00:00:00.000Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, we dive deep, and I mean deep, into the significance of Senator Josh Hawley pledging that he will object to the Electoral College results in the United States Senate.
00:00:17.000We have the exclusive historical and constitutional analysis here on the Charlie Kirk Show.
00:00:22.000If you want to support our program and you feel as if the work we are doing is important, and as you listen, hopefully you're learning something and it motivates you to further action.
00:00:31.000And you ask yourself, how can I get more people to listen to this?
00:00:35.000Well, if you would like to support us, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.
00:01:29.000We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
00:01:41.000Look, you guys have heard me talk about Good Ranchers before.
00:01:43.000Good Ranchers began with the standard of bringing top quality, 100% American-born, raised, and harvested meat to families across America.
00:01:51.000This vision was instilled into them from their grandparents that owned community grocery stores and believed in trust, charity, and family values.
00:01:58.000Goodranchers.com partners directly with only American ranches from across the United States to bring the highest quality meat straight to your door.
00:02:05.000Look, if you guys want to sign up for Good Ranchers, I highly recommend it.
00:03:13.000But of course, in all years like 2020, there's plenty of things to take away and learn from, and plenty of things that hopefully will never do again.
00:03:29.000I want to congratulate Senator Josh Hawley.
00:03:34.000Senator Josh Hawley is now going to officially be more hated than Senator Ted Cruz.
00:03:42.000It's pretty incredible when you think about it.
00:03:44.000I think Senator Josh Hawley is about to become the most hated United States senator in America.
00:03:49.000Now, that really says something because the activist media have gone out of their way to Demagogue and attack Rand Paul and Ted Cruz throughout the years.
00:04:04.000Today, Senator Josh Hawley has announced that he will object to the Electoral College results on January 6th.
00:04:15.000Josh Hawley has come out and said that he will put forth an objection, a motion that says he does not believe that the Electoral College results are without flaw.
00:04:28.000Senator Josh Hawley said the following: quote: Following both the 2004 and 2016 elections, Democrats in Congress objected during the certification of electoral votes in order to raise concerns about election integrity.
00:04:44.000They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did this, and they were entitled to do so.
00:04:50.000But now, those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same.
00:04:58.000Senator Josh Hawley continues by saying, I cannot vote to certify the Electoral College results on January 6th without raising the fact that some states, in particular Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws.
00:05:14.000And I cannot vote to certify without pointing out the unprecedented effort of mega corporations, good for you, including Facebook and Twitter, to interfere in this election in support of Joe Biden.
00:05:26.000At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections.
00:05:36.000But Congress has so far failed to act.
00:05:40.000For these reasons, I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years passed and to object during the certification process on January 6th to raise these critical issues.
00:05:54.000Now, this is in direct defiance to Senator Mitch McConnell.
00:05:58.000This is in direct defiance to Senate leadership.
00:06:02.000There were many articles published over the last couple of days kind of as warning shots towards Republican senators basically saying, do not do this.
00:06:38.000This is not something that I have great delight in.
00:06:40.000This is not something that should be taken lightly.
00:06:45.000Because as soon as you give the power of elections to a legislative branch, you almost become a parliamentary system.
00:06:54.000You lose the idea of a republic and a state-based republic as that.
00:06:59.000That's a very dangerous road to head on.
00:07:03.000However, unusual times call for unusual measures.
00:07:08.000And nothing that is being discussed right now in any way whatsoever is unconstitutional.
00:07:15.000Some people are going to be laying the criticism that this is an unconstitutional, no, no, no, it's unprecedented outside of the election of 1876, which we'll dive into as a kind of refresher course, as we've talked about here before.
00:07:30.000It definitely has not been done in the last 150 years, but it's not unconstitutional.
00:07:38.000Now, there is an argument to be made that Congress does not have this authority.
00:07:44.000That has not been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
00:07:47.000I'm going to do that argument from a devil's advocate standpoint, but let's just go through the process.
00:07:52.000Just for all of you that are saying, I'm confused.
00:07:55.000What does a senator from Missouri have to do with election results from Pennsylvania?
00:09:33.000If you just said Mitch McConnell, you're wrong.
00:09:36.000The president of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States.
00:09:42.000The President of the Senate is Mike Pence.
00:09:46.000He is the only member of the executive branch who also has a leadership role in the legislative branch.
