The Ben Shapiro Show - Election Showdown Week Begins | Ep. 1165

00:00:00.000 Twelve Senate Republicans say they will join House Republicans in challenging electoral votes.

00:00:04.000 Two Republican senators fight for their lives in Georgia.

00:00:07.000 And The New York Times cheers on a hit job against a 15-year-old girl.

00:00:10.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:10.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:19.000 Protect your data online with the VPN I trust.

00:00:21.000 Visit expressvpn.com.

00:00:23.000 Speaking of which, social media companies, they think that you shouldn't be able to decide what information you can and cannot see.

00:00:28.000 This is something we found out throughout last year.

00:00:30.000 So why exactly would you give them your data so that you could then have that data monetized against all of your interests?

00:00:36.000 Instead, why not protect your data the way that I do with ExpressVPN?

00:00:40.000 One big problem with big tech companies, not only do they censor what you read, they will actually track what you do online.

00:00:45.000 They track what you're searching for, the videos you watch, everything you click.

00:00:47.000 They use that data to serve you ads that can match your activity to your offline identity using your device's unique IP address.

00:00:53.000 Well, when I use ExpressVPN, these tech companies can no longer see my IP address because my identity is masked and anonymized by a secure VPN server.

00:01:00.000 Plus, ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your data to protect you from hackers and internet bad guys, which is a pretty important thing.

00:01:07.000 It's not complicated, by the way.

00:01:08.000 You can just download the app, and you put it on your devices, and you hit one button, and it's good to go.

00:01:13.000 I mean, your grandmother could do it.

00:01:15.000 Why give tech companies a free license to know everything about you, and then turn around and sell off your information?

00:01:18.000 Instead, take back your privacy at expressvpn.com slash ben.

00:01:22.000 Visit my special link, get an extra three months of ExpressVPN service for free.

00:01:25.000 It's a great way to get the new year started off right by protecting yourself.

00:01:27.000 Go to expressvpn.com slash ben.

00:01:30.000 E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash ben to protect your data today.

00:01:34.000 Okay, so!

00:01:35.000 We are back and better than ever. 0.98

00:01:37.000 It's a brand new year and surely this year cannot be stupider than last year. 0.98

00:01:43.000 Yeah. 0.99

00:01:44.000 So, about that.

00:01:46.000 So many things have happened while I was out. 0.94

00:01:50.000 Aside from my children badgering me, and aside from me not getting enough sleep as I should have over the break, it turns out many stupid things happened over the course of the break. 0.99

00:02:00.000 Perhaps the stupidest was this thing that happened in Congress yesterday. 0.96

00:02:03.000 I'm just gonna mention this briefly because it is indicative of where this year is going, and then we'll get to the actual big news stories of the day. 0.99

00:02:09.000 So, yesterday, Congress opened with a prayer. 0.97

00:02:13.000 The prayer with which Congress opened is, I believe, the stupidest thing I have ever heard in all my life. 1.00

00:02:21.000 In all my life! 1.00

00:02:22.000 And I've heard many stupid things. 1.00

00:02:23.000 I mean, I literally do a political talk show, so I hear stupid things on a daily basis. 1.00

00:02:27.000 So, yesterday, the person who opens with the opening prayer, Democratic Congress, obviously, opens by saying this. 0.97

00:02:38.000 We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths.

00:02:48.000 A man and a woman.

00:02:51.000 So just to be straight, this human said, a man and a woman.

00:02:56.000 Now, as the designated Jew in your political life, let me just remind you, as a Hebrew speaker, the word amen is not an English word.

00:03:04.000 It comes from the Hebrew word amein, which you say after prayers, which can originally be traced etymologically speaking to the word emet, which means truth.

00:03:13.000 The idea of amein is solidarity.

00:03:15.000 May it be so, or it's true.

00:03:16.000 That's what amein means.

00:03:18.000 It was then brought into Greek and Latin and then passed along to English.

00:03:23.000 The word amen has literally nothing to do with gender.

00:03:27.000 It does not mean a man.

00:03:29.000 It means amen.

00:03:31.000 In other words, it's like hallelujah, right?

00:03:33.000 It's a sign of solidarity, right?

00:03:35.000 That's what it is.

00:03:35.000 It's an exclamation.

00:03:37.000 And yet somehow leftists have decided that the term amen, because it is spelled A-M-E-N and includes the word men, somehow is gendered language.

00:03:47.000 And so we are also supposed to say after prayers, a women. 0.94

00:03:51.000 So, a few things. 1.00

00:03:53.000 Number one, not only is that radically stupid on an etymological level. 0.99

00:03:57.000 I mean, you would have to take the word amen, take it down to the pit of despair from the princess bride, put the torture machine on it, and torture it until it tosses out some sort of gendered variant. 1.00

00:04:07.000 Not only is that stupid on that level, it would also then be meaningless. 0.99

00:04:11.000 Why would you end a prayer Any prayer, and then just say, man. 1.00

00:04:15.000 That doesn't make any sense at all. 1.00

00:04:17.000 It's idiotic. 1.00

00:04:18.000 Beyond that, it's doubly idiotic, because it turns out that people on the left don't actually believe that men and women are real concepts, right? 1.00

00:04:26.000 They're malleable, men and women. 1.00

00:04:28.000 So what they really should say, just to be tolerant, is not amen and a women. 0.94

00:04:32.000 They should say amen, a women, and a gender is a social construct that is unconnected to biological sex, but also a biological imperative. 0.96

00:04:40.000 And then bow their heads.

00:04:41.000 That's where that should end.

00:04:43.000 So, well done all the way through, everybody.

00:04:46.000 That's a great way to start the year. 0.91

00:04:48.000 And I think that the year can only get dumber from here, unfortunately.

00:04:52.000 Okay, so, over the weekend, huge news breaks from the Washington Post.

00:04:57.000 The huge news that breaks from the Washington Post is this phone call that President Trump and his Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, had with Brad Raffensperger, who is the Georgia Secretary of State.

00:05:06.000 It is an hour-long phone call.

00:05:08.000 The Washington Post originally released about a four-minute segment of it, then they released the entire transcript and the entire phone call.

00:05:14.000 And it's not great.

00:05:16.000 When I say it's not great, I think it's not great for several reasons.

00:05:19.000 I'm gonna explain what it is and what it is not.

00:05:22.000 So we're gonna play just a couple of clips from this hour-long phone call, because they give you an idea of what the phone call is.

00:05:27.000 Basically, it runs along a couple of tracks.

00:05:29.000 One is the president saying a lot of things about Georgia voting that are unsubstantiated by evidence to this point.

00:05:36.000 He says the tens of thousands of dead people voted in Georgia.

00:05:38.000 There's not evidence to that effect.

00:05:40.000 He says that Dominion machines are rigged.

00:05:43.000 There's not evidence to that effect.

00:05:44.000 He says a lot of things that are just not substantiated by the evidence.

00:05:47.000 That is track one.

00:05:48.000 It's just him throwing out a bunch of things that he has heard about the irregularities and voter fraud in Georgia.

00:05:53.000 And Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, saying that's bad information.

00:05:56.000 That is track number one.

00:05:57.000 Then there is track number two.

00:05:59.000 And track number two is the president saying that, and he says this repeatedly, that he wants Georgia to basically rejigger their calculation so that he won the state.

00:06:11.000 So a lot of people are reading that statement as though Trump is trying to blackmail the Secretary of State of Georgia into manufacturing votes so that he wins the state.

00:06:18.000 But the two statements are related.

00:06:20.000 In other words, Trump believes that there was widespread voter fraud and voter irregularity in Georgia.

00:06:24.000 Again, he has not provided proof to that effect.

00:06:26.000 I believe that there is an ongoing court case to that effect.

00:06:29.000 Even if you were to flip it in Georgia, by the way, it wouldn't shift the outcome of the election because Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, etc.

00:06:35.000 But say, for example, that, you know, all that were brought in court.

00:06:39.000 You can make those allegations in court, but many of the things that he has alleged have not actually been proved.

00:06:43.000 The evidence has not been provided.

00:06:45.000 What he is saying in this call over and over again is the same thing that Trump always says, which is he has a bunch of ideas.

00:06:50.000 He spews them out, right, in a sort of garbled fashion.

00:06:53.000 And then he finishes up by saying, and here's what I want.

00:06:56.000 It's the same thing as the Ukraine phone call and a bunch of ideas about Joe Biden and about Burisma and about Hunter Biden.

00:07:03.000 He was not making threats.

00:07:04.000 There's not evidence here that he actually threatened Raffensperger with anything.

00:07:08.000 He doesn't have the power to threaten Raffensperger with anything because Raffensperger hasn't committed a crime.

00:07:13.000 When he says things like you're taking a big political risk, that happens to be true, right?

00:07:17.000 I mean, it is a big political risk for Raffensperger.

00:07:19.000 This has been true since Trump decided to basically contest the Georgia election.

00:07:22.000 But there are some things that are true about this call and some things that are false about the call.

00:07:26.000 And so we'll play a couple of clips of it, and then I'll explain what is true about the call and what is false about the call.

00:07:29.000 And then we'll get to the broader issue, which is that Republicans, as of Now, do you think it's possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County?

00:07:37.000 Because that's what the rumor is.

00:07:38.000 And also that Dominion took out machines.

00:07:39.000 One second, let's play the phone call first.

00:07:41.000 So here was President Trump with Brad Raffensperger talking about Dominion voting systems.

00:07:46.000 Now, do you think it's possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County?

00:07:51.000 Because that's what the rumor is.

00:07:53.000 And also that Dominion took out machines.

00:07:56.000 That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their machinery.

00:08:03.000 Do you know anything about that?

00:08:05.000 Thank you.

00:08:07.000 Because that's illegal.

00:08:09.000 No.

00:08:09.000 Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.

00:08:15.000 Have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?

00:08:23.000 No.

00:08:24.000 Are you sure, Ryan?

00:08:26.000 I'm sure.

00:08:27.000 Okay, so as you can tell, it's not that Trump is very thoroughly prepared when it comes to Dominion.

00:08:32.000 He's heard some things.

00:08:33.000 And again, this is not a shock.

00:08:34.000 This is how Trump has operated literally his entire political career, is that he hears a thing, he then puts it out of his mouth, and it is a different thing.

00:08:44.000 So he says, have you guys been shipping into Dominion voting machines?

00:08:48.000 And Raffensperger guy says, no, no machines have been shipped out of state.

00:08:52.000 And then he says, well, Have you taken parts out of Dominion voting machines?

00:08:57.000 And we're now in the realm of things that are unevidenced.

00:09:00.000 OK, so that is line one.

00:09:01.000 Then there's line two.

00:09:02.000 And this is the stuff the media is really going crazy over.

00:09:04.000 And that is Trump repeatedly talking about the number of votes by which he lost Georgia.

00:09:09.000 So he says, what are we going to do here, folks?

00:09:09.000 Right.

00:09:11.000 I only need eleven thousand votes.

00:09:13.000 Fellas, I need eleven thousand votes. 1.00

00:09:14.000 Give me a break.

00:09:15.000 So look, all I want to do is this.

00:09:18.000 I just want to find eleven thousand 780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.

00:09:30.000 So as you hear there, he says, look, all I want to do is this.

00:09:33.000 I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

00:09:36.000 OK, so what the media are saying, he is saying, is that he is saying to Raffensperger, I want you to manufacture those votes out of thin air.

00:09:42.000 And I don't care whether there was voter fraud or voter irregularity.

00:09:45.000 I want you to go under your bed and I want you to find votes for Donald Trump.

00:09:48.000 And then I want you to retally.

00:09:50.000 That's not what Trump is saying.

00:09:52.000 What Trump is saying is he believes that there was widespread voter fraud and voter irregularity.

