00:00:26.000His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
00:00:34.000We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
00:01:04.000And if you're listening to this on our wonderful Salem Radio Network station in Georgia, go vote for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.
00:01:13.000Josh Hawley started the Senate trend that is now growing in numbers to object to the Electoral College results, a perfectly constitutional measure, something that is in the statutory code of the United States Constitution of Congress and House and Senate rules, something that Democrats did in 2004, something that has been done multiple times before.
00:01:41.000Senator Josh Hawley was on the leading edge on this, and he deserves credit for that.
00:01:47.000However, as we said many times in the last couple days, we have been warning you and doing our best to explain that when you take a stand,
00:02:05.000a courageous stand, that is in such defiance to the power structure orthodoxy, they're going to come after you.
00:02:19.000So last evening, Senator Josh Hawley and his family were terrorized by the shock troops.
00:02:30.000These are the shock troops of the Democrat Party.
00:02:34.000They are the paramilitary enforcement gangster arm of the Democrat Party.
00:02:42.000Senator Josh Hawley tweeted last evening that Antifa, which to this date, there have not been massive arrests, investigations into Antifa, the funding behind it,
00:02:57.000and their domestic terroristic activities, went to Senator Josh Hawley's home while Senator Josh Hawley was in Missouri and terrorized his wife and his child.
00:03:14.000Senator Josh Hawley called it left-wing violence.
00:03:17.000Now, of course, right on Q, the Washington Post says that it was a peaceful vigil.
00:03:29.000It says, quote, the activists said they staged a peaceful vigil on Monday to protest the GOP plan to object Congress certification.
00:03:38.000That's their opening argument in the Washington Post.
00:03:42.000Senator Josh Hawley described it as, tonight I was in Missouri.
00:03:46.000Antifa scumbags came to our place in D.C. and threatened my wife and newborn daughter.
00:04:43.000All of a sudden, you see the shock troops of the left, the militia of the left, the paramilitary organization, the terrorists, Antifa, go and terrorize Senator Josh Hawley's home.
00:04:55.000Are you more or less likely to object to their Electoral College results?
00:05:03.000So the Washington Post writes this story, which reads as if they're a defense attorney for the terrorists.
00:05:19.000It says here, it just goes on to inexplicably start to mention proud boys as if that has anything to do with what happened to Senator Josh Hawley's family last evening.
00:05:32.000And I want you to imagine if 50 Make America Great Again hat-wearing activists went to Senator Chuck Schumer's home and started pounding on those doors and inciting terroristic style behavior.
00:05:59.000Do you think the media would be defending that?
00:06:03.000And this all comes down to January 6th.
00:06:12.000Many of you have seen the movie The Godfather.
00:06:16.000This is the horse head in the bed moment.
00:06:20.000And for those of you that never seen The Godfather, you're missing out.
00:06:24.000It's a metaphorical mafioso tactic to say, back off.
00:06:32.000Let's play Cut 39, where it shows Antifa and BLM terroristically trespassing onto a United States Senator's property, knocking on his door.
00:07:41.000However, if you dare steal a Black Lives Matter sign, you're arrested very quickly.
00:07:47.000Now, I'm not saying whether that's the right thing or the wrong thing.
00:07:49.000He got arrested for stealing private property.
00:07:54.000I have to look at the details of the case.
00:07:55.000The point is, you see how quick that was done?
00:07:58.000Oh, you steal that sign, you get arrested.
00:08:00.000We're going to make an example out of you.
00:08:02.000You go to a Republican United States Senator's home when he's not even there with his wife and kid and terroristically knock on the door and trespass on their private property.
00:09:21.000Antifa and the terrorist thugs, they wouldn't care about democracy or the democratic means to elect leaders in a constitutional republic, but we don't even live in a democracy.
00:09:29.000And I'll explain the difference either later in this show.
00:10:32.000We have said this on our program the last couple days.
00:10:36.000I think our team here on the Charlie Kirk show deserves a lot of credit.
00:10:39.000We have been talking about how Vice President Mike Pence has the constitutional authority, a plenary power, to reject electors from states that are in question.
00:11:10.000And I do think that we have been the leading broadcast that has been explaining exactly what can be done on January the 6th.
00:11:20.000There was a great piece written on nationalfile.com that wrote up exactly what we talked about on our program yesterday that said Pence has the power and the precedent to do this.
00:11:30.000Now, I'm not recommending this lightly.
00:11:33.000I wouldn't be recommending this if there was not overwhelming amounts of allegations of fraud, the affidavits, and also the changes in the constitutional process of how these elections were actually enacted.
