Democrats INFILTRATED By Chinese Spies, Video Shows Chinese Professor BRAGGING Biden Is Compromised
Democrats INFILTRATED By Chinese Spies, Video Shows Chinese Professor BRAGGING Biden Is Compromised. New Report details how a Chinese spy infiltrated top Democrats.In a viral video a Chinese professor brags about how for decades they have "old friends" at the highest levels of US Government, Finance, and Politics and how they used that to influence the US into favorable positions for China. The professor laments that since Trump has been elected they are unable to "fix" things.He goes on to say that now that Biden was elected they will regain control of the core circle of power in the US and that Joe Biden's son was made wealthy insinuating it was them.Trump is fighting tooth and nail to stay in the presidency and now it seems that major conflict is brewing one way or another.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In a shocking revelation, Tucker Carlson played a video from China of a Chinese professor basically saying that for decades they were able to use old friends at the highest levels of American politics, the political elites, the establishment, To get what they want.
And all of that changed when Donald Trump got elected.
He goes on to say that with Joe Biden, things will become more favorable for China.
He mentions Joe Biden's son received very favorable deals, deals with China.
And you have to wonder who set those deals up.
He mentions their friends at the highest levels who are regaining control and says he can't say much more because he could compromise their identities.
Now, to what degree this guy actually knows what he's talking about, maybe he's just speculating as much as most of us do.
Because many of us, including myself, we've said for the longest time our politicians have been selling us out to Chinese interests for decades.
But there's more information here because Now we're getting a breaking news story from Axios that Eric Swalwell, Democrat from California, was actually infiltrated by a Chinese spy.
This, along with a story from 2018 about Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, who also had her office infiltrated by a Chinese spy.
Now I'm reticent to say that the Democrats have been infiltrated by Chinese spies and influence, but I think when you look at what's going on and who's running the Republican Party as of right now, Donald Trump has taken the reins from the political establishment on the right, but the Democrats remain as loyal to, well, their old friends as they've always been.
I believe that for some time, Republicans were in on the take, same as Democrats were.
And I don't think all of them were necessarily cognizant of the fact that they were being manipulated through markets and old friends, as this Chinese professor says.
I don't think they realized what was going on for the most part.
Many of these Democrats seem to be shocked that they had these spies working in their midst.
But I think they were absolutely favorable to them.
And when Donald Trump came in, and when he won, and he wasn't supposed to win, he changed things.
This threatened the established order of the political elites, who probably didn't care that much of their money was coming from Chinese influence, or didn't know.
But as we've seen with many of these professors who have been arrested for taking money from China, there are many establishment elites who advise and work in the highest levels of government who absolutely know they're taking a cut from China to undermine the United States of America.
The most damning thing about this revelation was when this man says Joe Biden's son got these deals and he asks, who do you think set those deals up?
The video was posted to Chinese social media has since been deleted, but the Internet is forever.
And now we're learning what's really going on.
This is scary stuff.
He says, you know, good news.
Trump lost.
We wanted to fix the Trump administration.
But Trump apparently lost to Joe Biden.
A lot of people are questioning what's going on with this election.
A lot of people are suspicious the fact that Joe Biden didn't campaign and yet he got more votes than Obama did.
That he broke every bellwether metric and lost almost every bellwether state, city, region, etc.
He lost the three bellwether states.
He lost 18 of 19 bellwether townships.
And he beat every bellwether metric like party registration, Google searches, There are many different ways by which we judge whether or not someone is on track to win.
And for some reason, despite all of these metrics being against Biden, he won.
Now, I'm not saying China influenced our election and cheated and somehow helped Joe Biden.
I'm just saying all of that now, combined with what we're hearing from China, is going to ignite extreme tensions.
And it plays into something that many Trump supporters have been highlighting for some time.
That Trump signed an executive order some time ago about foreign intervention or foreign influence in our elections and the powers that it would grant him in that event.
He says in this executive order that no later than 45 days the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, shall issue a report.
My friends, it's only been 35.
This could be a lot of nothing.
It could be some boisterous Chinese professor just acting big.
Maybe.
But we have the story from Axios.
The Chinese spies have infiltrated the Democratic Party to a certain degree.
Now, they've probably influenced Republicans as well, but the evidence we have points to the Democrats, to Joe Biden, his son, Dianne Feinstein, and Eric Swalwell.
Let's not waste any time, and we'll go right to the first story.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear it.
I know that many on the left, Resistance Democrats types are going to say it's not true.
And it's unfortunate.
But my qualms, my complaints have always been with the establishment elites, the people like Joe Biden.
Now, it's no surprise that we have corroborating evidence that they actually are not interested in supporting the American people and are selling us out to Chinese influence and interests.
It's what many of us have been saying for quite some time.
In fact, I was talking about it with Luke Radkowski on the IRL podcast just a couple of days ago.
There's Chinese influence and Chinese money, and the political establishment, Republicans included, loved it.
We're in on the take, and they were selling us out to better themselves.
Well then Trump came in, took control of the Republican Party, and many of these never-Trumpers who loved the establishment game and sold us out, joined the Democrats.
And that's the reality of what's happening.
If you think I'm rational and reasonable, and you think people need to know this, please share this video.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
Here's the story from the Daily Mail.
Trump tweets video of Chinese professor claiming that Beijing can swing U.S.
policy because it has, quote, people at the top of America's core inner circle of power, in clip that has been deleted from social media in China.
The video, which had originally been posted on Weibo, but has since been removed from Chinese social media according to Fox News, depicts Di Dongsheng, a professor and associate dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University in Beijing.
Tucker Carlson shared a clip at the top of his show on Monday evening.
In the video, Professor Dee suggests that China has managed to influence American policies for decades through a special undercover network of quote, old friends who are at the highest levels of the U.S.
government and financial institutions.
Dee notes that everything changed the moment the Trump administration came to power.
We can see there's the tweet of Tucker Carlson from Trump.
Although Di said he was unable to give specific details without compromising the identities of those involved, he revealed how President Trump's trade war with China caused huge upset over ties that had been nurtured for decades between Washington and Beijing.
Quote, Trump waged a trade war with us.
Why couldn't we handle him?
Why is it that between 1992 and 2016, we always resolved issues with the US?
Did you guys know?
Dee asked the Chinese audience in his 18-minute long presentation.
Quote, Now I'm going to drop a bomb because we had people up there inside America's core circle of power.
We had our old friends, said Dee, noting that he needed to speak carefully so as not to reveal the identities of those involved.
In plain and simple language, during the last three to four decades, we used the core circle inside America's real power.
Wall Street had a very profound influence over America's domestic and foreign affairs since the 1970s.
We used to heavily rely on them.
But the professor claims that after Trump was elected in 2016, quote, However, Dee noted that things are about to change once again, thanks to the incoming Biden administration.
contract between them, which made them hostile to each other.
During the US-China trade war, they tried to help.
My friends in US told me they tried to help, but they couldn't.
However, Dee noted that things are about to change once again, thanks to the incoming
Biden administration.
Once Biden is in the White House, Dee believes that China will once again be able to renew
its long-held connections.
My friends, I know it's a bold thing to say, but we call Joe Biden Beijing Biden for a
Before I read you this next part, which will be one of the most shocking quotes you'll have heard, Joe Biden, and this is a fact, used Air Force Two to fly his son to China to negotiate a private equity deal.