00:09:56.000 Undoubtedly, there was more voter fraud and voter irregularity than the margin of victory for Joe Biden in the state.

00:10:01.000 And therefore, he should be declared the winner of the state.

00:10:03.000 He's not ordering Raffensperger to manufacture votes out of thin air.

00:10:07.000 He's not ordering Raffensperger to magically come up with 12,000 votes.

00:10:12.000 That's not what he's doing.

00:10:14.000 It's bad enough what he's doing.

00:10:15.000 Now, the reason it's bad enough what he's doing is because if you actually care about voter fraud and voter irregularity, you shouldn't be tying that to results.

00:10:21.000 What you should say is I'm concerned about voter fraud.

00:10:23.000 I'm concerned about voter irregularity.

00:10:24.000 There are a bunch of outstanding allegations that have been made that you have not answered.

00:10:28.000 And so I want specific answers on those, not because the margin of victory Is the key issue, not because I want you to get to that 12,000 votes and flip the state, but because I care about voter fraud and voter irregularity.

00:10:38.000 So for people who seriously want to rejigger the system, it can't be a self-interested pursuit.

00:10:42.000 It can't be I care about voter fraud and voter irregularity because it hurt me.

00:10:46.000 It has to be I care about voter fraud and voter irregularity generally, right?

00:10:50.000 That is the biggest problem with Trump's phone call.

00:10:53.000 The specter of a candidate in an election calling up the election official as President of the United States and telling him that he is upset that the margin is 11,000 votes and that he doesn't really care about the voter fraud and voter irregularity.

00:11:08.000 All he cares about is the margin.

00:11:09.000 That's ugly stuff.

00:11:10.000 Is that criminal stuff?

00:11:11.000 No. 0.93

00:11:11.000 People who are suggesting that this is criminal activity, that's silly. 0.93

00:11:14.000 It's not criminal activity.

00:11:15.000 People who are suggesting that Trump is quote-unquote threatening Raffensperger.

00:11:18.000 I read the entire transcript.

00:11:20.000 There really is not evidence of threatening behavior by Trump.

00:11:23.000 You can say there's a power imbalance in the conversation.

00:11:24.000 That's certainly true.

00:11:25.000 It's certainly true that when the president calls you up and says he wants you to find a thing, you feel pressure to find the thing.

00:11:31.000 That does not mean that there's an actual Attempt by Trump to actually punish Raffensperger in any way other than the sort of overtly political yelling at Raffensperger, which he's been doing for months since the election itself.

00:11:44.000 Okay, so that was the big story last night is the tape and people suggesting that Trump was trying to get Raffensperger to manufacture votes.

00:11:49.000 That part of the story is not true.

00:11:50.000 It doesn't mean the phone call was good.

00:11:51.000 Again, kind of like Ukraine, the phone call can be bad. 0.89

00:11:54.000 And also, it cannot be what the media is saying that the phone call is.

00:11:58.000 Okay, in just a second, we're going to get to the broader issue, right?

00:12:01.000 Because the phone call is Off to the side and somewhat irrelevant to the broader issue of what Congress is going to do on January 6th.

00:12:08.000 We're going to go through the entire process.

00:12:10.000 We're going to talk about what various Congress people and senators are talking about doing right now.

00:12:14.000 We'll get to that in just one moment first.

00:12:17.000 Since the beginning of the pandemic, PetSmart has remained open, making sure that you can get everything your pet needs right when you need it at over 1,600 convenient locations.

00:12:25.000 If you've got a pet, you've got to keep it healthy.

00:12:27.000 We have the daily wire pet, Jasper, the most incredible of all dogs.

00:12:31.000 You know how I know that Jasper is such an incredible dog?

00:12:33.000 Because Jasper cannot see me for months, recognize me, and then growl at me.

00:12:38.000 Jasper knows his enemies, but Jasper also knows his friends, which is why his master, Jeremy Boring, will bring Jasper to PetSmart and get Jasper the stuff that Jasper needs.

00:12:47.000 Right now, PetSmart is offering free same-day delivery powered by DoorDash through January 31st.

00:12:52.000 You can get everything your pet needs right to your door and right when you need it.

00:12:55.000 PetSmart stores and grooming salons offer digital check-in, curbside drop-off and pickup, Contactless payments so they are as safe as safe can be.

00:13:02.000 PetSmart's associates really love pets.

00:13:03.000 Caring for them is a big part of why they work there.

00:13:05.000 And PetSmart has made it safe and easy for you to care for your pet, too, online or in stores.

00:13:09.000 If you're interested in contactless shopping, just order online at PetSmart.com or on the PetSmart app and enjoy easy curbside pickup or free same day delivery power by DoorDash through January 31st.

00:13:19.000 Go to PetSmart.com for more details, because PetSmart is not just pet friendly.

00:13:23.000 They have great prices.

00:13:24.000 They have fantastic service and they take care of every pet like they were Jasper, the company dog of the daily wire.

00:13:29.000 Check out Petsmart.com for more details today.

00:13:32.000 Okay, so meanwhile, the big story through the week is not gonna be this Trump tape, which is going to disappear into the ether as far as people who care about it within the next 48 hours.

00:13:42.000 The media are gonna try and blow it into Trump did something quote unquote impeachable or he committed some sort of criminal offense.

00:13:48.000 No, again, a thing can be bad.

00:13:50.000 It can be immoral without the thing being criminal or impeachable.

00:13:53.000 Okay, but the bigger question is what's going to happen on Wednesday.

00:13:57.000 So just to set the stage, the way that this typically works, okay, the actual process under the Electoral Counts Act is that, and the Electoral Counts Act was created in 1887.

00:14:07.000 I'll explain the background in just a second.

00:14:09.000 The way that this works is that members of Congress are empowered to object to individual state electoral college returns.

00:14:16.000 It is the Congressional Research Service, summing up the Electoral College Act as it currently stands.

00:14:19.000 stands, quote, objections to individual state returns must be made in writing by at least one member each of the Senate and House of Representatives.

00:14:26.000 If an objection meets these requirements, the joint session recesses and the two houses separate and debate the question in their respective chambers for a maximum of two hours.

00:14:33.000 Right.

00:14:34.000 You have the House goes to one side, the Senate goes to the other side.

00:14:36.000 They yell at each other about whether these electoral college votes should be counted.

00:14:40.000 The two votes, the two houses then vote separately to accept or reject the objection.

00:14:43.000 They then reassemble in joint session and announce the results of their respective votes.

00:14:47.000 An objection to a state's electoral vote must be approved by both houses in order for any contested votes to be excluded.

00:14:53.000 So on what grounds can you challenge electoral college votes?

00:14:57.000 Well, you can challenge on two grounds.

00:14:58.000 One, that they were not regularly given.

00:15:00.000 That's the language of the statute.

00:15:02.000 Or two, that the electors were not quote-unquote lawfully certified.

00:15:05.000 So regularly given means that the elector was bribed or fraudulent.

00:15:09.000 That's what regularly given means.

00:15:10.000 That we find out that an elector was supposed to vote for Donald Trump and voted for Joe Biden because Hunter slipped him cocaine or something, right?

00:15:16.000 And then lawfully certified means that the governor Has to actually certify the ascertainment process.

00:15:24.000 So lawfully certified just means that the governor did what he's supposed to do.

00:15:24.000 Right?

00:15:27.000 And if it was not lawfully certified, then the House can debate this sort of stuff.

00:15:30.000 Under those particular challenges, electors would then be discarded, and that would change the math necessary for victory.

00:15:37.000 Now, it is not unprecedented for these challenges to happen.

00:15:40.000 It is unprecedented for the size and scope of the challenge now being contemplated by the Republicans to happen.

00:15:44.000 We'll get to that in a second, but it's not unprecedented.

00:15:46.000 Back in 2005, January 6th, 2005, according to CNN, Alleging widespread irregularities on Election Day, a group of Democrats in Congress objected Thursday to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes, delaying the official certification of the 2004 presidential election results.

00:16:01.000 The move was not designed to overturn the re-election of President Bush, said Ohio Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Senator Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

00:16:09.000 The objecting Democrats said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems in Ohio.

00:16:17.000 The House of Representatives and Senate met, this is again in 2005, in a constitutionally mandated session to count the electoral votes.

00:16:23.000 Vice President Dick Cheney presided over the session.

00:16:25.000 The results from each state, read in alphabetical order, were ticked through quickly until Ohio was called, and then a clerk wrote a letter from Boxer and Tubbs-Jones, and then the chambers had to split, and then they argued about each other, were with each other, and then they came back together, and that was sort of the end of that particular process.

00:16:41.000 Now it is worth noting that there was fairly significant, if not support, then tacit unwillingness to shut down Barbara Boxer by some top Democrats.

00:16:50.000 Now, it is true.

00:16:51.000 John Kerry, who was the candidate for the Democrats, disassociated himself from this effort.

00:16:54.000 He said, listen, the election's over.

00:16:56.000 Challenging the electoral votes is useless.

00:16:58.000 There's no reason to do this.

00:16:59.000 But among people who went silent, James Clyburn, who's now the majority whip for the Democrats, this is Nathan Wurzel reporting, Frank Pallone, now chairman of Energy and Commerce Committee, Maxine Waters, who's chairwoman of Financial Services, Ed Markey, who's now a senator, and John Lewis.

00:17:14.000 So there was some support for this, or at least tacit support, for this process back in 2005.

00:17:19.000 Now Barbara Boxer, of course, is claiming there's no comparison.

00:17:23.000 Now, there absolutely is a comparison. 0.98

00:17:25.000 Barbara Boxer was the dumbest member of the United States Senate until her retirement. 1.00

00:17:29.000 She has not gained in intelligence since leaving office. 0.99

00:17:31.000 Here was Barbara Boxer on CNN the other day.

00:17:33.000 Well, there's no comparison to what Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and I did in 05.

00:17:40.000 Number one, John Kerry had conceded the race.

00:17:45.000 We have a president here who's orchestrating kind of an overthrow of the election.

00:17:49.000 Secondly, we said up front, we had no interest.

00:17:53.000 We said up front, we had no interest in overturning the election.

00:17:57.000 All we wanted was to focus on voter suppression that we saw.

00:18:01.000 in Ohio.

00:18:02.000 Okay, but that of course is not true.

00:18:04.000 The only reason that they challenged the electoral results in Ohio is because they wanted to focus on overturning the election.

00:18:09.000 Okay, so there is precedent for this.

00:18:11.000 Is there precedent for the candidate themselves to support this effort?

00:18:13.000 No, not really, at least not for 140 years or so.

00:18:18.000 Is there precedent for large swaths of Congress backing this sort of effort?

00:18:21.000 So that is, in fact, unprecedented.

00:18:21.000 No, there's not.

00:18:23.000 So it's not unprecedented for this sort of thing to happen.

00:18:26.000 And it's not unprecedented for these challenges to happen.

00:18:27.000 It happened in 1969, about the 68 election.

00:18:30.000 It happened again in 2005.

00:18:31.000 But for this level of support to be thrown behind it, that is somewhat unprecedented.

00:18:34.000 So we're going to go through the legality here, because I know there's a big debate here on the right about what is legal and what is not, what the Constitution is designed to do, how you cancel electoral votes.

00:18:43.000 We're going to go through all the details in just one second, so you know more than you did before this show began.

00:18:49.000 First, let us talk about your future and your specific goals.

00:18:52.000 So one of the things that you probably are thinking about in the middle of this difficult and dark time is getting your resume in order, because Hopefully, in the next few months, the economy is really going to spike as the vaccine hits, as jobs become available.

00:19:04.000 Why not get that resume in order right now and get a better salary and get a better job? 0.66

00:19:07.000 This is why you need to think about the University of Arizona Global Campus.

00:19:11.000 University of Arizona Global Campus's online bachelor's and master's degree programs allow you to learn on a convenient and flexible schedule.