00:11:47.000And there's a variety of different recommendations of how it can be done with Vice President Mike Pence.
00:11:54.000We are going to be joined exclusively on the live stream, and we will turn it into a flash podcast.
00:12:00.000So make sure you subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast by Constitutional Attorney Jenna Ellis, who agrees with the interpretation that we have been talking about here.
00:12:11.000And by the way, we did not come up with this, but I think it's fair to say that we largely popularized it.
00:12:17.000I think that's a fair way to word it in the last couple of days, and we have been leading with it.
00:12:23.000And again, the constitutional scholars that have been talking about this and the constitutional experts like Jenna Ellis, some of which are arguing that, and this is Jenna's take when she joins us on the program, she will argue that this should be sent back down to the state legislatures, not to the House of Representatives.
00:12:44.000I think that's actually a very interesting and probably constitutionally sound measure.
00:12:51.000However, some people that are cote blanche or blanket judging and describing any move by Mike Pence to reject electors from states that are fraudulent as unconstitutional, seditious, or illegal, is not actually looking at any sort of Supreme Court precedent.
00:14:48.000Instead, I'm saying what constitutional measures are left that were given to us by the framers and the founders to ensure election integrity, to clarify the results of these elections, and possibly use the states as the last line of defense and also possibly the House of Representatives.
00:15:07.000Anyone that tells you that this is not constitutional is probably reading the French Constitution because I don't see what they are reading.
00:16:42.000We were one of the first programs that was really unpacking what happened in the election of 1876 of President Hayes versus Governor Tilden from New York.
00:16:50.000The country was bitterly divided, and Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats controlled the House, went to a contested kind of split, and the unfortunate result of this was the end of Reconstruction in the South and a Republican president becoming president.
00:17:07.000And the end of Reconstruction was obviously not something that was good for our country in any way whatsoever.
00:17:13.000As a consequence of this, in 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed.
00:17:20.000There are lots of different ways to interpret it.
00:17:22.000Some people do consider this law to be precedent, where it says that the vice president's role is simply ceremonial.
00:17:31.000Now, this is a very, let's say, unclear interpretation constitutionally.
00:17:41.000This was kind of the main reason behind Congressman Louis Gomert's lawsuit against Mike Pence.
00:17:47.000Congressman Louis Gomert was not suing Mike Pence for defamation or for slander or because he didn't like Mike Pence.
00:17:53.000He was suing him to try to get an interpretation constitutionally on this 1887 law of whether or not Mike Pence actually has the authority to act in a way to toss out bad or let's say electors that have been fraudulent.
00:18:17.000I think that's probably the most fair way to say that.
00:18:19.000And so there's a couple points of interest around the January 6th date, especially when it comes to the Electoral Count Act.
00:18:31.000The one that really everyone kind of conveniently avoids is the election of 1960.
00:18:40.000It's actually, I think, the most important part of this entire debate.
00:18:49.000In the election of 1960, as we have covered many times, Nixon won Hawaii on Election Day.
00:18:56.000And then, and in the first recount, Hawaii certified for Nixon, sent two sets of electors, and then eventually JFK ended up being called the winner in Hawaii by certain media standards, but the certification said otherwise.
00:19:13.000So Nixon had a certification for himself and had public pressure to go for JFK and ended up giving the electors to JFK against his own interest.
00:19:27.000However, this was in complete and total defiance of the Electoral Count Act of 1887.
00:19:34.000Whether this was the right thing or not, we don't really know, but we know he did it.
00:19:41.000And I don't like hyper-focusing on Wikipedia.
00:19:45.000I've been through plenty of points and complaints there, but I think this is super instructive, though, of how Wikipedia actually describes this.
00:19:53.000Somebody sent this to me at freedom at charliekirk.com.
00:19:56.000Listen really carefully and closely to how it describes Richard Nixon in 1960 under the 1887 Electoral Count Act.
00:20:07.000Richard Nixon in 1960 graciously made a ruling allowing late-filed votes against him.
00:20:18.000So, graciously, it's okay to break the law if it's in favor of a Democrat.
00:20:24.000It's okay to break the law if it favors JFK.
00:20:28.000I just find that interesting because kind of the cover fire for how Wikipedia is clarifying this, I'd love to see kind of the edit history on the back end of Wikipedia to see if somebody changed this recently because it was the polite thing to do.
00:21:03.000Thomas Jefferson used his power as the president of the Senate in 1800.
00:21:07.000Thomas Jefferson, who, by the way, framed our entire country philosophically in the Declaration of Independence, the laws of nature and nature is God, mentions God four times in the Declaration.
