Timcast IRL - Timcast #181 - SCOTUS DENIES GOP Lawsuit Over Mail in Voting, Is THIS The End?? w/ Will Chamberlain

Episode Date: December 9, 2020

Tim, Ian, Lydia, and friend Luke Rudkowski host lawyer Will Chamberlain (@WillChamberlain on Twitter) to discuss recent legal developments in the election court cases in Pennsylvania and in Texas, and the states joining in those cases, China's influence in the US at every level, including Eric Swalwell.  Support the show (http://Timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court has denied emergency injunctive relief on the GOP lawsuit out of Pennsylvania, challenging the constitutionality of mail-in voting. And it seems like particularly bad news. However, there is still a lawsuit going, coming from Texas. Texas is suing four states. So maybe, maybe that's the one, right? Everybody, Trump can still win somehow, I guess. I don't know. A lot of people are mad because they're convinced, you know, no matter what, Trump is going to win somehow. And admittedly, I will say there's always some kind of open window. But the way I've described it is, you know, Trump is on track for some kind of victory,

but the track's got loop-de-loops. There's like trees falling on it. So, yes, theoretically, if he makes it through all these obstacles, there is a way he becomes president again. But it's looking, look, let's just be real, okay, it's looking worse and worse with every one of these lawsuits. But far be it from me, I am no legal expert. And I can't tell you. So I brought on a legal expert who recently got ratioed one of the biggest ratios in Twitter history, I think, Will Chamberlain. What up? Yes. Who are you, Will? I'm Will Chamberlain. I'm the publisher of human events. events i'm a lawyer and i serve as senior counsel to the internet accountability project and the article three

project yeah try and keep a little closer that way people can hear you okay so uh uh will recently had a twitter thread about which case was it um i've done a thread on a number of cases i did i did one of the third circuit case which we're not talking about today the crazy ratio you got of oh the crazy the crazy ratio i got was just because I was frustrated with people telling me I dared say Biden was the president elect. And they're like, you can't say that yet. Trump has. It's not official. And I just want to be like.

Technically the truth. I mean, we're literally. Technically true. But please don't tell me what to say on my Twitter. So I was just mad. That's fair. You know. OK, so so so we have to go.

We have to talk about what this means. And you're not a constitutional lawyer. You probably know better than anybody else in this room and many people on Twitter who are opining. So we'll talk about that because we do have the Texas lawsuit. And a lot of people are super excited. This is it. I mean, Texas, they're suing. And that's it, right?

It's more hopeful than many other challenges that have been brought. But that's still a big, long shot. I mean, we can get into it. We'll get into it because uh we've got a ton of other stories too this is crazy luke was just telling me that the fbi issued a warning saying that china is going to be targeting people on u.s soil it's not it's not just that we've got uh this video that was published the other day on fox news of a chinese professor bragging basically that joe biden's compromised and that the old guard is back in power so china's going to get what they want it's shocking stuff and so we'll talk

about this stuff we'll talk about what's going on uh portland police recently retreated antifa overran them so uh we'll get into it we're hanging out with uh luke rudyowski he's he's chilling here so we have luke and will today it's a it's a it's a look at his tupper well luke's wearing his santa hat so it's a uh it's a christ special. Howdy. This was very last minute. I was just doing my grocery shopping until Tim called me here. I am the sunseh behind wearechange.org. I appreciate sun gazing. And an interesting fact about me was that I was once arrested by then New York City

Michael Bloomberg for asking him a question. How are you? Hope you're doing well. There you go. Interesting. And Ian's chilling over with the static orb. Oh, there it is. And of course, Lydia is producing.

Wait, where's the button? Okay, I'm over here in the corner. I got a lot of people to switch cameras for. Yeah, we have a lot of people. Sorry, guys. I'm keeping up with it. So if you haven't already, smash the like button, subscribe, notification bell, the good stuff. We're live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m. But let's just jump into the first story, and I will read what USA Today has to say.

USA Today reports Supreme Court dismisses Trump allies challenge to Pennsylvania election. The Supreme Court refused today to stop Pennsylvania from finalizing President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the state despite allegations from allies of President Donald Trump that the expansion of mail-in voting was illegal. I like how they say allies of President Donald Trump instead of just saying like Republicans or you know, it's always got to be about Trump. The action by the nation's highest court, which includes three justices named by Trump, came as states across the country are locking in the results that will lead to next week's Electoral College vote. It represented

the latest in a string of stinging judicial opinions that have left the president defeated both politically and legally by their one sentence denial. The justices left intact a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which said the challenge to a state law passed in 2019 came far too late. New associate justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to have participated in the case. No dissents or accusals were noted. Led by conservative rep Mike Kelly, the challengers claimed the Republican-led state legislature's expansion of absentee voting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. Rather than going to court after its passage, however, they waited until the state figured prominently in Trump's loss to Biden last month. All right, there's a lot to go through here. First off,

I got to clarify. The lawsuit didn't have anything to do with Trump directly. It wasn't filed by Trump's people. It wasn't coming from the Trump campaign. Mike Kelly actually won his race, and it was noted by a lower court judge that they would likely win on the merits, and Mike Kelly would be negatively impacted by this in the event they do get some kind of relief. But first of all, all right, Will, just give me your general opinion so we can break this down and so i can better understand this what does this mean are they saying that the case is done permanently it's over nothing's going to happen no but they're saying that they've denied emergency injunctive relief right basically um parnell and kelly the two guys who were you

know they lost at the pennsylvania supreme court and they want to get the supreme court of the united states to stop it so they need to actually have an injunction as well before you know they have hearings and an argument what what would the injunction do the injunction would set things and like somehow stop what's happening right so maybe the injunction would stop the electors from being certified i don't know if i think they might have already been certified i think they're already certified it might've stopped them from going to the voting in the electoral college or something like that. I mean, an injunction is just getting the court to order somebody to stop doing something and free things as they are. So what I read was, uh, there's a couple of things. First, we have the lawsuit coming out of Texas, which we'll get to in a second, because this may

be bigger. I think it is absolutely bigger in your opinion. I mean, at this point, it's certainly bigger because we'll get to that. But so I heard something that said basically they denied emergency reductive relief. But part of it has to do with the fact that Texas is asking for basically the same thing anyway. I don't really think that that's a related. That's the reason they denied here. I mean, I read the briefing from the state of Pennsylvania. Um, and it was just good briefing and it explained there were like four or five different independent procedural problems with the litigation as far as trying to get SCOTUS to do anything. Um, you know, first off, if you're going to, you know,

SCOTUS doesn't want to consider issues for the first time. They want to see things resolved in the lower courts and then they can sit as a quarter of review. The problem is it looks like that Kelly and Parnell and their lawyers didn't raise the sort of federal issue, the idea that it not just it would be a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, but also that it would be a violation of the federal Constitution. No, they did. They did. I think they did. But not in the lower courts, I don't think. Right, right, right.

Right? Like they did that later, but they needed to raise that specific argument earlier. And because Pennsylvania never ruled on it, or nobody ever ruled on it and Supreme Court itself would be the first people to consider that issue, they're like, whoa, we don't want to do this. And then there were the additional issues that have popped up elsewhere, standing, mootness. Lashes, is that what it's called? Lashes, right. So that's just undue delay in bringing your case. So for those that aren't familiar, I think that's the biggest one. That's basically what they're ruling on.

Yeah. That it basically says you have to reasonably bring your lawsuit like reasonably within a certain amount of time. You can't just sit on it forever. Right. And so there I mean, this is this is a common theme in a lot of the election litigation that's been ruled on so far is that there are these big procedural problems before you even get to the substance of questions about whether or not the scheme is unconstitutional in the first place. And so I really wasn't surprised by this news because I read the brief from Pennsylvania. I'm like, oh, wow, you guys, you didn't raise the federal question in district court or in Pennsylvania at all. They're just going to not hear your case because they don't want to deal with it. And that's really interesting because when you look at the mainstream media's coverage of this, it essentially is Trump is done.

It's over. Yahoo News has an interesting headline here. They have an article that says Supreme Court shuts down Trump campaign's last ditch Pennsylvania appeal. So they're making it sound like it's done. It's not even coming from the Trump campaign. Well, that's what they're saying on Yahoo News. So that's what I bring up here in this U2 Today article. They say that – what was the exact quote?

They said basically that it was too late because they waited until the state figured prominently in Trump's loss. Nowhere in this does it say Trump lost therefore or anything having to do with Trump. Right. And we had Sean Parnell on, one of the plaintiffs, and he said he didn't know. He didn't know at all that it was unconstitutional. They all thought the law was constitutional, and now they're suing because they found out it didn't. He didn't. He didn't know at all that it was unconstitutional. They all thought the law was constitutional. And now they're assuming because they found out it wasn't. So, I mean, there's a question about whether or not the Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly applied their latches doctrine.

Right. But the problem is, you know, latches is an issue of state law. It's not a federal law issue. Right. And then ultimately, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what Pennsylvania law is. And so that's why they have to figure out how is this possibly a federal question and get very creative. And they didn't raise it initially. Yeah, exactly.

It was sort of like a last-minute audible of like, oh, we actually need to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do we do that? And it's like it's way too late. You need to have kind of anticipated this potential problem and its path at the very beginning. Do you remember what their federal argument was? Because it's in there. Yeah. So the federal argument goes something along the lines of because there's the electors

clause in the federal constitution delegates the power to run your elections in a certain way to the legislature. And then that's also sort of incorporates the lawmaking process with, you know, the constitution, et cetera. Um, that if the Pennsylvania courts and the Pennsylvania government is somehow violating their own procedures, then that creates a federal question because it's a violation of somehow that delegation of power. But they didn't bring that up early.

They didn't bring it up early enough to, to get, at least that's probably what I think is the reason here, right? The Supreme court didn't say why it refused to review. It just gave a one-sense to me. But my guess is that this is the big reason. So what you're saying is that you're a better lawyer, they should have hired you because you would have won. I'm half kidding. I'm not saying any of that. I don't even actively practice right now. I run a conservative magazine. If you're hiring me to do your litigation right now, you're probably making a mistake. But if you want to get my rate, that's fine. Did you see the lower court's opinion on the merits? I mean i mean i saw the pennsylvania supreme court's opinion

it was it was narrow yeah it was very narrow i wasn't impressed by it but that's the thing about being a supreme court like i think there was some famous justice once who said we're not um we're not final because we're right or something like we're we're right because we're final in the sense of right right right because we are there's nowhere else to go that means we're right so uh the the the claim was that mail-in voting violated the constitution because it already has an absentee uh voting provided the pennsylvania pennsylvania constitution right and the the first judge did issue an injunction and then when it got appealed to the Supreme Court, she issued then an opinion saying, here's why I did it, and they will likely win if it's ruled on the merits.

But then the Supreme Court said, nah, you're too late. Bye bye. Yeah. And they didn't even they didn't even consider the federal question, if or any of the questions about the actual substantive constitutionality of the statute. And they just kind of get away with it. I mean, in this case, it's one of the situations where, you know, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is there's elections for, I think, the sitting justices. I think it's a very, very partisan court. And so it's not surprising to me that they end up in this really bad spot. And then and then, you know, so it's not surprising the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is really partisan and didn't handle this case fairly.

And then it's not surprising they didn't get to go to SCOTUS with it because they didn't. I don't feel like they were prepared for that particular avenue. But does this create a problem that like, I mean, give me your give me what's your opinion? Do you think it's unconstitutional what they did with mail-in voting? Oh, I mean, as according to the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Yeah. I mean, the Pennsylvania Constitution says here are how you can regulate. Here are the rules for regulating absentee ballots.

And these are the only circumstances where you can do it. And Pennsylvania didn't amend its constitution. They just passed legislation. So are we now going to, uh, and based on other challenges in other States, potentially have a president gets elected because of unconstitutional elections and the rest of the rest of America has to just, has to just,

has to just accept that. I mean, you know, I, this is one of the things that I think people, you know, remember the tweet I did that got everybody angry. Right.

Joe Biden won. He didn't win fair and square. But like, right. Get ready for that. You know, I mean, history is full of instances where people who very famous people won elections via cheating and took office. And there wasn't like some later remedy to it. We just knew they cheated. In that case, why shouldn't Trump use any and all means to retain the presidency?

I mean, I don't think I just don't want to have a military coup, man. I really don't. I think that that the down that road leads all sorts of terrible things. So I think, you know, to me, a lot of the problem here starts with the year before the election, where the Democrats are going around the country and weakening voter integrity measures all over the country. And they should have stopped it. And we needed to do a better job of stopping it. We just got – that's where we lost it. Yeah, but is – like regular Americans don't know. It's not their job.

I'm not going to ask a plumber to understand how to file a lawsuit in advance. Right. So do you remember when the Trump campaign sued over ballot observers? Yeah. Do you see what the judge said about observation that as long as they're in the room then that satisfies election law i mean it it shouldn't right that's crazy right but like i mean here's a real problem the pennsylvania legislature agreed to all these these reforms to ballot processing they were well technically universal mail-in they agreed to a bunch of stuff so but technically what what the uh they agreed to it what they've said is that we

didn't realize they would do a whole bunch of crazy things like the curing process and the extended deadlines. And that's what they just rolled with after the fact. I think that's part of the Texas lawsuit, which, again, we're going to get to in just a second. But what's crazy to me about the ruling from the judge on the Trump campaign is that – on the Trump campaign lawsuit so trump sued uh his campaign suit is like rudy juliani was arguing i guess saying that 682 000 ballots were counted without observer observers having meaningful access meaning the observers are supposed to look at the ballots to make sure that what the counter is saying is correct right but they kept them what like a hundred feet away so they couldn't see anything yeah and then the judge said how many were in the building the trump's the trump campaign lawyer i think said famous very famously a non-zero number of observers were in the building.

But they didn't have meaningful access. And then the judge basically said, well, the election code says observers have to be there. The observers were there. It doesn't specify distance. Therefore, the code's requirements were satisfied. I mean, to me, that sounds – that's somehow law and justice don't always correlate. Right. Like, you know, that's that sounds like the judge is looking at the law and saying, here's

the rules. Well, the rules are these people need to be in the building. Doesn't say any doesn't anticipate any sort of isn't a judge supposed to solve that problem. That's insane. That's that's actually not what judges are supposed to do. Right. Judges are supposed to apply the law. Well, hold on.

Hold on. I had a conversation with multiple lawyers about the gender issue in New York City, right? Yeah. So have you ever looked at the New York City human rights gender issues? I can't say I'm super familiar with New York City in particular.

They have codified 31 genders. Okay. But their New York City recognizes any and all that anyone might assert. Okay. And they say that in all public accommodations, they must adhere to these practices, essentially, if you use a specific name. And so I pushed, I had a question about the extreme nature by which this law exists.