00:19:19.000 At UAGC, expert faculty teach you real-world skills from real-world experience in online classes built for life's twists and turns.

00:19:25.000 You can learn from home or wherever you happen to feel comfortable.

00:19:28.000 You can pursue a degree in one of UAGC's 60-plus programs like Business Administration, Healthcare Administration, and Psychology.

00:19:34.000 With 24-7 access to your classroom, daily support, financial aid available, UAGC will give you the tools you need to go from dreaming to doing.

00:19:42.000 And you may very well need a degree.

00:19:44.000 for that job that you are thinking about applying for.

00:19:45.000 So go check them out right now.

00:19:47.000 Your bigger future starts today.

00:19:49.000 University of Arizona Global Campus.

00:19:50.000 No fee to apply.

00:19:51.000 No standardized testing required to enroll.

00:19:53.000 Go to uagc.edu slash ben.

00:19:56.000 That is uagc.edu slash ben.

00:19:59.000 uagc.edu slash ben.

00:20:01.000 Not all programs available in all states.

00:20:03.000 Okay, so let's do a little bit of background here about what the electoral college certification process is supposed to do.

00:20:09.000 And why it currently is constituted the way that it is constituted.

00:20:12.000 So, the Constitution of the United States says this.

00:20:15.000 This is from the 12th Amendment.

00:20:21.000 Okay, so we'll stop right there for just a second because there are some people who are now claiming that Vice President Mike Pence is supposed to somehow not count the votes.

00:20:33.000 That it's his job to determine whether the votes are legit and then just not count the votes that he doesn't like.

00:20:38.000 That is not legally based, okay?

00:20:40.000 The vice president does not have the power to do that. 0.80

00:20:42.000 That would be ridiculous.

00:20:43.000 Like, on just a normal constitutional level, the idea of the vice president being able to unilaterally decide who's president is totally crazy, particularly when you're talking about the vice president very often being on the same ticket as a person who is running.

00:20:56.000 Can you imagine back in 2004, Dick Cheney just deciding, you know what?

00:21:00.000 I preside over the Senate.

00:21:01.000 Guess what?

00:21:02.000 Bush won.

00:21:03.000 Don't even have to count the votes.

00:21:04.000 Can you imagine in 1980, Jimmy Carter's vice president just saying, you know what?

00:21:09.000 My job to count the votes.

00:21:10.000 My job.

00:21:11.000 You know what?

00:21:12.000 Jimmy won.

00:21:13.000 Sure, he lost, but he won.

00:21:14.000 It would be crazy to have that.

00:21:16.000 That is not the constitutional system.

00:21:17.000 That is not the constitutional structure.

00:21:19.000 That's clearly not the intent of the Constitution.

00:21:23.000 Okay, so by the way, worthy of mention here is Lin Wood.

00:21:26.000 So Lin Wood, who's this lawyer from Georgia who's been, he was part of the original Kraken team and all of this kind of stuff. 0.77

00:21:32.000 Lin Wood's a crazy person.

00:21:33.000 And not only has he been telling people not to vote in the Georgia Senate runoffs, which we'll get to in a little bit, he is now suggesting that Vice President Pence is going to be in jail. 0.73

00:21:40.000 Okay, I'm just going to point out that if you're paying attention to Lin Wood, at this point you're, You're being- I don't know what to tell you. 0.94

00:21:46.000 He's crazy.

00:21:47.000 Okay, he tweeted out over the weekend. 0.53

00:21:49.000 Okay, other things that Linwood has tweeted over the past 24 hours.

00:21:51.000 Pompeo will save the election.

00:21:53.000 Pence will be in jail awaiting trial for treason. 0.99

00:21:55.000 He will face execution by firing squad. 1.00

00:21:57.000 He is a coward and will sing like a bird and confess all. 1.00

00:22:00.000 Okay, other things that Linwood has tweeted over the past 24 hours, quote, I believe Chief Justice John Roberts and a multitude of powerful individuals worldwide are being blackmailed in a horrendous scheme involving rape and murder of children captured on videotape. 0.98

00:22:14.000 I have the key to the files containing the videos.

00:22:15.000 I've also shared this information.

00:22:17.000 This blackmail scheme is conducted by members of 10 of the world's most well-known and elite intelligence agencies.

00:22:22.000 One of those groups was hacked by a group known as Lizard Squad.

00:22:25.000 The blackmail files of rape and murder were obtained by this group and copy was provided to Isaac Cappy.

00:22:33.000 After Cappy received the hacked files from members of Lizard Squad, he gave files to one friend and the encryption key to another friend.

00:22:39.000 He provided this information to his friends shortly before he was murdered in May 13, 2019.

00:22:45.000 Members of Lizard Squad were jailed for hacking.

00:22:48.000 Jeffrey Epstein used this same blackmail scheme of child rape and child murder to either further his own interests or those of any intelligence agency with whom he worked.

00:22:57.000 Um, yeah, uh, okay.

00:22:59.000 So, that's Lynwood.

00:23:01.000 So, I'm gonna go with not Lynwood's legal analysis.

00:23:04.000 Other legal analysis that is not very good.

00:23:06.000 Peter Navarro, who is the president's special trade representative, said on Fox that Mike Pence has the power to delay the inauguration.

00:23:14.000 He does not.

00:23:15.000 This is not correct.

00:23:16.000 And by the way, if January 20th arrived and Joe Biden had not actually been designated the president-elect of the United States beforehand, you know who'd become president?

00:23:24.000 Trump doesn't just keep being president on January 20th if the office is vacant.

00:23:28.000 Then the House of Representatives decide who's president.

00:23:30.000 So get ready for President Pelosi if this is actually how you think it's gonna go.

00:23:32.000 So I'm just pointing out the bad legal analysis so you know where it is.

00:23:35.000 Here's Peter Navarro, who is not a good lawyer.

00:23:39.000 Vice President Pence, he has the authority to give that 10-day window to do what needs to get done, and I cannot imagine when he looks at the facts, he won't vote the right way on that.

00:23:51.000 And you know, Peter, the interesting thing is that that 10 day window is it is something that they can change the date.

00:23:58.000 The first January 20th cannot be changed.

00:24:01.000 That's constitutional.

00:24:02.000 But this whole certification thing, the dates.

00:24:04.000 Well, it can be changed, actually.

00:24:06.000 We can go past that date.

00:24:08.000 We can go past that date.

00:24:10.000 We can go past that date if we need to.

00:24:14.000 No, you can't.

00:24:15.000 OK, so.

00:24:16.000 What is the actual process?

00:24:17.000 We're going to get to the actual process and what is now being challenged, right?

00:24:21.000 Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, a bunch of Republican senators are jumping on board.

00:24:25.000 We'll get to the legal analysis here because it's become quite controversial.

00:24:27.000 And it's become quite controversial because I think some people are trying to politically make this into some sort of litmus test.

00:24:32.000 It is not, in fact, a litmus test.

00:24:33.000 The legal analysis here is, I think, pretty faulty.

00:24:37.000 And strategically speaking, it is not going to end with Trump being retained as President of the United States.

00:24:42.000 There's literally no way for that to happen under the current process.

00:24:46.000 Even if it were legal, it would not be effective.

00:24:49.000 Okay, so we're gonna get to that in one second.

00:24:50.000 I'm gonna analyze the whole issue for you.

00:24:52.000 We'll go through all the arguments, because people who I really respect on the legal side are making counter-arguments.

00:24:57.000 We'll go through all of them, so you'll have all the information at your disposal.

00:24:59.000 First, let us talk about the fact that a good New Year's resolution would be not going to the post office for tasks you can complete from home.

00:25:05.000 First of all, you're spending a lot of time.

00:25:07.000 Second of all, you're gonna be standing in line.

00:25:10.000 You really don't need to do all of those things.

00:25:11.000 I mean, if we learned one thing in 2020, it's that you can do a lot of things online, Just as well as you can do it in person, sometimes better.

00:25:18.000 Stamps.com.

00:25:18.000 Better to do it online than in person.

00:25:20.000 The reason?

00:25:21.000 Because with Stamps.com, you get the services of the Post Office and UPS directly on your computer, plus giant discounts on mailing and shipping rates.

00:25:28.000 Here at Daily Wire, we've been using Stamps.com since 2017.

00:25:31.000 No more wasting our time sending some sort of gopher to the Post Office to schlep boxes.

00:25:34.000 That's not a thing that we are going to do.

00:25:36.000 Instead, we use Stamps.com.

00:25:37.000 Stamps.com brings the services of the U.S.

00:25:38.000 Postal Service and UPS.

00:25:40.000 Directly to your computer, wherever you are.

00:25:43.000 Stamps.com, it's a must-have for any business.

00:25:45.000 Whether you're a small office sending out invoices, an online seller shipping out orders, even a giant warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.

00:25:52.000 Simply use your computer to print official U.S.

00:25:54.000 postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.

00:25:58.000 Once your mail is ready, just schedule a pickup or drop it off.

00:26:00.000 It is that simple.

00:26:01.000 With Stamps.com, you get five cents off every first-class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail, up to 62% off UPS shipping rates.

00:26:08.000 Not to mention, it is a fraction of the cost of those expensive postage meters.

00:26:11.000 Stamps.com, it's a no-brainer.

00:26:12.000 It saves you time.

00:26:13.000 It saves you money.

00:26:14.000 It's no wonder over 900,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.

00:26:17.000 So, make 2020 the year you stop wasting your time and head on over to Stamps.com.

00:26:21.000 Instead, no risk.

00:26:22.000 With my promo code SHAPIRO, you get a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus Free postage and digital scale.

00:26:27.000 No long-term commitments or contracts.

00:26:29.000 Just head on over to stamps.com, click on the mic at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.

00:26:32.000 That is stamps.com, promo code ShapiroStamps.com.

00:26:35.000 Never go to the post office again.

00:26:38.000 Alrighty, so now let's go through the actual Electoral College process.

00:26:40.000 So I've told you about how challenges take place under the Electoral College Act.

00:26:44.000 You need to know the history of the Electoral College Act to know what we are attempting to avoid.

00:26:49.000 Okay, so the reason that the Electoral College Act was originally passed, I'm gonna give you all the legal background on all the relevant laws, and then you can decide for yourself whether you think there's a good effort or a bad effort or a malign effort.

00:26:58.000 Yeah, we'll get to it.

00:26:59.000 Okay, so let's begin with the 1876 election.

00:27:02.000 So the Constitution is actually not particularly clear on what happens if there is controversy within a state sufficient that the electors, that separate slates of electors are sent to Congress.

00:27:11.000 So here's what happened in 1876, right?

00:27:13.000 Remember, this is only about a decade after the end of the Civil War.

00:27:18.000 So the prospect of violence is still very real.

00:27:19.000 There's still very large-scale questions about voter suppression and voter fraud, particularly in the South.

00:27:25.000 So, it's an election between Rutherford B. Hayes, Rutherford B. Hayes, who is the Republican, and Samuel Tilden, who is the Democrat.

00:27:31.000 So, Hayes' support is entirely Northern, with the exception of New York, which went for Samuel Tilden, because New York had some fairly severe feelings about race, obviously, that were pretty wrong and despicable.

00:27:42.000 Copperheads were big in New York.

00:27:45.000 So Samuel Tilden wins New York.

00:27:47.000 And in the South, there are a bunch of states that are in controversy, because it's pretty obvious that the South is very much in favor of Samuel Tilden, the Democrat, but a lot of people can't vote.

00:27:57.000 A lot of people, there are carpetbaggers, like there are some real problems of voter irregularity, and there are serious questions as to who really should be able to vote, considering that 11 years earlier, a lot of these people were literally fighting each other in the streets. 1.00

00:28:09.000 Okay, so, during that election, during the 1876 election, multiple Southern states actually sent several competing slates of electors.

