up with two slates going to, you know, going to vote.
And that information is not going to be properly certified, or better yet, then you can see the objection raised in the sixth saying, that's not from the state legislature.
However, it still does come down to a vote, so that's why it's just like, I just don't see it.
I mean, maybe the Republican Senate votes one way, and the House votes another way, and it deadlocks, and it goes to the Supreme Court, and then Trump wins.
That's probably what's going to happen, but I can't tell you.
I can't.
I don't know.
I can tell you this.
First and foremost, let me show you this tweet, and then we'll have a laugh here.
A right-side broadcasting network tweeted, Watch live, President Donald Trump holds a victory rally in Valdosta, Georgia.
I just tweeted, victory rally.
That's the emphasis.
I don't care what your opinion is.
I'm presenting none.
I'm just saying, a victory rally.
The media has said 50 billion times Donald Trump lost.
Trump supporters, and not even the entirety of conservative media, but many conservative outlets, are saying Trump did win, save the widespread voter irregularities and fraud.
But it's funny to me that the universes are fractured.
The two worlds are decoupling.
I don't know where that brings us to, other than two factions of people that are heading towards each other at full speed.
Both saying they won.
Remember what I said a month ago?
Two months ago?
The nightmare scenario is when both candidates declare themselves to be the victors?
Well, that's where we are right now.
But here's the important bit, and then we'll read what Trump said about why he didn't lose.
The important bit is, Joe Biden's been saying nonstop, he's the winner, he won, you all recognize it.
Trump has been saying, I won, but it was rigged, so please, Supreme Court, step in, and we're suing.
Which shows that Trump isn't ardently and adamantly saying, I'm the victor, hands down.
He's saying, I should be considered the victor.
The fact that he's going through the process, asking the Supreme Court, shows he recognizes he's in the weaker position on this one.
But here's what happens.
The Daily Mail reports Trump tells Georgia Rally he can't be a gracious loser because the Dems stole the election and calls for a champion to overturn Biden's win as he campaigns for Senate seats that are the last line of defense against the radical left.
Basically, what Trump said was, if I lost, I would lose graciously, but I did not lose.
Now he had a smile on his face and he was laughing.
And Trump supporters think he's holding an ace in his back pocket.
Something.
Something we don't know about.
I've said it seems like a lot of the Trump lawsuits are just wasting time or buying time for something.
And my opinion is their real strategy the entire time was to get a challenge to the Electoral College.
Not necessarily to actually win any lawsuits and overturn votes.
But if they did, I mean, I'm sure they'd be happy.
Many of their suits are attempts at just getting into the courts and stretching out the timeline.
Take a look at the Third Circuit appeal Donald Trump filed.
What were they appealing for?
The right to amend their suit a second time.
The narrowest of grounds.
Just basically saying, hey, let us keep the process going.
Well, they said no.
And Trump is still filing more lawsuits, calling for more recounts, all that kind of stuff.
Signature verification is a better way to put it now, because we did the recounts.
Just buying time.
Why?
Honestly, I don't know, but many Trump supporters look at that as though Trump has a plan, and he needs time to do it.
There's two realities on this one.
Again, as per usual, on the fringes of the conspiracy right, they say, in Germany, a firefight broke out between special forces, now under the command of Donald Trump's new acting Secretary of Defense, who was trying to seize a server that contained the information about how the votes were switched, but CIA paramilitary groups returned fire, and one agent was killed.
In order to cover this up, They claim that he died in Somalia in a secret war!
People really believe that.
I'm sorry, that's just way too far out there, okay?
These things maybe happen, sometimes, sure, but there's no evidence.
Like, that's just... You know, a lot of people want to believe, and I feel for you, man, but I'm not gonna play games.
That is just so far out there.
What you need to understand about...
If we have all these vote machines, these Dominion machines, and some of them are saying these were online, they don't need to use one server in Frankfurt, Germany.
Why would they even have it in Frankfurt, Germany?
If they really wanted to swing an election, why wouldn't they use a satellite connection on some random island or on a boat?
They could put the server on a boat in the middle of the ocean.
People are like, no, no, no, it was in front, it had to be big.
It doesn't have to be.
Calculating votes, it's like text files.
I'd imagine not particularly complicated.
You could broadcast a message to your SATCOM yacht, you know, and then you've got a computer on it, and then it moves and it's gone later and no one finds it.
