Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody. On this flash episode of the Charlie Kirk show, Mr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani joins us. We talk about January 6th, 180 Republicans possibly objecting to the results and so much more. I learned a lot this episode. You are going to learn a lot as well. And if you enjoy our program and want to help support us, get this program to millions of more people, go to charliekirk.comsupport. it's charliekirk.comsupport. as always, email us your questions freedomarliekirk.com Mr. Mayor, Rudy Giuliani is here. Buckle up. Here we go.
- [00:38]
B
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are
- [00:43]
A
lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
- [00:45]
B
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His 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.
- [00:59]
A
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are gonna fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Welcome, everybody, to this episode of the Charlie Kirk Show. A flash update and with a little bit of sense of urgency with America's mayor, Mr. Mayor himself, Rudy Giuliani. Rudy, welcome back to the Charlie Kirk Show.
- [01:21]
B
Oh, it's always a pleasure, Charlie. I love listening to you and I love talking to you even more.
- [01:25]
A
Thank you. So you, we were kind of talking before we started here. You said we're on the five yard line. You have a couple constitutional professors that are going through theories of what the vice president, the president of the Senate can and cannot do. Give us an update.
- [01:40]
B
Well, I mean, the fact is that you have a constitutional provision on the electoral college. Then it got changed by the 12th Amendment because of the confusion in the election of 1800 when Jefferson thought he was elected president and Burr was supposed to be the vice president, but they had the same vote and Burr challenged him and eventually Jefferson became president. And the interesting thing to know is he selected himself president. He was the vice president at the time. He was the Mike Pence of his day. There was a dispute about Georgia. Georgia had voted in one case for Burr, in one case for Jefferson, different electors. Jefferson said, I make the decision as the president of the Senate. Basically, I pick me, which is precedent for the vice president making the choices with regard or ruling on disputes. Then you have a statute that was passed in 1788, I believe it was about that time, and it changes the procedures quite a Bit problem with the statute is it takes power away from the House of Representatives that is exclusively supposed to choose the President. If there's a problem with the Electoral College and it shares that power with the Senate and it also takes power away from the state legislatures. So our best legal opinion on that is that that's unconstitutional. It's been debated for over 100 years as to whether it's unconstitutional. It's never been challenged in court. So it's an open question for the court. The issue is which way do we proceed? Do we proceed under the unconstitutional statute or do we go back to the original 12th amendment? It seems to me, and the President hasn't made this decision yet and the professors a little dispute, but it seems to me that better practice is to do it under the Constitution that you know for sure that that's the procedure. When Congress changed it and altered the power, usually the court finds that to be unconstitutional. That's how they found the line item veto to be unconstitutional. Congress passed it. But then the court said it disrupts the power balance between the President and the Congress has to be done by amendment. Our best academic experts here feel, and I agree with them, that the court will eventually find this to be unconstitutional because it takes some of the power away from the House to pick the President. Constitution gave it only to the House and it takes power away from the state legislatures and it puts the governor in their place in determining who the electors are. That is clearly unconstitutional.
- [04:30]
A
So there is a lot of confusion around exactly what is going to happen on January 6, even with some members of Congress. I was talking to a couple members of Congress this morning that plan to object and they have completely different opinions on exactly what the course of action can be. Can you comment on how Vice President Mike Pence very well might have the constitutional authority to not count certain states and their electors in 1960, Richard Nixon did this. Exactly.