00:28:16.000 Republicans claimed in those Southern states that voter intimidation and fraud had been the reason that Tilden was declared the victor in places like Louisiana and South Carolina.

00:28:24.000 Tilden had won the popular vote by over a quarter million votes nationwide.

00:28:27.000 He did not have an electoral college majority.

00:28:29.000 He was stuck at 184 electoral votes.

00:28:31.000 At the time, he needed 185 to win.

00:28:33.000 Rutherford B. Hayes had 165 electoral votes.

00:28:36.000 So basically what would happen is that multiple slates of electors were now being sent from these states.

00:28:41.000 So the state legislature would send a slate of electors.

00:28:43.000 They would say, okay, Tilden won the state.

00:28:45.000 We're sending our electors over to Congress.

00:28:47.000 And then the Republican governor would be like, nope, I'm sending my own slate of electors because of voter fraud and voter intimidation. 0.85

00:28:53.000 I don't believe the voter outcome.

00:28:54.000 I'm sending my own slate of electors.

00:28:55.000 Okay, so there would actually be two somewhat legitimate competing sources of slates of electors in 1876.

00:29:03.000 Democrats at the time controlled the House of Representatives.

00:29:05.000 Republicans controlled the Senate.

00:29:07.000 Hayes supporters, who are Republicans, argued that the Vice President should count the votes under the Constitution and disregard slates he didn't like, right?

00:29:13.000 This is the issue that we were discussing before.

00:29:15.000 The two sides instead agreed to set up a special committee charged with developing a way of solving the issue.

00:29:20.000 The Senate voted 47-17 in favor of this.

00:29:22.000 The House did the same, 191-86.

00:29:25.000 The way that this committee worked is that five representatives were selected by the House, five senators were selected by the Senate, four Supreme Court justices were named, and then a fifth Supreme Court justice would be selected by the other four.

00:29:35.000 So they came up with a committee, five members of the House, five senators, five Supreme Court justices.

00:29:40.000 Democrats argued that every single election should be investigated.

00:29:43.000 Republicans argued instead that governor's certification was the final word.

00:29:47.000 Democrats then tried to filibuster vote counts from nearly every state.

00:29:52.000 Eventually, Democrats basically just gave in because the committee came down and found that the slates of electors from the governors should be respected.

00:29:59.000 The real outcome here was not solved by the commission.

00:30:02.000 It was not solved by an investigation or anything like that.

00:30:04.000 The real outcome was solved by one of the worst things that has happened in the racial history of the United States, the Compromise of 1877, under which Rutherford B. Hayes became President of the United States, despite losing both the popular vote and probably the Electoral College vote.

00:30:17.000 Okay, so you have this mess of an election, only solved by the end of Reconstruction, essentially, which is not much of a solution.

00:30:21.000 So, they come up with the Electoral Count Act.

00:30:22.000 grow. Later investigations, by the way, showed no wrongdoing by Rutherford B. Hayes. It did show Democratic attempts to bribe election officials in disputed states. Okay, so you have this mess of an election only solved by the end of Reconstruction, essentially, which is not much of a solution. So they come up with the Electoral Count Act. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 sets out the process that we referred to before, which is that the vice president opens these votes, he counts the votes, and then a member of Congress and a senator can get together and challenge the votes of both

00:30:51.000 houses, then recess to go debate it. And then they come back together. And if both votes of the congressional bodies decide that they are going to throw out votes from a particular state because they're illegitimate or something, then they go ahead and they do that.

00:31:03.000 Okay, now.

00:31:05.000 Even that is not strict enough, really.

00:31:08.000 Okay?

00:31:09.000 Because the fact is that the Constitution was not really meant to have a majority in Congress simply decide who the President of the United States is.

00:31:17.000 That's really not what was supposed to happen here.

00:31:20.000 That would actually allow the federal government to override state governments.

00:31:23.000 The real question, and this is what the Electoral Count Act says, is you have to have specific grounds for challenging votes.

00:31:28.000 One would be something like bribery of electors, and the second would be that the governor did not certify the slate of electors.

00:31:34.000 Those would be the actual grounds.

00:31:34.000 Right?

00:31:36.000 Okay, how do slates of electors get certified?

00:31:38.000 So, according to Section 5 of U.S.

00:31:39.000 US Code Title III, this is passed in, I believe, 1948.

00:31:43.000 It says, quote, if any state shall have provided by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such state by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, made at least six days prior to said time of meeting the electors, shall be conclusive and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes

00:32:11.000 as provided in the Constitution, and as here and after regulated so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such state is concerned.

00:32:18.000 In other words, if a state takes advantage of the safe harbor provision, remember this, we discussed this late in December, if the safe harbor time hits, Okay, which is made six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors and the states have certified their votes, we are done here.

00:32:33.000 Okay, now challenges really are not relevant because at least when it comes to lawfully certified.

00:32:41.000 In other words, once the governor says, this is the slate of electors and he does so within the safe harbor period, these are now the electors.

00:32:47.000 Okay, and the challenges to the electors cannot be based on whether they were quote unquote lawfully certified.

00:32:51.000 It can only be based on regularly given, right?

00:32:54.000 Which would mean normally bribery or fraud.

00:32:57.000 So that is where things sort of stand.

00:33:00.000 That is the legal background for all of this.

00:33:03.000 So over the last couple of weeks, there's been growing momentum for challenging electoral votes in Congress in the same way that Barbara Boxer did in 2005, in the same way that some Congress people did in 1969. 0.51

00:33:14.000 And this has been led on the House side by Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, who said over the weekend that they were gaining a lot of momentum.

00:33:20.000 He said, our fight for honest and accurate elections gains momentum.

00:33:23.000 Jim Jordan and I co-lead conference call with 50 plus congressmen who join and fight for America's Republic.

00:33:29.000 Morale is high.

00:33:30.000 Okay, so apparently there are over 100 Republican congresspeople who are joining onto this effort.

00:33:30.000 Fight.

00:33:36.000 As Chip Roy of Texas has pointed out, it's odd that all these congresspeople who were literally elected in the same election in which they're now claiming that electoral college votes should be thrown out are challenging the electoral college votes but not their own election.

00:33:47.000 That's kind of a weird thing.

00:33:48.000 I mean, they were elected by exactly the same ballots.

00:33:50.000 They're now challenging.

00:33:51.000 But the question is whether they have any real serious legal grounds to do so.

00:33:55.000 Okay, so Preliminary question.

00:33:58.000 Aside, we'll get back to that in a second.

00:33:59.000 The legal grounds for this.

00:34:00.000 On a strategic level, this is not going to work.

00:34:02.000 The reason this is not going to work on a strategic level is perfectly obvious.

00:34:04.000 The Democrats control the House.

00:34:06.000 So let's say that Republicans challenge these electoral college votes in the House.

00:34:10.000 They get some senators like Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz and a lot of people who I like, right?

00:34:14.000 Steve Daines, a lot of people to sign on to this.

00:34:17.000 And then the House is recessed to discuss the votes.

00:34:19.000 Who thinks that the Democratic House is gonna be like, you know what?

00:34:22.000 After all, we decided that we're gonna just disregard, you know what?

00:34:25.000 Slates of electors from Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada.

00:34:30.000 You know what?

00:34:31.000 You're totally right.

00:34:32.000 You're 100% right.

00:34:33.000 Nancy Pelosi is gonna come forward, teeth of clack, and be like, Donald Trump, you're totally right.

00:34:37.000 Okay, so that's not going to happen, right?

00:34:39.000 I mean, let's just be practical about this.

00:34:41.000 That's not going to happen, which means the electoral votes don't get thrown out.

00:34:44.000 End of story.

00:34:46.000 We're done here.

00:34:47.000 Which suggests that this is really about one of two things.

00:34:50.000 Posturing by some people.

00:34:51.000 Because they want to appear that they are fighting even though there really is no available avenue left.

00:34:55.000 Right?

00:34:56.000 The election is over.

00:34:57.000 It was over the day the Electoral College voted with certified slate of electors.

00:35:01.000 The certification process is a formality.

00:35:02.000 It was always a formality.

00:35:05.000 Except since 1876.

00:35:08.000 So instead, what you are seeing, because in some cases it's either posturing or it's an attempt to fight voter fraud by drawing attention to it, is that this is what Congress people are saying.

00:35:18.000 And so Josh Hawley puts out a statement, this is the senator from Missouri, who I think is pretty clearly attempting to run for president in 2024 and capture a lot of the Trump base.

00:35:28.000 So, he said, here is his statement.

00:35:31.000 I mean, it is true, by the way, that some Democrats in Congress tried to object to certification of electoral votes during the 2016 election.

00:35:37.000 That was gaveled down by Joe Biden in the Senate.

00:35:38.000 I mean, it is true, by the way, that some Democrats in Congress tried to object to certification of electoral votes during the 2016 election.

00:35:45.000 That was gaveled down by Joe Biden in the Senate.

00:35:48.000 Joe Biden was the was the vice president at the time.

00:35:50.000 How he said they were praised by Democratic leadership in the media when they did.

00:35:54.000 They were entitled to do so.

00:35:55.000 Now those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same.

00:35:59.000 And you can.

00:35:59.000 I mean, no one's saying you can't try this.

00:36:01.000 I'm just saying it's not really well legally predicated.

00:36:04.000 And the basic model here, which would be that any time you don't like the outcome of an election, you and a majority of Congress can simply throw out all electoral college votes.

00:36:14.000 That is clearly not what the constitutional structure was meant to create.

00:36:18.000 Remember, the Electoral College is supposed to represent the states.

00:36:22.000 Remember that.

00:36:22.000 Not members of the federal government.

00:36:24.000 Not the popular vote.

00:36:26.000 The point of the Electoral College is that the states are supposed to appoint the electors.

00:36:30.000 Once the states have appointed the electors, the federal government does not have cause to simply throw out slates of electors absent obvious evidence of fraud that was not presented in court here.

00:36:40.000 Because, again, court after court, many of them Trump judges, said you're not even... I mean, the Trump team didn't even allege fraud in a lot of these cases, particularly Pennsylvania.

00:36:48.000 In any case, Halley says, I cannot vote to certify the electoral college results on January 6th without raising the fact that some states, particularly Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.

00:36:58.000 Okay, so we'll get to this argument in a second, which is that the electoral college vote from Pennsylvania should be thrown out despite state certification because it violates the federal constitution.

00:37:06.000 That's an argument that my friend Mark Levin makes, and it's an interesting argument.

00:37:09.000 I disagree with the legal analysis.

00:37:11.000 House.

00:37:12.000 How he says I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations including Facebook and Twitter to interfere in the election in support of Joe Biden.

00:37:19.000 Okay, that part is true.

00:37:20.000 But you don't challenge electoral votes because Facebook and Twitter were really bad.

00:37:24.000 Those two things are completely disconnected.

00:37:25.000 I totally agree that Facebook, Twitter, big tech, social media, the media itself were worth 10 points to Joe Biden in this election.

00:37:34.000 There's no question about that.

00:37:35.000 But that doesn't give you a legal predicate for challenging electoral college votes.

00:37:40.000 In any case, Howley says, for these reasons, I follow the same practice, Democrat members of Congress have in years past and object during the certification process on January 6th to raise these critical issues.

00:37:49.000 Okay, well, then because Howley does that, right?

00:37:52.000 Then because Josh Howley has challenged the electoral votes and you now have one Senator, that was the question is whether one Senator would go along with members from the House to actually jump into this process.

00:38:03.000 Because of that, you see a lot of other members of the Senate who, again, want to demonstrate fealty to Trump and demonstrate fight and demonstrate that they don't like the outcome of the election, jumping on board.

00:38:14.000 Again, I don't think there's a lot of legal basis to this, as I will explain in just one second.