So, and this is relevant. Everyone just hear me out. This makes sense. So the idea was, if I can say my name is anything and I can wear any clothes and use any pronouns, I should be able to go into a Starbucks or go to a job. I can get hired at a job and then show up wearing whatever I want and say, here's my name, say it or else. Right. And they say that a willful refusal to use someone's preferred name or pronoun is a violation, a human rights violation of $250,000, which will warrant a

$250,000 fine. So I talked to multiple lawyers about this and I said, I'm going to give you an extreme hypothetical. I'm going to, I'm going to take the letter of the law to the extreme degree. What if I dressed up in a very, very offensive way and said that my gender was, you know, insert racial slur gender, and that my official name was a racial slur. They said that the courts would laugh you out and say, no way, we'll never uphold that. But if the law literally says, so here's my argument. If the law says I can use any name and dress any way I want, why couldn't I go to Starbucks dressed like a giant Pac-Man and say I'm Pac-gender or whatever? And then, and I'm not trying to disparage anybody, I'm saying if the law isn't specific, couldn't it create this exploit? I mean, I'd just be less pessimistic than the other lawyers you've talked to, right?

I mean, obviously, I don't think I don't wouldn't guarantee that a judge would act on it or cede the law your way. But my view is, I mean, if their law is really that vaguely written, oftentimes you get results in court that people think are defy common sense. I mean, so it depends. Sometimes the judge is going to do common sense anyway. Some judges are more active. Some judges are more like strictly literalist in how they read the law.

It's just the reason why I bring it up is, well, people could exploit this to make money, obviously. But the idea is when it comes to New York City and the human rights law, if a judge can determine that my gender is laughable, like, you know, if you clearly pick something ridiculous meant to garner laughs and the judge does then why would any other judge not be allowed to throw out any legitimate claim about you know trans human rights sure and that's that's exactly the reason why they might you know why i probably would end up disagreeing with the lawyers you previously talked to so so you could actually get a job at starbucks show up the next day dressed like Pac-Man and say your name's Pac-Man. And if they tell you no, get out. You can't wear that.

You can challenge them. I mean, based on how you've characterized that law to me, yes, right. I mean, I'm not going to hesitate. It is really that vague. It says gender identity is self-expression. Yeah, there's definitely a lot of laws in New York City. There's also a very specific law against people's hair. So if you discriminate against someone's hair or hairstyle, you also could be fined as a business a quarter million dollars for doing so. Okay, so not to get off

track. The reason I bring it up is because now I'm hearing, and again, different lawyers, different opinions, is no, it's the letter of the law. The judge just says, here's a letter of law, we're done. I mean, it depends on the judge. Not all judges act the same way. Some judges are more. Do you think a judge should say the law is clearly intended to make sure you can observe the ballot reasonably? I kind of don't, actually. I mean, I think that's the kind of thing that needs to be dealt with by a legislative fix, because I generally think that the way these things should work procedurally is, you know, judges just apply the law as written in the best reading of it. And then the legislature tweaks the law if the law is stupid. But think about the problem that creates.

It's like we say, OK, we want observers to be able to read the votes. So we know there's scrutiny and the votes are legit. And then someone finds a loophole and just exploits and abuses it. So then we have an entire election that is essentially not the will of the people in any capacity because it was exploited. Right. Well, I mean, then that question becomes like, okay, well, is there some other restriction or some other like law or right that's being compromised here? And maybe that comes into play to say like to constrain the way that the specific election code can be interpreted, right? But you need to be appealing to like something else. You

can't just say, well, the law doesn't make any sense so we should trust the law like that that usually is not something lawyers or the judge says i think the you know very clearly the interpretation of the law is such that people can actually observe what is written on the ballot i mean not just to say well there's no there's no official foot number in the law so therefore i mean he quite literally said you could be sitting in the bathroom in the other room of the building and it counts as having an observer present. I would argue that clearly makes no sense. See it and they're not observing it. Then they're not observers.

And therefore, there are no observers. Right. Well, that but then the very likely in the statute is also a definition of who counts as an observer and who doesn't. Right. in the statute is also a definition of who counts as an observer and who doesn't right like that's very common for most of these election statutes is to have some sort of definitions portion where like the right words they use so that might constrain that sort of that's a great i mean it's good it's creative lawyering don't get me wrong but it's like that would be probably precluded by a definition so their official job title is observer but they're not actually observing exactly so the judge said well they're

they're called observers and they can be sitting in the back of the room playing on their phone playing candy crush and that counts as having an observer present it's it's bad law like i don't know what else to say like i think that yeah pretty clearly pennsylvania has really bad election codes uh that allow that make a mockery of election integrity um that need to be changed now do i but but if you're asking me like straight up do i think that pennsylvania judge made some sort of like was in legal error the way he interpreted the statute doesn't sound like it right yeah you know sounds like he just interpreted the law and applied it that's crazy to me i mean but you know that's because how could

you anticipate that as a regular person you you could go through every law and make sure okay we're gonna have i want to make sure nobody cheats, nobody plays any unethical games. How would you predict a judge is going to be like, well, you know, observers don't mean actually observing the name on the ballot. It just means being there. I mean, I don't know, like there was, I feel like there was in Georgia, they've, they've lessened the restrictions. I mean, COVID probably pushed them further away. I'm sure, I mean, I'm sure, you know, poll observers have been around for a pretty long time. So you'd feel like it was one of the better developed areas of law. But apparently, Pennsylvania is just there's always something. So let me ask you, is this the end for Donald Trump? It's not the end. But it forecloses,

you know, one hopeful path. I think, you know, I think there are basically two viable paths. We can I mean, we're gonna get let's do it it. Okay. Texas. From CNBC, Texas sues four battleground states and Supreme Court over unlawful election results in 2020 presidential race. Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxson on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The lawsuit asserts that unlawful election results in those four states which President-elect Joe Biden won should be declared unconstitutional. The filing

argues that those states used the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to unlawfully change their election rules. Experts in election law were quick to dismiss the likelihood of the nine Supreme Court justices taking the case. Now, I'm just going to poke your buttons a little bit and say Joe Biden is not the President-elect, but... That's fine. But he's not, he's not, right? Yeah, no, like, technically not. I mean... Literally not, but technically is. In order to be literally

the... So, to be... Is this like a bugaboo of yours? No, no, no. Well, no, because you tweeted that Joe Biden was President-elect, right? No, I tweeted that Joe Biden won. Okay, well, you said it earlier, so I'm making the point to clarify for everybody what it means okay president-elect is january 6th when all the votes are counted and they say he will now be inaugurated you know in you know 14 days or whatever in two weeks that's when he is president-elect officially because we

go by electoral college technically he is because the you know everybody recognizes the projections from all the states and thus it's going to happen anyway so it's an they call they consider it an uh an inevitability right okay okay so let's talk about texas okay let's talk about texas all right um uh is this trump uh he's guaranteed to win now it's over no no i mean so i mean this is a very interesting thing like i had to learn i read about it today because i was like whoa i i mean this is something you remember from your con law class is like a footnote that, by the way, when states sue each other, they go straight to the Supreme Court.

But it's not something that comes up very often. I think I looked into it. There's been an average of one case like this every year for like the last 100 years and out of all the cases that the Supreme Court takes.

So like states routinely sue other states? The point is it's not routine. Like one case like this every year happens out of like 75 or 100 or 150 that the supreme court takes so it's not it happens and it's usually designed for things like water rights you know um like so but like so like wisconsin and illinois or something yeah right i mean they have the they have the great lakes coalition though so they're all pretty much in agreement but it would be like i i remember there was arizona suing uh the great lake saying we deserve access to the water because it's on american soil or whatever and that was like theing the Great Lakes saying we deserve access to the water because it's on American soil or whatever.

And that was like the actually the original idea behind the Supreme Court was you had to have a place where the states could resolve their disputes. So what's this lawsuit about? What are they suing? So they're suing and they're basically saying Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, et cetera, all didn't follow their own law. Election laws all made a mockery of election integrity. As a result, that injures us the state of texas not just because we don't our electors don't get to vote for president it's canceled out by these illegitimate unconstitutional votes but also the even more important from the

state perspective in terms of its own interests the vice presidency is now is now changed and you know we're a state we have a direct interest in our senate representation and our ability to vote there. And the vice president is the president of the Senate who breaks ties. So they're saying, like, look, we have standing to object here. There are all these problems. And, you know, you should take this. And actually, we think you, the Supreme Court, don't have any discretion.

We think you have to take this case. And then, you know, going through the litany of problems that we've been talking about. They said SCOTUS has to take it. They argued that. That's not doesn't look like it's a majority view on the supreme court it looks like it's just alito and thomas although we don't know how the three latest justices would rule on it um that said i i am doubtful but not like you know i don't think it's a guaranteed or anything but i'm doubtful that the supreme court will take this case and it kind of gets to the heart of you know what does what is the Supreme Court normally do? It does appeals, right? Again, it sits as a court

of review. When the case comes to it in the first instance, the Supreme Court's like, well, I guess we have to have like a trial or something, right? Like we need to have evidence, we need to have witnesses. And how they actually do that is they literally just appoint basically a special master, which is like a private judge. And they're like, oh, I guess we have one of those cases we have to take. Well, here you go, private judge, go resolve it and we'll, we'll deal with this later. And then after everything's presented, they can rule on what? Right. But because they're not equipped for it, they've kind of found ways to say like, okay, how do we like not take these cases if we don't have to, right? Like we're, we're an appeals

court. We don't like to decide things in the first instance. How do we, let's, let's narrow this down as much as possible. And so the way they do it now is they say well can the underlying interests of this case be vindicated in another lawsuit somewhere else okay and if they can't then fine we'll take it but if they can with other litigants in a forum so that things go normally and percolate their way up then we'll do that this is one of those cases where there are other forums where the underlying interests being talked about in the lawsuit can be can be vindicated There are election contest laws in all these states Which is actually one of the avenues we haven't really talked about where I think there's a real chance of doing something and persuading a judge

Well, so what is that? Well, so for example in Georgia President Trump and David Schaefer the director of Georgia Republicans filed a formal election Contests in Georgia State Court under Georgia's election contest law. What was that? That was like two days ago. Is that still going? Yeah, that's still going. They just filed it.

I think on the 5th or 6th. Doesn't that plan to safe harbor somehow? Like they've got to resolve that dispute? I don't know. I don't know how it interplays with state harbor. But I just know that like it's the first lawsuit I saw where I was like, oh, there isn't an obvious procedural problem with this. Right? That's going to prevent this from getting heard.

Right. And that's not going to lead to a judge just kicking it out of court because that's been the problem with all the lawsuits so far. Like the other side gets up and says, oh, you have no standing and mootness and like going down the list of like problems with your lawsuit. That mean we don't even get to this. Or some of them are just, I don't know, the Kraken lawsuits. I mean, the Kraken lawsuits got dismissed yesterday. I mean, one of them got dismissed from the bench, which you never see. Like that's how bad it was or what?

Yeah, I mean, because normally, I mean, a district judge is worried about being reversed on appeal. It's humiliating. It's your superiors telling you publicly. Seems to happen all the time, though, right? It does, but they want to avoid it because it's humiliating, right? Like they don't like being reversed. It says they got the law wrong and they didn't do their job properly. And it's a public opinion.

Like imagine getting a performance review and having it be in like and then imagine being the supreme court and you're just chilling because no one's going to challenge you that's why all the judges want to be supreme um but so they don't so as a result if they don't want to be reversed they try and put all their decisions in writing and make them pretty rigorous so that they survive appeal literally the guy just looked at the kraken plaintiffs and their lawyers and was like you guys lose for like four reasons one two three four you never could get into court even if you could your claims are meritless go away like it was just it was i haven't seen that in a serious piece of litigation in a long time i mean wasn't wasn't the filing missing spacings between words oh they're

typos all over the place but not typos like there were there were whole paragraphs that had no spaces oh it was a mess it was not proofread and i mean what what what is this i mean it's it's it's like they're i don't know what's going on i don't understand it because if i when i was practicing a lot if i did that i would have gotten fired so the reason i the reason i ask is a lot of i hear a lot it's 4d chess they're trying to lose on purpose to get to supreme court there's nothing good about losing right you you're gonna go to the supreme court even if you win because the other like again like say sydney powell wins her law her lawsuit at the district court level you think the other side's gonna be like well we're we're whoa well we're done here i guess we're just leaving you know yeah they'd appeal and say no it would make it it's going there no matter what

right and you'd like to have like a an opinion that says you were right from the lower court at least to like give you some presumption like there's a strategy to losing when when they lost uh when trump's campaign lost and i think the third circuit over yeah i was basically saying you know a bunch of people were like that's exactly what we wanted we thanks for ruling so quickly so we can get to scotus and i'm like there is a good point we made in that if they're going to win and they're still going to scotus anyway then they want to get there as fast as possible right so that makes sense sort of but, you'd rather win than lose, even if that was the case. And you don't want to lose the way they lost in the Third Circuit, which was, again, and all these procedural problems like things like even if you won your point, you wouldn't have enough to change the result of the election based on the claims you're making.

So you can't you have to get out of court or, you know. Well, that was that was they wanted to amend the complaint a second time or whatever. Oh, yeah. Gosh, the way they went about that was so silly. They wanted to amend the complaint a second time or whatever. Oh, yeah. Gosh, the way they went about that was so silly. They wanted to amend the complaint a second time. They weren't actually appealing the underlying substantive ruling. They were appealing the decision by the district court not to let them fix their complaint. And that's usually that's granted liberally because you want to basically.

Right. Everybody should have access to justice. So they shouldn't be kicked out of court in technicality. But the Trump campaign had been there saying we have to get this done by november 23rd we need to do it really fast because you know the election certification ball we have to get it done fast and then the district court dismisses their case and they're like oh well can we fix the complaint and take another six weeks and the district court's like no wow it's too late yeah and so so my question then is, and we'll go back to Texas and get to the heart of that lawsuit. Rudy Giuliani, is he a old crackpot well past his prime who's falling apart or a mad freaky genius playing 4D chess who's going to pull out a tremendous victory?

It's only one or the other. There's no middle ground. Well, I mean, I don't want to be mean to Rudy Giuliani, but he's most and he's doing like what many other people are doing. It's PR in the place of law. Like, I was really disappointed to see Giuliani being selected to argue the appeal. Giuliani is not an appellate lawyer. He hasn't practiced appellate law in years. He hasn't argued any appeals.

As far as I know. I mean, it's possible I'm wrong about this. And you are you appeal recently. But that's that's like a practice. Like and he was they were doing things like they one of the things that in the third circuit case people didn't miss this too. They appealed a temporary restraining order That's actually wrong. You can't do that. You have to apply to the appellate court for an injunction pending appeal How do you know this they don't and you're not even this kind of I didn't know this beforehand But I read about it afterwards. Shouldn't they have read it before?

This is why you would hire experienced appellate lawyers because they don because they don't have to wait for the judge's opinion to find out what they should have done. They know what it means. But you're a big Trump supporter. Yeah. I mean, you mentioned this before the show that we had a conversation a couple of years ago where I was like, it sounds like we agree on all of these culture war kind of issues and stuff. And then I don't know if you asked me or I asked you something. You asked me then why wasn't I supporting Trump or something yeah and then like i had some answers back in the day i mean back then it was like those are the bolton stuff and the foreign policy failures and stuff and that that's kind of what but the riots really changed

things too so i'm like you know what man everything else is kind of out the window but um so so what you're saying is the best chance that trump has right now to to legitimately win as per some kind of constitutional processes, martial law. Send in the troops. Go in. Just lock everybody up. Arrest them all. Is that really winning?