00:21:18.000Thomas Jefferson, more than almost any other American founder except probably James Madison, had an impact on the philosophical political direction of the country, used the power of the president of the Senate in 1800 to clarify a disputed election that guess what?
00:21:39.000And so here's the question that has yet to be answered by any constitutional expert out there.
00:21:44.000Why did no one sue Richard Nixon in 1960 and clarify the Electoral Count Act of 1887?
00:21:50.000Answer is probably this, because they liked the outcome and they considered Richard Nixon to be doing the gracious thing.
00:21:57.000And no one thought that there was any need to tie this up in the courts or for clarification.
00:22:02.000However, that's not the way law works.
00:22:06.000That's not the way justice works, right?
00:22:09.000We don't believe in this moving of the goalposts, constantly changing of the window, social justice.
00:22:17.000If a law is binding, Richard Nixon should not have been able to have the power to put electors in JFK's category in defiance to state certification.
00:22:29.000And I'm sure a lot of you are saying, well, Charlie, why the hyperfixation on 1960?
00:22:32.000It's actually the last time that we've seen something like this.
00:22:54.000This election was more flawed than any election in my lifetime and arguably in American history.
00:23:05.000And I actually am going to make a long-term constitutional argument against some of my very good friends that are saying that Mike Pence does not have the power.
00:23:14.000If you believe that the vice president, the president of the Senate, doesn't have the power, wouldn't you want to know now and not when, God forbid, Joe Biden ever becomes president and Kamala Harris might be the president of the Senate one day?
00:23:28.000Wouldn't you want that ruling to be clarified now and not one day when the Democrats, God forbid they ever add seats to the Supreme Court?
00:23:41.000Isn't this the opportunity now to find out if the Electoral Count Act of 1887 actually is binding precedent?
00:23:48.000I'm making this argument for my friends out there that disagree with the approach we've been taking on this show.
00:23:55.000I'm not going to, it's not even worth saying anything.
00:23:57.000These are really good people that just have a difference of opinion constitutionally.
00:24:01.000But actually think there's no binding for their argument.
00:24:04.000And if they actually wanted to test it, if they wanted to see if there was a stress test behind it, then they should be calling for Pence to do this, suing, losing, binding Supreme Court precedent, discussion is over.
00:24:20.000Instead, we're kind of in this strange academic shallow waters where you have these constitutional scholars weighing in, when in reality, it doesn't matter how many Woodrow Wilson disciple academics that you have from the Princeton Law School that say that something is unconstitutional.
00:25:01.000I believe he does have the power to do this.
00:25:05.000And by the way, we would not have this power if the state legislators were actually granted the capacity to have the special sessions when the governor of Georgia did not even grant it to them.
00:25:16.000When the Speaker of the House, Boyers, Rudy Boyers or something, I can never remember this guy's name, doesn't even grant the special session in Arizona.
00:25:29.000All of these measures are designed to have checks and balances.
00:25:35.000If the President of the Senate's role in Congress sitting there was simply ceremonial, why didn't they get rid of it in 1887?
00:25:48.000If it was simply theatrics, pageantry, going through the streets, why even have that certification?
00:25:55.000Why not just end the process with the Electoral College?
00:26:01.000Why not create a constitutional amendment to end it once and for all?
00:26:04.000The reason is this: that certain interpretations from the Federalist Papers going back to the Founding Fathers is that the House of Representatives actually represented how the founders originally wanted presidents to be elected.
00:26:23.000You see, in the original creation of the Electoral College, the vision that James Madison had that actually happened for the first couple elections was each elector represented a congressional district.
00:26:38.000These winner-take-all model of states did not come until a couple elections afterwards.
00:26:46.000I think it was James Monroe or Andrew Jackson.
00:26:49.000Anyway, the first couple elections in American history was each elector represented a congressional district.
00:26:58.000Therefore, one would argue based on the interpretation of how James Madison and some of the other founders designed the United States Constitution was that they didn't want the president of the Senate, the Vice President, just to have a kind of Rosebow parade theatric, look at me, I'm opening the envelopes.
00:27:23.000The members of the House were there to be a check and balance to see if any of the states certified something fraudulently because the House of Representatives members represented the states, but they weren't part of the state government.
00:27:43.000Can you tell me one other part of the United States Constitution that is simply theatric when it comes to the appointment of leaders?
00:27:53.000If the President of the Senate being there is simply ceremonial and theatric, then the people that disagree with our reading have to tell me what else in the Constitution is ceremonial and theatric?
00:28:07.000Is the First Amendment ceremonial and theatric?
00:28:11.000I need a list of everything that is theatric and literal.