00:09:55.000Dick Cheney made the theory, I believe it's called unitary executive theory, very famous when he used that as an excuse for, I believe, not disclosing financials, something of that sense.
00:10:13.000Anyway, the president of the Senate is Mike Pence.
00:10:16.000So for just kind of substitutionary reasons, I'm going to actually just say, Mike Pence shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
00:10:33.000The person having the greatest number of votes for president shall be president.
00:10:42.000Shall the president, if such number of majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person has such a majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three on the list of those voted as for president, the House shall then choose the president immediately by ballot for president.
00:11:08.000Let's take this piece by piece because there's going to be a lot of conjecture and quite honestly, a lot of bluster in the next couple of days.
00:11:20.000And I want to make sure you get the information of exactly what's going on here because Senator Josh Hawley objecting is not just some insignificant act of political theater.
00:11:38.000Well, unless you're a seasoned constitutional scholar or you listen to every single second of every single episode of the Charlie Kirk Show podcast, you might be a little confused, and that's okay because I spent a couple hours this morning and last evening diving into the actual constitutional intent, calling around to a couple constitutional scholars that I know that are very, very credible, kind of understanding what was the founder's intent behind all of this.
00:12:09.000Okay, so as we just read the entire paragraph from the United States Constitution, the president of the Senate shall basically, in the presence of the House and the Senate, open all the certificates and the vote shall be counted.
00:12:23.000Person having the most votes becomes president from the Electoral College.
00:12:27.000Okay, we know how the Electoral College works.
00:12:33.000So Senator Josh Hawley is saying, I'm going to object.
00:12:38.000We already have congressman-elect Madison Cawthorne, who in four days will become the youngest congressman ever elected to the U.S. Congress, who's objecting.
00:12:47.000Matt Gates, Mo Brooks, and I think Louis Gomert is as well.
00:12:51.000And so the way that the statute is written, let me be very clear, statute, not law.
00:12:59.000The statute, which is House rules, it's precedent.
00:13:03.000If a singular member from the House and a singular member from the Senate objects, then it goes into two hours of debate.
00:13:12.000Now, according to one constitutional scholar that I spoke to, it's two hours per objection.
00:13:20.000So if Madison Cawthorne and Matt Gaetz and Mo Brooks and Louis Gomert all object, that would be eight hours of debate.
00:13:47.000Now, the paragraph that everyone is zeroing in on is admittedly open to interpretation.
00:13:57.000The only precedent that we have is the election of 1876.
00:14:04.000The election of, now, a little bit maybe 1960, if you want to stretch it a little bit, but 1876 is probably the best example of this.
00:14:12.000In 1876, you had Rutherford B. Hayes up by one electoral vote to Samuel Tilden, Democrat, and the House and the House was Democrat, if my memory serves me correctly, and the Senate was Republican, and they were unable to determine a winner.
00:14:32.000And so it went to the House and the Senate just like it's about to, and they became gridlocked.
00:14:37.000And that ended up becoming the Great Compromise of 1876, which ended up basically ending Reconstruction in the South, really bad thing, and then ended up being a winner for the Republican President Hayes.
00:14:55.000And so that compromise was because of the gridlock in Congress.
00:15:10.000The president of the Senate, Mike Pence, shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
00:15:26.000That sentence is about to be torn apart, dissected, and interpreted by every major cable news constitutional pundit.
00:15:36.000Because that sentence could go anyway, and the Supreme Court has not really ever ruled on what that sentence actually means.
00:15:47.000In the presence of the Senate and the House, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.
00:15:57.000So some establishment Republicans and people that I do have a lot of respect for are saying that the Constitution says we're just supposed to be there and watch.
00:16:09.000We don't have the constitutional authority to interject or to intercede.
00:16:15.000But then that asks the question: why would the founders have you there if they didn't want you to have any sort of power?
00:16:23.000Why would the founders want the Senate and the House to be present if it's nothing more than just a spectator sport?
00:16:31.000The president of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House, open all certificates and votes shall then be counted.
00:16:41.000So the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, is in charge of accepting the Electoral College results in Congress.
00:16:52.000Now, by a matter of statute, the members of the House and the Senate have the ability, have the freedom to object.
00:17:02.000Now, this is not in the U.S. Constitution.
00:17:35.000It is not the system of government that our founders intended.