I don't know. I don't want any coups. I think there's some possibility of the Texas lawsuit getting taken. And it's one virtue, if you will, is that it only has to get past this one big procedural hurdle and then they can hear the case. And what's that? That's the Supreme Court deciding to grant permission for them to file the complaint. So they haven't even filed the complaint yet. Yeah. They've, they've asked for permission to file it. This and people, people are getting this wrong. They like see it on the docket. They're like, Oh, SCOTUS has agreed to hear it. No SCOTUS has, when they do that, they're saying, Oh, you,

you met the proper steps to ask for permission to file this complaint. That's all we're saying. Your filing was procedurally correct so far. And then they decide if they want to hear it or not. Yeah, they decide if they want to hear it or not. Odds are my answer is they probably won't. But if they get past that, if SCOTUS decides on this one little decision, they're going to overlook some how they've been doing things in the past. And is it majority rule? Yeah, it's a 5-4-4 decision okay 5-4 because you don't count roberts no roberts

yes i know but like that's but even so i think you know if i'm betting man i'm not betting on the success of that litigation because in general i mean it's the problem we talked about earlier that the interests underlying that they're trying to be vindicated there, right, election irregularities, there's processes in the individual states to deal with it. And the Supreme Court generally hates having these original jurisdiction cases and only will take them if there's no other place it can be vindicated. I don't know. Election betting odds has Trump up 0.7% today. Considering the news, you'd think he'd be going down but they still have around 10 to win and be the next president that's free money like that's that's free money that's what

that i don't know i i still wouldn't i wouldn't i i i'm gonna disclose something maybe i shouldn't i i after i like all this nonsense with the one stuff i looked on predicted and they were predicted was giving me like they said Trump was at 13% to win. And you can make a bet on based on that. Well, but, so, Predict It has Trump at 14. Oh, wow. That's way too high. Yeah, but you know what it is, though?

It's because you can buy them and then sell them when they go up. So when it's at 10 cents, people are like, I'll buy it because some news will come out, it'll go up to 12, and then I'll sell out. Yeah. You know, and then make two cents. Right. I keep telling everybody, man, there's two big plays right here. If you really think Trump's got 4D chess and the Kraken was actually hiding and wasn't slain at all, you really think Trump's going to win. You got to go, and you got to place those bets, right? Yeah, that's free money.

I am not advocating for gambling. The other way, right? If you believe that 100% Trump's going to be in office in two months that's that's absurd free money you can make huge amounts of money you'll be rich i i saw one post on social media where someone claimed to have put like 20k into betting on trump to win and now they're panicking because it was like their life savings but at the same time i'll tell you this right here you you think that's true it's free money uh yeah i mean then why don't you bet on biden right now you can do it you did you bet on biden yeah i got like four grand writing on

i'm sure there's a ton of people watching right now who are like oh i hope he loses that money well here i actually i have a there's sort of an ethical thing like i think if you make predictions like this you should bet on them that's a good betting is a tax on bs yeah right like oh that's a good point yeah you know uh so you know make a video like series like you know when luke comes out and he says something i'll be like okay put the money down you know what i mean right like i mean it's it's a real test like all the people who are saying that trump's 100 gonna be in office why aren't they i mean there's huge amounts of money to be made on this bet i mean you're gonna make what is that 86 cents on the dollar no i'm not

gonna make that much because i'm betting on biden so no no i'm saying like someone would have bet so yeah you put down 14 cents for Trump. You want a buck? Yeah. So put down 14 bucks and get 100. And I mean, the point being, like, not that I don't want Trump to win. I still do because I think it would be good for the country. But it's like I've made public predictions that Trump will not win.

And I feel like there's sort of an ethical obligation to be willing to put money on the public predictions I make. Well, I'll tell you this. In 2018, I was like, I think the Republicans are going to are are gonna keep control and they're gonna they're gonna take they're gonna keep the house maybe even gain in the house because all the culture war stuff was getting crazy and turns out i was wrong actually i was right uh i was right for the first two days and then about a week later with all the mail-in mail-in ballots they started finding all over the place then the democrats ended up winning so uh it's interesting how that happened right yeah so so i was wrong then i said i thought trump was going to win this one i did say i was i'm very then the democrats ended up winning so uh it's interesting how that happened right yeah so uh

so i was wrong then i said i thought trump was going to win this one i did say i was i'm very tepid most of the time but i was saying for months leading to the election like i think trump is going to win that's my gut feeling but you know biden could win don't underestimate your opponent so when it turns out that you know now the election is going biden's way and i'm saying yeah biden's got this i'm probably wrong again And now we're all going like, no, I've been saying over and over again, ever since the seventh, it's it's ninety nine point nine nine percent for Biden. The reason I reserve that actually earlier on, I said it was like ninety seven percent. Yeah, this is before Trump actually filed the lawsuits. And I was like, so he has all of these ways to challenge these things. And then as he's you know, his campaign and his and other Republicans and pro-Trump individuals have been losing. I'm like, he, of course, still can.

Right. But is it at a point where it's like winning the lottery three times in a row? I mean, it's just really unlikely. He has to win all these election contests. The time, you know, we're running into the time constraints where the Electoral College is going to vote. I mean, you know, even at the beginning, I said that the odds have been prevailing after the election results came in, like 5% at max. Well, on January 6th, the members of congress can contest can dispute right i mean and it happens apparently relatively often never works it never goes yeah i mean that's and that's like what i would expect to happen here but isn't isn't it true that uh what is it article

two section one or is it section two article one that sounds if it's about congress it would be article one constitution oh no you're right it if it's about Congress, it would be Article 1. Constitution. Oh, no, you're right. It's about the presidential election, so it's Article 2. That it doesn't matter what the states say. The state legislatures always decide. Yeah, I mean, I think there's absolute authority is placed in the state legislatures, but I don't think they're going to do anything to contradict the Electoral College. I mean, the precedent there is crazy, like if you think about it, the idea that the state elections don't matter and that – They don't.

I mean, in life, this is the craziest things I've been reading more and more about early U.S. history. And the founding fathers didn't want to direct democracy like we know. We all know that. And we've actually been sort of eroded in that direction for some time. Yeah. Like the 17th Amendment, which I'm sure you're familiar with. The Senate, meaning making the Senate elections direct elections. Exactly. It used to be appointments by the state legislatures right and so senators

were i think that system made more sense in a lot of ways you know why why we don't care about local elections anymore and now our own communities fall apart and become detached and and dejected yeah it's like our whole politics has been nationalized like you can't run a local paper doing local politics section that's's a whole, you know. No one cares. And what's really irksome to me is when I see someone running for Congress talking about how if they get elected, they're going to do all the good things for our district. I'm like, you represent the district to the federal government. You don't clean up your district.

You go to Congress and vote a national level policy. Yeah. And here's a real interesting thing that that the whole idea of representing your district that basically went out the window with the ban of earmarks. You know, that was the way they represented their district. They got a little money for like little pet projects, but they don't even do that. But the issue is, if you want your town cleaned up, you got to vote local. Yeah.

And so before the 17th Amendment, for those that aren't familiar, 17th Amendment says senators will be chosen by popular vote. Before that, the state legislatures would essentially vote. The problem was there was bribery or some kind of just crony BS. Yeah, and that came out of Teddy Roosevelt and all the good government stuff that they were doing in the early 1900s. But think about it. If that's how the system still worked, then you'd be like, you've got to vote for, know, who's the who's the P.A. state senator guy who's Mastriano? Is that his name? Yeah. Yeah. You'd be like, you've got to make sure he gets reelected because he's going to make sure to get a good senator for us.

Now it's like I don't even know that guy is. And I live in Pennsylvania. Right. Not me personally. I'm just saying figuratively, like you've got people who live in P.A. who can't even name who's in their general assembly. Don't I Can you name? I mean, I just moved to Maryland, but I don't even know who my... I lived in New York for five years. I can't name a single person. Yeah. I can name Ocasio-Cortez. I didn't live in her district.

Yeah. And she's federal. I can't speak... I don't know who the councilmen are. I don't know who the... I don't know any of that stuff. Yeah. It has been...

Everything's being nationalized, and it's extremely dangerous. It's not just about politics. It's about media. Yes. Let's say – this was talked about like a decade ago as local media was dying off because the internet was replacing everything. This like – maybe this plays into the culture war in a lot of ways. It used to be that your tribe was partially local. What you cared about locally might be your high school football team versus the neighboring town or whatever. But with social media, the tribes became singular, national, top level, and like very specific. Right.

If they used to write about with this phenomenon, you could have a local politician be extremely corrupt and there's no one to write about it because no one cares. Do I care about, you know, I don't know, the mayor of Gainesville committing some you know crime or whatever no i care about desantis i don't care about the smaller town mayor or whatever or the city councilman it's not going to make the news no one's really going to care unless it's really crazy like you know he builds a flying machine and then starts dropping mortars on people or something i don't know maybe i have to think about it though because part of this is youth and you know living wherever you want i wonder if like we would change our minds if we were you know well i guess you are a homeowner but uh yeah like if i was like personally a homeowner in a place and knew i was going to stay there for 20 years i might start caring a little more about

local elections yeah but but i mean your general point that was correct about how i mean our politics have been nationalized our media has been nationalized and the concerns people have are are you know ultimate you know and also like i have a random thing like people people would say to me like there's you know i think you might have said this there's no way joe biden got 80 million some votes like i think there's a way for sure right and people people uh were i'll just play let's play the media game normies were radicalized by a psychotic trump derangement media apparatus that sought to make money off of outrage about Trump. And it created a whirlpool that sucked in regular people who snapped and said, I just can't take it

anymore. Biden, boom. Yeah, no, I think that's exactly that was exactly my thesis, right? Like our well, but I went away like what were people even focused on over the last year? But I think Trump's Trump got oceans 11. That's the way I put it. Like the real heist happened months ago when they were going around knocking on doors and saying vote, when they're doing ballot harvesting, when they were doing those illegal democracy in the park things in Wisconsin.

There's the viral videos of the Native American women saying like, we're going to give you money if you vote. Like, make sure you tell us your vote. One tribe actually said, send us a picture of you voting. We'll send you 20 bucks. Like super illegal stuff. Oh yeah.

I've noted out there were tons of shenanigans too like i remember you know i was in philly on election day take you know you were posting those videos yeah the video the poll watcher uh i referenced that when we had destiny here he's a leftist and he said if these claims of of like irregularity and and and front and stuff were are the observers being blocked were true then where were all the videos on election night and i was like will chamberlain was there and he posted like a video in the morning of like an observer being kicked out yeah it happened yeah that's weird like there were so many people who just a random side note so many people denied that like i got i saw fact checks that were like yeah there was there was buzzfeed tried to fact

check i literally corrected her and she withdrew it to her credit yeah like you know it's so weird he wasn't you know and then they tried claiming that knows he was at the wrong precinct or whatever right it's like and then you posted the photo where it's like good in any precinct right exactly so weird they they just they were so tuned for like oh there's misinformation people are going to spread misinformation i'm like you guys know there's actual shenanigans going on in philly and i don't know that there was some like massive plot to like thwart poll watching it's more like that you know what what i would attribute this particular thing to was just sort of an arrogance among the poll the poll workers in that area that like they were kings of the

castle they dictated what happened they didn't need to pay but they they you see the video where the guy yells all republican poll watchers leave now or whatever i didn't see that one but yeah yeah there's there's stuff like that or they're putting up boards to block the windows do you see what scott adam said about this what he said if you are having a discussion about the potential irregularities or fraud after they barred observers and blocked windows you're a victim of misinformation and essentially misdirection yeah because as soon as they said no witnesses there's you can't do anything after that right like so when they when they say where's the evidence of fraud i don't know they kicked out the observers and boarded the windows up right

and i'm actually for like a as a general rule like the idea that if you if you wrongfully kick out poll watchers then the votes go away right yeah we'd like we we assume we assume you've committed fraud the presumption is you committed fraud and you need to affirmatively prove you didn't yes like i mean that's you know like that's how it kind of works in the court system generally like if you fail to produce something of litigation, judges will issue it, eventually issue an adverse inference instruction saying, jury, you need to assume that this was terrible evidence for them that proved that they did something horrible. Interesting. You know, and that's the way I should look at. I think we should look at.

But we need to change the law to do this. Right. But I think we should change the law about poll watchers and get people to a point where when they are instructed about working a poll and letting a poll watcher in, they're like, we better not restrict this poll watcher because the consequences of doing so are terrible. That's clearly not the case in Philly. The consequences of what we're talking about go well beyond just the election and which team won. Right.

What people need to realize, and I've been saying this quite a bit, is that we're a nation of people. A judge could rule something that's ridiculous and dumb, and it would stand because they're the judge. And if it's a Supreme Court justice who gives a bad ruling, then what do they do, right? It ends with them. People aren't computers. They're not robots. And so I was mentioning this previously that people keep saying, here's what the safe harbor provision says, therefore we've won. And I'm like, you could get a crazy justice who's like, you know, he just goes nuts and gives some crazy ruling.

And I'm within reason, obviously, like within the confines of law, I just have a weird interpretation of it. And then you get a weird ruling you didn't expect because people make the decisions, not computers. It's not a code. You know what I mean? Right. And I mean, like, that's why, you know, for example, the Texas lawsuit still has a chance.

I wouldn't rule it out. Right. Like there's always some human variability. Yeah you know there's there's cases where you have better odds and worse odds right if you're fighting six different procedural arguments that a judge has to decide oh well i'm just going to have to ignore the law and like six different core areas of our jurisprudence in order to rule for you they're just not going to they don't want to do that what are what are the odds you would give trump when of winning right now yes less than one percent wow but more than more than 0.01 maybe you know i mean those are pretty those are still like not bad odds to be honest i mean you know he he he's not ahead in the vote counts

in like four different states i mean and the problem is he has to win you know one of the reasons i'll talk about the other reason i like the texas lawsuit he has to win in four different states or has to flip four different states. Or win one lawsuit from Texas. Yeah, exactly. Right. Well, the lawsuit in Texas at least is elegant in the sense of a chance to just in one shot get rid of all the problems. But otherwise, he has to win independent election contests in four different states. You know what it is?

It's time running out. It's like in a movie and there's like four bad guys. And then like Texas comes up and he pulls out his gun and goes bam bam bam bam bam and just knocks them all out at once then on the gun it puts it away that's texas that's that's the hope like and i'm hoping for that i really am i hope to lose the four grand i bet on biden and be revealed to be a complete charlatan as a result no no no i think you know it's it's it's annoying to me that people think you're not allowed to be wrong when you make predictions. It's like you can be wrong, whatever.