We have heard from Tony Bobulinski, who worked with the Bidens, the Bidens are compromised Joe Biden's son received a $5 million forgivable no-interest loan from China, according to a report that we've seen in many reports actually in the mainstream media.
Now let me read you this quote.
Now with Biden winning the election, the traditional elites, political elites, the establishment, they have a very close relationship with Wall Street.
You all heard that Trump said Biden's son has securities companies all over the world.
But who helped Biden's son build his global companies?
There are indeed buy and sell transactions involved in here.
So I think at this particular time, with Biden winning the election, it is of strategic and tactical value for us to show goodwill to him.
Let me just repeat the key part of that quote.
But who helped Biden's son build his global companies?
I suppose we can only speculate.
But I believe it's a fact.
It was China, the forgivable interest free loan.
Joe Biden using government property to bring his son to China to enrich his family.
That is a fact.
The only thing that's ever been disputed was whether or not Joe Biden himself was in on the take.
But does that matter when his family is personally benefiting off government property being used to bring his son to negotiate an equity deal?
When Joe Biden, the vice president, is flying there, well, that says a lot to the Chinese individuals who are influencing his son.
As Tony Bobulinski said in an interview with Tucker Carlson, the Bidens are compromised.
So I wonder then, how is it that Joe Biden is the greatest president in American history?
I know, I know.
Some might say just because he got those votes doesn't mean he's the greatest.
No, I dare say.
For someone to beat every bellwether metric—Google searches, party registration, voter enthusiasm, and the more silly metrics like Halloween mask sales—to defy 18 of the 19 bellwether townships and every bellwether state, it raises certain suspicions.
Certainly a president that good, who can win with that many votes, is the greatest president of all time.
I know I'm being silly.
You could argue that people really just hate Donald Trump.
But something isn't adding up.
Especially when Chinese individuals are bragging about their friends at the highest levels who are helping them.
Trump helped the American people, and we've heard it more and more.
There are secret recordings that were released where people were saying, I don't know if these were true, but, you know, if Trump wins, it's good for the American people.
If Hillary Clinton wins, you know, it would be good for people in Ukraine.
To the extent that this is true, I can only assume it is.
But I have to be reasonable and fair.
Is it just one Chinese professor?
Maybe he's saying basically what I've been saying, or what Tucker Carlson's been saying, or what Trump's been saying.
It's speculative, and it's based on just watching what's been going on.
I'm not saying that the old friends, the highest level of American politics, are working for China in a sort of a conspiratorial way, like they know what they're doing, or they're traitors.
They could just be reaping the benefits because that's an exploit in our system.
Wall Street, he mentions.
Investments, insider information, and things of that nature.
But based on the, I believe it's the Thousand Talents Program, I could be wrong, where Harvard professors and high-ranking, high-level individuals at universities were found to have been explicitly taking cash from China to sell secrets and recruit others.
I think they know what they've been doing.
And my friends, Mike Pompeo, February 8th, warns governors of Chinese infiltration into the U.S.
It's happening in your state.
Now I say, in this story, it's very serious.
It involves all politicians in both parties.
But the reason why I say, the Democrats, is not to imply that every Democrat is willfully subverting this nation.
No, I think the crony establishment elites are selling us out for their personal interest.
But we have, we have breaking information.
Exclusive!
A suspected Chinese intelligence operative bundled donations for Eric Swalwell's 2014 re-election campaign.
The operation targeted politicians in California and across the country.
Did Eric Swalwell win because the Chinese were secretly and illegally supporting him?
When he was made aware, he immediately disavowed and distanced himself.
And good for him.
But does that mean that we have people who are in our government, who have been subverting our nation and our politics because Chinese influence?
Swalwell may not be working for China.
I don't think there's evidence to suggest he is.
But this is the way it works, and let me explain something to you.
When I worked for the Disney company, the news company, they're very social justice-y, very leftist.
They did not issue a mandate that I or anyone else reports specifically.
I'll put it this way.
They didn't force us to report things we didn't like, but they heavily implied we should.
More importantly, they hired people they believed would be sympathetic to push the ideas they want.
A lot of people think that when you get this phone call, right?
These phone calls.
We have these phone calls coming out from CNN.
They think they're going to hear Jeff Zucker, president of CNN, telling the employees, we hate Trump, so lie about him.
What they do is they hire people who already hate Trump who believe the lies.
So here's what happens.
A news organization like the one I work for begins to publish far-left content because these people are far-leftists.
No one is forcing them to do it.
So if you have a political system, you don't need to force Eric Swalwell to push for impeachment or to claim that Trump works for Russia.
They need only find the person who believes it, help them get elected, and then let them run amok and cause damage to our country.
For years we heard about Russiagate.
And Swalwell was one of its biggest proponents.
He actually ran for president.
This guy was receiving help from Chinese spies.
I can already hear the left saying, but Tim, Trump was receiving help from Russia.
I'm only going to say this.
Fine.
I entertained all of that during Russiagate.
I did segments about the Russian influence.
And I even said, there's evidence and we'll have to follow and see where it goes.
And I reminded people, it may be that Trump did something wrong.
Ultimately, we learned he didn't.
And now we're learning of Chinese infiltration and influence among Democrats and not just Eric Swalwell, but also Dianne Feinstein.
And I'm going to play the exact same game I did last time.
I'm going to try and be as fair as possible and entertain the strong possibility and the facts.
My friends, it is more than just...
Speculation.
Swalwell has even stated to the fact, yes, they knew about this.
Now, you can say that Trump and his and Don Junior, they've talked with Russians and things like that.
It's true as well.
So I'm more than willing to wait and see how this investigation plays out, because with these statements coming from this professor, I am very, very concerned about what that means for this election.
Did the Chinese provide resources to the Biden family that aided Joe Biden, knowing that providing hard assets would allow them to grow and become more influential?
Giving a $5 million forgivable interest-free loan to the Biden family?
That was what really offended Bobby Linsky, it would seem.
That he told them not to do this, not to take money.
He's the guy who worked at the Biden family.
He said, don't take the money from this government.
And they went behind his back and enriched themselves anyway.
He said, the Bidens are compromised.
I can only put it as simply as I can, I suppose, and make a bold statement.
If he is correct, and what this Chinese professor Di Dongsheng is saying is true, the Biden family is influenced or compromised by Chinese interests.
I don't know what we do.
I've long said that I believe that China has been seeking to subvert this country, and that's because it's not a controversial opinion.
Many people have said that, but now what we're seeing is particularly worrisome.
Before I read about Axios, I want to go back in time and show you this.
Details surface about Senator Feinstein and the Chinese spy who worked for her.
They say, it happened five years ago, so this is 2013, but additional information is just starting to surface about how the Bay Area Senator's office was infiltrated by a Chinese spy.
The Bay Area is a hotbed for Russian and Chinese espionage.
Late last year, the Feds shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco.
You may remember the thick black smoke billowing from a building before Russian diplomats turned it over to authorities, presumably produced by burning documents.
Now all eyes are on Chinese intelligence in the Bay Area, after the website Politico reported last week that a staffer for Senator Feinstein turned out to be a Chinese spy who reported back to the government officials about local politics.
Now, I showed you this photo of Suoluo with this woman.
This woman is Christine Feng, and apparently she is the spy, or working for Chinese intelligence in some capacity.
We also have the photo of all the Republicans with Marina Butina, I believe her name was.
She was also accused of being a spy by the U.S., and I believe she's still being held.