00:17:40.000However, alongside of that, the founders put in this fail-safe for extraordinary measures.
00:17:49.000We have the election of 1800, 1876, and 1960 to show us that Congress can get involved and should get involved.
00:17:59.000So, the devil's advocate argument, the opposite argument, that certain people in the Republican establishment are going to say, they're going to say this is wholly and completely unconstitutional, is what they're going to say.
00:18:14.000And to just make their argument For them, they'll say that this paragraph, the president of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted at hard stop.
00:18:27.000They're going to say, nowhere does it say about objection, it doesn't say about stopping, it doesn't say about process, none of it.
00:18:36.000However, two points of argument here, and then this is the stuff that federal judges and U.S. Supreme Court judges would have to wrestle between the idea of original intent and textualism and, of course, whatever revisionist, Sodomayor, Kagan nonsense that they'll write is this: that if the founders wanted the House and the Senate to be there,
00:19:05.000did they really want them to be there with no power at all whatsoever?
00:19:13.000The only argument as to why the founding fathers and the framers would want the House and the Senate members to be there without any power is just so that they could witness the results and they can go back to the people and say the results were actually counted correctly.
00:19:35.000They were not counted in a corrupt fashion.
00:19:40.000However, the power really does rest and lie on the president of the Senate.
00:19:48.000So the president of the Senate, the vice president, has an incredible amount of power in this regard.
00:19:58.000In the election of 1960, it was John F. Kennedy versus Richard Nixon, a very famous election for a variety of different reasons.
00:20:10.000It is most commonly taught in government class and civics class as being the election that was more on television than on radio, especially during the debate of Nixon versus Kennedy.
00:20:24.000It was the young Catholic Kennedy versus the establishment Richard Nixon, who was actually vice president at the time.
00:20:37.000And so the election was very tight in a lot of different states, in particular in New Jersey and in Illinois, but also in Hawaii, the new state of Hawaii at the time.
00:20:51.000Original election results showed that Richard Nixon, then vice president, had won the state of Hawaii.
00:21:02.000The governor's signature and the governor of Hawaii actually certified the election results for Richard Nixon, not for JFK.
00:21:13.000JFK challenged the election results and went to a recount.
00:21:18.000Nixon was up 141 votes, but after a recount, JFK pulled ahead.
00:21:26.000Now, this actually happened after the results were sent to Washington.
00:21:34.000So Nixon was the president of the Senate in 1960.
00:21:47.000Nixon, being a gentleman, Nixon trying to rise above political infighting while the election was being stolen from him in Chicago and New Jersey by the Mayor Daily Machine, specifically in Illinois.
00:22:01.000Nixon, In defiance to federal law, ordered that the Democrat candidates certificate gets counted because they also seated Democrat electors and ignore the accompanying Republican certificate.
00:22:51.000Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800 with highly contested election results in Georgia when he was running up against John Jay and others.
00:23:04.000Guess what Thomas Jefferson was at the time?
00:23:09.000He was the president of the Senate overseeing this process.
00:23:14.000And the Virginia law records show that Georgia was a hotly contested election.
00:23:20.000It's kind of funny how this all comes full circle, right?
00:23:24.000And Thomas Jefferson decided to put Georgia in his category despite the controversy.
00:23:30.000Thomas Jefferson ended up becoming our third president, executing the Louisiana Purchase, and amongst other things, designing our declaration prior to that, becoming known as one of America's greatest presidents.
00:24:55.000Now, why did the founders design it this way?
00:24:59.000I'm going to have to dive back into the Federalist Papers to explain that comprehensively.
00:25:05.000However, the best way that I could do it kind of in real time is that the founders knew that if the process of counting votes was solely a legislative body exercise, then you would have a parliamentary system.
00:25:25.000The reason that they included a member from the executive to be involved in legislative affairs is to prevent a parliamentary system from ensuing.
00:26:07.000What we are building out on this program is not some sort of lust for power.
00:26:12.000It's not some sort of insatiable appetite to get another four years.
00:26:18.000What we're talking about is an election that is so compromised, so polluted, so poisoned that certain states should not have their election results counted as valid.
00:26:35.000Now, as objections come up state by state, and again, there's a lot of questions about this.
00:26:41.000So there's a significant amount of pressure on my friend Mike Pence.