So that's what you're hearing on one side.
On the other side, on the left, they're saying the reason Trump is buying time as long as possible is because he just wants to raise money off of, you know, the gullible base or whatever.
He's so far raised, I think, around like $207 million.
That is a hefty, pretty penny, and the GOP and the RNC have raised money as well, and they're barely spending it, it's my understanding.
So, on the left, they're saying Trump supporters are being taken for a ride.
You know why I think that's a bad argument?
Because Trump supporters don't care why or what Trump does with the money.
They're saying, Trump's gonna settle his debts or he's gonna use the money for a future run or something like that.
And you know what Trump supporters would say to you if that was a fact?
They'd say, great, where do I donate?
It's the craziest idea.
We talk about this quite a bit when it comes to donations.
Trump supporters, if Trump was like, can I get 20 bucks?
No reason.
They'd be like, you got it, Mr. President, because they trust and support him.
It's that simple.
If Trump wanted to use this to clear his debts, then he would just be like, I need help recovering, you know, debt money.
Or paying off debts for the campaign.
And if Trump really does want to run in 2024, as we've heard him say on tape now, that he's trying to get another four years.
If he doesn't, he'll be back in 2024.
He could simply say to his supporters, we're going to do it again.
We're going to run in 2024, but we need your support.
We got to clear debt.
We got to raise money.
And people would be like, yes, here, here, Mr. President.
No questions.
Trump's base, they love the man.
The other day at this rally, they call it a victory rally, but I thought it was a rally for the two Senate candidates in Georgia for the runoff.
When Purdue gets up there, they started chanting, fight for Trump and drowned him down, demanding he fight for Trump.
There was an interview where some local news outlet went on the ground and started talking to some dude and they said, you know, do you support Trump?
You know, who are you going to vote in the runoff?
And he says, the only election I'm worried about is November 3rd.
And they said, what about the runoff?
And he goes, we'll see.
People don't like Republicans.
This is the best thing, in my opinion.
I love it, I really do.
I don't like Republicans.
It's funny when people are like, Tim, if you're really concerned about this bill or that bill, blame Mitch McConnell.
There's a small handful of Republicans that I think are okay, and I don't agree with them.
I just think they're telling you how they really feel.
It's a small handful of people and a couple people on the left as well.
There's too many of these progressive Democrats who are just clap-back, snarky, nasty.
The Republicans have them too.
I'm not a fan of this stuff, you know.
There's a small handful of good politicians, alright?
But anyway, let's do this.
Trump holds this rally.
He says, if I lost, I'd be a very gracious loser if I lost.
I would say I lost and go to Florida and take it easy.
I'd go around and say I did a good job.
But you can never accept when they steal and rig and rob.
You can't accept that.
He added, as the crowd erupted and stopped the steal chance.
Trump said he was there to help ensure the two Republicans win what are probably the most important Senate runoffs in U.S.
history.
The January 5th runoffs pit Perdue and Loeffler against well-funded Democratic challengers John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, seeking to capture a state that has not elected a Democrat senator in 20 years.
The races will determine which party controls the U.S.
Senate.
Technically.
It will, but if the Democrats win both seats, which, let's consider this one race, they're gonna go and they're gonna be like, vote, vote, right?
Then the Democrats will tie with Republicans.
Republicans did an amazing job holding the Senate.
What you need to know about why Republicans were vulnerable this time around is not because people like or dislike either party, it's because there were more Republican seats up for election than Democrats, meaning They were more vulnerable Republicans.
It's just that simple.
A chance for Democrats to take away seats from Republicans, not the other way around.
I can tell you, if the Democrats win both seats, it'll be 50-50, and then the President-elect breaks the tie.
On January 5th, if the Democrats win, maybe they will, they'll all cheer and dance in the street and be like, we did it!
We got every branch of government!
And then the day later, The vote count happens for Electoral College.
A dispute may arise, clash of electors, and then it goes to Donald Trump, in which case the Senate would be Republican if Trump wins, because Mike Pence will be the tiebreaker.
If Joe Biden gets inaugurated with Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris is the tiebreaker.
A lot of people are pointing out that Kamala Harris has not resigned her Senate seat, and it's very strange.
In fact, it is very strange.
Many people take that to—they believe, then, she's not convinced she's won.
Something to that effect.
And I believe that's probably and partially true.