At the time, you had made an educated guess based on the evidence laid before you, and there's a lot of variables, and there you go. So I'll tell you this, man. Long story short, I had a buddy tell me in 2011 not to buy Bitcoin when it was at 70 cents because he said it's you can't do anything with it it's hard to get if you make this purchase now you'll be putting a bunch of your money into something you can't get out and then what happens in a month when everyone forgets about it you'll have nothing that's actually a really good argument so i said better not buy it if i had spent the five grand on 70 cent bitcoin i would be very very happy today if i didn't but it was it would have been stupid for me to take it was basically my life savings and putting it in bitcoin i was like this new technology this is amazing you're reading

about this stuff i'm really excited and he's like don't do it man you need that money now for food and rent i'm like yeah you're right as i was telling you to do it a month later a month later is it before i met you no no even afterwards when bitcoin was out there i was like you got to get into bitcoin you got to do it i was but i i have bitcoin yeah i've been paying attention i'm not but anyway here's what i'm here's what I'm saying. This election is not just about which team won. Right. It's about at this point, I think this is maybe the most consequential election we've ever had.

So here's the next story that Beijing can swing U.S. policy because it has people at the top of America's core inner circle of power in clip that has been deleted from social media in China. Not only does this guy, Di Dongsheng, say that they have they have old friends, he calls it, in high positions. He says that Joe Biden's son became rich with all this international financing stuff. And who do you think helped him do it? Essentially, it's saying the Bidens are compromised, but he doesn't need to say it because Tony Bobulinski already said it. Yeah, that Joe Biden is compromised by China. And now we have a guy in China. They're all laughing as he says he did it.

This is this is the consequence now of losing this election. Yeah, no, I'm really not happy about that, you know, and I think. But listen, listen, what do you do? What do you do? You try and beat him or I mean, or well, and one of the things I've been talking about has been let's get a special counsel going, right? Like this is what Democrats did. Let's have a special counsel for Biden and Biden in China.

And if they if the and the election and the election. Yeah, let's have a second. Like we should have three, right? There's Durham already. Yep. But let's have a new one for the China Burisma stuff. And let's have one for the election irregularities. And let's make the Democrats adhere.

You know, if the Democrats want like obviously a Democrat attorney general can figure out a way to fire these people. There are ways. Yeah. But if they want to set that precedent, fine. We're never going to have to deal with another bs investigation from the civil service again right and so i mean i think they probably will end up doing that if we took the you know if bar pull the trigger was it was it was it lebron james who came out all pro china was yeah that's right yeah we've been seeing more and more u.s companies capitulate to china authoritarian despots communists who

harvest organs from ethnic religious minorities and they're bragging now that they've essentially got the incoming president in their back pocket yeah it's kind of funny how like the communist government of china ended up proving every critique of capitalism true uh right like yeah you you end up with i mean all the worst sort of rapaciousness and corruption they were able to go to these these harvard professors these what what are the universities where they arrested all these guys oh yeah i mean it was harvard berkeley i think had one they go to professor and say hey we'll give you fifty thousand dollars a month give us your secrets recruit for us and they say you bet oh man not only to them but to u U.S. soldiers, to military personnel

with top secret clearances, just like that NYPD officer that was taken in, and also other governments like Israel that have sold U.S. technology to China. So this is a major issue that's going to have major implications. I want to know, who is this top American core, the inner circle of power influence?

Who are these people? I want to know. There deserves to be an investigation. Deep state. Well, there you go. Top level Wall Street. Let's call them the old friends. I'm going to call them the old friends from now on.

He did extensively talk about Wall Street and how Wall Street was able to contain someone like Obama that was very easy to manipulate. And then he said when Trump came in, the story wasn't so true. And then he thinks that when biden comes in things are gonna go back to normal what's normal what is this normal according to beijing and the chinese government the pinky ring of the chinese communist party yeah trump wouldn't do it this guy was like how do we fix the trump administration we couldn't do it well then biden won and everyone laughs everyone laughs so look uh sam harris tweeted the other day, the story from the New York Times.

Why do so many people think the election was rigged? And Jeffrey Miller, so he's another professor, responded that when there's so much anti-conservative bias in academia and institutions and the media, people just don't trust the elections, right? But it's crazy to me that we have Joe Biden, the single greatest president in American history, based on his ability. I mean, you have to imagine the amount of votes he got, 80 million, and the amount of campaigning he did, basically none. He must have been the most powerfully charismatic individual. And when he got up on TV and he said, come on, man, every single one of these voters just like was blasted back by the pure awe of Joe Biden's charisma. I don't know.

I mean, Hillary was a really bad candidate in a lot of ways. People really didn't like Hillary Clinton, and they had really good reason not to like her. The thing about Biden, he's a goofball. He's in cognitive decline. But nobody hated him right right he's not as trump trump was a threat he it's like who loathes joe biden there might be a few people like and maybe he's done some really loathsome things like with china scott but like tara reed yeah tara reed i mean yeah you know there there are there are certainly scandals

that are loathsome but personality wise he he's not like Hillary, and he's not like a lot of Democrats who are just – Let me ask you this. Let me load the question up a little bit. Joe Biden beat every non-polling bellwether metric, such as voter enthusiasm, party registration numbers, Google searches, which is a new one. There's primary vote count and support. He also won the other silly ones like cookie sales and masks. I'm sorry, he lost. You're talking about Trump won all these and Biden.

Biden beat them. So basically all of these things were against him. So whoever gets the highest enthusiasm tends to win. Whoever gets the best primary turnout tends to win. Whoever gets the most new enthusiasm tends to win. Whoever gets the best primary turnout tends to win. Whoever gets the most new registration tends to win. Whoever sells the most Halloween masks and most cookies. Those are the silly ones. I bring them up on purpose.

Joe Biden lost all of those things and still won. He lost the three bellwether states and 18 of 19 bellwether townships. So when you say all that, a lot of people say, look, if you came up to me and said he beat a few of these things, I'd be like, wow. You come on, you tell me that he he beat a few of these things i'd be like wow you come on you tell me that he beat every single one of them at once and that's the weird i mean it's it's weird and i think i think certainly there is fraud impossible but it's it's just not impossible and in 2020 was a different election it's true it's true what i always often say people got to realize too is that covid moved everybody around that people were moving and the riots moved

everybody around so that could explain the states and the townships, I suppose. But we also have to understand that who was in Biden's corner? China was in his corner. The big tech monopolies were in his corner. Hollywood was in his corner. The mainstream media was in his corner. The establishment was in his corner. And they all are working together, helping each other out.

So it makes you really wonder what really happened here, especially with the latest revelations from this professor from beijing i mean this is mind-blowing stuff did you i mean what he said about hunter and how the hunter story was treated in the united states it was essentially stuffed out the american public were denied the truth about the hunter biden emails because of the mainstream media and big tech social monopolies collusion destroying it this is what the professor said. Trump has been saying that Biden's son has some sort of global foundation. Have you noticed that? Who helped Hunter build the foundation?

Got it? There are a lot of these deals inside. You need to understand the way he said it. Yes. The laughing and smiling. He didn't just say, and who helped him build it? Got it? He went, and who helped him build it? Yeah. went and who helped him build it yeah and everyone laughs got it uh-huh right our old friends

the political establishment the elites the old guard the people who were in government who are helping us out he says i talked to our friends they said they were trying to help but they couldn't stop trump well then biden gets biden wins he smiles and everyone laughs. So, look, man, I'm not – I think dark times are coming. Dark winter is putting it lightly. That's what Biden said. I hope that we win the Georgia Senate races really, really badly. I think it's very important. Well, a lot of Republicans are disenfranchised because Trump's being kind of quiet.

He's not really being bombastic. He's not really fighting. And then everything just looks like it's not going his way so but trump's not on the ticket yet where people don't like the republicans i mean in georgia right like you know the the senate candidates outperformed trump right but like loeffler was appointed yeah i mean they're not there's not huge enthusiasm behind them but right you know the sort of she she didn't win a popularity contest, right? Yeah, I mean – There's a vacancy in it.

She didn't win outright. But there were overall more Republican votes in both the Senate seats. I think it's still pretty viable for us to win those Senate seats. I agree. I'm just leaning towards – and maybe I'll be wrong again because I'm not good at predicting how people vote, I suppose. Or I am, and I'm not good at predicting how fraud plays out. But if that's the case, then win i don't know i mean like like basically i speak to some personal experience like my parents are classic suburban republicans right and they uh my mom couldn't stand trump

she just couldn't right you know and voted it voted for hillary and voted for biden um but even she called me the other day and said i'm like i'm i really you know i'm really still glad trump went to georgia to get those said, I'm like, I really, you know, I'm really still glad Trump went to Georgia to get those Republican Senate candidates elected. Like there there really are. There really is that constituency of people in certain places like Georgia that just couldn't couldn't stomach Trump, but would generally want Republicans in power. Well, let's let's let's talk about the more severe reality of what comes next. This is from we got Yahoo News. FBI warns state local police about China targeting people on U.S. soil. They say the FBI is warning local law enforcement agencies to beware of cooperating with a Chinese government campaign to coerce U.S. residents to return to China to

face criminal charges, according to a counterintelligence bulletin obtained by Yahoo News. The bulletin comes shortly after eight people including a former new york police department officer were indicted on charges of acting as illegal agents for beijing eight people including a new an nypd officer were i mean how is this not treason well he wasn't just an nypd officer it's he also held a very important security clearance because he was in the military as well. In the U.S. military? In the U.S. military as well. And he was spying on the Tibetan community, which was a protest community that he was going back all the way to China, giving out key information who was a part of organizing against the Chinese government. Do you see what Mike Pompeo said earlier this year?

I'm not. He said a lot of things. He said China's infiltrated every level of government from state, city. That's very true. So I feel like this guy getting up on stage in China and gloating that the Bidens are basically in the pockets of the old friends and seeing the story about Hunter Biden. Let me just make something really, really clear. Joe Biden took Hunter Biden and Air Force Two to china for a private equity deal why did joe biden use u.s government resources to help his son get a five million dollar forgivable interest-free loan from china and launch a you know a billion dollar billion dollar equity firm they're in they're

in the pocket it's beijing biden bob ulinski who worked with the family gave an interview saying they're compromised and that's it we just roll over and say we we're all chinese subjects now second class citizens unless because we can't even go to china i mean china poses such a difficult problem like i i often people think like it was just obvious that you know we were going to win the cold war i mean we had a massive espionage disadvantage of the soviet union yeah um but ultimately the soviet union was you know fighting us but they had a completely dysfunctional economic system they couldn't put enough toilet paper on the shelves you know they didn't guess you can't put enough toilet paper on the shelves now yeah i mean right um but like it took 50 years to beat that that economy and that

economy was completely dysfunctional china's economy is not dysfunctional no um it's manipulative it's manipulative and they and they also have the same sort of like espionage superiority of us that the soviets had over us. They have four times the people. Four times the people. I mean, in terms of agents, like we don't have any meaningful presence there. They have, I mean, there's some great books on this about what the variety of different operations China's running here. Trying to hack lower level defense contractors because they can't hack, obviously, you know, DOD. But they try and get low level contractors and get plans plans that way um you know basically trying to recruit people i mean

there are i think something that somebody said to me or i think i might have read it there are like serious technical computer science programs at college park taught by chinese professors to chinese students in chinese and that's weird like that's and then those kids go back they're they're they're manipulating their um real estate market in china yeah to create this this like a regular middle class house is like a million dollars compared to an american which is you know 200 to 300 000 or something like that they're buying up large swaths of land in countries all over the world in uh in brazil and in africa in uh, in Africa, in the US, on the West Coast.

They're buying up tons and tons of property. They're just slowly buying their way to take everything over. It's clever. It's basically they've convinced the United States to give up all its manufacturing in exchange for cheap labor. These politicians we've had over the past several decades, the old friends, as D. Dong Cheng says, have thought to themselves, look, it's good for the American business to have dollar an hour Chinese laborers. I've got to pay benefits to, they save money and we all get rich. And then a generation goes by,

decade goes by. And now we no longer make our own medicine. We don't like you buy a musical instrument, you buy, you know, a computer, computers, cameras, whatever. It's all made somewhere else. We don't make it anymore. what would happen if china declared war right now we'd be caught with our pants down i mean it's i mean they wouldn't i mean there's there's still the mutual assured destruction worries but i mean they were beyond the point of being able to you know really meaningfully coerce them like that's and that's that's actually different from like where we were as a superpower even 20 years ago. We at Human Events, we ran an article like Xi Jinping will have his way in Hong Kong.

That was like two years ago. We got a lot of flack from that from people who were saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. But again, a descriptive versus an orative argument. Do I want Xi Jinping to have his way with Hong Kong? No. Will he? Yes. Exactly.

This Beijing professor confirmed everything that we've been hearing about for a very long time. We were talking about this two days ago before this video came out. Two days ago, we were breaking everything down. And we've got to understand, we're in a trade war. We're going to be in a currency war. We're probably, according to the Sicilian trap, might be even in a hot war. And we have to understand, China has its hands deep in American institutions like we can't even imagine. When we look at politicians and corporations, they have been enriched more than they could have even imagined because of this opening of China policy that has been instituted by individuals like Henry Kissinger under the Nixon administration that literally went to China with David Rockefeller and said, hey, we're going to have a lot of jobs for you. We're going to bring you a lot of factories.

We're going to bring you a lot of factories. We're going to bring you a lot of industry. You just give us the cheap Chinese slave labor, and then we're going to have a great deal, and everything's going to go through China. And that's exactly what's happening right now. Look, it's beyond just the schools where they have the Thousand Towns Project, where they've actually got a bunch of professors taking 50K a month or whatever, recruiting more people and selling our secrets. They've got Hollywood bending the knee, doing movies where they remove negative things that could offend china the nba is praising them and they got tiktok and mainstream media as well mainstream news articles refuse many times to even criticize china or the uighur muslims i mean look at look

at tibet as an example a few years ago everyone was talking about tibet and the tibetans and the things that they're going through with the Chinese government. Now, no one's even talking about Tibet. No one's talking about the Uyghur Muslims. No one's talking about Hong Kong, where we're getting video footage right now of them sending activists and protesters to mainland China to never be seen again. Or the video footage of the Uyghur Muslims being loaded into trains, heads shaven. All that's happening. And it sounds like if Trump isn't the president in the next four years, we will just be subjects of China. I mean, I don't think we'll be subjects of China.

I think that we're too, we're still too strong. Figuratively. But like, it'll get to the point where whatever soft power we had, I mean, like it just, it will be gone, right? Like we'll ask somebody. We're a generation or two out. You see what TikTok is doing? People don't realize this with how TikTok works.

You know what? I'm going to stop and talk about a different social media app, okay, that's similar. And what they do is, and I've mentioned this before, you get, in order to get a bunch of young people using your social media app so you can manipulate them and control what they see and what they think, you get some kids to use it. You give them fake followers. All of a sudden, some high school kids, like I got 2,000 followers on this app. I don't have any followers on Facebook or Twitter. They use the app more. They get more followers.

The followers aren't real. They brag to their friends. How many followers do you have? 50? I got 4,000 on TikTok. Or I should say a different app, not TikTok. Now I mean literally a different app. Because I don't know if TikTok did this, but I know there's another company that did this

and it worked out very, very, very, very well for them. You get all these young people to use it and eventually you've created a cultural wave that everybody wants to be on it because they want to get recognition. They want the followers. They want the points. They want the score. Then you use the algorithm to control what they can see and what they can't see. All of a sudden now anything negative about China is gone.