00:27:50.000The president of the Senate is the closest thing to ultimate power that we will see when it comes to a presidential election.
00:28:02.000Nixon showed us you can just decide not to follow federal law and do whatever you want in favor of a Democrat.
00:28:10.000Same when it came to Jefferson in 1800 and in 1876.
00:28:15.000And Democrats actually have objected before, despite their moral gallivanning that they're doing right now.
00:28:24.000Protecting my family is my number one priority, but I want to do it safely.
00:28:28.000The people at Taser believe that safer self-defense is better self-defense.
00:28:32.000Taser's line of non-lethal self-protection devices are small and lightweight enough to carry with you or in your glove compartment or purse, yet they're powerful enough to incapacitate an attacker.
00:28:44.000Guns carry unnecessary risks for you and those around you.
00:28:47.000And even pepper spray can harm you as much as an attacker.
00:28:52.000Taser products are safer and easy to use.
00:28:54.000They use an electrical charge to immobilize attackers for up to 30 seconds, allowing you time to escape and send emergency dispatch to your GPS location.
00:29:03.000Taser devices come loaded with features like laser-assisted targeting and emergency dispatch, which will send response teams to your GPS location upon firing.
00:29:12.000More than 237,000 lives have been saved with the Taser network of devices, apps, and personnel.
00:29:18.000Now you can have your own TASER device, the number one choice of law enforcement agencies.
00:29:22.000Taser is available without a permit in most U.S. states.
00:29:25.000Give the Taser Pulse Plus or Taser strike light at taser.com with the promo code Charlie, spelled T-A-S-E-R.com, promo code Charlie.
00:29:41.000So Richard Nixon in 1960, Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and the contested election of 1876 shows us that Congress really is the last line of interpretation and defense when it comes to contested elections.
00:30:01.000As I've said earlier in this program, this is not something I take lightly.
00:30:07.000This is not something that I think should become routine.
00:30:12.000But while we're at it, while we are talking about this, the Democrats are inevitably going to be saying this is unprecedented.
00:30:20.000This is an assault on the Constitution.
00:31:22.000People must have confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted.
00:31:31.000But constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and malfunctioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts, have led to additional loss of confidence by the public.
00:31:45.000As elected officials, we have a solemn responsibility to improve our election system and its administration.
00:31:54.000We cannot be here again four years from now discussing the failings of the 2008 election.
00:32:02.000Madison Cawthorne should write down every word she just said and give that exact speech during his floor time when he objects, word for word.
00:32:13.000Because of ever-changing vote tallies in the state of Pennsylvania and irregularities, people cannot trust.
00:32:20.000So just to understand the significance of this, Nancy Pelosi, who was the minority leader for the Democrats and was about to become Speaker of the House, in fact, she became Speaker of the House, if my memory serves me correctly, in 2006.
00:32:35.000Yeah, when the Democrats took back the House.
00:32:39.000If those electoral votes would have been withheld from George W. Bush, George W. Bush would have went from 286 electoral votes to 266 electoral votes, and he would not have become president through that certification.
00:33:20.000It's about the Constitution of the United States.
00:33:22.000Okay, Nancy, buckle up, because we're about to have a constitutional fight on January 6th.
00:33:27.000And it seems that Democrats are increasingly nervous about that.
00:33:31.000Back in 2004, Nancy Pelosi objected to Ohio's electoral votes, saying that people must have every confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted.
00:33:43.000That would have sent the election results into the House of Representatives and not be certified by the U.S. Senate or by the House at the time.
00:34:33.000Section 15 and 17 of Title III of the United States Code require that any objection be presented in writing signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator.
00:34:42.000Now, the interesting part is that's Joe Biden, who is saying the debate is over on this.
00:34:49.000Now, one of the main reasons why is because Joe Biden did not have a U.S. Senator that stepped up and objected.
00:35:01.000Also, the argument that Donald Trump was not the rightful winner in 2017 was so incredibly weak, lacking any sort of facts or data, different than this election cycle.
00:35:16.000Let's go to Cut 31, Sheila Jackson objecting in 2017.
00:36:04.000Mr. President, the certificate of electoral vote of the state of North Dakota seems to be regular, in full, and authentic.
00:36:09.000It appears therefrom that Donald Day Trump of the state of New York received three votes for president and Michael R. Pence of the state of Indiana received three votes for vice president.