- [05:00]
B
Well, I can't tell you the decision yet because that that decision has to get made by the President and Vice President. And they are actually meeting today and going through all the research and all of the. They probably not going to make that decision until sometime tomorrow because it's a very important one. And our party is dedicated to the Constitution. We preach that. So we have to follow it. So the President will make this decision best based on his judgment and the advice that he gets on what the Constitution demands. But I can give you the choices. I mean, the choices are that the Vice President, when the objections are made, if he follows the statute, which I believe is Unconstitutional. But even if he follows just that procedure and borrows it because he can set any procedure he wants, the way it would work is, let's say Arizona would be the first one to come up. And, you know, there's an objection to Arizona. Not only is there an objection to Arizona, we have elected a separate group of electors for Arizona, and we have given them to the Congress. So, in essence, the vice president has two sets of electors in front of him. He has the one ones that come from the governor and the ones that come from us. And this is not unusual. The best most recent case of that that I can remember, I can't remember, but I can read about, is in 1960, Kennedy and Nixon were very close in Hawaii. Nixon won Hawaii on election Day. Nixon won Hawaii on the original recount. So when the Electoral College met, they voted for Nixon. Kennedy's people held a separate session with their own electors and submitted their names. On December 29, a new recount determined that Kennedy had won, like, by 20 votes or something. So now both come before the president of the Senate. The president of the Senate was Richard Nixon, and Nixon selected Kennedy, whereas Jefferson had selected himself. But there may be a reason for that. It wasn't the deciding vote. Had Nixon taken Hawaii, he still would have lost by 30 or 40 electoral votes. So we don't know the exact motive, but it does show a consistent practice, even after the new statute, where the vice president makes those choices, not as vice president, but as president of the Senate. He's the presiding officer. So he generally the presiding officer, settles disputes like this. You got two contesting groups. These are the proper electors. These are the proper electors. Very often the chair will make that decision. And that's been the practice, I believe. Adams did it, Jefferson did it, Nixon did it. So this would not be the first time, if Mike Pence decides to take that course of action.
- [07:58]
A
Well, and in addition, in 1876, with President Hayes versus Samuel Tilden, the House and the Senate could not agree on certification of the Electoral college results. In 1876, the Great Compromise or the Great Bargain got negotiated and Reconstruction unfortunately ended for a Republican president by one electoral vote. So I am of the opinion, and based on all the readings that I have done and also other constitutional scholars that have written on this, because the Supreme Court has yet to decide that the president of the Senate can say, look, I'm not gonna necessarily put these results in the president's category. I'm just gonna say I will not certify or count results that are such, you know, in hot, you know, hot contention. What states would those be? And is this something that is still, you know, is being discussed around that kind of strategy?
- [08:51]
B
Yes, yes, of course. That's a very, very. That's a very active possibility. I don't know the right way to discuss it, but could easily they could make that decision. Well, that would be at least six states where there is a dispute, where the range is hundreds of thousands of votes. I mean, it's not a small little dispute. It's a determinative number. In other words, in each one of those states, if you credit the evidence that we have, then Trump would have won the state and not by the little margins that Biden wanted. For example, in Pennsylvania, our calculation is that we can prove is they won it by about 400,000, Biden won it by 85,000, with immediately 600,000 of those votes being illegal because they were counted secretly. And that's illegal under anybody's law. So what he's going to have is he's going to have the Biden vote. He's going to have all the evidence supporting the Trump vote, which in each case has Trump ahead of Biden pretty much by over 100,000. He could easily say, basically, this is so confusing. Rather than make a decision, I am going to just take these, I'm going to decertify these votes. He could even do it. More generally, those six states also didn't follow their own law in a very, very dramatic way. The legislature sets the law, for example, you must be able to observe every signature. Well, in Pennsylvania, they didn't observe 600,000 signatures on purpose. Same thing in Georgia. The Secretary of State made a deal with Stacey Abrams that they weren't going to particularly look at all the signatures. That's illegal. So before you even get to who won, who lost, he could say, in these states, the election was conducted illegally in these six states. Therefore, I'm throwing their votes out. They're going to be not certified. That would leave, if I'm correct, that would leave Trump at 233 and it would put Biden at about 230. Nobody has a majority. It immediately goes to the House of Representatives. In that case, in the House of Representatives, we have a three for vote advantage because you get one single vote per delegation. So we have 26, 27 delegations. They have to balance. So that is a very, very strong possibility. Absolutely.
- [11:32]
A
And so can you also walk our listeners through exactly what we can expect with these objections? There's a lot of uncertainty, do they not? Uncertainty? There's a lot of people that are just looking for clarity. Is it two hours of debate per objection? Does it then go to roll call votes? How does exactly that work?