It's been a long time since I reported on her.
These things go both ways.
I have no problem talking about the Republicans and the photos and being skeptical about many of these claims.
Maybe that the D. Dongsheng video, this segment he did, this presentation, was meant to sow doubt in our elections and inflame tensions and ignite potentially a civil war of something.
It's entirely possible, which is why we have to be very, very careful about how we move forward.
Yes, we have seen Russians trying to influence many people, including Republicans.
And we are seeing the Chinese trying to influence Democrats.
Could it be that the Russians feel like their way into US politics is through the right, and the Chinese Communist Party believes it's through the left?
It's entirely possible.
We went through the Russiagate stuff.
I believe it's only fair we go through now, I guess what you would call a Chinese infiltration gate or whatever?
I don't know, whatever.
This is a story from Axios.
Suspected Chinese spy targeted California politicians.
A suspected Chinese intelligence operative developed extensive ties with local and national politicians, including a U.S.
congressman.
In what U.S.
officials believe was a political intelligence operation run by China's main civilian spy agency, between 2011 and 2015, Axios found in a year-long investigation.
Why it matters.
The alleged operation offers a rare window into how Beijing has tried to gain access and influence U.S.
political circles.
While the suspected operative activities appear to have ended during the Obama administration, concerns about Beijing's influence operations have spanned President Trump's time in office and will continue to be a core focus for U.S.
counterintelligence during the Biden administration.
To put it simply, Di Deng Xiang is not wrong.
Up until 2016, they had influence, they had power, and they had old friends manipulating the game at the highest levels of the U.S.
government.
But something changed.
Somehow, Donald Trump beat all the odds and won.
And that was when Chinese influence lost its power, and they want it back.
That's where things get really scary, because we've already heard it from Mike Pompeo in February.
Let me refresh your memory on the story.
Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated various levels of America's infrastructure and is working to destroy the values of the United States, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during a speech Saturday, while also warning state governors to be wary of China's infiltration.
Quote, We can't ignore China's actions and strategic intentions, he said while addressing the National Governors Association winter meeting.
The Chinese government has been methodical in the way it's analyzed our system.
It's assessed our vulnerabilities and has decided to exploit our freedoms to gain an advantage over us at the federal level, the state level, and the local level.
Competition with China is happening.
It's happening in your state.
In fact, I'd be surprised if most of you in the audience had not been lobbied by the Chinese Communist Party directly.
He said groups loyal to Communist China are operating out in the open in Virginia, Minnesota, Florida, and dozens of other states all around the country.
Other Chinese groups, however, practice their nefarious actions in the shadows in an attempt to exercise influence over U.S.
citizens and lawmakers.
Pompeo cited a letter from a diplomat at the Chinese consul in New York to the speaker of an unnamed state legislature advising that U.S.
officials refrain from independent interaction with Taiwan.
Quote, You had a diplomat from China assigned here to the U.S., a representative of the Chinese Communist Party in New York City, sending a letter urging that an American elected official shouldn't exercise his right to freedom of speech.
The Secretary said this isn't an uncommon event, and that Chinese officials based in the U.S.
are actively seeking to sow seeds of chaos in the state and local level, specifically in the realm of education on college campuses and K-12 classrooms.
Maybe some of you have heard about the time when the Chinese consulate paid the UC San Diego students to protest the Dalai Lama.
It shows depth.
It shows systemization.
It shows intent.
He added, Chinese Communist Party officials too are cultivating relationships with county school boards and local politicians, often through what are known as sister city programs.
This competition is well underway.
Hopeo also spoke about China's campaign to recruit U.S.
scientists and academics to share vital secrets in exchange for monetary gain through their Thousand Talents Plan, a campaign that has already targeted scientists and professors on campuses such as Virginia Tech and Harvard and triggered investigations by the DOJ.
He also explained how Beijing pressures Chinese students in the U.S.
to keep an eye on their fellow countrymen and report back to the government about their activities.
China's propaganda starts even earlier than college.
China has targeted K-12 schools around the world.
Do you know that we have no ability to establish similar programs in China?
We should have reciprocity in all things.
Today they have free reign in our system, and we are completely shut out from theirs.
Beijing knows that today's kids are tomorrow's leaders.
Pompeo then warned state governors about doing business with China, and said it is common to indirectly finance communism without realizing it.
He then extended the hand of the federal government and said, the Trump administration is standing by, ready to help states with this growing problem.
I want to urge vigilance on the local level, too.
It's worth trusting but verifying these federal officials prepared to help you work your way through these challenges when they arise.
Don't make separate individual deals that undermine our national policy.
I know none of you would do so intentionally.
Let us help you.
I hope you will all take on board what I've said today.
Don't lose sight of the competition from China that's already present in your state.
Let's all rise to the occasion and protect our security, our economy, indeed, all that we hold dear.
My friends, welcome to Fifth Generational Warfare.
It's an information war.
There was, I believe, UC San Diego published a paper on this a year ago, or longer.
This is what we're currently in.
China knows they will not win a war by storming the beaches of California.
They'll win a war by seeding ideas and disrupting our way of life and our traditions and our values and what we hold dear.
I am not pretending that every or trying to assert every tradition of America is a good one.
We certainly have a lot to do away with and a lot to uphold.
We've done great things as a nation, we've improved the rights of people all around the world, and we've lifted people out of poverty.
But they want to subvert the United States with nonsensical ideas.
I believe that much of what we see within intersectionality and the rise of the socialist left is seeded by China.
There are certainly, there's certainly evidence to suggest that's the case.
Mike Pompeo says outright, professors are in on the take.
Insofar as, you know, this being a widespread conspiracy, I don't know anything about that.
I just think that China has influence, and they influence certain ideas that would undermine the United States.
And I think it's plainly obvious to most people that something is going on that's causing this country to rip itself apart.
I want to show you something psychotic.
The New Yorker Steve Cole NY suggests Mark Zuckerberg's profound support of free speech is problematic, saying,
Those of us in journalism have come to terms with the fact that free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being
weaponized against the principles of journalism.
Steve Cole of New York is the dean, the graduate school of journalism at Columbia University, and a staff writer at
the New Yorker, who is undermining free speech and criticizing what the
First Amendment, what free speech grants us.
These ideas are becoming pervasive across the country.
Many people on the left no longer support free speech.
They used to.
It was the liberals on the left who long supported free speech.
Now they don't.
Now they're calling for hate speech regulations.
They're supporting multinational, billion-dollar corporations who would seek to suppress our rights, the rights of American citizens, and to dominate what's called the commons.
The commons are the places that we share.
The parks, the town halls, the things that we do to facilitate our public life and to facilitate our governance.
They're being dominated by special interests, many of whom are beholden to China.
As Jack Dorsey himself told me when I was on the Joe Ruggan podcast, he has a global audience.
That's who he's catering to.
Well, we're the United States.
We will not subvert our political discourse in the name of allowing some foreign country to have influence over how our discourse happens.
But it's been happening more and more.
And the Democrats are the ones supporting the restrictions on speech.
The Democrats are the ones who have been pushing moral authoritarian cancel culture type.
You know, policies and practices for some time.
It is the Democrats that are becoming increasingly far left with nonsensical rules that make no sense and would destroy this country.
I know.
Perhaps I'm biased.
They say I'm right-wing and all that stuff.
Okay.
But let me tell you.
Policy-wise, I lean left on many issues.