00:36:18.000Oh, there's one objecting to election results.
00:36:23.000Now, Bernie Sanders is going to be someone that speaks out about how this is an assault on democracy.
00:36:28.000What was he saying in 2004 when he was objecting to George W. Bush's election results?
00:36:40.000That I agree with millions of American citizens that no American should have to wait four hours to cast the vote.
00:36:49.000I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are very worried that when they cast the ballot on an electronic voting machine, that there is no paper trail to record that vote in the event of a recount.
00:37:06.000Sounds so familiar to what Republicans are about to say.
00:37:09.000And the clips continue because Democrats did object to these results back in 2004, back in 2016, and back in 2017.
00:37:19.000The president of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, holds the power in this process.
00:38:07.000I don't think he's going to be agreeing with Maxine Waters.
00:38:10.000But as you can see, the Democrat radicals baselessly trying to prevent Donald Trump from getting sworn in as Maxine Waters was begging, is there anyone that will join me?
00:38:21.000Nope, not even Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas will join you.
00:38:26.000We actually see now that there is a senator that is willing to join.
00:38:29.000Now, that opens a completely different process.
00:38:34.000But the point of playing all that tape is to show that Democrats, they've been the ones that have been objecting.
00:38:41.000And so any Republican that now objects is perfectly within legislative and congressional precedent.
00:38:51.000What is unprecedented and what might be unprecedented, but not necessarily unconstitutional, is Mike Pence saying, you know what?
00:39:05.000We're going to put Georgia's votes aside.
00:39:08.000We're going to put Arizona's votes aside.
00:39:11.000We're going to put Pennsylvania's votes aside.
00:39:13.000Now, mind you, the ultimate unconstitutional measure here is the fact that Georgia changed their election law unconstitutionally without consent of the state legislature.
00:39:42.000It actually is very significant because every single state gets one vote.
00:39:47.000And if they were all to vote the way that we would anticipate them to vote, Donald Trump would serve four more years.
00:39:52.000Now, there's a lot of work that has to get to that point.
00:39:57.000The country would metaphorically and literally explode.
00:40:00.000But it's pretty much, this is how it's going to work.
00:40:04.000Mike Pence says, I've heard the arguments in regards to voter fraud and irregularities in Arizona.
00:40:11.000We are going to temporarily suspend the counting of those electors.
00:40:14.000Not even count them for Trump, by the way.
00:40:17.000Just not count them in the process because, as it says very clearly in the United States Constitution, it's the president of the Senate shall open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
00:40:35.000As we saw in 1963, Richard Nixon, the president of the Senate can do basically whatever he wants.
00:40:41.000Now, I'm not saying that that should be taken lightly.
00:40:45.000I'm not saying that Mike Pence should all of a sudden just impart his own opinion.
00:40:51.000What I am saying, though, when you have fraud, when you have irregularities, when you have the accusations and the affidavits, maybe take a pause before you count, Georgia?
00:41:04.000January 6th deadline is important, but all of a sudden, if you get debate after debate, maybe we can actually get to the correct conclusion.
00:41:13.000We just got a great question here that we just had emailed, freedom at charliekirk.com.
00:41:18.000Hey, Charlie, what happens after the debates?
00:41:20.000Do both chambers need to vote against certification or for it or not at all?
00:41:24.000Would you need a 51-vote majority or 60?
00:41:29.000And the answer is we really don't know.
00:41:32.000We don't know because we're all just kind of playing in Mike Pence's world here.
00:41:37.000There is some precedent from the 1876 election as to how the House and the Senate can't quite agree on a victor, and then they came to some compromise.
00:41:50.000However, there might be some parliamentary precedent that I am unaware of, and I'll stand corrected if that's the case.
00:41:58.000But I think Mitch McConnell is kind of irrelevant in this equation.
00:42:07.000The president of the Senate should oversee all the rules, all of the process.
00:42:12.000It says it very clear in the U.S. Constitution that it's the president of the Senate that is overseeing the vote counting and tabulation process.
00:42:21.000So if you want to get specific about it, it says the president of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
00:43:01.000Can he just unilaterally decide to do something?
00:43:04.000We do know, based on precedent from the 1960 election with Richard Nixon, that you can throw out certain electoral votes that you are not necessarily convinced that has the correct and certain outcome.