00:38:19.000 Hey, first, let us talk for a second about shopping for auto parts.

00:38:22.000 So, auto parts stores?

00:38:24.000 Not my cup of tea.

00:38:25.000 Don't love them.

00:38:26.000 I don't love them because number one, I'm not a car expert.

00:38:28.000 I don't know that much about my car.

00:38:29.000 Number two, it's overpriced.

00:38:31.000 Number three, they very often don't even have the parts and have to order it online.

00:38:33.000 So why not just skip the middleman and go order the part you need online?

00:38:36.000 Rockauto.com.

00:38:38.000 You have access to rockauto.com at your desk and in your pocket.

00:38:41.000 Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.

00:38:46.000 Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts?

00:38:50.000 Rockauto.com.

00:38:50.000 It's a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:38:53.000 Head on over to rockauto.com right now.

00:38:55.000 Shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.

00:38:57.000 Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.

00:39:02.000 Why spend up to twice as much for the same parts?

00:39:04.000 And you're literally doing that if you shop at these auto parts stores as opposed to rockauto.com.

00:39:08.000 They've got amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car is ever going to need.

00:39:12.000 Rockauto.com.

00:39:14.000 So head on over to rockauto.com right now, see all the parts available for your car or truck, and then write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you in the first place helps them, helps the show.

00:39:23.000 Go check them out right now.

00:39:23.000 Rockauto.com.

00:39:24.000 Write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box.

00:39:27.000 Okay.

00:39:28.000 We're going to get to more of the legal analysis in just one second because it's kind of fascinating.

00:39:33.000 And we're also going to get to the Georgia race.

00:39:35.000 There's still a lot more to get to because we're on break for like a week and a half.

00:39:38.000 First, there are a million reasons that people believe lies about conservatives.

00:39:43.000 One of them is they've been trained to do so by content creators that absolutely hate conservatives.

00:39:47.000 Hate us.

00:39:48.000 When you go to work, people think conservatives are just bad people. 0.97

00:39:52.000 When you are on Facebook, if you're a conservative, your friends, family, co-workers, they will treat you as though you have some sort of brain cancer if you say you're a conservative.

00:40:02.000 Why is this?

00:40:03.000 It's not just because of political differences.

00:40:05.000 It's because politics is downstream from culture, as my old mentor Andrew Breitbart used to say.

00:40:09.000 As a culture, we need content that is edgy and entertaining and awesome, but that does not mock conservative values.

00:40:15.000 We need to give people options.

00:40:16.000 Daily Wire is aiming to do just that.

00:40:17.000 Think about this.

00:40:18.000 Fox News, right?

00:40:19.000 Everybody who's on the right watches Fox News.

00:40:22.000 Their primetime lineup will average 3.5, 4 million people.

00:40:26.000 There's 70 million subscribers to Netflix.

00:40:29.000 The vast majority of people's politics is not decided by politics.

00:40:33.000 It is decided by cultural influences outside of that.

00:40:35.000 It's decided by the entertainment they consume, and the music they consume, the movies and the TV they consume.

00:40:41.000 If conservatives want to win in the future, we have to engage in the culture war in the culture.

00:40:45.000 It's called a culture war because it is not just about voting, it is about the culture.

00:40:48.000 And that means we have to provide an alternative.

00:40:51.000 to the entertainment left-wing cram-downs you see in places like Amazon Prime, or places that you see like Hulu, or on Netflix.

00:40:59.000 You need alternative sources of entertainment, and so do moderates, right?

00:41:03.000 Things that they can see that are fun and edgy, and yes, somewhat conservative.

00:41:07.000 Okay, so what you're about to watch is an excerpt from Daily Wire's first motion picture film.

00:41:13.000 This is our first film ever from Daily Wire.

00:41:15.000 We are getting into the space.

00:41:16.000 We need to challenge the big boys.

00:41:18.000 You wanna win the culture war?

00:41:19.000 You gotta fight in the culture.

00:41:21.000 This film is called Run, Hide, Fight.

00:41:23.000 It's not a stereotypical conservative film.

00:41:25.000 In fact, it's not particularly political at all.

00:41:27.000 It is also not a family-friendly film, okay?

00:41:30.000 It is intense, it is violent, and it does have a powerful message to go with it.

00:41:33.000 The movie is about a high school besieged by a quartet of school shooters.

00:41:37.000 One young girl, 17-year-old Zoe Hull, uses her wits and survival skills to fight back.

00:41:42.000 Here is the trailer.

00:41:44.000 In between breaths, take the shot.

00:41:52.000 BOOM! 0.99

00:41:53.000 You done really good out there, kid.

00:41:55.000 Size of that deer, we're gonna be eating venison all summer.

00:41:57.000 All in a day's work.

00:42:00.000 I think we need to see somebody again.

00:42:01.000 And by we, you mean me?

00:42:03.000 No, I mean us.

00:42:04.000 Hey, that look in your eye.

00:42:06.000 Guys in my unit had that look.

00:42:07.000 Maybe there's a brochure you can hand me so I can go?

00:42:09.000 Is that Chris Jellick over there?

00:42:19.000 Is he doing something completely weird? 0.98

00:42:21.000 Senior prank day, but we'll see all kinds of dumb stuff today. 0.89

00:42:24.000 Swim captain will have Thai food delivered to class, and Becky Vaughn will set up her homemade slip and slide. 0.92

00:42:29.000 This is high school.

00:42:30.000 Nothing that happens here matters in the real world.

00:42:32.000 Okay, we are in charge now, so please pull out whichever app you use to do live streaming video.

00:42:44.000 Get them up and running and point it at me.

00:42:46.000 Now!

00:42:49.000 Get down on the ground! 0.75

00:42:51.000 Any more friends back there?

00:42:53.000 I'm calling 9-1-1.

00:42:59.000 Get back to your home room and stay put until... 9-1-1, what's your emergency?

00:43:12.000 You must be close.

00:43:14.000 You should be ashamed of yourself!

00:43:22.000 Oh Very disturbing news out of Vernon Central High School.

00:43:28.000 Zoe! 0.96

00:43:29.000 In between breath... 0.86

00:43:35.000 Take the shot.

00:43:37.000 Go! 0.95

00:43:43.000 Is it safe to say that this might be our guardian angel?

00:43:45.000 Do you want more people to die?

00:43:47.000 That's the last thing I want. 1.00

00:43:48.000 I'm gonna kill one person in this room every five minutes you don't show your face. 0.97

00:43:52.000 Isn't it ironic that after all your hard work, people aren't going to remember you? 0.99

00:44:16.000 No.

00:44:17.000 They're gonna remember me.

00:44:19.000 The movie's badass. Okay, the movie is just it's excellent.

00:44:24.000 It is it is not for younger audiences. This would be a rated R film for sure. But that's the point. We are making rated R films.

00:44:30.000 Right? We are making content that are for that's for adults.

00:44:33.000 We are making stuff that people want to see. Right? Not just something where people feel obligated to see it because it promotes a particular worldview openly so that no moderate will ever see it.

00:44:42.000 The point is that we are going to change people's minds about issues by providing them cultural places where they can see that conservatism is not only not bad, it is quite good.

00:44:52.000 And we're going to be telling compelling, edgy stories to go with it.

00:44:56.000 We are really pumped to show you this film and bring you something that's never been done before in conservative media.

00:45:00.000 Never been done.

00:45:01.000 We need your help.

00:45:02.000 Run Hide Fight will be available to watch Friday, January 15th, my birthday, at dailywire.com.

00:45:06.000 We'll be doing a special live stream premiere the night before, Thursday, January 14th, on the Daily Wire YouTube channel.

00:45:12.000 So let's kick off 2021 by fighting back on culture.

00:45:15.000 We got to fight the culture war. 0.83

00:45:17.000 We need to create our own content and we need your help.

00:45:18.000 We need you to join up at dailywire.com.

00:45:20.000 This content is not cheap to produce.

00:45:22.000 It is really important.

00:45:23.000 There's a reason Democrats pour billions of dollars into film and TV. 0.99

00:45:27.000 They know what convinces people.

00:45:28.000 We need to do the same thing.

00:45:29.000 Check us out at dailywire.com.

00:45:30.000 Go subscribe right now, and you can see Run, Hide, Fight, which is just a badass, awesome movie.

00:45:35.000 You're gonna love it.

00:45:36.000 I can't wait to show it.

00:45:37.000 Really, I'm very eager to show it to you.

00:45:38.000 So come join us over at Daily Wire.

00:45:39.000 Why are you listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation?

00:45:43.000 All right, so Josh Hawley signifies that he is going to join Mo Brooks and he is going to challenge these electoral college results.

00:45:54.000 And he says that he wants to do so in order to put a spotlight on what has happened in Pennsylvania and on allegations of voter fraud and also on Big Tech.

00:46:01.000 So, yeah, again, I think that what he says about Big Tech is 100% right.

00:46:04.000 I don't know what it has to do with challenging Electoral College votes.

00:46:06.000 So, this prompts a bunch of other Republican senators to jump on board, including Senators Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, James Lankford, Steve Daines, John Kennedy, Marsha Blackburn, Mike Braun.

00:46:16.000 Senators elect Cynthia Loomis from Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.

00:46:22.000 And they put out a statement.

00:46:23.000 It said, the election of 2020, like the election of 2016, was hard fought and in many swing states narrowly decided. The 2020 election, however, featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud violations and lax enforcement of election law and other voting irregularities. Now, the problem here, of course, is that when you say that it featured unprecedented allegations, you actually, if you're going to challenge Electoral College votes, you actually have to show unprecedented, unprecedented evidence, right?

00:46:46.000 Unprecedented allegations.

00:46:48.000 I mean, we can do unprecedented— Democrats do unprecedented allegations.

00:46:52.000 And I will point this out here, too.

00:46:53.000 I mean, Democrats did unprecedented allegations for four years.

00:46:56.000 They claimed that Donald Trump was a Russian tool, that Vladimir Putin had hired Trump, basically, to become president of the United States, and that Trump had gained the office simply by cooperating with Vlad.

00:47:07.000 So that was an unprecedented allegation.

00:47:08.000 Turns out they didn't have unprecedented proof, and so it came to nothing.

00:47:12.000 But when Democrats complain that allegations are not sufficient, take that with a grain of salt.

00:47:17.000 Whenever it's a Democrat pushing allegations, the allegations are sufficient.

00:47:20.000 I'd hope that conservatives are a little bit more consistent, that allegations are never sufficient. 0.92

00:47:24.000 You need actual evidence to back the allegations, whether we are talking about bullcrap about Brett Kavanaugh, or bullcrap about the Covington Catholic kids, Or whether you're talking about bull crap, about systemic American racism, like actual evidence would be necessary, not just allegations.

00:47:36.000 So it's not enough to say unprecedented allegations of voter fraud. 0.93

00:47:39.000 You actually have to show proof.

00:47:41.000 But, say the Senators, the allegations are not believed just by one individual candidate.

00:47:45.000 They are widespread, because 67% of Republicans say the election was rigged, and so do 17% of Democrats and 31% of Independents.

00:47:53.000 These are all the Senators on the Republican side who are going along with the challenge.

00:47:57.000 Some members of Congress disagree with that assessment, as do many members of the media.

00:48:00.000 But whether or not our elected officials or journalists believe it, that deep distrust of our democratic processes will not magically disappear.

00:48:05.000 It should concern us all.

00:48:06.000 It poses an ongoing threat to the legitimacy of all subsequent administrations.

00:48:11.000 Okay, so let's just be straight about this.

00:48:14.000 All those doubts are not going to go away because Congress has a two-hour session where they yell at each other.

00:48:18.000 That's not going to happen.

00:48:20.000 And they're not going to go away if there is some sort of jointly appointed electoral commission, which is what Cruz et al.

00:48:25.000 are calling for.