- [11:52]
B
It really depends on what the Vice President decides. If the Vice President decides that he's going to follow the guidance of the statute, then he would have two hours of debate and it happens after each objection. So Arizona comes up, we have a senator and a Congressman who objects to Arizona. You have to have both a senator and a congressman object. Once that happens, doesn't matter how good or bad the objection is, they have to go into separate chambers. So basically the Senate goes back to the Senate and they both debate for two hours and then they come back and report their vote. And the Vice President, I mean if it's. Obviously if they vote the same way, it's fine. If they vote in conflict, well then the Vice President can clearly decide. And if he doesn't agree, he should be able under the 12th Amendment to make his own determination. But in any event, the way it will work for the audience is if it works under the rules where we're going to have the two hour debate, it should happen right away because Arizona comes up right away. Minute it comes up a Republican Senator, Republican, Republican congressmen will object. That triggers a two hour debate. Then you move on. The next state that comes up where there's an objection debate, next state debate, at least six, could be 10. I mean there are states like New Mexico, Virginia, which we didn't challenge in part because we didn't have the time. But there are, there are certainly very, very substantial irregularities and illegalities there that they may fit into the category where you can't determine a winner, but you can determine that the election was illegal, which means they may be candidates for just throwing their vote out because there isn't enough evidence to figure out if Biden had won or Trump had won. And there may be a few states I'm not even aware of, but New Mexico and Virginia would be interesting to look at. I mean they could be challenged and they could be kind of sleepers. I mean the main ones are Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada. Those are the six that will clearly be. And those are the six where I have behind me here all the evidence that shows that he won those states. We can prove it about five different ways.
- [14:25]
A
And so each state very well could be a two hour debate and then each objection might get. I mean this could be a very, this could be a multi hour process. And it seems like the Democrats are going to want to end this altogether. Some Republicans are courageously standing up Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Tommy Tuberville, Senator Marsha Blackburn. But some Republicans are saying this is unconstitutional. Some people are even calling this seditious. What do you have to say about that?
- [14:56]
B
I just described to you all options that are under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This is about as careful and as constitutional a process as I've ever seen a president follow. He has asked for what are the constitutional options. He hasn't asked anybody to go beyond the Constitution. And the one that he's gonna pick is the one that he thinks is the most constitutional, which ultimately is his choice. But it's based on 100 hours, 200 hours of legal research. So anybody who says that is just a liar and forgets that the Democrats objected to the last three Republican presidents and tried to get debates like this. What was that? Sedition? When they tried to have this kind of a debate over Bush in 2000, Bush in 2004, over Trump the first time. So we're just doing what they did, except they had no evidence. We have the kind of evidence that I find stronger than when I prosecuted cases as U.S. attorney. I mean, it's very powerful evidence. Some of it's on television. Sure. We can prove Georgia. We can prove he won Georgia, and we can put it on television and show you. We can show you them counting 30,000 illegal ballots because nobody was present, and then turning the 30,000 into 138,000 because they counted them multiple times. And we have to print out and the film. I mean, that should decide Georgia without anything else.
- [16:32]
A
Yeah. And the amount.
- [16:35]
B
And we're supposed to give up that challenge. I'm supposed to say, oh, have Georgia, even though I have on television. You stole the 130,000 votes in Georgia, which means Trump won by 110,000.
- [16:46]
A
So, in closing, Mr. Mayor, can you tell us why the state legislatures have been so kind of inactive on this? They have so much power. A lot of them did not even call special sessions in December. Arizona, for example, where we are right now, the leader of the Arizona House has been totally feckless, horrible. Why?
- [17:07]
B
Remember his name?
- [17:08]
A
Brady Bowers or something? Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [17:11]
B
He may be the sole reason, along with the governor, who should join another political party. Ken, who's a disgrace. I mean, the reality is the state legislatures were good and bad. The state legislatures are the only places they gave us a hearing with the younger members who are very strong, loyal Republicans and put the Constitution first. So we. We have the reason. We got all this evidence out is because of Michigan. Georgia, Arizona Legislature has been. Has been terrific. That's where we got the evidence out. I know particularly because I followed Arizona and Georgia the most. They're just a few votes away from decertify or maybe even certifying. In each case, it's the leadership that are being cowards. Including in Pennsylvania, the two leaders of the House and the Senate are blocking what could be a majority to really qualify Trump because they have the evidence. He won Pennsylvania by over 400,000. It was not even close. It's a disgrace what they're doing in Pennsylvania. He has to vote. He just has two leaders who are afraid. And, you know, it stands to reason, Charlie. The leaders get into the establishment, they make deals. They're making deals with Democrats all the time. They're making deals with businesses all the time. I think you get a much purer read when you talk to the regular members. And it's interesting, the newer the member, the more outraged he is by this theft. But in each case, we got close to. We got close to a majority of Republicans, and it's because of Governor Kemp and Raffsenberger, who I think is a liar. I can't say yet that he's a crook, but he's certainly a big liar. Two Republicans. And then Speaker Ralston who will call a session. If they called a session in Georgia, I guarantee you the vote would be Trump won, Biden lost, Arizona, same thing. And why the governors don't allow their legislatures just to do it. All we're asking two Republican governors to do is let your legislature vote. And it's their responsibility, not yours. Let them vote and they won't call a special session. I mean, we should no longer consider them Republicans. And we should, in the right spirit, we should write down the names of all these senators who aren't supporting us and have serious consideration as to whether they really belong in the Republican Party. Because if we can't have a party, Democrats ask people to be loyal when they're cheating. They've done it at least five times in the last four years. And the Democrats remain loyal when they're cheating or when they're saying anti Semitic remarks like the squad. They all remain loyal. They all remain loyal. We're asking them to follow the law. I believe we're asking them to save the country and they're running off like cowards.
- [20:18]
A
That's right.
- [20:19]
B
What kind of. How are they helping our political party to grow based on the principal things we want to do for the country? They're Cutting that off. And I think we got to remember that when primaries come up big time.
- [20:32]
A
I completely agree. And so Senator Ted Cruz is calling for a 10 day audit, is that right?
- [20:39]
B
He is. I mean, I find that a fallback. I'd rather if you ask me my options, of course. The option that I would go for the most is certification. Then a form of decertification that sends it to the House. And if that can't be done, then at a minimum, they should give the state legislatures whose legislators have been denied the basic evidence. There's not a single place that's given us a single machine. They're covering up the machines. The machines aren't sacred. The machines aren't privileged. We only want the numbers. You give us 20 of those Dominion machines, we'll flip the entire election. Give me the 10 machine. Give me the 10 machines I like to look at in Detroit and I'll show you how they manipulated those machines and changed the vote by 2, 3%. Did you know you can change the vote in that machine? You can actually change the vote. Why would you have a voting machine where you could change the vote unless you wanted to cheat? You can invade the vote by Internet. They claim they didn't do it. We have pictures of them doing it. So give us those machines. We'll turn the election around. So they're all covering them up, including the Republicans. Give us the paper mail ballots. Just the paper mail ballots. Just hand them over for inspection. They're not yours, they're. The government won't do that either. So that 10 day period could allow us to show how many phony ballots were entered. Because we have a process. We have an expert who can separate them and he can do all of it in three days. In three days, we can be sure whether those mail in ballots were legitimate or illegitimate. And I'm willing to guarantee you that they're either illegitimate or somebody burned them, which is another possibility.
- [22:31]
A
Well, Mr. Mayor, thank you for the phenomenal work you're doing for our country. In closing, how can people. It's an honor. How can they help and how can people stay involved in this? Right now?
- [22:41]
B
Right now, Talk to your. Talk to your center. Senators and congressmen. Yeah, the ones that aren't aboard yet. I think we're gonna have almost the whole House. I mean, we were up to 150, 160, bare minimum, 180. Now you're getting close to just a few more and we have the entire House. The Senate is very disappointed. And I'll tell you, the establishment Republicans are a disgrace. They're like, I mean, I will, I will. If. If we don't win, I will dedicate my time to trying to clean up the Republican Party of the traders. We don't need traitors. And if you were asking them to do something wrong, of course they shouldn't do it. We are asking them to really perform their constitutional duties. And their hands are shaking because they're afraid of big business. They're afraid of the newspapers. They're afraid of the Washington Post. If you have so little courage, you don't belong representing other people, go find somebody who has courage to represent you, not someone who can get rolled by the Washington Post.
- [23:46]
A
I agree. Well, Mr. Mayor, keep up the fight. We'll be watching. We got your back.
- [23:50]
B
Thank you, Charlie.
- [23:51]
A
Thank you.
- [23:51]
B
Thank you.
- [23:52]
A
See you soon.
- [23:52]
B
You've been great.
- [23:53]
A
Thank you.
- [23:53]
B
Unbelievable.
- [23:54]
A
Thank you. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us your questions. As always, freedom at charliekirk. Com. If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com tpusa.com and if you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com support. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. God bless.