Everything positive about China is coming back. Donald Trump is the orange man. He's awful. He's evil. He's bad. Everybody hates him, right? You better go vote. Then you get a big surge of young people who go out and vote.

And that's manipulated through this technology coming from these other countries. It's fifth generational warfare. I mean there's a reason China doesn't let its citizens use Twitter. Exactly. But they use it for us. Yeah, like, I mean, there needs to be reciprocity there or nothing at all, right? Like, and we should be, I mean, it's ridiculous that it took so long or that people were even pushing back against the problem of China.

And they're aggressively going after VPNs so people in China can't even, you know, change their addresses to see what people in the world are saying. So just imagine living in China where your social credit score relies on what you regurgitate, what you read. If you read something you're not supposed to read, your social credit score goes down. And this is a society that other places like Singapore and other governments are even thinking about adapting themselves, because this is a great way to control people to subjugate people and to benefit the special interest class which are seeing these things they're saying wait this could be probably good here and then we have a biden administration where his cabinet is being filled

with individuals that are literally arguing we can't do anything to stifle we shouldn't stop china because if we do that's going to hurt the global economy we need to let china rise and these are key individuals that are going to be in Biden's administration very soon. Guys, just lay down and put your hands up and expose your soft underbelly for China. They just want to lock up the Uyghur Muslims. We need satellite

internet. We need to bypass ISPs and get this free software mesh network in place. We need it here so we don't get censored, but they need it. Yeah, I mean, free and open internet is something critically important, and when you see China controlling it,

controlling what their people can and cannot listen to and see, this is a huge, vast power that it just started out with the government coming out saying, no, we're going to tell you what you should listen to. We know what's best for you. Just like corporations are making the the argument here we have to fight against fake news and everything that's wrong in our society we're going to curate everything for you and provide it

to you on a silver platter i think we're on track to based on everything we're seeing happening right now when i say that we'll be subjects of of china i don't mean in a year i mean in 50 or 100 we will be a weak old regional power probably fractured in many ways with a you know disparate broken government in some i imagine at that point you know and again a lot of variables from now between the 50 or 100 years but uh china's got the power china's growing china's controlling us And we're losing. I don't know. I would say I'm that as pessimistic as you are. But I definitely think that we're in general.

I mean, the Democrats are, you know, continuing Democrat control will lead to that. Sure. Look at the past several decades of what the U.S. has been doing. Sending our manufacturing overseas. Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now, you know, Joe Biden's going to jump in whatever Pacific Partnership agreement there's going to be. And it's not just about China. They're the biggest threat the US has right now, but it's also about the US just giving up. And it's not like the collective spirit of America has said, oh, I failed, I'm done. It's that we've got politicians that never cared about us. And

it's partly our fault. When people go in and they say, I'm a vote Democrat, I'm a voting Republican, they don't know who they're voting for. They end up voting for people who are just like, vote for me and, you know, I'll fight for you. I'll give you whatever you want. And then all they really wanted was the keys to the castle. They want to get the paycheck. They want to get the pension. And they want to get their name etched in stone for history.

And then they did nothing. And then when it came to passing bills, they said, how much money can we make in the short term if we send our manufacturing to, you know, to Mexico, to Indonesia, to, you know, to Vietnam or China? We'll make a ton of money in the short term. What about the long term? Oh, we'll lose. Yeah, but we won't care about that. That's our kids, right? Politicians have sold out the next generations. And so surprised to me, you've got so many young people who are becoming socialists. That seems to me like the downward trajectory is we had a period where a bunch of our leaders were selling out our manufacturing base for a short-term gain with a long-term loss. And then we created this world where these kids are like, well, just go to college then, right? That's the solution. There's no more good manufacturing

jobs. Go to college and you'll get a good paying job. But what happens when everybody has a degree in some field or another and you're competing with people on the same level? Once again, there are still no jobs. There can be a million good computer jobs. But if, you know, 50 million kids are coming out of college with computer degrees, there's still no jobs. Now they're saying nothing works. We need communism. But communism doesn't produce anything. It extracts things. So over a long enough period of time, as everyone keeps demanding the government pay my bills, we need a stimulus. Lock everything down, have the government pay for it. The government can print money. Money can facilitate trade. But if there's nothing being produced,

there's nothing to trade in the long run. Yeah, I think that's right. All right, I need to quickly use a restroom if that's okay. Yeah, do it. I just did that. I would say all the jobs are definitely in China with the Uyghur Muslims producing a lot of the corporate American goods that lecture us on racism here in the United States, which is something that people need to realize as well. But I don't know if we want to go into the next story. But, I mean, they infiltrate not only these kind of intellectual institutions that kind of set our young children to be where they are right now. China has a huge influence on the universities and colleges, but they also infiltrate politicians in more ways than one,

as we found out today with the Chinese spy. Oh, that's right. Swalwell. Oh, no. Swalwell has the nerve to say cheat an election when he had a fundraiser organized by a Chinese spy. Yes, and there's accusations by Donald Trump Jr. that allegedly this spy had relations with Mr. Eric Swalwell,

which, by the way, Eric Swalwell was one of the biggest proponents of Russian collusion. If you remember, he was out there on all the media networks. They loved him. He was ranting and raving, there's a foreign government infiltrating our government. There's a foreign government controlling everything our government. There's a foreign government controlling everything. The Russians are colluding. And he farted.

On TV while accusing Trump of trying to cheat an election. Exactly. And at the same time, he was being infiltrated at very high levels by a Chinese government, which he had very close dealings with. Now, this person is very interesting because they are describing her as a honeypot. She slept with many prominent government officials and she escaped to China. As soon as the FBI came looking for her, they saw that she somehow miraculously escaped, which is absolutely mind-boggling. So the Biden family is compromised.

Dianne Feinstein had a Chinese spy working for her office and now Swalwell and many other people had a spy working for him. Secretary Pompeo said that Chinese governments infiltrated every level of government. Not just not just infiltrated. I mean, this spy was deemed an important political figure in California. She was orchestrating a lot of the campaigns, a lot of the fundraisers raising for Swalwell. Exactly. So there's individuals right now saying Swalwell needs to resign immediately since he's been infiltrated. The mainstream media right now is slowly patting him on the back saying, it's okay, he's a victim here. He was given a briefing by the FBI. They didn't do that for Trump.

Yep. When Trump was accused of Russia, they just started spying on him. infiltrated by the Chinese government. And we still don't know exactly what this person has. We don't know what information they were able to gather. This person also did fundraisers for Tulsi Gabbard, of all people. Oh, wow. Yes. No way. So this is a major big story that's going to have a lot of ramifications. Because when you look at the Beijing professor, he also talked about a political figure that helped him out tremendously that now has Chinese citizens and now is back in China. So we saw this Beijing professor literally talk about this, gloating about this, acting very

happy that this happened. And now we have this story that just came out there. And I think this probably happened a couple of weeks ago, maybe even a couple of months ago. And now we're just finding out about it because there's a correlation with it. You just make me more pessimistic about the whole China thing. Well, I mean, I'd rather know the truth and reality that we're just finding out about it because there's a correlation with it. You just make me more pessimistic about the whole China thing. Well, I mean, I'd rather know the truth and reality that we're facing than be blind to exactly what's going on. Because we have to understand, our institutions are corrupted to the core, and they need to be replaced immediately. Listen, listen. If you just praise the glory that is the Chinese Communist Party, then you'll get to be a wealthy party member.

You'll have a nice loft the top the tallest building i wouldn't just say you know imprisoning the uighurs i wouldn't feel right imprisoning the poor people would you rather go to the gulag yourself all you have to do is give in just give in no thank you never that's what's happening though it's it's the way people feel it's a path of least resistance yeah why bother fighting against this machine that is that is you know gaining strength and taking over when you can just give in and be rich right i mean that's how they went over the elites so yeah well we're talking about the spying program that was revealed today with the chinese honeypot that's infiltrated

more ways than one a lot of u. government officials. What do you think about that? Because a lot of people are saying this is room for Swalwell to resign. Swalwell needs to resign. Do you think that's legitimate? Do you think there's any legal merit in that? I mean, there's not a legal argument. It's a political argument. I think he should resign.

I think this should be looked at like, I think he should have resigned a long time ago. You were compromised by a Russian spy in the middle of the Cold War. Yeah, time for you should resign. I think this should be looked at like, oh, I think he should have resigned a long time ago. Like you, you had a, you were compromised by a Russian spy in the middle of the cold war. Yeah. Time for you to resign. Like in, you know,

I mean, but I'm in general think a lot more people in our government should be resigning. I think they should all resign. Except for Rand Paul. And retiring from public life. Like why hasn't Bill Kristol retired from public life? Or Henry Kissinger of all people.

Well, he got fired by Trump. Yeah. His organization did. I mean, he's 90. Doesn't he have grandchildren? He can hang out with them. It's fine.

Doesn't it seem like Trump is... I'll say this. In my opinion, Trump is doing... Everything he's doing, he's acting as though he's not going anywhere. I mean, I think that's... I think it's a front, honestly. I think he'll, you know... Remember, the dude was a billionaire, and he gave up the life of a billionaire, and

he'll be returning to the life of a billionaire for the most part. Yeah, but I don't know. The TDS individuals are going to go after him. Like the state level. Yeah, right. The state prosecutors. There's a bunch of them. They're nuts.

That's what I'm saying, man. I can't imagine everything just goes back to normal the way some of these people, like these Democrat voters, think is going to happen. Yeah, like the calls for unity like i'm sorry like you don't get to call us nazis one day and then suddenly have me turn around and sing kumbaya with you but they think it's going to calm down when you've literally got you know lynn wood and cindy powell for instance saying don't vote republican oh my gosh i mean that said like and there's stuff like i'm seeing like calls for martial law and um you know like i'm not for any of that like in that respect i'm just like i'm count me out like i'm not gonna sit here and well we got to be honest here if the republicans were accused

of stealing the election i think half of america would be burned down by now oh yeah sure right like that i mean but you know that it's also like the consequence of that like if what you're calling for is like martial law and a revote the and if you actually prevailed then half of america would be burned down if trump succeeds in his efforts and you know because president yeah it's going to be antifa times 10 times yeah and i mean like i i mean that's not that's not independently a reason right the question is like i i the reason i oppose that is not like oh well antifa is bad and they'll do bad things it's not you know we shouldn't let that control our behavior and decision-making, but,

uh, that doesn't mean I ever, I want to live in a country with coos. I, or, uh, sort of, what do you,

what do you look if, if Trump on January 21st is a regular guy again, the new New York's going after him like crazy and, and the media smears and lies about him. It's intense. I don't know. I mean, it's just you you remember everybody hated nixon and then they stopped and they forgot after the ford pardon

i could even see a biden pardon of trump honestly that's federal level what about the state the state level is the issue part of the state level but i think i think the the sort of urgency and onus to keep going after trump is gone if he's not president anymore i think perhaps that's my i mean i might be wrong but i don't i don't think so though because i think they need their boogeyman they need their villain and and and you know what the articles that are coming out right now from the left say in order for us to heal trump must go to prison yeah no a lot a lot of a lot of hot takes coming from the left on that well they've been calling for things like truth and reconciliation commissions tribunals tribunals like so so like he's like hideki tojo or something i'll say i'll say a couple things you want to you know uh you by all means call out the people saying we need martial law right

yeah the democrats have already implemented it in many states oh you know over covet right and then you add that to the fact now they're saying tribunals for not just trump but his enablers and some people have gone so far as they put a list of their supporters so that would be you me or or even luke even though Luke's not a Trump supporter. It doesn't matter. You've called out China. You've been critical of the left. Therefore, it's good enough for them.

Ian, who's actually kind of a hippie dude, they'd say, doesn't matter. He's on the TimCast IRL show. Put him on the list of enablers and supporters. So if we're at the point where we already have martial law locked in many places and states that's violating the Constitution, they're calling for truth and reconciliation commissions tribunals and things like that and then on the other side they're calling for martial law like how does this come go go down i mean i don't know how it resolves i think you know my hope is collapse yeah i don't think i'm saying that the resolve right like if you're making predictions i don't know i mean i i think and there's a lot of other you know i mean the the covid reorientation of wealth to

the big companies versus people people having nothing left are going to snap like that viral video of the pineapple hill woman where she's got this outdoor seating area that newsom's like you can't you can't use it and then right next to it is hollywood food production services totally fine regular people are looking at that and their brains are going to explode Newsom's like, you can't use it. And then right next to it is Hollywood Food Production Services. Totally fine. Regular people are looking at that, and their brains are going to explode. Yeah, and I wonder if the consequences for that are finally going to be felt in a world where Trump isn't around. Like, he does have this effect of, like, sucking all the air out of the room, and that in terms of media coverage. I mean, the thing about it is really deeply offensive that these politicians can't adhere to their own guidelines and they don't want to it's also important to note that we saw record levels

of protest under the obama administration when he first came in we saw occupy wall street so that's also another factor to really consider here and also that a big swap of the left is not really impressed with biden at all but i was going to ask you how do you see this unfolding in the worst case scenario and how you see it unfolding in the best case scenario i mean worst case you get i mean i guess like democrats are going to be in control of the federal government and republicans generally don't do like full-scale rebellion right and they don't do cultural institutions and they and they don't do cultural institutions but they also don't do like antifa type stuff in general like there isn't you know you don't see the sort of burning down of the cities.

But how would you, let me know your thoughts on this. I think we might see, you know, Joe Biden, for instance, he wants to ban all online sales of guns and accessories and ammo and things like that. He wants to do what you. Bullet registration and a $200 tax on every. Every gun, NFA. Yeah. What is it, National Firearms Act is how it is? Yes, yes.

Well, that's why we need to make sure we don't lose the damn senate well so so so what happens then if if he does this if the senate does this if they pack the courts i wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of jurisdictions small towns all of a sudden had right-wing militias putting up checkpoints i mean i think that that would be a point where you'd actually see this sort of rebellions that you and like you know real serious anti-government activity that sort of hinted at in the 90s under clinton uh but that might become like a really big thing that's why we had the uh what was it what were the two you had waco waco ruby ridge yeah but i think i mean my guess is that's ultimately going to be just talk i don't think biden's going to sign new gun legislation i think that i mean democrats you

don't think they'll pack the supreme court i mean if i think i think if they had the power they would do it um and i think the big problem there is what you'll what though i don't know if biden will do this stuff at the federal level but what i expect will be um in a world where the court is packed dc versus heller gets overturned the what is that one that's the court decision that establishes that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not a collective one. Right. So the collective right would be like if there's a militia, then you're allowed to be in the militia with guns. Exactly.