00:48:27.000 They are calling for a following of the 1877 precedent.

00:48:30.000 Now remember, the Electoral Count Act was designed explicitly to avoid the 1877 Commission.

00:48:37.000 Because that commission, it turned out, was completely partisan.

00:48:40.000 And not only was it completely partisan, the only way that that crisis ended up being resolved was the end of Reconstruction.

00:48:44.000 So it wasn't like that was a wildly great precedent to set.

00:48:48.000 And that it worked fantastic.

00:48:49.000 So we should go back to that.

00:48:50.000 But they're calling for an electoral investigation.

00:48:52.000 It'll take 10 days.

00:48:53.000 Now, let's be real about that.

00:48:55.000 Who thinks that at the end of 10 days, everybody who was disquieted about the rather serious allegations of voter fraud and irregularity are gonna be, oh, you know, they took 10 days.

00:49:03.000 I mean, they took a whole 10 days.

00:49:05.000 Now I feel better.

00:49:06.000 Not going to happen.

00:49:07.000 Obviously.

00:49:10.000 So just on a practical level, it's not going to quell fears.

00:49:12.000 It is not going to end the way that Republicans want it to end because Democrats control the House.

00:49:16.000 So that's just not going to happen.

00:49:18.000 Nonetheless, Vice President Pence's Chief of Staff said that he welcomed the effort by some lawmakers to raise objections.

00:49:24.000 Mark Short said, Now, listen, again, they can do that.

00:49:25.000 They can raise objections, bring forward evidence.

00:49:26.000 about voter fraud and irregularity, and therefore welcomes the effort of members of the House and Senate to use the authority they have under the law to raise objections and bring forward evidence.

00:49:33.000 Now, listen, again, they can do that.

00:49:35.000 They can raise objections, bring forward evidence.

00:49:36.000 It's not going to be practical, and it's not going to end with any change here.

00:49:41.000 Senator Tom Cotton, who again, is a very pro-Trump senator, right?

00:49:44.000 Cotton is really a pro-Trump guy from Arkansas.

00:49:47.000 He put out a statement on why he was not going to join these efforts, and I think this is systemically correct.

00:49:53.000 The point that he's making is you don't want to set the precedent whereby the Congress of the United States decides to completely overlook the certified electoral college results in various states in favor of simply ruling at the federal level which votes should be counted and which votes should not.

00:50:08.000 That's a huge mistake.

00:50:09.000 Especially because, let's just, on a practical level, point something out.

00:50:12.000 Republicans, since 1992, since 19, well, sorry, since 1988, Republicans have won the popular vote, a grand total, of one time.

00:50:17.000 Since 1988, Republicans have won the popular vote, a grand total of one time, once.

00:50:24.000 Since 1988, since I was four years old, Republicans have won the popular national vote in a presidential election one time.

00:50:31.000 So Republicans, rightly, are big fans of the Electoral College.

00:50:34.000 I think on a systemic level, they should be big fans of the Electoral College, because I think the states should have a say in who gets to be president.

00:50:39.000 But that's the point.

00:50:40.000 If you have Congress overruling the states, not on the basis of proved fraud, not on the basis of proved voter irregularity, but on the basis they don't like the results, you're setting the precedent whereby, in four years, Vice President Kamala Harris Let's say that Biden is on his last legs.

00:51:02.000 Harris runs to succeed him.

00:51:04.000 And now you have her ruling at the top of the Senate on her own loss and simply saying, you know what?

00:51:10.000 I won the popular vote.

00:51:11.000 The Electoral College count doesn't matter anymore.

00:51:13.000 Republicans made clear that last time.

00:51:15.000 We're done.

00:51:16.000 I win.

00:51:17.000 How's that gonna go?

00:51:18.000 That gonna go great?

00:51:18.000 I don't think so.

00:51:19.000 It's setting a very, very, very negative legal precedent here that is going to be extraordinarily counterproductive.

00:51:25.000 And by the way, it's not going to end with Trump retaining the office of the presidency.

00:51:28.000 Again, Democrats in the House would have to agree with Republicans in the Senate to throw out Electoral College votes, which is not going to happen.

00:51:35.000 So it is bad law.

00:51:37.000 It is bad policy.

00:51:38.000 And it is not effective in any real sense, which means that it's kind of virtue signaling, unless people actually think it's going to work for some odd reason that I can't comprehend.

00:51:47.000 Like, there's no way this works.

00:51:48.000 It's just not going to work.

00:51:50.000 Okay, so Tom Cotton makes this clear.

00:51:52.000 Again, this is not about opposing Trump or not opposing Trump.

00:51:55.000 This is about recognizing that there are consequences to messing around with the legal system.

00:51:59.000 I didn't just vote for Trump.

00:52:01.000 I told you why you should vote for Trump.

00:52:01.000 I stumped for Trump.

00:52:04.000 I'm quite upset with the outcome of the election.

00:52:07.000 Tom Cotton is quite upset with the outcome of the election.

00:52:09.000 That doesn't mean that what we are now pursuing here is good policy or effective policy.

00:52:14.000 So Cotton put out a statement.

00:52:15.000 He said, quote, I share the concerns of many Arkansans about irregularities in the presidential election, especially in states that rushed through election law changes to relax standards of voting by mail.

00:52:24.000 I also share their disappointment with the election results.

00:52:27.000 I therefore support a commission to study the last election and propose reforms to protect the integrity of our elections.

00:52:32.000 And after Republicans win in Georgia, the Senate should also hold more hearings on these matters.

00:52:36.000 Nevertheless, the founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states, not Congress.

00:52:40.000 They entrusted the election of our president to the people acting through the Electoral College, not Congress.

00:52:44.000 They entrusted the adjudication of election disputes to the courts, not Congress.

00:52:47.000 Under the Constitution and federal law, Congress's power is limited to counting electoral votes submitted by the states.

00:52:53.000 Correct.

00:52:54.000 If Congress purported to overturn the results of the Electoral College, it would not only exceed that power, it would establish unwise precedents.

00:53:00.000 First, Congress would take away the power to choose the president from the people, which would essentially end presidential elections and place that power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress.

00:53:08.000 Second, Congress would imperil the Electoral College itself, which gives small states like Arkansas a voice in presidential elections. 0.60

00:53:15.000 Democrats could achieve their longstanding goal of eliminating the Electoral College, in effect, by refusing to count electoral votes in the future for a Republican president-elect.

00:53:23.000 Okay, so Cotton happens to be legally correct about all of this, right?

00:53:33.000 This is right.

00:53:34.000 Cotton's explanation is correct. 0.85

00:53:37.000 Okay, so that leaves one outstanding legal debate that is interesting on an intellectual and a legal level.

00:53:44.000 So, Mark Levin.

00:53:45.000 Friend of mine, really good guy, really obviously terrific conservative who's done enormous work in convincing Americans why conservatism is a good idea.

00:53:55.000 So late in the year, he put out a piece trying to explain why electoral challenges were a good idea, particularly with regard to the Pennsylvania vote.

00:54:06.000 So here's what he says.

00:54:07.000 He says specifically, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Federal Constitution could not be more explicit.

00:54:12.000 It states, in pertinent part, each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.

00:54:22.000 This language is purposeful.

00:54:24.000 During the Constitutional Convention, there were various proposals suggested for electing a president.

00:54:28.000 Should the president be directly elected?

00:54:30.000 That proposal was rejected because the founders feared a purely democratic process could be hijacked by a temporary majority.

00:54:36.000 Should the president be chosen from within the national legislature?

00:54:39.000 That proposal was also rejected.

00:54:40.000 Should the judiciary play a role?

00:54:42.000 That idea was rejected.

00:54:43.000 The electoral process rested first and foremost on the state legislatures directing how the electors would be chosen.

00:54:49.000 The reason?

00:54:50.000 While rejecting the direct election of a president, the framers concluded that the state legislatures were closest to the people.

00:54:55.000 Okay, so basically he is saying that because Pennsylvania did the wrong process for putting together their voting procedure, because courts and the governor intervened in the process, that this means that the entire state electoral college vote should be thrown out because the federal government is empowered with ensuring that each state appoints in such a manner as the legislature directs a number of electors.

00:55:18.000 On the face, that makes some sense, right?

00:55:20.000 I mean, the Constitution says state legislatures have to decide the process, and in Pennsylvania, it was not state legislatures that were deciding the process.

00:55:29.000 And the problem is that a bunch of courts have already decided that this is not correct interpretation.

00:55:34.000 And in fact, the actual meaning of the Constitution here is relatively clear.

00:55:39.000 What it means is that the Electoral College is decided by the state legislature.

00:55:43.000 The legislature decides exactly the manner in which the Electoral College is selected, but it doesn't mean that they have to be in charge of every single detail.

00:55:57.000 So, for example, there is a judge, a recent Trump appointee named Brett Ludwig, and he ruled specifically on this argument.

00:56:04.000 And here's what he said.

00:56:05.000 As used in the Electors Clause, the word manner refers to the form or method of selection of the presidential electors.

00:56:11.000 It requires state legislatures merely to set the approach for selecting presidential electors.

00:56:15.000 Put another way, it simply refers to the mode of appointing electors consistent with the plain meaning of the term.

00:56:22.000 So what does that mean?

00:56:23.000 It means that you could have chosen to appoint electors directly, right?

00:56:27.000 The state legislature could just select the electors, or the state legislature could do it by congressional district, or they could simply have the governor appoint the electors.

00:56:34.000 But once they decide, then they decide, right?

00:56:37.000 The approach, form, method, or mode that a legislature sets for appointing presidential electors is by general ballot at the general election.

00:56:44.000 Okay, so the same logic applies in Pennsylvania.

00:56:49.000 Here is what the judge said in this particular case.

00:56:51.000 He said, issues of mere administration of a general election do not mean there has not been a general ballot at a general election.

00:56:58.000 Plaintiff's conflation of these potential nonconformities with constitutional violations is contrary to the plain meaning of the elector's clause.

00:57:05.000 If a plaintiff's reading of manner was correct, any disappointed loser in a presidential election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag claim deviations from the election rules and cast doubt on the election results.

00:57:14.000 In other words, the Pennsylvania State Legislature said that the popular vote of the state of Pennsylvania was going to decide the outcome.

00:57:21.000 Okay, then counties went ahead and did a bunch of different procedures for gathering the popular vote.

00:57:27.000 A lawyer could simply say, well, the legislature didn't decide how that was going to happen, so therefore the process is broken and you can throw out those state electors.

00:57:35.000 That is not what the Constitution means in this particular circumstance, I don't think.

00:57:40.000 I understand where Mark is coming from.

00:57:41.000 I don't think that that is correct.

00:57:42.000 And again, I think that it sets the federal government over these states as to how they actually do their election processes, which is a mistake.

00:57:49.000 You don't want the federal government actually doing that because the federal government could be controlled by Democrats, guys.

00:57:55.000 As David French points out, and this is a good point, It is quite possible that then Democrats can object to Texas's electoral vote for Trump because Texas Governor Greg Abbott invoked emergency powers to modify statutory restrictions regarding the delivery of mail-in ballots.

00:58:09.000 So the legislature didn't actually decide how the vote went in Texas either.

00:58:13.000 So this is sort of the contrary argument to what Mark has been arguing.

00:58:21.000 And again, I think Mark's argument is interesting.

00:58:24.000 I don't think that it is fully convincing, to me at least.

00:58:28.000 Meanwhile, Andrew McCarthy, again, a big ally of Trump, has a long piece today about this process.

00:58:33.000 As he points out, the law makes pretty clear that once the state certifications are done, they are now conclusive.

00:58:38.000 Says Andy McCarthy, it is not a matter of whether it is the result we would have preferred or even whether it is a result we suspect.