00:43:22.000So Josh Hawley has said today, in case you missed the breaking news, that he is going to object to the Electoral College results on January 6th.
00:43:31.000This is going to send both chambers, we know this much, both chambers into debate for at least two hours per objection.
00:43:39.000I would not be surprised if more senators start to sign on in the coming hours and the coming days.
00:43:45.000Let's go to Cut 35, where Mo Brooks has said that dozens of House members back the effort.
00:43:54.000Notwithstanding that, there are dozens in the House of Representatives who have reached that conclusion, as I have.
00:43:59.000We're going to sponsor and co-sponsor objections to the Electoral College vote returns of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and maybe more.
00:44:09.000And so we know, as Mo Brooks said, we are going to sponsor and co-sponsor objections to the Electoral College vote returns, as you heard right there.
00:44:17.000Again, Nancy Pelosi back in 2004 was leading the charge of this.
00:44:26.000Cut 28, Nancy Pelosi objecting to the election results of Ohio, which would have made the House of Representatives have to decide the Electoral College winner.
00:44:37.000People must have confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted.
00:44:46.000But constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and malfunctioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts, have led to additional loss of confidence by the public.
00:45:01.000As elected officials, we have a solemn responsibility to improve our election system and its administration.
00:45:09.000We cannot be here again four years from now discussing the failings of the 2008 election.
00:45:40.000It's about the Constitution of the United States.
00:45:45.000So, I want to get into the congressional precedent here as a lot of questions are pouring in at freedom at charliekirk.com.
00:45:51.000As you heard there, Nancy Pelosi thinks it's perfectly okay to do this.
00:45:55.000It says, upon such reading of any such certification or paper, the president of the Senate, the vice president, shall call for objections.
00:46:01.000If any, every objection shall be made in writing and shall state clearly and concisely and without argument the ground thereof and shall be signed by at least one senator and one member of the House before the same shall be received.
00:46:15.000When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a state shall have been received and read.
00:46:24.00049% of Americans say their top New Year's resolution is to save money in the next year.
00:47:19.000So we're not allowed to talk about voter fraud or else YouTube magically is going to make our entire live stream disappear.
00:47:27.000However, I saw a story this morning from the DC report and raw story.
00:47:35.000It's a mildly left-wing outlet that says, quote, voting machine company behind so many surprise wins this year raises some questions with a picture of Susan Collins.
00:47:48.000After initially focusing on the surprisingly lopsided results of the senatorial election in Kentucky, DC Report broadened our scope to look at the electronic vote counting software and electronic voting systems that we rely on to tally our votes.
00:48:31.000However, isn't it interesting that you have this very thorough investigation, by the way, this is a long, long piece, into this thing called Electronic Systems and Software, America's largest voting machine company.
00:48:44.000What we found was a revolving door, this is them, between government officials and ES and S. Voting results in three states that saw surprising majorities vulnerable to incumbent senators, Maine, North Carolina, and South Carolina, were almost all tabulated by ESNS.
00:49:03.000Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell have been making such bold and naked claims against ESNS competitors like Dominion Voting Systems without any substance or evidence.
00:49:16.000Team Trump has been so vigorous in going after Dominion that it prompted us to look into how ESNS operates.
00:49:25.000Owned by a private equity firm, ESNS has been elusive about identifying the people in its ownership.
00:49:32.000A number of ESNS executives and lobbyists have ties to top GOP election officials and politicians.
00:49:38.000Interestingly enough, Minnesota and Arizona, two states that we thought Trump would do very well in, use ESNS.
00:49:45.000You know what other state uses you ESNS?
00:49:50.000So by the left's own logic, this is a flawed election based on this story.
00:49:58.000It goes deeper into saying when requesting details about ESNS, the lawmakers specifically noted that, quote, we are concerned about the secretive and trouble-plagued companies.
00:50:08.000DC Report placed numerous calls and emails to ESNS at its headquarters on John Galt Boulevard in Omaha.
00:50:20.000This is really fascinating that all of a sudden the left is super interested in voter irregularity machine fraud.
00:50:26.000But we're not even going to talk about it when it comes to how ESNS or Dominion voting systems might be used in states that Joe Biden won.
00:50:35.000Someone here didn't quite get the memo.
00:50:38.000It says here, our democracy now relies on private companies, which build proprietary electronic systems to reliably count our votes.