And it's scary that that decision is even close. Like, I mean, it requires real bastardization of the grammar of the Second Amendment. Have you read the original Second Amendment? Oh, the one that says we can do whatever we want with guns? It's like that Parks and Rec, Ron Swanson. When they were initially proposing the Bill of of rights there were like 17 articles that were proposed the original second amendment said something to the effect of if someone chooses not to join active duty militia or military they that they will still have the right to bear arms and they took that language out i guess because there was a concern about it could potentially

mean people could you could avoid conscription. So initially they were like, you can bear – a well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right to bear arms should not be infringed. And if an individual chooses not to join or be part of a militia, they shall still have the right to bear arms. And they were like, wait, wait, wait. Get rid of that part because it makes it sound like you can avoid conscription. And we need conscription because at the time, if you were an able-bodied male, it's like you're going to war, buddy. So they get rid of that part because it makes it sound like you can avoid conscription and we need conscription because at the time, if you were an able bodied male, it's like you're going to war, buddy. So they get rid of it. Now we have these arguments, which I think are completely in bad faith.

If you actually look at the history of the Second Amendment, we had privateers. We had corsairs like regular regular dudes like here's my battleship I can use to blow up a French trade vessel. Regular citizens had cannons on their houses and properties and things like that, so they could. Now it's like you can't have any of that, and that's the argument. But anyway— Also defund the police because the police are bad, and really just let yourself be at the mercy of people who would do violence to you.

That's why I think what we're talking about is fifth-generational warfare. Disarm the people and disarm their their local police why would you do that what let me tell you this in these west coast places where they're very prominently doing this portland seattle places in california it's already hard enough to get a gun in california now you've got defund the police what do you think would happen if you had northern california nobody's armed well northern california is fairly republican so people got a lot probably have long guns but let's see you have a city very few people have guns and the police are now defunded and fractured anybody can walk right in just walk you know i'm from california i would never move back

yeah and it's it's sad to see what's happened to the state i think if you know they get the senate and i do think they'll get it i do because trump's not on the ticket look at 2018 they didn't have the the uh with trump supporters are not republicans for the most part yeah but stacy abrams lost in 16 she lost to brian kemp in 16 yeah Yeah. Sorry, in 18. That's true. I mean, and like I still, you know, I still am a, Georgia is a red state in general. I think it just had a particular coalition, sort of like Utah. If like Utah were a closer state, Utah was, you know, very Mormon and had a big chunk of, you know, Trump underperformed his normal, the normal Republican performance in that state. So I think Georgia is kind of similar in that respect where you've got you know that big suburban atlanta population since you're a betting man what odds would you give on georgia going republican going republican i'd say i mean

70 chance 75 chance wow i think that's what the uh the betting odds are right now it's like 70 70 something sounds about right to me right like you know when i was the funny thing is i didn't bet on the original the election before the election because i thought the odds were about right. You know, I think Trump was about a two to one dog or something like that. And I thought that was right. I have to say either way, it doesn't look good because if, you know, the Senate is by one, a majority of the Republicans, how much dirt do the Chinese have, especially with their honeypots on one politician to persuade them or to push them and to do whatever they want? I mean, and they've been doing some crazy stuff. I mean, they decided, I still don't understand this and why they would even consider

it they did the the mike lee's immigration bill where he wanted to like remove country caps like guys get a grip we're trying to win the senate here and you're out there you're you're pushing liberalized immigration policy when there's a republic that's why i i don't even think the republicans are going to do enough to uh defend the country i just, I mean, I don't expect much out of them. I just expect them not to do things that are disastrous and catastrophic. Because, I mean, the way I look at it is Democrats want to completely remove the ability for Republicans to win elections. I don't know if you've read the book, It's Time to Fight Dirty. I might have recommended it.

I don't know. But basically, I mean, what do they want to do? Why do they want to do it? Pack the Supreme Court. Add more states. They can control the Senate permanently. That's how it goes. You know, national voter, you know, automatic voter registration, voting day a holiday.

They want to completely. Universal mail-in voting. Universal mail-in voting. And the argument is we want to make all of it. We want to make it easier for people to vote. And that's just not true. Yeah. They're trying to strip away election security.

That's what they're doing. Yeah. And I mean, but the end goal here is permanent democratic control they thought they almost had it they thought they were going to get it one of the you know and that's actually one of the arguments like why i don't think the whole thing was rigged you know in terms of like well the voting machines are rigged well if the voting machines were rigged why didn't they just get a result in line with polling you know democrats underperform public polling in the run-up to the election they could have joke well yeah the polling was nuts though it was insane

but like you can you can look if you want to play it's easily explained in terms of the you know the the trump supporter more conspiracy mindset the polls were propaganda to demoralize voters saying trump's gonna win don't bother i agree then when it came to actually as trump has said this is their opinion that he ended up winning so well that they panicked and had to really go crazy on you know cranking out the fake votes just so story you know right it wasn't saying there's like there is an explanation that the left is saying right now if biden cheated then how come he the democrats lost down ballot well because there's a bunch of uh under votes votes that were just for biden right i mean and like i think there's a bunch of uh undervotes votes that were just for biden right i mean and

like i think there's plenty of cheating on the fringe right like i still think that you know i watched poll watchers get denied entry i watched how frivolous like the behavior of these democratic poll workers was and i'm like these people could have there's no moral thing that would have stopped these people from doing some amount of cheating if they could get away with it um the question is just what could they get away with and i think you know you end up getting away with things like coerced absentee votes duplicate votes those sort of and then maybe some well they were in philly they were putting up those signs saying here's who you should vote for yeah like that's super it's like it's the weird like it's like the cheating on the margins or fraud on the margins versus like fraud at the

core and i think that i haven't seen any good evidence of fraud at the core i don't think there's like proof of you know these the the dominion allegations but there's like yeah that's that's this so wait you know you know what really bothered me about dominion stuff is that i even said this on the show i got really mad about it because the dominion stuff and and hammer and scorecard was a red herring it was it was here's what happens there will be some dirty politician and they'll get caught doing something illegal. And when someone starts sniffing too close, what they'll do is they'll throw out some crazy idea to throw them off the trail. And then instead of saying, I caught this dude doing drugs, it turns into crazy pizza cult at, you know, in D.C.

And now the real crime is they're laughing, saying we tricked those people. How easy. So right now when you've got actual irregularity and impropriety trump's suing and trying to be legitimized in his claims the single worst thing for donald trump in all of this was the lawsuit from sydney powell and the dominion claims because what trump needed and that's why a lot of people it's funny they're claiming that sydney powell's a democrat lin's a Democrat, and they're like trying to subvert Trump. I tell you, man, I was reading a post on Reddit, and they said, when it comes to a coup, the one thing a leader and the person staging the coup need is legitimacy. The current leader needs to tell everyone,

I'm in charge, I will always be in charge, listen to what I have to say so that the lower individuals, the police, the law enforcement, military, listen. What the other guy needs in the coup is legitimacy in the same regard. Here's why I'm actually in charge. Listen to me. Trump comes out and says 682,000 votes. No one was able to observe what's going on here. Matthew Brainerd's voter integrity project. Look at all of these votes from people who live in different states and voted twice. That's legitimate. Then all of a sudden, Sidney Powell comes out with this typo-laden Kraken lawsuit that sounds crazy, that has, you know, it's almost impossible to back up except for a bunch of

YouTube videos and a bunch of weird videos popping up. And Trump loses that legitimacy. The media jumped on that in two seconds and tried making every claim from the Trump campaign about the fringest and craziest conspiracy to delegitimize his claim that he actually won. And it worked. Yep. Yeah. No, those lawsuits are a disaster. They were, I mean, like, and I had people in my mentions constantly who knows if they're real or not, honestly.

But, like, people in my mentions being like, how dare you say that this won't work? And it's just like, because I'm a lawyer, and I can read a brief. The people are real. I know people in my life, I've talked to people who are adamantly convinced the Dominion stuff is real. I'll tell you what, maybe. Sure. But listen. It's voter suppression, too, for the Georgia thing.

Sorry to interrupt, but you're suppressing your own voters when you tell them that the election is completely rigged. And you see what happened with Ronna McDaniel when the lady was asking her, like, why should we even bother voting? It's rigged. And she's like, no, no, no, you have to vote. Then you see Sidney Powell and Lin Wood. Not only did they delegitimize Trump's claims strongly, not completely, they're also now telling people not to vote for Republicans.

I mean, it's just, you know, this is the suicide caucus. Like, the sort sort of we should just commit electoral suicide because we didn't get maybe they're accelerationists maybe they are um they think look the democrats take everything over the sooner the fat like here's the problem frogs boiling in a pot eventually just boil but you throw boiling water water at a frog and the frog's gonna jump and run away maybe that's what the accelerationists think yeah yeah i mean well maybe that's maybe that's there's some big giant strategy but really i think it's just a giant pr exercise from people who've gotten high on their own supply of pr but what about trump you think trump's trying to win though i mean i think he's trying to win i

just think i think he's you know he's been a businessman for a long time he's a guy who's litigated a bunch of cases to the end so he's probably just like he's doing what he does he's like any other businessman he'll litigateate hard as long as he can until his appeals are exhausted, and then he'll comply. That's what I think. All right, let's do this. We would normally now jump to super chats, but I want to do one more segment because I've been sitting on the story. It's a week old now, but I really want to talk about it. It has very little to do with politics and everything to do with just the absurdity of the modern political world. Ladies and gentlemen, Vanderbilt players were crying during Sarah Fuller's 30-yard kick. This is an actual news story.

Let me break it down for you. Sarah Fuller is the first woman to play in, what is it, Power Five, I think it's called? I'm not a big football fan, so I don't know a whole lot about what this means. Changing the game, Sarah Fuller became the first woman to play in a power five college football game. The team she's on Vanderbilt lost 41 to zero. She came out in the second half and did, uh, she kicked and kicked like between 20 and 30 yards. And then they ended up losing. I tweeted about this and I didn't say anything negative because I was just like, I was like, history was made for, uh, you know, first woman to to play in a power five game loses 41 to 0 she kicked 30 yards and people were trying to convince me like say to me she she it was it was a squib kick it

was on purpose right then we got then we got more news this is the craziest thing vanderbilt players consider opting out of final game at Georgia, another kicker joining team. After this fiasco, players actually said that they wouldn't play in another game. They were not going to do it. Seems like, I don't know if this team thought, hey, we'll just put the first female kicker on to get all this good social justice PR. But it resulted in the players actually crying. So this is the story from the daily caller they say vanderbilt players were apparently emotional during sarah fuller's kick against missouri okay maybe they were crying because with tears of joy right they were just crying watching

this historic moment sure during the 41 to 0 blowout loss fuller became the first woman to play in a major college football game when she she kicked the start of the second half, the ball went a staggering 30 yards. There were some people on the sideline tearing up, quarterback Mike Wright said during a game during it during a Saturday morning college game day segment on Fuller's kick. As hard as that might be to believe, I can promise that I'm not making this up. You can watch the video below. It used to be an insult. When is this nonsense going to end? They say this is nothing more than a PR stunt, didn't save derrick mason's job and now we're out here talking about players crying are you kidding me this can't possibly be real from the way people talk about fuller's kick you'd think she was the first woman to walk on the moon so it sounds like they're actually saying

they were crying tears of joy right yeah i mean it's it's incredibly silly. Yes. And patronizing. Yes. And, I mean, any meaningful... I don't know. I mean, there's record low testosterone out there, and it keeps going down. Remember the Try Guys from BuzzFeed? Yes. Oh, my gosh.

They got testosterone tested? Yeah, go ahead. So there were four guys at BuzzFeed, and they got their T levels tested, and they were all like 80 year old men i could have told you that just looking at them though i mean super low and it's kind of it's kind of crazy i wonder is there like what's going on there's been a progressive decline in testosterone that's been tested throughout the decades there's many theories out there there's many different explanations some people are talking about microplastics some people are talking about

poor diet some people are talking about birthplastics. Some people are talking about poor diet. Some people are talking about birth control in the water. Birth control in the water, which is another thing. Some people are talking about the frogs deciding to change their orientation. Turn the freaking frogs gay! I didn't want to say that, but yes, that's exactly what's been happening.

Is that going to derank you? I don't know, probably. They're going to think it was actually Alex Jones. They're going to be like, we caught it. It did sound just like Alex. No, no, I'm just doing an impersonation. But this is a serious issue

because reproductivity of human beings is going down dramatically. So people are having less and less babies. with the kick in the football game? Well, we just made a comment about the testosterone issue

and maybe they were crying for real because they were emotional. When I read that, I thought they were crying because their careers are now destroyed. They're now losers on a losing team because of this PR stunt to put a woman on the team. They lost 41-0.

Maybe you're not familiar with this. There was some Chicago White Sox owner who had his team send out a six-year-old or something to bat in a baseball game. Really? He walked because of the small strike zone. Is that real? That's real. I think it's Eddie Geidel. G-A-E-D-E-L. I'm really curious now.

I think that's right. But I know the owner is Bill Veck. See if I got the name right. That's amazing. He was six years old. I always find things like that kind of patronizing. Look at that. Man, my memory's good.

He was the world's smallest player. He was five foot six inches. No, no, no. That's Rizzuto. Click on the link. This Eddie Geidel? Yeah, there he is. Oh, wow. there you go oh wow look at that that's real that's real that happened oh wow but he wasn't six years old i'm not sure how old he was when he played he's just a little person no no he was a child he was a child he was a child he gained recognition in the second game

of the st louis browns doubleheader weighing 60 pounds and staying at three foot seven inches he became the shortest player in history of the major leagues. Oh, no, you're right. I guess you're right. He was actually... He looks like a child. Yeah. Smart play, though. Smart play. Tiny strike zone. Hard to get that. And he walks? Yeah, he walks.

That's what I didn't remember correctly. So what is the strategic advantage of having a female kicker? There isn't one, but I guess... BuzzFeed's gonna like you. I was thinking it's like, you know, strategic advantage of having a female kicker there there isn't one but i guess buzzfeed's gonna like you i was i was thinking it's like you know 50 years ago people recognize this sort of thing as like a ridiculous stunt and it's like well i'm gonna tell you i'm gonna tell you the reason i want to talk about this is because i said i think like three years ago when like a lot of video game and movie stuff was happening i said it's only a matter of time before they

just change the rules to mandate women in major league sports. Like, why not? The rules are arbitrary, right? We could raise the basketball nets five feet. We just agree to do it. No more dunking or something. People might still be able to dunk, I guess. But we could just say, okay, new rule change.

So what if right now everyone just said, okay, new rule change. Players have to be half women, half men. Why not? Well, is the NBA have to be half women half men why not well um is the nba going to be diverse then you just see a bunch of i mean there would be a huge market for uh trans women yep that's what well i i said back then it's only a matter of time before there are diversity demands in major league sports if the rules can be changed by people then there's no reason they can't have a rule saying the easiest way to get women in major league sports is just to mandate that they're there.

It's the same as any diversity quota. It's not about your merit. It's about making sure there's representation in the game, right? There you go. I would have said Democrats wouldn't do that, but they've done a lot of crazy things in the past few years. But this already happens in mainstream society. In the corporate world, this already exists. So why wouldn't it exist

in the nba and and i think it's going to it's absolutely going to they'll get their bones broken well perhaps or perhaps you're a bigot ian no i'm talking about physiology you gotta be you gotta be every compassionate look will can you hear this bigot everyone knows there's no difference at all struck by the fact that he's not recognizing the impact of discourse on physiology. Yeah. That's true. We can talk people to be the same. That's right.