00:58:44.000 This undeniable fact has been recognized by seven federal judges, including judges recently appointed by Trump, who have examined the Trump claims, rejected them, and disclaimed any authority under the circumstances to disturb the state's determinations.

00:58:44.000 It is the law.

00:58:55.000 If despite all of that, Democrats were trying to orchestrate a congressional do-over, Republicans would be pointing out, with due indignation, the Constitution makes the election of a president, like the ratification of the Constitution, a matter of state sovereignty.

00:59:08.000 Under our foundational law, it is the state, not the people, not Congress, that determine which candidates are receiving electoral votes.

00:59:15.000 The 12th Amendment requires that the count has to be done in the presence of lawmakers, over which the vice president presides, But this sort of power grab is really not justifiable under the Constitution or under prevailing law, says Andy McCarthy.

00:59:30.000 And this seems correct.

00:59:33.000 Not only that, but it's pretty obviously gonna fail.

00:59:35.000 Even if you agree with the argument that there's solid legal grounds for challenging these electoral results, Democrats control the House.

00:59:41.000 They're not going to vote to throw out electoral college votes in these various states.

00:59:45.000 So when people say, the reason I'm spending a lot of time on this is because there are a lot of folks who seem to want to turn this into some sort of conservative litmus test.

00:59:52.000 Like, if you're truly conservative, you're a true believer, then you will back these electoral college challenges.

00:59:57.000 I think that there's a fairly solid conservative case.

00:59:59.000 When I say fairly solid, I mean very solid.

01:00:01.000 Conservative case to be made.

01:00:02.000 They're actually undermining a bunch of fundamental principles that you are going to be sad you undermine in five minutes.

01:00:07.000 And when you say that the federal government should have the capacity to simply throw out electoral college votes on any basis they want, essentially, without providing proper evidence, That is not a precedent you want to set.

01:00:19.000 Republicans in presidential elections have traditionally relied on the Electoral College to provide them victory.

01:00:23.000 Again, considering that since 1988, one election, 2004, has been a popular vote victory for a Republican.

01:00:29.000 You're gonna need that Electoral College.

01:00:32.000 You're gonna miss it when it's gone.

01:00:33.000 So don't screw around with this process.

01:00:36.000 It is a mistake.

01:00:37.000 It is also a mistake to make this the paramount consideration, considering that there is an actual big election coming up this week.

01:00:43.000 The election of 2020 happened in 2020.

01:00:44.000 It is now 2021.

01:00:48.000 In the next two days, there is a massive election.

01:00:50.000 As in tomorrow, there is a massive election in Georgia.

01:00:53.000 That election is going to decide control of the Senate.

01:00:57.000 Regardless of what sort of processes are attempted in the next week, regardless of the political positioning of various senators or congresspeople, Joe Biden will be certified the winner of the election.

01:01:06.000 He already was by these various states.

01:01:08.000 Okay, so now the question becomes, what's going to happen in the Senate?

01:01:10.000 Just on a practical level, what's going to happen in the Senate?

01:01:14.000 And the answer is, if Democrats take the Senate, it's going to be a full-on disaster area.

01:01:19.000 Republicans in Georgia, get out and vote.

01:01:22.000 Get out and vote.

01:01:22.000 By the way, not just me saying this.

01:01:24.000 Trump is saying this.

01:01:25.000 His kids are saying this.

01:01:27.000 His team is saying this.

01:01:28.000 Get out and vote.

01:01:29.000 You need to vote in Georgia.

01:01:31.000 You cannot hand control of the Senate over to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.

01:01:36.000 That's nuts.

01:01:37.000 There is no rationale whatsoever for handing over two Senate seats to Raphael Warnock, a Marxist radical, and John Ossoff, a trust fund socialist.

01:01:47.000 Don't do it.

01:01:49.000 So, David Perdue, who did beat Jon Ossoff by about 80,000 votes in the last go-round.

01:01:58.000 He just missed by a few votes, finishing above that 50% mark that would have sent him back to the Senate.

01:02:05.000 Perdue said over the weekend, if the Democrats are in charge, America is not going to be the same.

01:02:08.000 The bulwark against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is going to be a Republican Senate.

01:02:08.000 That is correct.

01:02:12.000 Do not blow it, guys.

01:02:13.000 Here is Perdue's ad over the weekend.

01:02:16.000 Now we take Georgia and then we change America. 0.51

01:02:19.000 To make sure that we don't have a Republican Senate majority so that we don't have to negotiate.

01:02:26.000 We win these two seats.

01:02:27.000 Plus Kamala Harris breaking the time. 0.97

01:02:29.000 It'll be like getting 60 votes.

01:02:31.000 When we take back the Senate and have the majority, we will have a lot to do.

01:02:36.000 Total Democratic control.

01:02:38.000 That's their goal.

01:02:39.000 If they're in charge, America will never be the same.

01:02:42.000 Save America.

01:02:43.000 Vote for David Perdue on January 5th.

01:02:45.000 Okay, and the media are all in, all in, on, on John Ossoff.

01:02:50.000 I mean, they are, they are all in on Ossoff.

01:02:52.000 They're all in on Raphael Warnock.

01:02:55.000 They are going at it with a vengeance.

01:02:59.000 It's amazing.

01:03:00.000 It's amazing how hard they are going for the Democrats.

01:03:04.000 So, Raphael Warnock.

01:03:06.000 who was in this runoff, right?

01:03:09.000 Ossoff is with Purdue and Warnock is running against Kelly Loeffler.

01:03:13.000 So, Raphael Warnock is getting just the golden treatment from the media.

01:03:17.000 Here's a headline from the New York Times about Raphael Warnock, a racial radical who has said openly anti-Semitic things, who has praised Jeremiah Wright, who has praised Louis Farrakhan, who did groundwork for a church visit from Fidel Castro.

01:03:31.000 Okay, this nut job.

01:03:33.000 Who, by the way, was briefly arrested for obstruction over investigation of child abuse at a summer camp back in the 90s.

01:03:40.000 And then later he was released and cleared.

01:03:44.000 Whose ex-wife suggested that he ran over her foot with a car, her foot with a car, and that he was a liar and all of this.

01:03:51.000 That guy is being treated with just the greatest, the greatest sort of kid gloves by the media.

01:03:57.000 Here's a headline from the New York Times, you ready?

01:03:58.000 Raphael Warnock, from the pulpit to politics, doesn't shy from uncomfortable truths.

01:04:02.000 Wow, what a hero, what a hero. 0.99

01:04:04.000 Now, well that seems to me, defending Jeremiah Wright's not an uncomfortable truth, it's you being a jackass. 0.86

01:04:08.000 But according to the media, this makes you a powerful voice, a powerful voice. 0.96

01:04:13.000 I mean, just incredible.

01:04:16.000 So the New York Times goes on and on about what a magical, magical man Raphael Warnock is.

01:04:21.000 The Washington Post has a piece.

01:04:23.000 I mean, this is all times. 0.87

01:04:24.000 The media are just disgusting. 0.98

01:04:25.000 I mean, they're disgustingly, partisanly biased in an insane way. 0.99

01:04:29.000 They did cost Trump the election, no doubt.

01:04:32.000 The lifestyle section of the Washington Post.

01:04:35.000 Lifestyle, not an opinion piece, lifestyle.

01:04:37.000 Raphael Warnock's campaign for the moral high ground.

01:04:40.000 What an amazing man he is.

01:04:42.000 He's so amazing.

01:04:44.000 For the past 15 years, Warnock has been the senior pastor at the storied Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the same church once led by his hero, Martin Luther King Jr.

01:04:51.000 The flamboyant, preacher-pol style Warnock cultivated may be alien to many Americans, including many white Christians, but it is deeply familiar to those who grew up in and around Southern black churches.

01:05:00.000 In those churches, preachers make it their business to tell uncomfortable truths about American life, including the shameful ways the country treats its African American citizens.

01:05:09.000 What a hero.

01:05:10.000 What a hero he is.

01:05:12.000 Meanwhile, the media will just allow the Democrats to lie about Republicans over and over and over again.

01:05:18.000 So, for example, John Ossoff suggested that Republican Kelly Loeffler has been campaigning with a Klansman.

01:05:24.000 That is just a lie.

01:05:25.000 It's an overt lie.

01:05:26.000 Kelly Loeffler has taken pictures of thousands of people.

01:05:29.000 Here's the bottom line.

01:05:30.000 she took pictures with was a Klansman.

01:05:31.000 She didn't know the guy from Adam.

01:05:33.000 Doesn't matter, Jon Ossoff just goes on national TV and lies about it.

01:05:35.000 He has not received one iota of blowback from the same media who claim they are guardians of the truth because in fact they are not.

01:05:40.000 They're just guardians of Democrats.

01:05:43.000 Here's the bottom line.

01:05:44.000 Kelly Loeffler has been campaigning with a Klansman.

01:05:49.000 Kelly Loeffler has been campaigning with a Klansman.

01:05:53.000 And so she is stooping to these vicious personal attacks to distract from the fact that she's been campaigning with a former member of the Ku Klux Klan.

01:06:03.000 I mean, we deserve better than that here in Georgia.

01:06:05.000 Okay, that is just a lie.

01:06:07.000 It's just a lie.

01:06:08.000 They're using it in the fact check.

01:06:09.000 That's not on the front page of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 0.87

01:06:11.000 Here's Kelly Loeffler slapping the pathological liar, Jon Ossoff. 1.00

01:06:16.000 Georgia knows that John Ossoff is a pathological liar. 0.99

01:06:19.000 He's a trust fund socialist whose only job has been working for the Chinese Communist Party in recent years. 0.98

01:06:25.000 And look, here's the deal.

01:06:26.000 If we're going to tell lies about my campaign, let's tell the truth about who he's campaigning with.

01:06:31.000 This is the truth.

01:06:32.000 Radical liberal Raphael Warnock has been involved in child abuse, domestic abuse. 0.99

01:06:37.000 So I'm not going to be lectured by some 33-year-old trust fund socialist who's a pathological liar. 0.66

01:06:44.000 Okay, I mean, she's right about this amazing how Ossoff and Warnock, I mean, the media are trying to cram the Democrats into power.

01:06:51.000 If you're in Georgia, do not sit out the election.

01:06:51.000 They're trying to do it.

01:06:54.000 I know you're pissed about what happened in 2020.

01:06:56.000 I know you are.

01:06:57.000 Turn the page because what's coming next is gonna be a lot, lot worse if Democrats take control of the United States Senate. 0.97

01:07:03.000 By the way, speaking of just the media being a bag of garbage, a couple of quick bag of garbage media stories for you here right now. 0.96

01:07:09.000 Okay, so bag of garbage media story number one. 0.94

01:07:13.000 So remember that time when we were told that California is just wonderful with COVID?

01:07:16.000 California was doing great.

01:07:17.000 I lived in L.A.

01:07:19.000 until very, very recently, and L.A.

01:07:20.000 was just—it was wonderful.

01:07:21.000 They shut down everything.

01:07:22.000 You couldn't go outdoor dining.

01:07:23.000 You couldn't hike.

01:07:24.000 You couldn't do a bunch of stuff for months at a time.

01:07:26.000 And they did an amazing job.

01:07:27.000 They crushed the curve, right?

01:07:28.000 I mean, they just did an amazing, amazing job.

01:07:30.000 There is only one problem.

01:07:31.000 In fact, they did not do an amazing job.

01:07:33.000 You can crush the curve, but it turns out that the curve then crushes you.

01:07:36.000 Because if you decide on wide-scale lockdown, then when people go out, they will infect each other at extraordinary rates.

01:07:43.000 And that's exactly what has been happening in L.A.

01:07:44.000 County, which now posted its third highest single-day total for coronavirus cases on New Year's, reporting 19,000 cases.