00:28:18.000And just reading into it as you're saying hiding behind the Electoral Act of 1887 as the only reason for that is a fair argument, but I think is a flawed one, especially when looking at the unchallenged decision that Richard Nixon made in the election of 1960.
00:28:41.000We're talking to Jenna Ellis here, who's a lawyer to the president.
00:28:57.000I really appreciate all of the support that you've provided as well, and just for the country and for the president.
00:29:03.000You know, this is a really important time, and we have to make sure to continue the fight for election integrity.
00:29:08.000But we have to do that, of course, within the margins of the law and the Constitution.
00:29:12.000We can't help the left tear down the Constitution and the country just because we're so upset that they're tearing down the Constitution and the country.
00:29:21.000So one very viable option that Mike Pence has as the president of the Senate is because six states currently have electoral delegates that are in dispute, and we know based on the clear and convincing evidence that there is a sufficient legal basis to question whether the state law and the Constitution was followed in the administration of those elections.
00:29:47.000And so the vice president's role is to open and count all of the electoral delegate votes from the electors that are chosen in the manner prescribed by the state legislatures.
00:29:59.000That's the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1.2.
00:30:03.000The Vice President can't fulfill that responsibility if he doesn't know that those electors were so chosen.
00:30:10.000So he should not open any of the electoral votes in the six contested states.
00:30:15.000And instead, he has the authority to pose a question back to the state legislatures.
00:30:21.000They are the constitutional authority and direct that question and ask them to confirm which of the two slates of electors have in fact been chosen in the manner that they have provided for.
00:30:34.000And he should open all of the other votes in all the other states.
00:30:37.000But this is a meritorious request because he's taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.
00:30:46.000He's simply asking clarification from the constitutionally appointed authority that would require the state legislatures to convene in session, which they have refused to do out of political fear, probably, among other things, and would require them to exercise their constitutionally appointed authority by answering that question as to the certification of their delegates.
00:31:11.000And it would force them to answer that question, and we would have a much cleaner outcome here.
00:31:51.000Well, and of course, people are concerned about precedent, and they're concerned, and as we should be, and we should never advocate for something that we would be against than the Democrats doing, for example, in four, eight, or 12 years.
00:32:07.000And so, the reason that he has this authority is because of his oath of office and because the Constitution requires that the only electoral votes that are counted are from electors that are chosen in the manner prescribed by the legislature.
00:32:23.000And so, his oath of office requires him to uphold the Constitution, to uphold Article II.
00:32:30.000And in the 12th Amendment, as well as the requirements that are in the procedural aspects of counting these votes, he can only count the votes, the electoral votes that were selected and cast in the manner that those state legislatures set.
00:32:48.000So, while there certainly this would be challenged if he tries tomorrow, I have no doubt that this would be challenged.
00:32:55.000I have no doubt that there would be objections from other people as they're already coming out.
00:33:00.000But this is not only a constitutionally viable option, but I do think it would prevail because the constitutionally delegated authority is only given to the state legislatures.
00:33:14.000That's Article II, and they have to answer that question.
00:33:17.000And so, when Mike Pence, as the president of the Senate, does not know and there is a question as to whether these are the delegates that were, in fact, selected in the manner that the General Assemblies have prescribed according to Article II, then that is always a valid question to ask those state legislatures.
00:33:35.000Now, is it possible that those state legislatures could come back and certify Biden delegates from the state legislature?
00:33:42.000That's possible, of course, but that's their authority.
00:33:46.000And that is why we have been asking, as Team Trump has been asking the state legislatures to convene in session to look at the evidence and to see and to make findings that the law in their state was not followed and the rules were so completely disregarded that the elections in those states were irredeemably compromised.
00:34:10.000And they have the ability, the plenary authority, the absolute authority under that text in the Constitution to select delegates then for their states.
00:34:19.000And let's remind everyone, Charlie, that up until 1824, the state legislatures selected delegates to the Electoral College without holding a popular vote.
00:34:29.000We, the people, didn't get to weigh in.
00:34:31.000That was our original constitutional process.
00:34:32.000So for everyone saying that this is going to disenfranchise people, that's just simply not accurate.
00:34:37.000The state, through their general assemblies, could change their election law according to, of course, it has to still be constitutional, but that's the manner that the Constitution prescribes.
00:34:49.000That's why we have an electoral college to deal with corruption, to deal with foreign influence if it's there, to deal with all these things that Alexander Hamilton was concerned about in Federalist 68.
00:35:00.000So when we're asking the state legislatures to do their constitutionally appointed duty, that is absolutely something that the vice president who is sitting as the president of the Senate absolutely can ask the state legislatures.