Well, no, no, no. But think about this. Think about this. There's no rule stopping women from playing in any major league sport. They just don't win. When they try out, like, you know, she kicked 30 yards. She didn't kick 70. So I looked at it. I don't know anything about football. And they like you know she kicked 30 yards she didn't kick 70 so i looked at i don't know anything about football and they said a good a good you know kick is 70

yards she might have been kicking on side though because they were down so far was that the case man well some people down 25 points at the beginning of the second half and she might kick on side kick and some people said it was a squib kick intentionally which is an onside yeah yeah she might be a great kicker. Yeah. For a woman. But so the point I'm making is, look, we make up the rules of the game. Right now the rules are the best of the best are chosen by the managers and the owners for who's going to be on the team. We could simply just say, yeah, exactly. So question, as men are losing testosterone, are women getting more beastly?

I don't know. Well, I don't know about naturally. Like, men are naturally losing testosterone. Like, the BuzzFeed guys are a good example of that. But I think that might be because they're not exercising. It's really, you know, look, guys used to have to go and chop lumber. True. Now they sit at their desks and eat Doritos and drink Mountain Dew.

Yeah, COVID was not good for my waistline. That's for sure. Yeah, nobody's. But maybe with more women getting in sports and things like that, maybe we'll see an increase over time. But look, the point I'm saying is, you mentioned in corporations,

we already have the diversity quotas. You look at California now, they passed that law where they got a... Mandatory, yeah. Mandatory board member must be like female or minority or whatever. Why not in major league sports? I'm not saying why not in the sense of i'm advocating for it i'm saying why wouldn't they do it they will be doing it and you're calling it out and

we're going to see in a few months maybe even even a few years just these kind of patronizing representation of here we are it's like we're all the same everyone gets an award i don't know i mean you might end up it just it might be a bridge too far right like you you get the sense that people were able to do a lot of things like i want you to think about this like i wonder how long the mass kneeling would have lasted in a world where the crowds were still at the arenas right after george floyd there's a sense where they could get away with it because there was no audience to boo i wonder how long people would do that if there was systematic booing well look what happened to the nba and their record low ratings with them politicizing this and literally putting

Black Lives Matter on the basketball court. And then they polled people. It was a Hill Harris X, and they found that most people said, I can't stand the politics. Yeah. So they're not watching anymore. Well, I watched one game and it was just during the timeouts, during the interviews, any kind of patronizing, any kind of virtual signal they could put out, they put out there as much as they could. So what you're saying, I think, is going to come true. It's only going to be a matter of time. And it's trendy. It's cool, Will.

You've got to get with the times. Yeah, that's why I'm a conservative. It's going to come down to claptor. What we're going to see is people are going to be watching sports and they're not going to care about touchdowns or scores they're gonna care about representation of people so it's like that episode of south park where they had sarcastical where football was too rough so then it turned into a game of tag and then it was like them chasing balloons around and wearing bras and it was because randy was like okay fine like it's too rough why don't we just have the

kids chase balloons instead i guess and they, okay, that's a good idea. Oh, okay, then why not have them wear bras while they do it? And they're like, okay, let's do it. And they did it. And the game became just ridiculous nonsense. And then they didn't realize. They were like, I don't know if I'm being sarcastic anymore. Nothing makes sense. Everything's broken. But I think that's where

we're going to get to. We're going to start seeing a bunch of these political cults. If you did, if you had a force-fed men and women on a football field together, you'd eventually get like a group of rogue dudes that are huge and beast that would just go start their own league. I think – you know what? I was reading that we should just let everybody take whatever drugs they want in terms of performance enhancement. No, I'm just kidding. And just – was it Joe Rogan talking about this? Probably.

Where they were like, just let everybody take whatever drugs they want, and then you'll have gigantic monsters just running on the field. Like steroids. Yeah, just everything. Their heart rate's like 250 resting, and they're like running 30 miles an hour. Just the craziest all out.

Barry Bonds was roided out. A lot of them. Seriously, they're roided out, and we just didn't know about it. Yeah. So let's roll with it. Okay, let's do Super Chats. Yes. Super Chats.

All right. If you haven't already, smash the Like button. Hit the notification bell. Subscribe. We do the show Monday through Friday live at 8 p.m., but let's read what y'all have to say. Bill Ray says, Louisiana just joined Texas lawsuit with SCOTUS. More states are set to follow. Is that? Can you Google that? Yes, I saw that article

out there as well. It's true. Don't think it'll matter. Sorry. Really? It may be like the black pill on this, but it's really going to be a question. Stop raining on our parade, Will. I know. Except for corporate Chinese overlords. The question from the Supreme Court's perspective is not how many states agree that we should

sue here, but do we want... mean think about from their perspective right now there are election contests in states and this litigation is handled elsewhere do they really want to be the court of first resort for any first no but upset about election results what if what if what if they have secretly their own self-preservation at heart they know that the court will get packed and they'll lose all their legitimacy i mean i become a legislative body and then eventually they'll say we vote for the Supreme Court justices. I just don't think they're I, you know, I like I've been around low on up to be see when when the Supreme Court decides they don't want to hear cases and they don't have to. They end up not.

I mean, that said, I mean, I could be wrong here because there's three justices who might end up agreeing with Alito and Thomas that we haven't heard from on the issue of whether or not they think it's actually mandatory for them to take these cases. Wait, Alito and Thomas do think it's mandatory? Yeah, Alito and Thomas think it's mandatory. But for a long time, the majority has said it's discretionary. And I mean, that's a practical thing to do. So you have Alito and Thomas. If potentially Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, then you would need... And Gorsuch, yeah.

So potentially Gorsuch. Possible. I just... Just doubtful. The three, we don't know their opinions. And if they do agree... Yeah, but I mean, if agree there's there's a lot of reasons for them to not want to agree because you know they've just invited a whole but come on come on come on will don't you think that clarence thomas has waited 30 years for his revenge against joe

biden that's that's the meme i mean i bet he i bet he is very tempted i bet he is no you know what you know that meme where you've seen the meme where Clarence Thomas's eyes are glowing and it says, I've been waiting 30 years for this moment, Mr. Biden or whatever. I was like, I think Clarence Thomas is of sound mind and integrity and maturity that he would not have that. He doesn't. These are some of the most, you know, people of highest integrity and merit. I don't see them being like, I have a personal grudge to fulfill, and I've been waiting 30 years, and I'm going to use the court to get it. That doesn't sound like...

That's not how it works. That's not how they want to do their jobs. Maybe, though, I mean, I saw that look on Kavanaugh's face. And remember what he said? What did he say? Something about them getting what they deserve or something like that? Yeah. I mean, like...

And it's Kamala Harris. And she was one of the people but i mean there's there's there's just an ethos to judging that a lot of these judges have which is they they take pride in applying the law as written and doing it better than other people and in a more fair way it's almost like law is a kind of it's almost like a kind of game or puzzle that you're trying to like you know and the and the legal problems or puzzles you're trying to elegantly solve. And it's hard to escape from that to do something so radical.

William Martinez says, according to Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis, it isn't rejected. They only rejected the emergency injunction relief. Right. We talked about that. Basically, the idea is if they don't put if they don't agree with the injunction now, then what relief could they possibly give if the lawsuit can't do anything anymore? There's a reason they filed the emergency injunctive relief. It's important.

The fact that you had unanimous denial of that without a dissent is a real, I mean, it's just a really bad side for the underlying litigation. You know, and I think that in a world where they really did think that the Pennsylvania plaintiffs would prevail, they would be inclined to grant that relief. So these are superchats from a while ago. Ziggy says lawsuit was dismissed because of Texas lawsuit. Also, seven more states just joined Texas lawsuit. I haven't seen seven more states.

Yeah, I haven't seen seven. I have. Okay. I have seen Arkansas, Alabama, and Louisiana who are supporting Texas. This is from three hours ago. Really? Yeah. I don't know.

There might be even more since then. Are we going to get the second Civil War here? That's the most recent thing I saw. I think, again, is not to put cold water on it. I feel like I'm a little bit... Bring it on, Bill. We can handle it.

But it's like the idea that the Supreme Court would dismiss one case in order because Texas filed a lawsuit that is a type of lawsuit that is very narrowly circumscribed to these water rights type cases. A lot of people are saying seven other states just joined let me see what else i can find yeah i just i'm i i'm not optimistic that's it again like i i do say that i am more optimistic

about this than i have been about other things just because instead of having like six or seven independent procedural bars to hearing the case there's just this one yeah thing and so if the court gets over this one thing they'll probably they'll they could hear it um i think you're just a negative nancy will and you just hate trump i'm so tired of being everybody's everybody's like you just maybe i should just put my brain in a bowl of warm water and forget for the next weeks well no it is funny though because it's like when i'm reading legal analysis on twitter the right- wing opinions are always like, here's why Trump is going to win. And the left is always why this is why Trump's going to lose. And then there's a tendency so far for Trump only had a few lawsuits.

And then you had a bunch of other lawsuits from other people. The left, you know, these leftist legal opinions are always like, oh, that's Trump down 40 now. And it's like Trump didn't actually file those lawsuits like he can't control those people. So they're really trying to ham it up. But then in certain, you know know you get the point right yeah and i mean you know you can't help like when somebody files a lawsuit that's terrible and it's thrown out on jurisdictional grounds yep like mike hunt uh i can't i almost read it i almost read it i'm gonna get me in trouble mr hunt first name mike says watch Viva Frey's video on the Texas lawsuit. We will win.

Well, I don't know. Viva Frey. He's a famous. I respect Viva Frey. But he's Canadian, isn't he? He's quick. Yeah, but I think like, you know, I tried to do my reading on this. And like when I first read the lawsuit.

Will, Will, just put that negative feeling in the back of your mind and lie so you can get more followers on Twitter. Yes. Does that work? Yes, of course it does. That's what Twitter is. Yeah. Come on, man. It's their code of conduct.

All you got to do is be like, if you came out and said, hi, I'm a respectable lawyer and I run a publication and my clear legal analysis suggests that Donald Trump is guaranteed victory, you'd gain a bunch of followers. Yeah, they'd probably get like 10,000 retweets. Harmeet Dhillon tweeted out from, you know, Lin Wood said that Raffensperger and Kemp are going to prison or whatever, and she said, this is badass. It's not going to happen.

She lost followers. She's like, good. Yeah. Like, if you want a lawyer to lie to you, go follow them. Don't follow me. And I'm like, exactly, exactly. Like, I mean, it's culling the weak. She's great.

Yeah, absolutely. The commander says, a war against China won't be hopeless. Look up Binkov's battleground episodes of Taiwan versus China. The Marines are currently training new missile crews and putting them in ships and reserve to contain contain them to the China Sea and counter their island building. Interesting. Yeah, they're building islands. Yeah. We're floating islands.

Yep. islands yep steven krashevsky says if you want an example of what scotus will look like once dems are done with it look at the pa supreme court political partisan corrupt that's correct good good that's a good chat yeah and then and then what do we just roll over and give up now there's no there's no this this is it right i mean if they pack the courts and they give statehood to dc which makes no sense, Puerto Rico, I can understand. And then all of a sudden, Republicans never win elections. And when they do, they never win any of their votes. And it's extreme single-party rule.

And then we become California. Next thing we know, they're trying to repeal the Civil Rights Act. Yeah, because, yeah, it'll ask for too much equality. Yeah, they tried. Let's see. Archa Magirius says, in PA pa if you buy a gun you can select non-binary for gender on the application wtf identify as a fit 145 pound non-binary with no felonies yeah you can what see people i have a random bit on this people seem to think that

everybody said you know gender is not like in the current thing is not a new it's a it's a new word you know before 1960s gender only referred to how it is used in languages and then the 1960s people realized hey we want a word that is distinct from like biological sex to refer to sort of archetypes of behavior among right males and females so let's call it gender and let's make it that thing and then 30 years later that's hey, did you know that gender is a social construction? I'm like, yes, that's why it was invented. Right. I get that.

But now they're saying sex is a social construct. That's how they get it. So I put out a tweet that was meant to be just like general support for Elliot Page. Elliot Page is female, but, you know, and there are people who feel a certain way and ask that you respect them. I have no problem giving someone respect when they've earned it. And I elliot page is cool so i'm totally cool with sure i mean and there's also like a basic but here's the thing all people what they want to be called saying elliot page's female is transphobic and people were like reporting me like crazy and quote

tweeting saying why won't twitter ban him why won't twitter ban him because i said a basic fact with respect the point i was making was that even though Elliot Page is a female, Elliot Page is asking for respect. And I think Elliot is cool. So I'll grant that respect. I have no problem there. What's I think this is great. That's fine. You know, do your thing. The problem is the left wants you to think that biological sex is now a social construct, which is not. No, it's not. So there there is a basic fact about this, but I'm not trying to be mean. Like, I'm trying to make the point that we can still respect someone if they, you know, you're not guaranteed respect.

No one has to give you respect, but people can choose to. Right. There's a difference between kindness and mandatory thought control. Yep. Right. I think that, you know, I'm perfectly happy to be kind and use people's names the way they want them used. But when you start saying, oh, we should mandate pronoun usage, I mean, now you're mandating how i talk about you when you're not here right that's another thing

about pronouns or pronoun i don't when i talk to you i don't use your gender or your sex so so a lot of people are bringing up jay of legends has seven more states joins texas louisiana arkansas alabama florida kentucky mississippi south carolina south dakota eight states in total now but certainly at a certain point there's a constitutional crisis right i mean it's just it strikes me as just like a pr exercise states file amicus briefs all the time supporting litigation is that what is that what it is yeah and i mean it's like that's why i mean that and so this isn't like an amicus brief this is like oh well state apparently under this theory states can sue other states if they don't enforce

their election laws properly um i mean it makes sense it makes sense but then you also kind of see like shouldn't this be like an amicus brief in a case where that is not like straight to the supreme court and instead you know there's like election contest procedures they waited the very last day for the safe harbor deadline too are they gonna get the supreme court might just be like i mean the there was one thing i thought the briefing was generally not bad there were there were a couple things i noticed one thing and this is more inside baseball um the texas solicitor general was not in the brief and that's not a good thing yeah people were saying that he wouldn't sign off on it because they don't believe in it yeah i mean that's this i mean and that's that's wrong

so the solicitor general of any state is the person who handles all their appellate litigation supreme court stuff and the appellate litigation in their own state um and they're usually a person who is like often a supreme court former supreme court clerk etc and they're they're in charge of that and if they're not willing to sign on it's like that's not a good sign but i i i'm saying after everything we've seen with the conflict the chaos the fighting the street battles the tensions reaching the supreme court now you have a bunch of states suing other states whether or not these states actually mean it the regular people are seeing this and trump supporters are agreeing with it and we're being pushed towards the most extreme outcome that's true

states lining up against other states that didn't work out well the first time it happened five percent of the population died i don't want that to happen again i would argue that it didn't work out well in that capacity, but it actually worked out very, very well. Slavery was ended. I agree that it's a good thing that slavery ended. That seems like the most non-controversial thing I could ever say.