01:07:50.000 That means that over the last seven days, there was an average of more than 16,000 new COVID cases a day reported in the county, about 12 times bigger than the comparable figure from November 1st and the highest figure ever recorded.

01:08:01.000 The tally reported Friday pushed the average number of new daily COVID cases over the last week to over 16,000, Precisely around the same time, epidemiologists warn people infected around the Christmas holiday would begin to become infectious.

01:08:13.000 The hospitals are being overwhelmed.

01:08:15.000 They're being overrun in LA County.

01:08:17.000 It is a full-scale disaster area.

01:08:19.000 Speaking of full-scale disaster areas...

01:08:22.000 The growth of COVID again in New York is getting pretty severe. 1.00

01:08:25.000 And Andrew Cuomo has an idiotic plan. 1.00

01:08:28.000 So this bag of tools, I mean, he's just this awful, awful governor who presided over the worst death rate in the United States, with the exception of New Jersey. 1.00

01:08:38.000 Just a horrifying death rate, tens of thousands of dead in his state, because he decided to ship the elderly back into nursing homes with COVID.

01:08:45.000 This awful, awful governor who suggested for months that he didn't trust a vaccine developed under the Trump administration.

01:08:53.000 Now this guy is blowing it when it comes to tranching out the vaccine.

01:08:56.000 So here's how we should be tranching out the vaccine.

01:08:58.000 Okay, because these things have expiration dates.

01:09:00.000 Once they're out of the fridge, they're out of the fridge.

01:09:02.000 The way that it should work is that everybody who is elderly gets a shot. 0.88

01:09:06.000 Everybody who's elderly gets a shot. 1.00

01:09:07.000 And if you hit the end of the day, and there ain't nobody elderly around, you inoculate anybody who's there. 0.96

01:09:11.000 Because you don't want to waste the doses, right?

01:09:13.000 Because once they're out of the fridge, they're done.

01:09:16.000 So you want it better that somebody who is not in line should get the shot, than that somebody doesn't get the shot who's not in line, right? 1.00

01:09:24.000 Wasting doses is idiotic. 1.00

01:09:25.000 It makes no sense at all. 1.00

01:09:27.000 And in fact, there are lots of countries that have been doing this exactly right.

01:09:30.000 Israel is an excellent example.

01:09:32.000 Over a million people have already been vaccinated in Israel.

01:09:34.000 They have drive-thru lines.

01:09:35.000 You literally just get in your car, you drive to one of these drive-thrus, and you get the shot.

01:09:39.000 Here in Florida, there have been people lining up at places where the shots are available.

01:09:44.000 They're not wasting shots.

01:09:46.000 So Andrew Cuomo's plan, however, is he is so interested in the quote-unquote prioritization because he wants, I don't know, racial equity achieved via the inoculation of essential workers who are disproportionately minority or some such nonsense.

01:10:00.000 He is actually threatening to fine people millions of dollars if they take the vaccine out of order.

01:10:07.000 So he would rather that vaccine doses be spoiled than they go to somebody out of order. 0.91

01:10:11.000 Here is this dolt who's been treated as the godsend of COVID treatment. 1.00

01:10:16.000 Here's this moron, Andrew Cuomo. 1.00

01:10:19.000 I'm going to sign an executive order that says we're very clear the vaccines are a priority. 1.00

01:10:28.000 There's not going to be any politics at play as to who gets a vaccine.

01:10:33.000 And we look to the CDC, federal government, for guidance.

01:10:38.000 And we will not tolerate any fraud in the vaccination process.

01:10:45.000 Anyone who engages in fraud is going to be held accountable.

01:10:51.000 The executive order I'm going to sign today says a provider could be fined up to a million dollars and revocation of all state licenses.

01:10:59.000 Okay, so if you're knowingly not eligible, right, you came to the end of the day, there's nobody in line and there's a janitor there and he wants the vaccine.

01:11:05.000 You give him the janitor, he wants to fine you a million dollars and revoke your certification.

01:11:09.000 This is a recipe for losing doses of the vaccine. 0.98

01:11:12.000 Idiocy. 0.96

01:11:13.000 And that guy, give that guy an Emmy. 1.00

01:11:15.000 Makes perfect sense to me.

01:11:16.000 Follow the science.

01:11:17.000 The science.

01:11:18.000 Speaking of which, quick scientific note.

01:11:20.000 The state of California, apparently over the holiday, they moved to change insurance language on double mastectomy for gender dysphoric females, from cosmetic to reconstructive, to ensure no age limit for the procedure.

01:11:32.000 Okay, so if you are a woman, and you believe that you are a male, and you want to have double mastectomies, right, you want to cut off your breasts, Now, to make sure that insurance companies cover it, they are suggesting that your breasts are, I'm not kidding you, this is how California now describes normal human female breasts.

01:11:45.000 You ready?

01:11:45.000 Quote, abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects.

01:11:51.000 That's right, you don't have a condition called gender dysphoria. 0.91

01:11:53.000 What you have is an abnormal body.

01:11:56.000 Your body is abnormal for having grown in direct relation to its genetic source.

01:12:02.000 Your breasts are now abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects.

01:12:05.000 Trust the science, guys.

01:12:06.000 Trust the science.

01:12:07.000 I think that these people have everything well in hand.

01:12:10.000 Well in hand.

01:12:11.000 Okay.

01:12:12.000 Final note on the media.

01:12:13.000 I would be remiss if I didn't cover the story because it did, again, blow up over the break.

01:12:16.000 I know there's a long show today, but...

01:12:18.000 We missed about a week and a half of news.

01:12:20.000 So, the New York Times continues to promulgate cancel culture in extraordinary ways.

01:12:25.000 In extraordinary ways.

01:12:27.000 So, Dan Levin had a piece over the holiday that's just insane.

01:12:31.000 It was called a racial slur, a viral video, and a reckoning.

01:12:34.000 A white high school student withdrew from her chosen college after a three-second video caused an uproar online.

01:12:39.000 The classmate who shared it publicly has no regrets.

01:12:43.000 So what exactly is this story?

01:12:44.000 This shows you how far our culture is trashed.

01:12:46.000 This is why we gotta fight back in the culture, guys, because our culture is trashed.

01:12:50.000 According to the New York Times, this is a multiple thousand word story from the New York Times.

01:12:53.000 Quote, Jimmy Galligan was in history class last school year when his phone buzzed with the message.

01:12:57.000 Once he clicked on it, he found a three second video of a white classmate looking into the camera and uttering an anti-black racial slur.

01:13:03.000 The slur, he said, was regularly hurled in classrooms and hallways throughout his years in the Loudoun County School District.

01:13:08.000 He brought up the issue to teachers and administrators, but much to his anger and frustration, his complaints had gone nowhere.

01:13:14.000 Okay, so he held onto the video, and then he made a decision that would ricochet around Leesburg, Virginia, a town named for an ancestor of the Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

01:13:22.000 Okay, they're gonna try and connect a 15-year-old girl to Robert E. Lee by the name of the town.

01:13:25.000 This is excellent journalism in here from the New York Times.

01:13:28.000 Quote is from Galligan, whose mother is black and father is white.

01:13:32.000 I wanted to get her where she would understand the severity of that word.

01:13:36.000 He tucked the video away, deciding to post it publicly when the time was right. 0.96

01:13:41.000 Okay, so this guy's a sociopath. 0.99

01:13:43.000 You're a sociopath, okay? 0.98

01:13:45.000 It is a sociopathic behavior to, when you're 15 years old, tuck away a video of a person who is 15 or, he was 17, I guess, and this kid was 15. 0.93

01:13:53.000 Tuck away the video of a 15-year-old to wreck her life because she said, and I'm kidding you, what she said was, she's driving, right?

01:14:01.000 For the first time.

01:14:02.000 She looked into a camera and said, I can drive, N-word.

01:14:06.000 But the N-word was not like, With the E-R at the end. 0.73

01:14:11.000 It was with the A-H.

01:14:13.000 Right?

01:14:13.000 Like the commonly used N-word in rap music.

01:14:15.000 Which, again, is gross, and there shouldn't be a distinction, but there is that double standard.

01:14:18.000 She obviously did not mean it as a racial slur against black people.

01:14:23.000 That's perfectly obvious from the video. 0.98

01:14:24.000 She's a 15-year-old girl who's doing the rap, thug life kind of crap that the media have decided is actually a good idea for people to do. 1.00

01:14:31.000 Okay, so she does that. 1.00

01:14:33.000 This sociopathic kid decides to hold back that video until the girl is admitted to college and then to release it online to get her thrown out of college.

01:14:42.000 And the New York Times shares this as a reckoning.

01:14:45.000 As a reckoning.

01:14:46.000 They want to ruin your life.

01:14:49.000 They want to.

01:14:50.000 The media want to ruin your life.

01:14:51.000 They want every Facebook thing you have ever put up, every tweet you have ever said, anything you have ever uttered to be on tape, so they can hold it back and then use it as a club against you to ruin your life when the time is right.

01:15:01.000 And to teach a broader lesson. 0.99

01:15:02.000 What broader lesson was taught other than this kid is a jerk and the New York Times is disgusting. 0.99

01:15:08.000 Galligan had not seen the video before receiving it last school year, by which time he and Groves were seniors. 0.99

01:15:13.000 By then, she was a varsity cheer captain who dreamed of attending University of Tennessee, Knoxville, whose cheer team was reigning national champion.

01:15:18.000 When she made the team in May, her parents celebrated with a cake and orange balloons, according to the university's official color.

01:15:24.000 The next month, as protests were sweeping the nation, Groves, in a public Instagram post, urged people to protest, donate, sign a petition, rally, and do something in support of BLM.

01:15:34.000 And then, Galligan released the video.

01:15:37.000 So she did the liberal woke signaling and he said, nope, nope, nope.

01:15:41.000 Here's a video of you doing a bad thing that I'm going to deliberately interpret as racist and that I'm going to ruin your life because you said that you were in favor of BLM.

01:15:51.000 And the New York Times cheers it, cheers it.

01:15:54.000 Groves was removed from the university cheer team.

01:15:56.000 She withdrew from the school under pressure from admissions officials.

01:16:01.000 She was among many incoming freshmen across the country whose admissions offers were revoked by at least a dozen universities after videos emerged on social media.

01:16:09.000 This is the culture the left wants to create.

01:16:12.000 This is the culture war.

01:16:13.000 It should be fought at every single turn.

01:16:15.000 And the media?

01:16:16.000 You gotta replace them.

01:16:17.000 That's why you should subscribe to Daily Wire.

01:16:18.000 We're trying to replace them. 0.98

01:16:19.000 These jackasses should not have any power. 1.00

01:16:21.000 Disgusting from the New York Times. 1.00

01:16:22.000 Disgusting from that fellow student. 0.99

01:16:24.000 Gross all the way around. 0.99

01:16:25.000 All right.

01:16:26.000 We'll be back here today with an additional hour of The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:16:28.000 In the meantime, go check out The Michael Mowles Show on today's episode.

01:16:31.000 Mike will be talking about cops invading homes to break up New Year's parties.

01:16:34.000 That's a thing that was actually happening.

01:16:36.000 That episode is available right now.

01:16:37.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:16:38.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:16:44.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.

01:16:46.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:16:48.000 Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

01:16:51.000 Production Manager, Paweł Łajdowski.

01:16:53.000 Our Associate Producers are Rebecca Doyle and Savannah Dominguez.

01:16:56.000 The show is edited by Adam Szajewicz.

01:16:58.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:17:00.000 Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Christina.

01:17:02.000 Production Assistant, Jessica Kranz.

01:17:04.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:17:08.000 If you want to cut through the madness of our politics and culture and know what's really going on, head on over to The Michael Knowles Show where we can all bask in the simple joys of being right.

The Ben Shapiro Show - January 04, 2021

Election Showdown Week Begins | Ep. 1165

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript