00:01:49.680There are multiple lawsuits all across the country, and those lawsuits need to be resolved.
00:01:54.200And until then, you know, I have to say the media kind of stamping their feet and insisting it's over now because we say it's over, that's a little weird.
00:02:05.680We're going to have a clear and definitive result.
00:02:07.900Anytime you have an election and the election is contested, you wait until the results of that contest are over.
00:02:14.220You know, you remember, think back to the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken,
00:02:20.580where Al Franken litigated, fought, and by hook or by crook managed to get enough votes to beat Norm Coleman.
00:02:30.440You know, when Democrats are filing the lawsuits, everything's hunky-dory that they can challenge it.
00:02:36.300But in this instance, because it's President Trump and his legal team that's challenging it,
00:02:40.700the media is treating it like it is the most unimaginable thing we've ever seen for a legal team to bring cases and to try to litigate their claims.
00:02:53.680And now I know there have been a lot of claims of fraud.
00:02:56.580There's been some evidence of irregularities, of poll watchers not being able to see the vote count.
00:03:00.840And this has gone on in various states.
00:03:25.360One, just speaking more broadly, it is 100 percent clear there was fraud this election cycle.
00:03:31.140And there's been fraud in prior election cycles.
00:03:34.340Election fraud is a challenge we deal with and it occurs.
00:03:37.720The question that we don't know the answer to is whether or not the Trump team is going to be able to present sufficient evidence of fraud to change the outcome.
00:05:10.500And they have been – they have not been good actors.
00:05:14.520They have behaved in a nakedly partisan way.
00:05:19.060So we saw before the election, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots that were received after election day, even potentially ballots that were mailed after election day, could be counted.
00:05:31.420And it was a decision – it was a partisan decision.
00:05:36.120They were rewriting state election law because they thought it benefited the Democrats.
00:05:39.920And actually, the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Sam Alito, wrote an opinion.
00:05:44.720He was joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch where he said that the decision of the Supreme Court very likely violated the U.S. Constitution.
00:06:24.580The state of Pennsylvania, the state legislature in March of this year, changed the election law pretty dramatically in Pennsylvania to allow universal mail-in balloting.
00:06:38.300With no excuse, no basis, anyone can mail-in ballots.
00:06:41.080And so this is distinct from the traditional system of absentee, which is you go, you request, you say, I've got this reason that I need an absentee ballot.
00:06:56.700Now, what's interesting is the Pennsylvania state constitution explicitly lays out the circumstances in which you can have absentee ballot.
00:07:05.160And the Pennsylvania state constitution is pretty strict on it.
00:07:07.920As a general matter, the Pennsylvania constitution requires in-person voting.
00:07:13.160And then there are a handful of exceptions that are specified, things like military service, things like if you're sick or have a serious disability.
00:07:21.280And those are written into the constitution.
00:07:22.780And there's actually a long history in Pennsylvania where the legislature has multiple times previously passed laws expanding absentee ballot.
00:07:32.980And the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck them down over and over again and said, no, the Pennsylvania constitution says you can't do that.
00:07:41.700Here, the Pennsylvania legislature rewrote the law in direct contradiction to the Pennsylvania constitution.
00:07:47.700So this claim that is at the center of this case is arguing that the universal mail-in law that Pennsylvania passed contradicts the constitution of Pennsylvania.
00:08:03.360Now, a district judge in Pennsylvania agreed with that claim.
00:08:09.260I mean, it's, it's, and, and, and there are two different Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases from decades past, clearly holding that, explicitly holding that.
00:08:16.640The text of the constitution explicitly says that.
00:08:19.260And so a Pennsylvania district judge said, you're likely to prevail on this claim, that, that what the legislature did is contrary to the constitution.
00:08:28.760Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected that claim.
00:08:30.840And they rejected it under a legal doctrine called latches.
00:08:55.800So yesterday morning, I printed out and read the Supreme Court pleading and I was actually, it, it was, it raises some very serious legal issues.
00:09:06.840One of the points they made is they said, look, Pennsylvania Supreme Court said, threw our case out based on latches.
00:09:13.120But they also have ruled that a candidate lacks standing to challenge an election law before the election.
00:09:19.780So they put us in a catch 22 where we can't challenge it before the election because we don't have standing and we can't challenge it after the election because they say we waited too long.
00:09:28.100It can't be the case that you can never challenge a law that's facially unconstitutional.
00:09:40.860But when the Pennsylvania legislature changed their election law, they also put on the ballot a referendum to amend the constitution in Pennsylvania to allow universal mail-in voting.
00:09:59.520When it's on the ballot, whether or not to allow universal mail-in voting, Pennsylvania is going to have it voted on using universal mail-in voting.
00:10:07.640So, I mean, it really is, that's actually a footnote in the Supreme Court pleading that just, I laughed out loud and said, this is frigging nuts.
00:10:15.340You're, so, I wrote a statement and the statement you read, it's about a page long.
00:10:22.780By the way, on, you know, look, most press releases that I put out, I've got a team, a staff, a very talented staff.
00:10:28.740You're telling me you don't write every single word of every single press release?
00:10:31.580I, I, I, that one I did, that, that one I sat down and, and, uh, hammered it out on the keyboard and tried to explain, look, these issues are serious.
00:10:48.540Frankly, if you're a Supreme Court justice and you're trying to protect your own backside, the natural instinct is not to take the case.
00:10:55.880But the reason I wrote that statement was to say to them, I think the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility, the, the degree of distrust in this election.
00:11:27.580Now, I know you really did write the statement.
00:11:30.020But, part of the reason I urged the court to take the case is, is, is, I think this, the Supreme Court has a responsibility to try to ensure we're following the law and the Constitution and, and to take a step to calm the acrimony and the division.
00:11:56.520Well, you know, it's funny because your reaction was the same as mine, which is, if I were on the court, I sure wouldn't want to take the case.
00:12:02.680I don't want to be accused of politicizing anything.
00:12:04.600But it does seem that there's an irony where the court that's so reticent to be seen as political actually seems very, very political.
00:12:13.160You know, if they, if they were to take the case, first of all, it, it very likely would not change the outcome of the presidential election.
00:12:19.180But at least, for goodness sakes, it would restore some confidence that we're not just all playing partisan politics, that we actually will follow the state constitutions and the law.
00:12:28.540Well, and, and look, let me be candid.
00:12:31.320The Pennsylvania case, there are challenges also.
00:12:33.560So there's, number one, there is a jurisdictional doctrine at the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the U.S. Supreme Court cannot take an appeal if there is what is called an adequate and independent state ground.
00:12:47.540In other words, on a question of Pennsylvania state law, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the final arbiter.
00:12:53.560The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't decide issues of state law.
00:12:57.020And so if a state Supreme Court has decided a case on an issue of state law and that's sufficient, the U.S. Supreme Court can't take it.
00:13:06.140And so a tough question in this case is what is the federal question that gives the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction?
00:13:14.020Well, you know, actually, from your own state, I think we'd mentioned this in a prior podcast, there was a Senate race in 1948 when Lyndon Johnson stole an election and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
00:13:25.360And the Supreme Court said, we don't have jurisdiction here.
00:13:32.180And they gave, they gave Johnson the seat.
00:13:34.520Now, look, there are obvious counterpoints, Bush versus Gore.
00:13:36.940And as you know, I was part of the legal team litigating that.
00:13:39.720Um, we've talked on the podcast before about my book, One Vote Away, where I talk at great length about Bush versus Gore, about the inside strategy.
00:13:48.880There, likewise, the Florida Supreme Court twice issued rulings.
00:13:53.080That was also a partisan Democratic court.
00:14:04.000Um, a challenge here is even if the Trump team wins in Pennsylvania, that alone is not enough to switch the outcome.
00:14:14.980And so that, that may well, that will certainly be a basis that encourages the justices not to take the case.
00:14:22.940Is, is either way the outcome's the same.
00:14:25.860It's why I wrote what I did that, listen, this dynamic of so many Americans not having faith in the integrity of our democratic system, that that's a, a real problem.
00:14:41.480And, and I think the Supreme Court has a responsibility to, to, to cure the claims and, and decide them pursuant to the law.
00:14:48.080Well, there, there are other issues in other states and I, we do have to touch on not just the presidential race, but, and not just Pennsylvania, but Georgia and specifically the Georgia Senate races.
00:14:58.760Because whatever happens with the presidential race there, you've got these runoff races.
00:15:03.060This will decide who controls the Senate.
00:15:06.180You laid out the Democrats plan for if they do take control of the Senate in the White House, it's pretty radical stuff.
00:15:13.060It could end the Republican party in many ways as a national party.
00:15:29.820So where we are right now in the Senate is Republicans have a 52, 48 majority, but two of those seats, the Georgia seats, there's a runoff on January 5th.
00:15:38.980If we lose them both, the Senate becomes 50, 50.
00:15:43.060If we win them both, we stay at 52, 48.
00:15:47.160And 50, 50, by the way, if Joe Biden does ascend to the presidency, the tiebreaker then is Kamala Harris, so the Democrats have it.
00:15:54.700So it means if we lose them both and Joe Biden is president, it means Chuck Schumer is the majority leader.
00:16:00.260And I got to say, in our lifetimes, I don't believe there has been a Senate race as consequential as the Georgia Senate race on January 5th because the two outcomes are radically different.