00:50:46.000It seems reasonable, if not crucial, to understand who is behind these companies as a standard to ensure election integrity.
00:50:53.000Without such knowledge, we run the risk that zealots or investors with financial stake in who wins elections or those susceptible to bribery have an incentive to use subtle software programming techniques to deliberately miscount votes to guarantee an outcome.
00:51:07.000Can I just give a round of applause for Ross's story?
00:51:11.000That's been a massive focal point for us the last month and a half.
00:51:16.000Yet you and your publication, and not just you, but all of the allies that you have, have been suppressing any sort of investigation and discussion around this topic in particular.
00:51:28.000One of the major concerns is providing junkets and gratuities to election officials, as uncovered in 2018 by McClatchy.
00:51:35.000For at least 11 years, the voting equipment and software companies curried favor with election officials by paying for trips to Las Vegas tickets, shows, and gifts.
00:51:44.000It goes on to say that ESNS, and by the way, I think that they actually did some good work here.
00:51:49.000I think that they did some good work looking into this.
00:51:52.000I'm all for the idea that Republicans might be, establishment Republicans might be trying to game the system, just as if Joe Biden did in certain states and establishment Democrats did.
00:52:04.000I'm not saying that in any way whatsoever, that none of this is out of the ordinary.
00:52:11.000What I am saying is that all of a sudden, the media is allowing vibrant discussion around voting machines, but only those that don't benefit their political agenda.
00:52:24.000Interestingly enough, it links to a story in The New Yorker by Sue Halprin, quote, how voting machine lobbyists undermine the democratic process.
00:52:32.000Georgia's 2018 election result is noteworthy because it was overseen by Brian Kemp.
00:52:52.000We think the issue of who counts our votes, how they are counted, and what ties the companies to selling these systems have to politicians deserve more attention.
00:53:03.000Politicians who must win elections in order to wield power must not be able to exert influence on the companies who rely to tally our votes.
00:53:10.000We need serious scrutiny over our elections so we can be assured that they represent the will of the people, not the politicians themselves and the companies they hire to process our ballots.
00:53:24.000The integrity of voting systems and the especially the ability to audit vote counts has been the subject of public debate for more than four decades.
00:53:32.000But most of the recent attention has been focused only on Dominion voting systems because of Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
00:53:41.000So there's nothing to see there with Dominion, but with ESNS, because we don't like the results, totally corrupt.
00:53:47.000Can't wait for the activist media to call everyone that talks about this conspiracy theorists, but something tells me they're going to be elevated into looking into voting machines that sometimes give them results that they don't like.
00:54:01.000And by the way, there might be merit to their inquiry.
00:54:20.000How are you going to keep it from us being able to be in a position where you can manipulate the machines, manipulate the records?
00:54:27.000The one way to do that is I think we should pass a federal law mandating that the same machines with paper trails be mandatory for every federal election.
00:54:37.000Let's go to cut 34, where he says we can't mandate state elections, but we can do it federally, so we should with a standard machine and ballot.
00:54:45.000We can't mandate, as you know, state elections.
00:54:47.000We can't tell the state of Delaware or Ohio or Texas what machines and what method they use to vote in their state election, but we can do it federally.
00:54:57.000So in a nutshell, I think we should be mandating, mandating that we have a paper ballot with a standardized machine, a standardized requirement.
00:55:10.000Going into the House rules and the joint session rules, when it comes to the joint session of the Senate and the House, it says, quote, the joint session does not act on any objections that are made.
00:55:20.000Instead, the joint session is suspended.
00:55:23.000While each House meets separately to debate the objection and vote whether, based on the objection, to count the vote or votes in question.
00:55:31.000Both houses must vote separately to agree to the objection.
00:55:35.000Otherwise, the objection fails and the votes or votes are counted.
00:55:39.000These procedures have been invoked twice since the enactment of the 1887 law.
00:55:44.000The first was an instance of what has been called the faithless elector problem.
00:55:48.000In 1969, Representative James O'Hare of Michigan and Senator Ed Muskie of Maine objected in writing the counting the vote of an elector from North Carolina who has been expected to cast his vote for Richard Nixon and Spear Agnew, then instead cast his vote for George Wallace.
00:56:04.000Both chambers met and voted separately to reject the objection.
00:56:08.000So when the joint session resumed, the challenge electoral vote had counted as cast.
00:56:12.000In that instance, the elector whose vote was challenged from a state that did not by its law bind its electors to vote for the candidates to whom they pledged.
00:56:22.000Preceding it, it says this: upon the reading of any such certificate or paper, the president of the Senate shall call for objections.
00:56:29.000Every objection shall be made in writing and shall state clearly and concisely and without argument the ground thereof and shall be signed by at least one senator and one member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
00:56:43.000When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a state shall have been received and read, the Senate shall therefore withdraw and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision.
00:56:54.000And the Speaker of the House shall in like manner submit any objections to the House of Representatives for its decision.
00:57:01.000The President of the Senate is overseeing all of this, the Vice President of the United States.
00:57:07.000And the more we look into this, the more that we dive into the facts and the irregularities, we find that any objections that existed in prior elections in 2004 pale in comparison to the fraud claims that we now see here in 2020,
00:57:24.000where we see clearly what exactly happened, where Bernie Sanders in 2004 said, I agree with tens of millions of Americans who are worried when they cast a ballot, there is no paper record to record it.
00:57:38.000Nancy Pelosi says she wanted to object to the state of Ohio certifying the results.
00:57:44.000Richard Nixon himself, as the president of the Senate, discarded the governor-certified results in his own favor and put them in JFK's favor.
00:58:49.000I want to do our final segment here on a story that has really been bothering me and irritating me.
00:58:57.000Let's start with Mark Stein explaining what happened to this high school girl, Cut 25, and this story that was popularized by the New York Times in the last couple of days.
00:59:09.000Just an inconceivable story, and it really sums up a cultural rot we have in our country that must be addressed and removed.
00:59:18.000One of her classmates waited for her to be accepted by a university before publicly releasing a four-year-old social media video in which she used a racial slur.
00:59:31.000The video went viral and destroyed her life.
00:59:33.000She was forced to withdraw from her college and was kicked off a cheer team.
00:59:39.000She was publicly humiliated on the internet and by the press.
00:59:43.000So if you haven't heard of this story, it's stunning.
00:59:48.000So there's this young lady, I'm going to get her name.
00:59:52.00015 years old does a three-minute impersonation of a rap song, which, by the way, every upper-middle-class suburban kid in the country sings along to a rap song when they're 15 or 16 years old.
01:00:06.000It's not exactly like it's a breaking news item that some 15 and 16 year old kid that grew up in upper middle class suburban America is going to be singing along to Kanye West or Jay-Z or whatever.
01:00:21.000So I believe she was singing alongside.
01:00:24.000Her name is Mimi Groves, singing alongside this song.
01:00:32.000And this activist, the other kid that videotaped it, was held onto it for years, by the way, right after George Floyd posts it to destroy her life.
01:00:47.000So Mimi Groves has to explain why she was singing rap lyrics when she was 15 years old.
01:00:55.000The University of Tennessee comes in and cancels her slot on the cheerleading roster for something that every single upper middle class suburban kid has done in their life, which is sing along to rap music where they think they're cool and they're doing what they're 15 years old.
01:02:21.000Where this punk, Jimmy Gallagher, acts as if he's a good person because he shares a three-year-old video to destroy this young lady's life.
01:02:34.000This Jimmy Gallagher kid should be kicked out of college for doing this.
01:02:38.000Instead, the New York Times platforms him.
01:02:41.000Do you know how many young people's lives are now being ruined by texts they didn't mean to send, by clips of things that were taken out of context?
01:02:51.000The New York Times said, quote, it revealed a complex portrait of behavior that for generations has gone unchecked in schools in our nation's wealthiest counties, where black students have said they've been subject to ridicule, garbage.
01:03:03.000That is nonsense, race-baiting crap from the New York Times.
01:03:09.000So to Mimi Groves, I hope to meet you one day, and I'd love to help you in any way whatsoever because you are the closest thing to an actual victim that I have seen in this entire nonsensical BLM incorporated crap since June or July.
01:03:24.000And we need to stand up against this wherever it comes.
01:03:27.000And this punk, Jimmy Gallagher, I hope he learns his lesson.
01:03:35.000And if you are associated with the University of Tennessee, divest all of your money.
01:03:39.000They are an immoral, cowardly institution.
01:03:42.000And that's what we're doing at Turning Point USA through Divest You.