I just don't think someone coming out saying that... Here's what we saw from the Chicago Teachers Union.
They said that it was racist to open schools.
We all heard from the New York Times that it was racist to shut down schools.
Which is it?
The point is, these ideas of intersectionality have no logical conclusion, and there is no right.
It is only, you're wrong, and it is power.
When we see how that is subverting this country, I can only imagine that China is at least cheering for it.
They said in the past several years that Russia was funding rival culture war factions.
That may be what we're seeing right now, so let me put it this way.
I believe in the Constitution, the right of free speech, practicing your own religion, and all of these things.
I disagree with the idea of exploiting COVID for some great reset.
However, with all the differences we have in this country, it's important to point out, this video that I showed you in the beginning, of Di Dongsheng, may be an attempt to just inflame tensions.
But therein lies the great problem.
I'm not going to compromise with someone who believes segregation is a good thing.
It'll never happen.
But they're calling for it.
They're trying to implement segregation policies.
And there are certainly some libertarian types.
It's an ideological position, not a necessary left or right, but it's predominant on the left.
I'm not going to negotiate with people who would call for nonsensical laws and rule changes, who would want to abolish the Electoral College or the Constitution, which they've called for.
The New Republic is not some random You know, blog.
They're a prominent leftist publication who's already put out an article saying it's time for the left to fight with getting rid of our Constitution.
There are certain ideas becoming prominent in this country that will destroy us.
I don't know how you solve this problem.
Because I think in the end, the only thing that's going to happen is these factions are large and angry with each other.
Perhaps Donald Trump was the only opportunity we had to push back on China.
But I'll leave you with one final thought.
Trump's executive order on imposing certain sanctions in the event of foreign interference in a U.S.
election.
Maybe we're getting close to that.
It's safe harbor day.
I don't know ultimately how everything will play out, but there are many lawsuits moving forward and Trump may still win.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
But I do think Biden is beholden to China.
I think I think Biden is absolutely beholden to China because his son is and his son is compromised and they probably have compromise on his son.
Like they said, who do you think helped his son get where he is?
Perhaps it was their old friends.
I am very worried about what a what a Biden presidency is.
I'll tell you, outside of all of this, Biden wants to increase the minimum wage.
He wants to increase corporate taxes, and as part of the Obama administration, he was in favor of free trade agreements.
Do you know what the combination of those three things will do?
Companies will have to increase their wages, which is their costs, by 30% or more in a short amount of time.
They'll then see their taxes skyrocket, and they'll be told at the same time, but don't worry.
If you use cheap Chinese labor, you can send all those products back to America free of charge.
So why wouldn't they?
Today is Safe Harbor Day and we will see how things play out.
Stick around tonight at 8pm live over at youtube.com slash timcast.rl.
I will be joined by, as far as I can tell right now, a legal expert and we will be discussing what's going on with Safe Harbor Day and these challenges to the electors and the vote and perhaps Donald Trump really does have a path to victory or maybe it's just a big pipe dream of Trump supporters who don't want to let go.
We'll find out.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all at 8pm live.
Happy Constitutional Safe Harbor Day, everyone.
This is the day by which all disputes over the election results must be resolved.
Otherwise, there's some technicalities here.
The electoral votes will not be tabulated properly, or it could cause delays.
You know, there's been a lot of arguments I've seen from left-legal scholars and right-legal scholars, but today is the day, so they say.
And how about this?
Texas sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over election rules.
I did not see this coming, although I did kind of allude to the possibility of something like this when I mentioned There's a lawsuit going through Pennsylvania right now.
Or I should say it's at the Supreme Court.
Challenging the constitutionality of mail-in voting.
It's called Act 77.
This is the no-excuse mail-in voting provision.
Many on the left said the Supreme Court will not take up a case that is internal state matters.
That the Supreme Court shot it down saying they were too late to challenge the law.
Why would the Supreme Court get involved when they have federal jurisdiction?
To put it simply, what Pennsylvania does with this election will impact other states in the Union.
So, Texas has decided to sue, saying that these four states are in violation of the Constitution, because in one way or another, they changed the election rules without the approval of the state legislatures, who have ultimate say in how their elections are run and who the electors will be.
The governors, the courts, secretaries of state, have changed the rules in many circumstances unilaterally, even in Pennsylvania.
I know, I know.
You've been following the story.
Many people are probably already saying, the Republicans in Pennsylvania passed the no-excuse mail-in voting law.
That may be.
But there have already been complaints from many Republicans in the state that when they did pass it, they didn't think they were going to see all of these random rule changes around mail-in voting after the fact.
The Pennsylvania courts extended deadlines, for instance, allowed for curing things they didn't expect would happen.
Thus, the rules were changed without approval of the state legislatures, many of which are trying to challenge these outcomes and are being blocked.
In Georgia, for instance, the Republicans have called for a special session.
Governor Brian Kemp said no, and he's a Republican.
Pennsylvania, we've seen something similar, and many other states.
In Arizona, there's a lawsuit to decertify the results.
They are all being blocked.
If the state legislature says it is so, it is so.
Now, I must stress something.
The only source I have on this is Breitbart.com.
Now, according to NewsGuard, and I'm doing this for an important reason.
I know a lot of people... Okay, NewsGuard's not loading.
Oh, there we go.
Breitbart does not publish false content, and more importantly, they've actually published the filing, where you can read it.
I highly doubt that this was fabricated in some way, this massive 92-page court filing, and I will stress, Look, Breitbart doesn't publish fake news for the most part.
The reason they got a negative rating is because they filmed the press conference with the doctors outside of Washington.
Before that, Breitbart was considered certified credible.
But, I imagine this is going to get picked up soon, and the reason why it only exists at Breitbart is because they likely have a source and a scoop.
This suit was filed just before midnight on the 7th, and it is now, you know, in the wee early hours of the morning as I record this.
Many outlets probably haven't even been able to catch up.
Let's read the story, and then we have a breakdown of exactly why they're probably going to win this one, and this is huge.
This is going to change the outcome of the election, in my opinion.
We'll see.
They say, Texas argues these states violated the Elector's Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures.
Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
Finally, Texas argues that there were voting irregularities in these states as a result of the above.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors, the lawsuit says.
Certain officials in the defendant states presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting.
The defendant states flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted.
Whether well-intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect.
They made the 2020 election less secure in the defendant states.
Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures.
The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
The case presents a question of law.
Did the defendant's states violate the Elector's Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
These non-legislative changes to the defendant's state's election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Elector's Clause of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S.
Constitution.
By these unlawful acts, the defendant's states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens' vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in plaintiff state and other states that remain loyal to the Constitution.
Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because Article 3 provides that it is the court of first impression on subjects where it has original jurisdiction, such as disputes between two or more states.
So we have the filing here, You can actually read through it.
Really, really interesting.
They basically say in their opening statement, either the Constitution matters or it doesn't.
And it's a good point.
They say interest rate differences in the treatment of voters, more favorable, all that stuff I already read.
Now, we have this from Breitbart.
Kobach.
Texas case challenges election directly at Supreme Court.
Let me slow down for a second and give you my personal opinion on this.
As I mentioned earlier, This is a dispute between states.
Texas, as a member of the union, wants to play by the rules, appoint their electors, and vote for who they think president should be.
In many states, however, there are competing interests.
It is the interest of the state legislature that is paramount.
Texas, watching these other states break the rules and play willy-nilly with the Constitution, are basically saying, why are we going to be negatively impacted as to who we want to win because these states broke the rules and violated the Constitution?
I mean, that's dangerous precedent.
A state is straight up saying, you are trying to cheat us.
Think about it.
It's one thing when you have political parties.
It's one thing when you have people.
You get a guy going around at the sign saying Trump won and someone's screaming, no he didn't, Biden won.
And that's individuals fighting.
But we have 50 states and we have one state saying our votes matter and you cheating is changing the game.
It's now escalated to the highest position it could probably be.
Now, I asked some people with legal opinions, I guess, so just put it that way, and ultimately we don't know how this will play out.
I had some conversations about this.
We don't know how it's going to play out.
The relief they're asking for is pushing the deadline on the Electoral College vote.
But I'll tell you, the other day, and I've been saying this, it sure does seem like Donald Trump is not expecting to leave.
He's making all these moves like he knows he's going to be staying in office, and maybe he will be.
Texas is no random GOP, no Sidney Powell, no Lynwood.
That is not Texas.
I'm sorry, that is not Texas.
Texas is a good-standing, large state in this country, and they are saying, I ain't playing.
But check this out, here's the analysis from Breitbart.
When they go on to say that Texas filed the suit directly in the Supreme Court, Article 3 of the Constitution lists a small number of categories of cases in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.
One of those categories concerns, quote, controversies between two or more states.
Texas's suit is exactly that.
The Supreme Court has opined in the past that it may decline to accept such cases at its discretion.
But it is incumbent upon the High Court to take this case, especially when it presents a such cut-and-dried question of constitutional law, and when it could indirectly decide who is sworn in as president on January 20th, 2021.
The Texas suit is clear, and it presents a compelling case.
The four offending states each violated the U.S.
Constitution in two ways.
First, they violated the Elector's Clause of Article 2 of the Constitution when executive or judicial officials in the states change the rules of the election without going through the state legislatures.
The Elector's Clause requires that each state shall appoint its presidential electors in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.
In the early years of the Republic, most state legislatures appointed their presidential electors directly, without holding a popular election for president.
That would change during the early decades of the 19th century.
But the Constitution principle remained the same.
Regardless of whether a state appoints its electors by a vote in the legislature or by a vote of the people, it is the state legislature, and only the state legislature, that sets the rules.
So let me stop there and just give you a basic breakdown of this.
At a certain point in the 1800s and the 1900s, we started making a bunch of constitutional changes where we passed off the power bestowed, granted by the Constitution to certain political bodies, to the popular vote.
This is particularly true of the 17th Amendment in the early 1900s.
Senators used to be appointed by the states, by the state representatives.
Or politicians in varying degrees.
So they would all vote, and then you would get a senator going to the U.S.
Congress, the upper chamber, by appointment, essentially, of elected officials.
And there have been people who literally said it was because they wanted better men to choose.
No joke.
The Constitution did not set out a direct democracy.
It is a constitutional republic with safeguards to prevent tyranny of the majority.
And that's what we're seeing right now.
Over time, you could argue that we have given away many of these powers to popular vote.
With some detriments.
And now we're seeing the power still lies in the state legislatures.
It doesn't matter if in 1930, I think it was 1938, the Pennsylvania State Legislature gave the power to appoint electors to the Secretary of State.
Meaningless.
Because the Constitution didn't do that.
And the way I've been describing it before, if you've seen my other videos, is if I have a deal with John to deliver, you know, something to my house every day, but then eventually I say, you know, I'm gonna have Bill go pick it up, Bill doesn't get to negotiate for me.
The deal is still between me and John, just because I got someone picking up, you know, the pizzas or the package or whatever, doesn't mean that I lost my negotiating power.
So when Bill then tells me I can't negotiate, I'm like, nah, I ain't playing that.
I'm just gonna go to John directly.
That's what we're seeing right now.
These state legislatures have been trying to challenge the results in many of these states, and the governor is saying, nah.
In Pennsylvania, he said no.
In Georgia, he said no.
But they don't have the power to block this.
Not the federal level.
In which case, the Supreme Court's probably going to be like, we don't care who you are.
You are not the legislature.
We want to hear what their vote is.
And so be it.
He goes on to say, When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended by three days the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots contrary to the law passed by the state legislature, the state court changed the rules in violation of the Elector's Clause.
Similarly, when Georgia's Secretary of State responded to a lawsuit by entering into a compromise settlement agreement and release, i.e.
a consent decree, with the Democratic Party of Georgia and modified the signature verification requirements spelled out by Georgia law, that changing of the rules violated the Elector's Clause.
The second constitutional violation occurred when individual counties in each of the four states changed the way that they would receive, evaluate, or treat ballots.
Twenty years ago, in the landmark case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when one Florida county treated ballots one way and another Florida county treated ballots a different way.
Voters had the constitutional right to have their ballots treated equally from county to county.
So when election officials in Wayne County, Michigan ignored the requirements of Michigan law and denied poll watchers access to vote counting, while other counties in Michigan followed the law, that violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Similarly, in Wisconsin, when the administrator of the City of Milwaukee Elections Commission ignored the requirements of Wisconsin law and directed election workers to write in the addresses of witnesses on the envelopes containing mail-in ballots, while ballots without witness addresses were deemed invalid elsewhere, That resulted in unequal treatment of ballots in the state.
Now, I'm going to stop there.
We've already seen rulings, I believe, I'm not sure, I think a federal court has already said, you need more than that for it to be a violation of the Equal Protections Clause.
Simply because different counties were treating things differently doesn't mean they were directly targeting political parties or trying to injure one party, and that the remedy would have been, why not sue one of these other states instead of this state?
Or, I'm sorry, one of these counties.
When the Republicans sued in Allegheny in Philadelphia, citing that these Democrat counties were favoring Democrats, they said, then why not sue the Republican counties for not giving the benefit?
And it's an interesting point.
We'll see how it plays out.
They're going to say, the Texas lawsuit presents a pure question of law.
It is not dependent upon disputed facts.
Although these unconstitutional changes to the election rules could have facilitated voter fraud, the state of Texas doesn't need to prove a single case of fraud to win.
It is enough that the four states violated the Constitution.
The lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to remand the appointment of electors in the four states back to the state legislatures.
As the Supreme Court said in 1892, in the case of McPherson v. Blaker, Whatever provisions may be made by statute or by the state constitution to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislator to resume that power at any time.
I have been mentioning this and citing it when I say, if the state legislator says, no, we're going to appoint whoever we want, well then, there you go.
We are not a direct democracy.
I don't know if Trump's gonna win, baby, but today is Safe Harbor Day and things are starting to look really spicy.
I look forward to seeing this story get written about in other outlets.
We'll see.
Let's read some more.
The lawsuit asks if Texas prevails, the four state legislatures could follow any number of courses in appointing their presidential electors.
They could assess the election results and try to exclude those ballots that were counted in violation of state law in order to determine a winner.
Or they could divide their electoral college votes between the two candidates.
Or they could follow a different path.
But they have to follow the Constitution in whatever they do.
In the rest of the country, the states follow the constitutional rules in appointing presidential electors.
The offending states cannot be allowed to violate those same rules.
It's not just a matter of constitutional law.
It's a matter of basic fairness.
I have been pointing this out over and over again.
The Democrats were changing the rules at the last minute, an 11th hour rule change, in order to cheat.
That's right.
I'm gonna say it.