Some have said the reason she's not resigning is because she still needs to vote to stop Republicans for any last-minute lame-duck nonsense.
I think Obama resigned his Senate seat on, like, November 13th or something to that effect.
You think it was Obama?
I think it shows a little mix of both.
Kamala Harris needs to vote on January 6th when they're counting the Electoral College votes.
If she bows out, let's say all the votes were certified, let's say the Senate's done, and they say we're sending in its 50-50 Democrats.
She needs to vote.
Now, it's not going to change anything because the Senate's Republican, so I don't think it's the best argument in the world, which is why I think there's an iota of truth in that she's not convinced she's actually going to be the vice president.
So she's, you know, she's keeping her cards close to the chest.
So let me show you this story from Just the News to break down what might happen.
They say, Rep Mo Brooks challenged to electoral college certification, the roadmap.
Quote, I'm not entirely convinced.
Maybe, but you can't use... I mean, you can't use 2005.
I guess you can use 2001 and 2017 as really contentious elections.
And 2001 probably makes more sense because that was so close.
But I don't know.
Different circumstances.
Maybe, but you can't use, I mean, you can't use 2005.
I guess you can use 2001 and 2017 as really contentious elections.
And 2001 probably makes more sense because that was so close.
But I don't know.
Different circumstances.
Trump's a fighter.
Just the news says.
Rep Mo Brooks of Alabama faces an uphill battle if he challenges the Electoral College and
backs President Trump on January 6th, when Congress is scheduled to certify Democrat
Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential race.
Brooks said this week he has been sharing his plan with fellow House members in hopes of invoking the 12th Amendment and helping Trump win.
At least one senator must partner with Brooks to trigger a vote on an electoral college challenge.
And Brooks told Fox News Radio on Thursday, we have some leads for U.S.
senators who may do it.
I'm not entirely convinced, because senators, you might, you might, look, when it comes to the House, you got a lot of people.
And you also got a lot of populist-right candidates who are going to be like, done, absolutely.
I will absolutely defend this.
And here you go, Mo Brooks.
On the Senate, however?
Ultra-wealthy establishment crony politicians.
I just wouldn't.
I wouldn't.
I don't know.
Under the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, in a contingent election, no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, and the election is thrown to the U.S.
House of Representatives.
There, each state's delegation has one vote, and a candidate must receive the votes of a majority of state delegations to win.
Because of the calendar, the new Congress is the one that decides, not the outgoing one, which is huge because Republicans are making major gains.
And it's also bad for Republicans in a sense, but Trump will still be president, so they'll still hold the Senate.
In the new Congress, there are more states with Republican delegations than Democrat ones, so in that scenario, Trump would win.
Thank you, Representative Mo Brooks, Trump tweeted.
Ask your senators and congressmen if they will object to any electoral college certification of Joe Biden on January 6th.
Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, tweeted November 23rd.
They say, it's unlikely, however, that Brooks would be able to successfully invoke the 12th Amendment, and if he can't get a majority of both the House and Senate to support his efforts, Brooks said he doesn't think he needs a majority.
Legal experts disagree, arguing that while a single member of the House and Senate can raise an objection, majorities in both the House and the Senate would have to approve it for any electoral votes to be tossed out.
This would not happen under a Democratic-controlled House.
Quote, They are misunderstanding the law, says election expert Hans von Spakovsky.
The procedures for the counting of the Electoral College votes set forth in 3 U.S.C. 15 This is a former FEC Commission and manager of the Heritage Foundation's Election Law Reform Initiative says.
What it says is that an objection can be filed to the certification of votes from the states when they are being counted in the joint session of Congress on January 6th, if it is signed by one member of the House and one member of the Senate.
He told Just the News.
However, the Senate and House then each have to stage a vote on the objection, which obviously will not go forward unless a majority of senators and a majority of representatives approve of the objection.
America's founding documents state that it is Congress that must officially certify the presidential winner.
Various media outlets are projecting 306 for Biden, 232 for Trump, and they say under an 1887 law called the Electoral Count Act, the House and Senate must meet in joint session on January 6th at 1pm and vote on the certification of electors.
Federal statute outlines that if at least one House member and one Senator both object to the electors, they are able to stop the process temporarily through a written statement.
If that happens, the House and Senate must each debate the outcome for no more than two hours before taking a vote.
It happened in 2001, 2005, 2017.
Almost all the time it doesn't go anywhere.
Said Tom Spencer, Vice President of the Lawyers Democracy Fund and an attorney representing the George W. Bush 2000 campaign.
And we probably won't this time just based on mathematics.
But I gotta hand it to him, you know?
Good for him.
He's doing the right thing.
And Democrats who did it before in 2001, 2005, 2017, you know, it's their right to do it.
We've got a constitution.
We got to follow it.
American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein said Wednesday that at least one House member and one senator could likely challenge electors, but he does not believe it will sway the outcome.
Let me stop there.
We're getting ahead of ourselves, okay?
We had about 75 Republicans in Pennsylvania say that they want to dispute the results of the election.
What happens if they send electors on the 14th?
I gotta say, I don't know.
I don't know.
I think this might just end up in the Supreme Court.
Let's check it out.
Let's say on the 14th, the official electors get sent out, and that's because of certified results, the governors and the Secretary of State say, here's the electors, they're all Democrat, they're all for Biden.
Well, let's say the state legislature says, no, these are our electors, we're sending these due to widespread irregularity, we've so determined it.
I don't know how many they would need, I don't know if they would need a majority, but what would happen then?
Who are they going to count?
Well, the Democrats are going to say, we're clearly counting the official ones, and Republicans are going to say, no, no, you've got to go by the state.
Then we go to state legislatures.
Then we go to SCOTUS.
Let's say that they try and count the votes, and then on January 6th, you get a bunch of Republicans saying, no, because the state legislature sent these electors for Trump.
The vote is wrong.
We're not counting the votes properly.
Or what happens if the electors cast their ballots and there's 40 electors for Pennsylvania?
On January 6th, there's going to be an argument, a dispute, and perhaps, In order to count the votes, you need to have a majority of both the Senate and the House.
But what happens if there's 40 votes because it's in two slates?
Who gets to decide which one?
Will the Senate just decide we're going to vote anyway?
That would be kind of crazy, in my opinion.
If the House said, we're voting on this and we're going to choose the Democrat electors.
And the Republicans in the Senate would say, we'll choose the Republicans.
So then which ones get counted?
Maybe they get thrown out, or ultimately, maybe this ends up in the Supreme Court.
Or, to be completely honest, maybe it's all just a last-ditch, triple Hail Mary, triple lightning strike, you know, attempt, lotteries tickets chance, to just get something.
Some desperate attempt that's just never gonna pull off.
Trump's not going to give up.
There's a video that came out, you can see Trump talking to people at a party and he says, we're trying really hard to stay in for another four years, but if not, we'll be back in 2024.
So Trump certainly doesn't think he's going to get arrested like the media is saying.
And Trump is certainly fighting with every ounce to stay in, but it seems like even he recognizes it's a long shot, might not happen.
He put out a 46 minute video laying out his case saying, here's why I should be the winner, and I just don't see it being enough.
That's just me.
Look, I look at the evidence.
I read left-wing forums and right-wing forums and try to understand what's going on, but I'm telling you, it feels like Trump is trying to win the lottery three times in a row on this one.
Maybe he pulls it off.
It's entirely possible.
It just doesn't seem likely.
But I'll leave it there.
Our next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
It's time you peasants learned your place.
You think you can just gallivant about your town and city and state and country, guzzling fossil fuels and spreading your diseases, your COVID-19?
Harumph, I say, us wealthy elites.
We are the privileged few who are entitled and smart enough to know how to properly run this planet.
And I will, I'm kidding by the way, obviously it's a bit, But, uh, I tell you, the Great Reset's truly something crazy and scary.
And guess what?
Regular people won't be standing for it.
Now, this story is as spicy as they come.
Okay, well, maybe not as spicy as they come, but it's just spicy.
Check this out.
Defiant NYC bar owner struck deputy with his car.
Wow.
I almost want to go in and alter... You can inspect the element.
Okay, so this dude, I don't think he intentionally, like, ran down a deputy, but he ran over a deputy.
That's like that's my new thing, you know, like the cops who violate their their oath to uphold
the Constitution, oath breakers. OK, so this dude, I don't think he intentionally like ran down a
deputy, but he ran over a deputy. This is the guy who's been opening his bar in Staten Island
in defiance of Cuomo's edict. As the people in Staten Island rightly point out, these are not laws.
The sheriffs who are showing up are not law enforcement officers.
They're more like Cuomo's Praetorian Guard.
Cuomo does not have the power or the right to just dictate what you can or can't do.
It doesn't exist.
And any one of these oath breakers who wants to come out are breaking the law.
You know what I'd love to see?
I'd love to see someone who's upholding their oath, a law enforcement officer, arrest these deputies for unlawful imprisonment or confinement or something like that.
Here's the story.
But I want to tell you something.
What's the real gist of all of this?
It's the Great Reset, my friends.
Take a look at this from The Guardian.
How the Great Reset of capitalism became an anti-lockdown conspiracy.
They're just flat out saying it now.
We are trying to reset global capitalism because they don't want the serfs to go around using their resources.
Have you figured it out yet?
Let me make it very clear for you.
You are a peasant.
You produce the widgets by which the establishment elites, the smart, privileged few, can facilitate their existence.
That's what they want for you.
And that's what is already here.
Why?
I mean, while bar owners who are struggling to make ends meet, business owners, the woman in California who said, My bar, my restaurant is shut down.
They won't let me have outdoor seating, but right next to us is a movie production theater.
Because you are a serf.
And so long as you follow the rules, the Praetorian Guard won't beat the crap out of you.
Well, in one instance, one of these oathbreakers got hit.
Got literally run over.
But I want to make it very, very clear for you, okay?
Here we go.
Pete Davidson rips Staten Island anti-COVID-19 lockdown babies on SNL.
That's right.
The wealthy celebrity guy on TV dating that famous lady or whatever his bit is.
This guy who's got money and got little to worry about.
can go onto TV and say, shut your mouth, you whiny little baby.
Take what you deserve.
Dr. Fauci recently said that Americans have an independent spirit, but it's time to do as you're told.
Don't believe me?
Well, all of this stuff is happening, and they call it a conspiracy, but my friends, welcome to the UK.
High-value business travelers to be exempt from quarantine in England.
That's right!
High-value business travelers.
Well, I'll tell you something.
When all of this lockdown stuff started, I'm exempt.
Because I'm an essential worker.
That's right.
Because I go on the internets and I talk about my feelings.
That's media.
And media is essential.
It really is.
No joke.
So I was able to travel across the country and do my thing.
I think it is essential.
I do.
I mean, especially considering I'm pushing back on a lot of these extremist narratives, and probably will get banned at some point, because it's not the essential that they had planned on, but it's really hard to suppress the bad media without suppressing the good media, though they do it anyway.
They do it through cancel culture and other BS, garbage, leftist strategies.
Do you see this?
High-value business travelers to be exempt from quarantine?
They're telling you what they're doing.
They're telling you that you, the lowly worker—and this is Europe, mind you, and we here are Americans of the Constitution.
This would probably lead to riots, but we're already basically getting it.
Look.
See what they're saying in the UK?
If you're a rich, high-value individual, you're exempt.
You see what's going on with the bar owner in LA, where this woman is not a part of the club?
It's basically the same thing.
The rich and wealthy connected Hollywood industry productions, people like Pete Davidson and Chris Evans and these other leftist, sycophantic, authoritarian lunatics, they're exempt!
Of course they're gonna suckle the teat of the state and lick the boots of the oathbreakers.
Because they know they'll be fine.
It's one of the biggest problems any society or any culture has.
When you have a crisis, and food is on the line, and your home is on the line, your bare necessities, what is it?
The hierarchy of needs.
Many of these police officers and law enforcement officers will absolutely do whatever it takes to get for themselves.
Now, I can't blame them.
You know, you're looking at these other people and they're all screaming and starving.
And you're sitting there saying, better them than me.
At least I'll get my food from the state.
The only problem is we're not dealing with a natural disaster the likes of which the world is on fire.
We're dealing with a natural disaster the likes of which the government has mandated all of these things be shut down.
They've caused the economic strife, and the only reason there is strife is because oath breakers are willing to come out and pretend to be cops.
Oh, I know, I can hear the left saying, dude, they are cops!
All cops are bad!
No, there are many sheriffs who have said, F off, we ain't gonna do it.
There are many places in this country that are free.
There are many sheriffs who say, we won't be enforcing many of these laws, but it's becoming extremely, extremely tribal.
There's a meme going around where it's like the left screaming that sheriffs won't enforce lockdown, and then praising sheriffs who won't enforce deportation orders and things like that.
Yeah, because it's tribalism.
And that's, that's what's the scariest thing about all of this, I guess.