00:16:20.360If we have a Biden-Schumer-Pelosi government, there's no check on the radicals in the Democratic Party.
00:16:27.920Here's what I believe will happen with a Biden-Schumer-Pelosi government.
00:16:31.180I think they'll end the filibuster, which means there is no ability to the minority to stop the most radical policy proposals they put forward.
00:16:39.780I think they will pass a massive tax increase, not just repealing the Trump tax cut, but massively increasing taxes.
00:16:49.480I think they will pass all or major components of the Green New Deal, which will be absolutely crushing to small businesses and jobs.
00:16:57.620I think they will grant amnesty to every single illegal alien in America and try to make them voters as quickly as possible.
00:17:03.960But Biden has more or less said that already.
00:17:06.240And I think they will add two new states to the union.
00:17:09.580They will add the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico because they believe they'll elect four Democratic senators immediately, which means we could start January with 50 Democratic senators and end the year with 54.
00:17:25.460And I believe if we lose these two Georgia seats, I believe that the Democrats will pack the U.S. Supreme Court.
00:17:31.780They'll put on four radical judicial actions.
00:17:34.780So you think that there's really only one even sort of quasi-moderate Democrat left, Joe Manchin from West Virginia.
00:17:42.480When Joe Manchin says, I'm going to vote against all the radical stuff, I'm going to be the stop against AOC, you think that's just a lot of talk?
00:19:02.320Now, what I could see him doing – I think he'll vote with Schumer to end the filibuster and he'll vote with Schumer to add D.C. and Puerto Rico.
00:19:11.200And then if they have 54 Democrats, maybe he votes against packing the court.
00:19:19.360And it's worth pointing out too, the opponents here are pretty radical people.
00:19:25.140You have John Ossoff, who if that name is familiar to any of the listeners, it's because Hollywood propped him up to run for Congress.
00:19:31.620It was just a few years ago and he lost that race.
00:19:34.460But he was a sort of Hollywood darling.
00:19:37.140He's just come out and said we need to basically empower the bureaucracy to make all of the decisions for us and basically have government by experts so much for we the people.
00:19:45.480And then the other candidate in this race, Raphael Warnock, is as radical as they come.
00:22:10.700And he's seen Democrat after Democrat beaten from the left in primaries.
00:22:17.900I don't think there will be any appetite to stand up to the demands of the far left.
00:22:23.820Now, with a Republican majority, if we win in Georgia, it's not all going to be, you know, honey and roses.
00:22:31.320If we win, we will have a narrow Republican majority.
00:22:35.920If we have a Biden presidency, look, there will be some bad things that Republicans join with Democrats to pass that I will fight hard against.
00:22:47.720But the reason majority matters so much is ball control.
00:22:54.260So in the majority, you're the chairman of every committee and you can control what bills are voted on and what are not.
00:23:00.600So I can tell you with a 100 percent certainty that if there's a Republican majority in the Senate, we will not see a massive tax increase.
00:24:20.300I actually understand the demoralization.
00:24:22.120But one thing that you've done that I've been so pleased to see is keeping up the fight and keeping up the fight in a lot of different realms.
00:24:30.080You know, going to the Supreme Court and saying, you've got to hear this Pennsylvania case.
00:24:33.980And also while you're doing that, make sure the Republicans win in Georgia.
00:24:37.820And President Trump has said that also.
00:24:39.160He said, got to go out there and vote for Loeffler and for Purdue.
00:25:48.560I think this actually ties in very well to what we're talking about.
00:25:50.780Dear Senator and Michael, what is the best way to counter accusations of conspiracy theorism when discussing the ongoing lawsuits and the associated indicia of voting irregularity and election impropriety?
00:27:04.760The only thing that is going to impact the outcome of these elections is whether the Trump campaign can present sufficient evidence to build a factual case and convince a court.
00:27:33.660And so saying that the system should work, saying that our legal system should operate the way the Constitution designed it, that's not a conspiracy theory.
00:27:45.420That's actually believing in rule of law.
00:27:48.080And we'll get a determination as to what the evidence shows.
00:27:53.560And that – are those determinations perfect?
00:27:56.940No, that there are things that go on in the world for which there isn't evidence.
00:28:06.280But it's the best system – you know, it reminds me of what Churchill said about democracy.
00:28:10.880It's the worst form of government except for every other.
00:28:15.000You know, our judicial system has challenges, but by and large, it's a pretty effective vehicle for determining the facts and weighing and considering evidence.
00:28:28.820And I think probably the people who are attacking us for following the process, they probably hate the constitutional theories much more than the conspiracy ones.
00:28:36.380I will have to leave it there, but we will address even more of those excellent questions as this process is certainly not going to be resolved today.