00:35:14.000And correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that.
00:35:37.000Yeah, can you help build that out because we're being accused of being unconstitutional right.
00:35:42.000Well, you know, the left and those who are against election integrity, of course, are using that phrase unconstitutional, meaning things that they don't agree with, right?
00:35:53.000So they're manipulating that term like the left does, rather than saying what constitutional versus unconstitutional means is this in accordance with the procedure and the authority that is laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
00:36:57.000It's not him choosing one slate of electors over another.
00:37:01.000It's not going outside the bounds of the Constitution and asking for something that's outside the authority of the Constitution.
00:37:09.000So when they accuse us of being unconstitutional, they can't actually back that up by showing where in the U.S. Constitution in that text that we are violating that in any way by suggesting that the vice president has this authority and that this would actually be a fulfillment of his oath of office and making sure that the state legislatures do their job under Article 2.
00:37:39.000Hey, what I love about what you're saying here is it actually sort of bridges what, in a weird way, what Senator Cotton's objection is in the statement that he released.
00:37:52.000We disagree with him wholeheartedly on this issue.
00:37:54.000But, you know, his quote says, nevertheless, the founders entrusted our elections chiefly to the states, not Congress.
00:38:01.000They entrusted the election of our president to the people, acting through the Electoral College, not Congress.
00:38:07.000What you're basically saying is Vice President Pence has a remedy here that would align with his objection and send it back to the people and not create some precedent where the Vice President is choosing winners and losers.
00:38:26.000And I do agree with Senator Cotton insofar as the provision that you just read in a statement that it's not up to Congress to choose the electoral delegates.
00:38:38.000Now, raising an objection to a compromised election or corruption, that's absolutely Congress's job.
00:38:46.000And I think that Ted Cruz and Representative Mike Johnson from Louisiana, who's a good friend of mine, I think that his view on all of this is absolutely correct.
00:38:56.000We've seen those objections by Congress in other prior elections.
00:39:02.000They haven't been outcome determinative.
00:39:04.000But insofar as Congress is not vested with a political role here.
00:39:10.000And let's be clear, this isn't about overturning an election.
00:39:13.000This isn't about campaigning for one candidate over another.
00:39:17.000This is about making sure that the law and the Constitution are followed.
00:39:21.000And the Constitution requires that the administration of elections is in accordance with each of the state's laws.
00:39:28.000And that wasn't done in at least six states that we're aware of.
00:39:33.000We have sufficient evidence and legal proof for.
00:39:37.000And now we've been shut out of court, which has been a monumental, not only just disappointment, but dereliction of duty of the judicial branch.
00:39:47.000But ultimately, the state legislatures don't need a judicial order to fulfill their obligation under the Constitution.
00:39:55.000And so for Congress to simply pose that question and go back to that legislative authority, that precedent is completely in line with what the founders intended, the text of the Constitution, and would establish good precedent for future contested elections.
00:40:14.000Let's just kind of repeat it for some of the new listeners and viewers.
00:40:17.000What is the specific ask for what we should demand on social media and otherwise for the vice president tomorrow?
00:40:24.000What is the ask, the request, the call to action?
00:40:28.000The call to action is to ask Vice President Pence to make a formal request to the state legislatures and that the state legislatures would have to answer whether their delegates that are certified in a state have been done according to the law of their state.
00:40:48.000And they have to be responsible for that.
00:40:50.000So we need to ask Vice President Pence to pose that question to the state legislatures and for the state legislatures to act and for them to uphold their own state law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
00:41:24.000I mean, the states can probably meet without, I mean, once the vice president requests it, I would imagine the states would then be able to have special sessions without governors.
00:41:34.000I mean, if that happened in such a formal, consequential level, they would be forced to meet.
00:41:39.000I think the other thing that's interesting about this, again, going back to this call that happened over the weekend with 300 legislators, the reports that we're hearing is that these legislators did not at all grasp the power that they wield.
00:41:54.000So I think this whole process has been like one giant constitutional education for hundreds and hundreds of state legislators across the country.
00:42:03.000And I think if you could repeat the process back, they now are educated.
00:42:22.000These are all, you know, they might have Democratic leadership in some places, like in Michigan and Pennsylvania, but these are Republican-led House state legislatures.
00:42:31.000Email us your questions, freedom at charliekirk.com.
00:42:34.000We're going to give away a couple signed books of the beautiful MAGA doctrine.
00:42:37.000If you guys just show us your subscribe to the Charlie Kirk Show podcast in particular, we are here all day.
00:42:44.000We have the Georgia results coming in this afternoon.