I look at this stuff, and this, we gotta read this story, look at this.
DefiantNYCBarno, he ran, look at, he, run, running over a deputy!
Apparently the cop was like, the oathbreaker, sorry, was hanging from the hood of the vehicle.
I was actually going to do a segment on these fights that are breaking out.
I think I'm going to save that for four, because this was a part of it, right?
So there are brawls breaking out, there was a football game, this is crazy, where the guys were waving, one team was waving blue lives matter, the other side took a knee, and they all started fighting each other!
Just breaking out and fist fighting.
There have been many things like this where it says to me, like, people are ready to snap.
But there's something else here I thought, this had to have its own segment.
High-value people are allowed to travel.
Hollywood celebrities are allowed to have their food services.
But the lowly serfs, they're being told to sit down, shut your mouth.
It's not about climate change, and it's not about COVID, okay?
If it was about COVID, we would be doing a lot more to protect the vulnerable and a lot less to punish the not-vulnerable, the invulnerable!
The people who aren't at risk.
Instead, instead of giving us a quarantine where the sick people stay home, they're giving us a mandated lockdown and telling you you are no longer allowed to do many things.
In California, they issued a stay-at-home order.
You can't leave your house.
They are strangling out the poor, transferring the wealth to the elites.
You know, I've had these conversations where it's like, but what about global warming?
It's a problem.
I think so.
But if you mean to tell me, then right now.
Your solution is sacrifice people and strangle them and transfer the wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
I'm sorry, that's just psychotic.
The ends don't justify the means because you will never meet the ends.
Without humanity and our ability to love and live freely, then what's the point of preserving any of it if we become authoritarian, despotic, Borg-like cultures or society?
Why bother succeeding if we just become a masochistic and oppressive machine that generates nothing but suffering?
Now I think there's things we can do to help the planet.
This ain't it.
Let me finally actually read the story.
The co-owner of a New York City bar that authorities said has been defying COVID restrictions was taken into custody early Sunday after running over a deputy with his car.
Danny Presti fled from his bar, Mac's Public House, after deputies observed patrons entering the establishment Saturday night in violation of the city and state closure orders.
Orders!
Sheriff Joseph Fuchito said—I'm sorry, Oathbreaker Joseph Fuchito said—Oathbreakers attempted to arrest Presti—I'm sorry, Oathbreakers attempted to kidnap Presti as he left the bar early Sunday.
Presti got into his car, struck an Oathbreaker, and kept driving for about 100 yards, even as the Oathbreaker was left hanging onto his hood, Fuchito said.
Listen.
I don't think he intentionally did it, but that's bad.
Come on, man.
We don't want to hit people with cars.
We don't want violence.
We don't want this to break down.
But you know what?
There's nothing to be said.
There's no answer.
I can sit here and say, people, please be calm, follow the orders and all that stuff.
But when people are suffering, when people have no food and no shelter and everything they own and their lives are being destroyed, then at a certain point, it is unreasonable to expect someone to just Say, okay, I'll die.
That's why I'm a center-left, uh, I lean center-left on a lot of issues.
I've had these conversations.
What about if someone is hungry, so they steal food?
Yeah!
Yeah, you get a slap on the wrist for that.
And we have EBT programs, we have welfare programs, because we understand people need food.
And it's better to spend a little bit of money giving someone food than it is to spend the money to incarcerate or watch them suffer and die.
It's tough.
It really is.
And what I'm saying with EBT stuff, it's not even a solution to the problem, and can absolutely make things worse.
It's rough.
It's hard to figure out.
But what we don't want is violence, but I'll tell you this.
When you have violence coming from the state against innocent people, What do you do?
Again, you can already hear the left saying, wow, Tim, sounds like Black Lives Matter.
There's a big difference between probabilistic circumstance and tragedies.
What I mean by this is We ask the police to keep us safe.
We give them weapons because sometimes people, you know, attack them and they should defend themselves, especially when they're dealing with criminals, violent ones who have no regard for human life.
Sometimes the tragic things happen.
We don't throw the whole system out because of a margin of error.
And I know I'm not trying to be callous by saying margin of error.
I'm saying...
There are a lot of stories where I'm upset.
Like, you know, I believe Philando Castile was his name.
Legal gun owner pulled over and the cop shot him.
The guy was a legal gun owner.
That's insane.