Cheat.
And you know what?
I don't like playing these semantic games, so I looked up the definition of cheat, and I looked up the definition of evidence, and I don't play silly games.
I guess, although I am playing a silly game by even doing this.
Cheating.
Changing the rules, enacting something or doing something in an unfair way to advantage oneself.
That's what the Democrats did.
They didn't go through the state legislatures as they were required to.
Why?
Because the state legislators in these states are Republicans.
Oh no, what are we going to do?
The Republicans are going to block us.
Yes, you want to talk about democracy.
Let's talk about democracy.
When the people of Pennsylvania elect a Republican General Assembly, both chambers controlled by Republicans, that is your democracy.
And if you want to change the rules, you go through who the people voted for.
But when you arbitrarily change the rules in the courts, or through the governor or the secretary of state, that's not democracy.
That's despotism.
That's some authority executive figure saying, I hereby change the rules, so be it.
The GOP did pass no-excuse mail-in voting in October of 2019 in Pennsylvania.
And that was a huge mistake and is likely unconstitutional.
Now, that was the GOP and the governor, but what came after is where the complaints are coming in.
That they didn't realize the deadlines would be changed, there'd be no signature verification, the Democrats would be favored to do all the securing.
That was not what they intended with no-excuse mail-in voting.
It doesn't really matter all that much anyway because we actually have another lawsuit headed, uh, well, we're, we're, uh, as of right now, the time of recording this, the official response should be in from the state of Pennsylvania, the lawyers, to the Supreme Court as to why it was constitutional to violate the Constitution.
I'm not kidding!
That's, okay, let me slow down.
The no-excuse mail-in voting in Pennsylvania is unconstitutional.
And a lower court judge already opined, issued an opinion saying as such.
Basically, the Pennsylvania Constitution makes a specific, lays out specifically what absentee ballots are for.
No excuse mail-in voting just flouts those rules.
Supreme Court said, we got the argument from the Republicans.
State, you have until December 8th at 9am to respond.
What are they going to say?
We're allowed to violate the Constitution?
Okay, okay, alright, let me slow down.
They're probably going to say something like, we didn't in fact violate the Constitution because mail-in votes are not absentee votes.
Absentee votes function as such.
I have to imagine Supreme Court won't agree with that.
They're going to say something like, substantively, the absentee ballot is mail-in voting.
Simply calling it something else and making it less secure doesn't change the intent of the Constitution.
In which case, baby...
This is everything.
Today is the big day.
We are going to see every machine gun salvo, rockets flying through the air, figuratively I mean, in lawfare, that we will see.
Today is the big day.
It's not the last day.
Because as the lawsuit from Texas said, the only date that matters is January 20th as per the Constitution.
Everything else is kind of just like, oh well, what about this date?
Yeah.
They want a stay, an injunction blocking electoral, the counting of the appointment of the electors.
So what does this mean?
I don't know.
If they're not resolved by today, the Supreme Court could just say, sorry, you changed your rules, another state sued, you're in dispute, Joe Biden does not get 270.
Think about what they said.
The states could even theoretically split up their votes, thus nullifying them outright.
So then who ends up winning?
I'd have to do the math, I haven't actually checked.
But I think it would end up with, I don't know, Trump might win, maybe not.
It's hard to know for sure.
But with these four states, I think we've got, let's see, I think it's between Michigan and Georgia, it's 32.
And then what are they saying?
Let's look at these states.
Let's do some quick math.
Georgia and Michigan, it's 16 between both, that's 32.
Pennsylvania is 20, so 52.
And Wisconsin, I believe, is 16.
That's going to split up a ton of votes that will ultimately hurt Joe Biden.
Because without these, you've got, what are we looking at, 68 votes?
Joe Biden drops down.
Actually, I don't know.
Joe Biden might still be able to get it.
He would drop down to around, what is that, like 240 or so, and then he would get a boost of more than 30.
Splitting the votes would mean a Joe Biden victory, I believe.
Look, I have to look at the map and actually go through the electoral votes, because I might be wrong about those numbers.
Well, we'll see.
I'll tell you this.
I really look forward to seeing what the New York Times has to say about this.
Breitbart got the scoop.
We'll see how it plays out.
So as of right now, as I mentioned, we're likely going to get a response from the Pennsylvania state as to why they were allowed to change the mail-in voting rules.
That's happening today.
We have a bunch of other stories.
Ted Cruz, I got another story already.
Ted Cruz says he's going to argue in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the Republicans in Pennsylvania.
Things are getting spicy.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
I didn't cover the 9 a.m.
response because I record this around that time.
It's about an hour before publishing, so I couldn't.
So let's see how things play out.
1 p.m.
on this channel.
Today is the big day.
We are going to see crazy, crazy action.
So stick around, 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Pennsylvania's election lawyers have filed their response to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of mail-in voting in the state, and my friends, we are at a crossroads.
There is no good way to solve this problem right now.
Either we throw out Pennsylvania as an unconstitutional election, which in my opinion it was, causing millions of people to have their votes enfranchised and potentially igniting some kind of major conflict between whatever the political factions are, or We outright ignore the Constitution and say that we can do whatever we want because the Constitution is but a parchment of paper that means nothing.
Right now, as most of you probably know, but for those that don't, there is a lawsuit currently docketed in the Supreme Court.
It is challenging what's called Act 77 in Pennsylvania, a law passed in October of last year creating no excuse mail-in voting.
The only problem is that Pennsylvania already has an absentee ballot provision, And when they were passing this law, they actually started the constitutional amendment process and stopped halfway, changed around some words, essentially creating the exact same law, but trying to circumvent the Constitution.
In my opinion, upon reading all of this, based on reading all this, it does seem like the Republicans and basically the entire government of Pennsylvania created no-excuse mail-in voting In violation of their own state constitution, and essentially in violation of the U.S.
Constitution, based on what's happening right now.
The lawsuit was docketed with the Supreme Court, and Samuel Alito instructed the state to respond to the suit by this morning, which they did.
In what may be the most shocking response I've seen, they straight up said, if you take this, you could undermine the Republic.
I want you to stop and think about that for a second, and then we'll read through this.
We have more news, too.
Arizona, several lawmakers are invoking Section 2, I don't know what, Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, saying they have the sole power to appoint electors.
So things are getting spicy.
I want you to think about what they've just said in Pennsylvania.
We violated our own Constitution, in turn the U.S.
Constitution.
We are violating Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
But if you dare consider this, you will undermine the Republic.
That is nightmarishly psychotic.
But I feel like no matter which way this goes, there will be an undermining of the system to some capacity.
To me, there's only one logical answer.
Pennsylvania's mail-in votes must be discarded.
Absolutely.
It is the fault of Pennsylvania's lawmakers for disenfranchising all these voters.
But if we ignore the Constitution or rule that it's better to uphold pretense than the actual Constitution, supreme law of the land, then we will not have a republic.
And that's the scary reality.
Let me read to you from Law and Crime.
PA election lawyers urge Justice Alito to reject one of the most dramatic, disruptive cases of all time.
Perhaps.
But think about that.
You, the state, Pennsylvania, including Republicans, are the ones who fractured and broke your own election in violation of your own constitution.
You had no right to do so.
In fact, I think all of these individuals in Pennsylvania should sue you for damages or do something.
Here's what they say.
Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday morning filed court papers before U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to oppose a lawsuit filed by U.S.
Rep.