I think it was a good thing that slavery was ended. I'm on the side of that was an idea. That was a good idea. We should have done that. No, but think about the potential outcomes of where we're at now. If it is true that we are slowly being eroded by just feckless politicians who are selling us out for a long time, then regaining control in some capacity, there's a net positive. There's nothing as clearly as moral as slavery in this instance, however. Yeah.

I think the threat of a foreign power is serious, but civil you know brought about the end of slavery and that's just at the end of the day i think like the other states realize that it's an obvious pr exercise to like sign on to a lawsuit that their constituents want them to sign right i understand that but think about what that means to the regular people of their state how many people do you think started polishing their guns when they heard eight states are now supporting the suit yeah no i were that that's something to worry about um and probably and and also probably a reason that that that they would deny cert again right like that they would deny motion they'd be like we don't want this we don't want a massive state-on-state battle when you're talking about

i think i think that's what they would create if eight states are saying we demand to be heard and the supreme court says no then regular people are going to say are you kidding me if eight states can't get listened to in the federal courts and we've seen the evidence and they won't give us the time of day people are going their heads are going to explode yeah no that's that's this i think the smartest thing would be the supreme court actually hearing it and then ruling against it on some you know in some capacity may i don't know good question um denying eight states is going to make people blow up. Yeah, no, I didn't really think about like that angle of it. That makes sense.

I mean, I still think ultimately the Supreme Court's going to pass, but. I wouldn't be surprised. The injunctive relief was nine zeroes unanimous. They said no to injunctive relief. I mean, that's not the first time, right? The Third Circuit was. People have commented. They're saying the reason they did that is because Texas lawsuits is bigger and it's going to accomplish the same thing.

I mean, this is just more 40 chess thinking, right? Like, oh, this loss is actually what we want. Like, no, we don't want to lose. We're losing – Well, no, but does that make sense that the Supreme Court would say we're already – we have a bigger case that's going to happen? I mean, they would have just gotten the filing by the time they were... I mean, they would have finalized this decision in the last few days. They wouldn't have known about this

filing. They would have just gotten the filing. They barely reviewed the briefing, have not reviewed any opposition briefing, or even thought about it. I think the fact that this many states have lined up is signaling to the people of this country that the divisions are as extreme as they could possibly be. Oh, I have no doubt about that. I mean, the divisions are as extreme as they could possibly be oh i have

no doubt about that i mean the divisions are horrible but i think that leads to some you know really bad scenarios in the next few years i hope not i hope you're wrong v city says related your story earlier do you remember in 1996 the dnc and clintons got busted illegally accepting contributions the chinese billionaire doing that got arrested in 2015 for illegally bringing 4.5 million into the U.S. That was the John Ash case. Interesting. Big Rig says, what is the definition of a reasonable amount of time in the context of the PA lawsuit? I mean, there in the lawsuit, that would that would relate to latches. I mean, and that would be, you know, the you know, there it's it's a question of whether or not there was undue delay. And that will differ based on that's, you know, under the circumstances.

There's a lot of cases in law where there's not exact technical definition. And then it's like, did it cause prejudice to the opposing party? Rilo 704 says he wins in court or revolution. It is. That's what everyone around me in North Carolina is thinking, as seen by massive gun ammo sales. No one will tolerate an agent of china as potus i have a dd214 and i will readily die for america you see what the arizona gop said are you ready to die for your for your country or whatever i mean i i i'll be actually a little bit more forceful there i think all that talk is too much i think oh i agree but look i'm at a point where i'm like we see what's going on with the chinese

infiltration and this guy bragging about biden being in the backpack we've seen the story we've seen the laptop we've seen the emails we know about the flight on air force too we know all that's happening it's not about what i think or you think or anyone in this room thinks it's about what regular people have decided a long time ago sure i mean and hopefully it's i mean it's the same sort of talk that was like i mean the democrats were pushing that trump was a russian agent for so you know a long time this seems like kind of the analog of that like you know i don't think i don't think true democrats i mean there were anarchist democrats but i don't know the democrats were talking about a complete revolution the street so they were talking about resistance obnoxiously i don't know dedicated says what does ian think about what

about what we're talking about i think that uh we need a cultural cohesion and it's not going to come through politics uh that we need to focus on our art make some sweet songs and keep doing shows like i agree yeah that's why we're doing the vlog we want to we want to have fun with lasers and 3d printers so um we can create something positive you know a lot of what we talk about is all negative, like all these bad things, all these bad things. I don't like talking about how my side is going to lose. It sucks, right? It's not fun.

It's not my favorite thing to do. Or a civil war. Right, right. We want to build a laser and shoot a teddy bear with it. I was having so much fun when we were talking about the National Emergency Declaration. I got to go on. Everybody didn't agree with me, but I was like, no, this will work.

Here's the statute. Here's the law. Here's why what Trump's doing is going to work. Super stoked to talk about that. Really not a fan of talking about how Trump's like not going to win these election challenges. It sucks. But, you know, outside of just politics in general, everything's always about some crisis or some problem.

Even if you're talking about winning, you're talking about a fight. So that's why I'm like, we got to do a vlog. We got to do. So we're going to be, we're buying farmland. We're going to be doing a we got to do so we're going to we're buying farmland we're going to be doing a lot of stuff here we're also going to a big farm and we're going to do crazy stuff there we're going to build like dome houses that was luke's idea and we can make videos about just doing positive things teaching people how to be responsible for themselves and having fun while we do it because there's got to be a balance yeah we can't just talk every night about how bad

everything is are you optimistic about anything uh i mean i'm optimistic about i think i'm honestly optimistic about like how life is going for me personally in general you know i'm still reading a lot of books i got you know human events is doing well um i mean things are going well personally cool like there you go i read a thousand page book on the battle of midway recently i enjoyed that yeah right on jonathan trudeau says i have a question can we have the national guard watch over the poll counters to make sure everyone plays by the rules and if you don't then you get arrested and then they're and then they're and then there and they stay and watch the ballots till everything is counted

uh i mean we should have a ballot system that no one questions. Like, that should be the end goal. I don't know. I don't realize why people, like, don't think of that. I mean, other countries look at our ballot system. We're like, that's stupid. Yes. Like, we should have a ballot system that, like, that's beyond question. That should be the goal.

Because, you know, especially in a world so polarized. I remember tweeting something along the lines of, isn't it a wonderful time to be experimenting with? It's entirely possible that throughout the show we are talking about nonsense because people were getting the news while we weren't but someone says scotus has voted six to three to hear the texas lawsuit is that true no i don't think so i haven't seen that yet i saw i think i haven't seen it uh i'm pretty sure that it was just docketed yeah it was this more it was like last night or whatever no and i mean the lawsuit was filed this morning i think but it was docketed it was on the Supreme court's docket and people were out there saying, Oh,

they've agreed to hear it. I'm like, no, they just docketed it. They, which is just an acknowledgement that it was properly filed procedurally. Trevor Klein says, so this is it.

The free world has lost. The future is red. If Biden becomes president, you guys won't have a true election. Canada is already effed. I had hoped in you guys. Now it does not. Now it does look long

night i'm not i'm not that depressed especially if you hold the senate incoming presidents generally do worse in their first in their first uh congressional midterm and uh biden is also going to be 81 in in 2024 and oh it's not like cognitive decline reverses so lex smurley says i'm laughing so hard I'm crying. Don't ever fix Ian's mic. It is his mic now. People are saying that your mic is echoing. Yes.

And it's probably, it sounds super low. I don't know. Why is it echoing? Maybe the camera's audio is actually being picked up. I think that might be it. Oh, God. And there's nothing I can do about it. Welcome to my world.

Sorry, everyone. Somebody said, lock the door so we can't come back. That wasn't very nice. I'm not your buddy, guy, says dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what's easy and what is right albus dumbledore has anybody read a book other than harry potter to be fair that is wait hold on hold on hold on there are other books oh yeah yeah i love i love that it's like millennials need to learn how to read books because they only ever read Harry Potter. It's replaced the Bible as a common cultural touchstone. Seriously.

Well, it's kind of annoying to me because I've actually read the Harry Potter books and there are some good lines like that one. There are some very hopeful and inspiring lines. No one ever uses those. They only use the dark ones and the really super resisty ones. Kaylin R. says, I put $300 on Trump to win. Howley report of major voter fraud arrests in Texas. Biden Ukraine video on YouTube. Kill Chain video on HBO shows exactly how

voter fraud is accomplished. Kemp is in it for sitting U.S. is in it and for sitting U.S. senators. Well, there's always somebody on the other side of the bet. Yep. Talbot Link says, there's people saying Trump supporters should be shaved like the French ladies that supported the Nazis.

With how many protesters did that to themselves, I foresee a dark twist on Benny Hill style stuff going down. Yep. Tyler Danielson says, if China runs the

one world government, the Galactic Federation will never let us in. Or they will because they want, they're like the Borg and they're extreme authoritarians who want just people to be under control. Right.

There's actually a petition on change.org right now to label the Galactic Federation as a racist organization for the exclusion of Earth. That's a thing right now. Getting a lot of signatures. Wouldn't it be speciesist and not racist? Yeah, I don't know what that would be. Okay. So, so is this real ew says scotus just gave wisconsin michigan pennsylvania and georgia until december 10th

at 3 p.m to respond to the texas lawsuit i did see that but that's not exactly new that that could be i mean that's obviously something where they would and again it's not i'm not responding to the texas lawsuit there's right to the motion for leave to file and so like what we saw with pennsylvania they ordered they ordered Pennsylvania to respond. Pennsylvania did. And then they said unanimously reject injective relief. Yeah.

Like that's also happened a lot where, I mean, everybody's been really excited about like they've, the motions they've granted are like the motions for expedited review. And they've been like, we want a victory. We want the right to have our case dismissed

really soon as opposed to later on. Like, is it, is it possible that what's going on is everyone's kind of agreed? We've got to string the Trump supporters along just enough so that they run out of steam because on election night, they're all riled up. Right. Yeah. And if Biden won outright, people would explode immediately. But drag it out as long as possible. Get their hopes up and then bring them down and hopes up and bring them down and slowly get to the point where they lost. I mean, otherwise they go nuts.

I mean, maybe that maybe that's the way it'll work, right? Maybe you'll just have like, I mean, maybe we'll just keep losing these cases and there you go. Shooter 13 says, may your chains sit lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were ever our

forget that you were our countrymen. Good quote. Who's that? I forget. I think it's Samuel Adams. Hold on. Let me look it up for us. Somebody says. Jay says, Will looks like he's going to cry if Trump wins. Can you comment on JRE with Jack Dorsey?

No, it's the other way. Was Jack being deceitful seeing now all the recent censorship? Was Jack back on Joe Rogan? I don't know. I didn't see it. Is that what happened? Was that today? Not that I've seen.

I can comment on Jack with Joe with Jack Dorsey when I was on it But that was like you know almost two years ago Is that what they're referring to Yeah can I read this quote real fast Oh I see it yeah it is from Sam Adams It says if you love wealth better than liberty The tranquility of servitude better than

The animation animating contest Of freedom go home from us in peace We ask not your counsel or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chain set lightly upon you, and may your posterity forget that you are our countrymen. We have two comments. Jerome Morrow says,

I used to like Ian, but now that he's demonically possessed, I don't know. And M. Powen Chet said, Ian is in his echo chamber in his safe space. Oh my. We got to fix that. We got to fix that.'ll look at that because we don't we don't hear it because the input is on the camera it's not going into the mixer yeah sounds fine it's actually really simple we just flick the

sound off on the on the camera let me do that now yeah i mean we're we're a couple minutes out from from from all going to bed so you know we'll get it sorted i like demons by the way i was gonna say somebody said he sounded like god we can go into it later like god yeah like the voice of god i don't think ian would mind that actually the mics are all correct we hear ian he sounds yeah reverberating i hear you this is what i've always been like no no that that that what everyone's hearing that's actually ian's voice yeah it's not technical which at all vibrato jj says the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of

patriots and tyrants Thomas Jefferson Eli Ben says I bet $10,000 on predict it for Trump to win still confident I will make bank

I hope you make all that money Eli I just don't think you will yeah and would you say that you hope

you lose your money and he makes his money I hope I lose my money like I you know I hope I'm wrong Like I, I, you know, I, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm also like,

you know, I'm, I'm not, again, I'm not going to make a public prediction without putting a bet on it like this one, especially when everybody's disagreeing with me. So I think that's fair.

Donnie Mason says the left was absolutely talking revolution in the streets. What else would you call no justice, no peace, defunding the police and nationwide riots? Um, well, I'm not so sure about that, but I remember, remember, remember when they were chanting revolution nothing less i'm pretty sure that implied they wanted revolution right i was trying to distinguish between like the antifa

lefties and the sort of russia truthers who were not really right right right yeah the russia truthers in a weird way it was like a more bizarre theory like at least like the sort of antifa revolution the streets like there's a coherence to it this the theory that our billionaire real estate magnate turned president was really a secret russian nation yes that was a fun idea because like living in a movie you know but life is more boring than that let's see jacob jones says gandalf quote to frodo lamenting bad times quote so do i and so do all who live to see such times but that is not for them to decide all we have to decide is what we do with this time that has given us. That's great.

Yeah, true. Well, I think we went a little bit over, but we'll wrap up there. Make sure you guys hit that like button, subscribe, notification bells. We'll be back tomorrow. Will, thanks so much for hanging out. Do you want to mention your website? Yeah, humanevents.com. Read our news

and follow me on Twitter and Periscope at Will Chamberlain. I regularly Periscope and I'm doing a lot of the legal Periscopes as legal news happens. Will Chamberlain. Yes. You realize the first time I was introduced to you, someone said your name was Will Chamberlain. I was like, wait, isn't that like a soccer player? Like, Wilt Chamberlain? Yeah.

Yeah. No, it's not the first time. Right. I imagine. It's like very, I was like, I was like, that name sounds familiar. Wilt the Stilt, they called him. Super tall basketball player. Basketball player, there you go.

Wilt the Stilt Chamberlain. All right. Well, make sure you follow me on Twitter, Instagram, Parler at TimCast. Check out my other channels, YouTube.com slash TimCast and YouTube.com slash TimCast News. Again, we're live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m. So make sure you subscribe, hit the notification bell, and don't forget to follow Luke Rutkowski. He's chilling here. Yep.

You can find me on youtube.com forward slash we are change and hope to see you there. And of course we got Ian who is now the demonic monster. You don't have to do that. I don't have to. They're already incorporating. Call me at Ian Crosland. Hit me up.

Everywhere. And of course you got Sour Patch Lids over on the production station. Yes, I've been pushing the buttons all wrong tonight. You guys sound very similar. You guys are basically brothers from different mothers. I'm sorry about that. Who? Sour Patch Lids. Luke and Will, you sound very similar, your voices.

So, yeah, it's been difficult. Interesting. Anyway, here's Tim. Thanks for hanging out, everybody. We'll be back tomorrow at 8 p.m., and we will see you all then. Bye, guys. tomorrow at 8pm and we will see you all then bye guys Thank you.