I think a cop like that should just have their gun taken.
That's a simple solution.
Or just relieved of duty.
Because it's an unfortunate circumstance.
The murderous intent isn't there.
The cop isn't a criminal, he's just really bad at his job.
And that's tough.
But I'll tell you, when the state starts oppressing people, I'll be the first to scream about it.
100%.
I was there during Occupy Wall Street complaining about the police who were making up frozen zones, and I'll be here today when they're locking down small business.
The state is sending out oath breakers.
These are men and women who claim to enforce the law, but they're not enforcing any laws.
That's why I can't call them cops.
They're not enforcing laws.
These edicts that came from the mouth of Cuomo, many of them found to be completely unconstitutional.
So what are these cops doing?
They're corrupt and taking cash in exchange to break the law.
Sounds like they're now the criminals.
We have a law.
They're in violation of it and they're getting paid by the government to do it.
This is a corrupt system.
Here's the problem.
When you have two factions fighting, I can say all day and night, please, we need peace.
But this means the government needs to stop the draconian lockdowns and bring these oath breakers, you know, out of the fray.
And we also don't want this guy driving his car and hitting a deputy.
They say Presti 34 was eventually stopped and apprehended, the sheriff said.
Charges against him were pending.
The injured Oathbreaker was taken to a hospital for treatment of injuries.
The Oathbreaker's condition wasn't immediately available.
An email seeking comment was sent to an attorney representing the bar's owner.
The Staten Island bar was the site of protests last week, in this we understand.
What do you do when elements of the state are suppressing, oppressing, injuring individuals, and using the threat of force, violence, and even murder to get what they want, and then people not even fighting back?
Like, it doesn't sound like this guy was trying to hurt anybody.
It sounds like he was fleeing in his car and he hit one of the Oathbreaker guys.
His charges are pending, but this is where things start getting extra spicy.
These lockdowns, you can't just expect people to just lay back and do nothing, and just sit there and be like, okay.
Here's a tweet from Ruthen, Tboots on Twitter.
I think this is just a, you know, President Trump supporter.
Lots of followers.
Mac's public house has decided to no longer tolerate tyrannical orders.
And there's the video of people hanging out inside this bar, close proximity.
Look at that!
Someone's wearing a mask.
A lot of people are not wearing masks.
You know what?
I think people just don't care anymore.
And if they choose to be around this, well then it's their fault.
It's funny when the left says, you don't have the right to get me sick.
Sickness is like a natural thing.
You could like eat bacon and get sick.
Oh no, arrest the bacon, the bacon got you sick.
You have no, listen, this is about negative and positive rights.
We have a negative right to freedom, to run our business, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, meaning you can't interfere with it.
You have no positive right to not be getting sick.
This is the difference between positive and negative rights.
I have a negative right to life, meaning you're not allowed to kill me.
I do not have a positive right to life, meaning that if someone tries to kill me, you're obligated to actually save me.
We're all individuals.
That's the difference between positive and negative.
In this instance, the left is arguing for the positive right to not get sick, meaning you are obligated to stay home because at some point you might catch COVID and you might spread it.
We don't know.
But we have rapid testing.
Not particularly effective, but we do.
Shouldn't that be enough to make sure we can keep things safe and open?
Apparently they don't care.
You have a negative right to life.
Meaning, no one can intentionally get you sick by like coughing in your face or something.
But if people are going about their business and you want to live, then you must avoid people who might be sick.
There's no criminal intent in someone having the flu and then it spreads.
There could be criminal intent in someone having the flu and then like sneezing on people on purpose.
People have been arrested for this, you know, in the past year.
But the average person who might be sick and might not know isn't trying to get you sick, you just might get sick.
You have no positive right to that.
Sorry, it doesn't exist.
It's funny to see the SNL guy who's rich ragging on everybody.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
You know, I'd like to give a shout out to her with my utmost respect for defending the Staten Island protests.
She said, the whole point of protesting is to make people uncomfortable.
Activists take that discomfort with the status quo and advocate for concrete policy changes.
Popular support often starts small and grows.
To folks who complain, protest demands make others uncomfortable.
That's the point.
Here, here, AOC defending those Staten Island bar owners as a New York representative, though not in Staten Island.
Certainly, she understands the plight of the small business owner and those just trying to get by.
I actually mean that literally, but to be honest, you know, I was being facetious about her defending these protests.
She's not.