Mike Kelly, a Republican from that state who zealously supports President Donald Trump.
Kelly's lawsuit argues that Pennsylvania's Supreme Court violated the U.S.
Constitution When it failed to rule recently that the state election law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution.
In Kelly's view, Pennsylvania's bipartisan decision to expand the use of mail-in ballots via 2019, a law known as Act 77, conflicts with more narrow absentee voter provisions contained in the state constitution.
In summary, Kelly's case seeks basically to flip the election in Trump's favor in Pennsylvania.
The Commonwealth attorneys minced no words in a scathing opening paragraph.
Now, I want to point out, Sean Parnell, who is also party to this lawsuit, a plaintiff, I spoke with him and he said their goal is not to overturn the results.
They want the courts to determine what proper relief would be.
Well, I think they're right.
There is a provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution about what an absentee vote is.
You can vote by mail under specific circumstances.
They're trying to use a semantic argument to get around their own Constitution, violating the rights of their citizens.
That's their fault, not anyone else's.
Now, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shot this down, saying you didn't file soon enough.
I think that's insane.
If you don't know it exists, how can you set a deadline on whether someone should know it exists?
That makes no sense.
If you discover, right now, there's a constitutional violation, it should be heard by the courts.
More importantly, Mike Kelly won his race.
He will be negatively impacted, no matter what, if there is relief to be found.
Well, I suppose if they say, the election stands, but we're gonna do a constitutional amendment moving forward, he would still win his case.
But he's risking tremendous damage to his own personal career.
Here's what the state said.
Petitioners, Kelly and others, ask this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the republic.
No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor's certification of presidential election results, and for good reason.
Once the door is open to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it'll be awfully hard to close that door again.
The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power will be incalculable, they say, once the door is opened to judicial invalidation.
My friends, you did that!
You did that.
They were amending the Constitution to create mail-in voting and stopped halfway.
They knew they were violating the Constitution of their state.
And now they would dare say that Samuel Alito, by taking the case of the Supreme Court, would be the ones actually committing the damage?
No, they would be rectifying and healing the damage, which is why The damage has been done.
There is no ruling by which we get a clean way out.
Either they say, Pennsylvania, F you.
You screwed this up.
That's on you.
And you'll have millions of people outraged.
And they should be outraged at their own state.
Republicans and Democrats alike.
Or they say, you know what?
You're right.
We refuse to actually provide relief to this unconstitutional action by the state.
You know what that would mean?
It would mean in the future.
State legislatures or governors or courts could issue rulings that completely violate the U.S.
Constitution, and then the courts are going to say, well, we don't want to get, you know, we don't want to cause some kind of ruckus, so we're just going to allow unconstitutional edict.
That is a nightmare.
They're going to say the response in opposition highlights the severity of the relief Kelly seeks, while simultaneously scuttling the way his lawyers pressed their case.
Kelly's claims, the Commonwealth says, are not of the utmost constitutional gravity, but are instead fundamentally frivolous.
According to the Commonwealth, Kelly's lawyers failed to explain how a remedy premised on massive disenfranchisement would accord with a due process clause which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules as implemented and described by state officials.
The Constitution.
Let me explain it for you.
You can't just come out a year before an election, say, we're going to completely ignore and disregard the actual election rules codified in the Constitution, and then say, oh, but we described it this way so we can do it.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
We refer to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and I assume Pennsylvania does that for their state as well.
I don't see it.
Look, I'm not a lawyer.
Alito might say, you're right.
We cannot upend this election because it would rip apart this country.
Maybe.
Or maybe they'll say, nice try, nice attempt at ripping apart this country.
It's not going to work.
They say, quote, Nor do Kelly's lawyers seek to square their position with the separation of powers, the 12th Amendment, or basic principles of federalism, all of which foreclose the injunctive relief that petitioners seek here.
Its lawyers also picked apart the way Kelly's attorneys made their arguments, saying, the first question, which seeks to raise elections and electors clause challenges to Act 77, is not actually presented by this case.
And the second question, which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in its application of laches, asks this court to constitutionalize huge swaths of state procedural law without any credible basis in constitutional principles or this court's precedents.
Oh, please, spare me.
The judges can make the rulings that they want.
They then trolled Kelly's legal team with words for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
in a recent Trump decision, saying, These failings also explain why equity stands as an insuperable
obstacle to petitioners' application.
Quote, Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly and
finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof.
The public must have confidence that our government honors and respects their votes.
Full stop.
You violated the Constitution, and this argument, in my opinion,
has no bearing on whether or not, from the start of this, you broke the rules.
Yes, lawful votes.
Thank you for including that word.
Now, we're trying to determine whether or not the votes were lawful and should be counted.
Not whether or not there's proof of fraud, like this other observation was impacted.
We're talking about whether or not the people who filed mail-in votes have cast lawful votes.
If the Supreme Court wants to rule on that, that's incumbent upon the Supreme Court.
They said petitioners would throw all of that to the wind after waiting over a year to challenge Act 77.
You're operating under the assumption that they KNEW you were violent in the Constitution.
So, please, spare me.
They say, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state.
They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash.
In ensuing equitable relief, the court rightly seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder.
So to say that the public interest militates against petitioners would be a grave understatement.
Their suit is nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy.
It should meet a swift and decisive end.
A lot of assumptions here.
Now, of course, they're going to make their arguments, and I respect their right to do so, but I'm sorry.
Mike Kelly is going to lose, or they'll have to do a new election.
He won his race.
If they say these votes are unconstitutional, then here's what would really help the Republicans.
If they nullify mail-in voting, Republicans sweep everything.
If they say we nullify the entire election due to an unconstitutional process where all votes were not counted, then everyone gets hurt.
Mike Kelly is potentially sacrificing his own career for this one, so you're going to have to try again on them waiting to the last minute.
Republicans have been complaining about mail-in voting for quite some time.
And as the Republican legislature stated in Pennsylvania, they didn't realize that by passing no-excuse mail-in voting, the Democrats, the courts, the Secretary of State, the governor, would create a whole bunch of crazy rules around it, like extending voting deadlines and ballot curing.
That flies in the face of what they intended.
Law & Crime says, The Commonwealth further argued, in support of its election law scheme, The mail-in voting system created by Act 77 requires voters to apply for a ballot from the Voters' County Board of Elections.
A voter must provide proof of identification when requesting a ballot and will not be sent a ballot unless approved as a qualified voter.
The Commonwealth further said that Act 77 pertains to mail-in ballots, not absentee ballots.
A distinction, it says, Kelly erroneously blurs.
Will the Supreme Court agree that mail-in voting is fundamentally different from absentee voting?
Maybe.
Maybe what they're saying is the definition of absentee voting has to do with you not being available to vote in person.
But doesn't the Pennsylvania Constitution say that when you're voting in person, here's how you do it?
Creating mail-in voting.
Here's the general breakdown.
Absentee voting is how you vote by mail.
No excuse mail-in voting is what they called it, meaning it's essentially creating an easy path for anybody to vote absentee, or the equivalent of.
I don't think the semantics matter.
I think the Constitution lays out a process by which you're voting by mail because you're not coming in person, and a process by which you're voting in person.
The fact that they were seeking to amend the Constitution and then stopped, changed it from absentee to mail-in, shows they're trying to play a semantic game with what is actually allowed.
And they've been doing this quite some time.