She is supporting protest in general, which I agree with, and I do think that AOC is concerned about the working class over the millionaires and the billionaires.
I just don't think she can see through her own tribalism.
Now, she's talking about defunding the police.
Okay.
Defunding the police at this point in Staten Island?
I'm not gonna argue.
You know, I mean it.
Oathbreakers.
Defund the Oathbreakers.
How about that?
That sounds good, right?
Let me ask you, if you're a conservative, you can comment below.
Would you be in favor of taking away money, resources, and authority from police officers who violate their oath to the Constitution?
I can already hear the collective yeses.
Hey, maybe we have an agreement here.
How about we put together a panel that can determine whether or not an officer has violated someone's constitutional rights a certain number of times, and then we agree.
People who break their oath to the Constitution, that's the compromise.
If the left is complaining, That there are these killer cops going around killing people.
What sounds like they're violating the Constitution, right?
Hey, hey!
Maybe we got some middle ground here where we can be like, get them oath breakers out of there.
We'll bring in some good cops, the same as the left wants, and the same as the right wants.
Legitimate cops who are working hard to uphold our rights, to protect us.
And they do some, you know, procedural fining and things like that.
Jaywalking, speeding.
We can figure out reform for all that stuff, too.
But I think we can all agree.
One of the left's biggest complaints about the police is that they're violating the rights of people.
Boom!
There it is.
As we watch this Staten Island bar owner get arrested, you know, multiple times now, I think it's fair to point out we're kind of in agreement on, you know, I guess, defunding bad cops, right?
Now the conservatives are getting the brunt of it, and I think that's going to whittle away a lot of the support from the cops.
Before we go, let me give you one last point.
Dr. Fauci says the U.S.
will face surge upon surge of COVID cases after the holidays as 2,445 die, hospitalizations remain above 101,000, and the total death toll soars past 280K.
It's going to get worse.
The lockdowns are going to get more intense.
But I gotta point something out.
When they say the Great Reset of Capitalism is an anti-lockdown conspiracy, it's not.
Plain and simple.
If this woman's seating, which is identical to what the movie theaters are doing, Right next to each other, but hers is unsafe and theirs is safe.
Clearly they're lying about COVID.
When high-value business travelers are exempt from quarantine and can fly around and gallivant about the world as they see fit, it's clearly not about quarantine.
I think it's more about climate change.
These people are trying to... I think early on with COVID it was really bad.
I think they did the lockdown, and the lockdown, for the most part, worked.
And now they're saying, oh no, we gotta do it again, because they realized something.
Numerous articles came out saying that the Earth was healing because of this.
Well, to these people, the ends justify the means, so they will lie, cheat, and steal, and cause suffering and destruction to your life, and take everything from you, as long as they get what they want.
Welcome to the authoritarian nightmare, that's what it is.
This is neo-feudalism, where the ultra-elites, the nobles, the lords, high-value people, they say, are allowed to do whatever they want.
I'm an essential worker, as a media personality.
And there's that exemption, right?
But then it's just rich people in general are going to get away with this stuff.
They're going to do what they want.
Did Newsom face any penalties?
No.
And he went out, what, twice?
Partied with a bunch of people, including doctors.
Nancy Pelosi, Lori Lightfoot, Gretchen Whitmer.
Come on.
The list goes on.
They faced no penalty.
They're allowed.
You are not.
It's rules for thee, but not for me, but worse.
Radley Belko is his name.
He said, here's a quote.
Tyranny is what is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizenry.
Congratulations.
Welcome to tyranny.
To see a dude in a car run down an oathbreaker, to me... I'm telling you, man, something's coming.
I don't know what, but...
We are dangerously close to something just finally snapping off.
Maybe they've pushed as hard as they can and the government will start to back away, realizing it's a powder keg about to burst.
Or maybe it'll devolve into a left versus right kind of thing, which is my next segment.
I think we're heading towards some kind of explosive breakdown.
The Republican Party is now in a civil war.
You've got this crazy brawl.
You see what happened with Antifa?
Antifa guy got shot.
No joke.
I'll bring it up in the next segment at 4 p.m.
If you want to check that out, here's what you do.
First, subscribe, hit the like button, hit that notification bell, then go to your address bar, type it.
Type this in your address bar.
YouTube.com forward slash T-I-M-C-A-S-T.
As soon as you press enter, you will be at my other YouTube channel.