In Pennsylvania, Donald Trump's legal team sued, saying that they didn't have any observers with meaningful access to the vote count.
And a judge actually ruled, well, so long as you're in the building, it counts as observing.
Seriously.
They are playing dirty games to cheat and steal, in my opinion.
Mail-in voting is absentee.
Universal mail-in voting is basically absentee, but it is substantially less secure.
So there's that argument, I suppose.
For the longest time, we were saying absentee and universal mail-in voting were different.
But absentee is voting by mail, and that's what the mainstream media kept saying.
When Trump was challenging mail-in voting, they kept saying, Trump votes by mail all the time!
No, no, no.
Trump votes absentee.
You see the difference?
Well, if the media wants to play the game and say the same thing, I don't see how the courts or the Democrats in Pennsylvania can come out and now say, they're totally different!
Nah.
I can come out now and say, the difference was always universal mail-in voting, where everybody gets a ballot, versus absentee voting with a chain of custody.
It sounds like their system of mail-in voting is identical to absentee.
All they did was create a law changing one word, absentee, to mail-in, Or to a couple words, so that they could bypass the Constitution and create an expanded mail-in voting system.
They say the response also slams Kelly's attorneys for relying on antiquated cases which pertain to earlier versions of the Pennsylvania Constitution and fail to properly argue that the Constitution had since been amended.
Perhaps.
Perhaps they'll lose on this one.
I'll tell you, we got a lot going on.
Trump asks Pennsylvania House Speaker for help overturning election results, personally intervening in a third state.
They say, the calls confirmed by House Speaker Brian Cutler's office make Pennsylvania the third state where Trump has directly attempted to overturn a result since he lost the election to former Vice President Joe Biden.
He previously reached out to Republicans in Michigan, and on Saturday he pressured Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, in a call, to try to replace that state's electors.
The legislature in Georgia has tried convening a special session.
Brian Kemp has said no, which is shocking because he's a Republican, and it's not his responsibility to determine what the special session will come out with.
He can just grant them the special session, the emergency.
He said no.
He didn't care.
That, to me, is surprising.
But what we're seeing now is particularly fascinating.
That Arizona's Republican Party, many individuals, are invoking Article 2, Section 1.
Take a look at this from Daniel McCarthy for Arizona.
He says, Vice President Pence, I, Daniel McCarthy, have a signed letter from Arizona legislators
invoking Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
We have a contested outcome in Arizona.
Article, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Is it?
Okay, I was saying Article 2, Section 1.
It's Section 1, Article 2, I guess.
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for two persons of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves, and they shall make a list of persons... Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong portion.
Section 1.
So they say, each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.
But no senator or representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector.
The state legislators have the right to choose.
If they are trying to contest the results and hold a session, it doesn't matter if the governor says yes or no.
I've pointed this out many, many times.
We are seeing things get ever so spicy.
You see, in Pennsylvania, I bring up Arizona because I want to show you it's more than one state.
We also have Georgia.
They're calling for a special session.
75 people signed this letter where they basically call the election a dispute saying, for these reasons, well actually let me read a little bit more.
3 U.S.C.
Section 15 empowers Congress to reject electoral votes that are not regularly given or lawfully certified.
The aforementioned conduct has undermined the lawful certification of Pennsylvania's delegation to the Electoral College.
For these reasons, we, the undersigned members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, urge you to object and vote to sustain such objection to the Electoral College votes received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.
So today may be the safe harbor deadline, with many lawsuits and crazy stories flying around, but it's far from over.
Now, apparently, I don't know how many people, but some of these people are claiming they didn't sign this, or they didn't want to sign it, I'm not entirely sure, because I can't get a solid number.
Politico just said many said they didn't sign it.
So, 75 individuals.
Maybe it's less.
Regardless.
You right now have Republicans suing in Pennsylvania, they get shot down, they go to the Supreme Court.
You now have their election lawyers arguing that what they're doing is constitutional.
But at the same time, members of the General Assembly saying, this is not lawfully certified.
I don't see how any sane person looks at this and says, no, no, no, there's no dispute, you're good to go.
They have to resolve their disputes by today.
If they don't, I don't see how they will have the electoral votes go to the Electoral College to make that vote.
Because, well, who's gonna vote?
You've got two different slates of electors.
The states can certify, but if they're in dispute, then why can't the other electors go and certify?
The governors and secretaries of states don't choose who the electors are, the state legislatures do.
And if they choose Republicans in defiance of everything the state has done, then it stands to reason the election was pointless.
Look, I don't know how this is going to play out, but I'll tell you.
How could you look at the lawsuit currently in the Supreme Court, this letter of 75 signatures, and say, Pennsylvania has a clean election, we know the results?
We don't.
There is a disputed election.
How can you say the same for Arizona?
Or Georgia, even.
Because of the lawsuits there, and because of the legislators who are challenging the results.
I don't think you can.
In which case, I don't see how they cast these votes.
Now, look, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, as I've said many times before, and it may just be that because they didn't resolve the disputes, some are arguing, I guess on the left, the Republicans have to win.
What they're saying is the results in these states are certified, meaning the electors are ready to go.
The Republicans are challenging it, and today's their last day to resolve the dispute.
Otherwise, the certified electors are certainly going out.
I don't necessarily think so, but I also want to point out, for one, I'm not entirely confident Trump's going to win anything out of this, and I mean it.
But also, 75 General Assemblymen on the Republican side is not the majority of the General Assembly.
So will the Supreme Court or the federal courts even acknowledge?
And they might say, look, we get that you're the state legislature and you ultimately are the ones who decide, but you don't even have a majority of the people signing these letters.
Maybe that doesn't matter.
Because maybe the Supreme Court will say, you need to have a session where you vote on this.
And maybe then the Texas lawsuit causes this delay.
I'll tell you one more thing.
It is in the self-interest of the Supreme Court to make sure Donald Trump wins.
And this is where things get interesting.
If the Supreme Court Rules, and they do it fairly and without regard to their own careers, and it helps Biden, they will pack the courts.
They will add four more justices, diluting the power of the existing Supreme Court.
And the Supreme Court has to realize that.
They'll become another legislative body by appointment, and then eventually we'll have people saying we should vote for our Supreme Court justices, like we've done with senators.
That's where we're headed.
If the Supreme Court wants to actually retain some kind of authority in this country, then they're obligated to reject Joe Biden, but they can't just do that.
So, as many have suggested, they might secretly, within their heart of hearts, say, I'm ruling against this no matter what, but create a legal reason for doing so and just agree with Republicans.
At the end of all of this, it's really just about perception and power.
For real.
Supreme Court's gonna end up picking.
We'll see how it plays out.
But we've got even bigger news, my friends.
The next segment coming up at 4 p.m.
I, uh, looking at this news that's coming out about China, Chinese spies, and a video of a Chinese, uh, I guess he's a professor, bragging how they've essentially compromised the United States at the highest levels, except for Trump.
Says to me that, you know, Biden is compromised, and we're on the verge of being subjugated by China and being servants to them.
No joke.
That's gonna be at 4pm.
You wanna watch it?
Here's what you do.
First, subscribe, hit the like button, hit the notification bell.
Go to the top URL bar.
Alright?
And type in youtube.com slash timcast.
Just do it.
Press enter.
Alright, if you didn't press enter, then you're still here, but if you do, you'll go to my other channel.
You can just search for, uh, Tim Pool on YouTube, and you'll see there's a different channel, and that's how you get there.
