A (7:04)
Just like they went after Tucker Carlson's personal home. Just like they went after Rand Paul and attacked him. Rand Paul was shot at at a congressional baseball practice. Rand Paul was attacked in the front lawn. Now, Senator Josh Hawley wasn't there. His wife and his child were there. As they go straight up to the home and terroristically threaten them living there. Just like Senator Rand Paul was attacked outside of the White House. None of this, of course, gets investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. None of this gets investigated. However, if you dare steal a Black Lives Matter sign, you're arrested very quickly. Now, I'm not saying, well, that's the right thing or the wrong thing. He got arrested for stealing private property. Have to look at the details of the case. The point is, you see how quick that was done. Oh, you steal that sign, you get arrested. We're gonna make an example out of you. You 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, you get framed as a hero. Now remember, this is nothing new for the Washington Post. They have an affinity for terrorists. The Washington Post also wrote glowingly about Al Baghdadi, where they called him an austere religious scholar. So the Washington Post glamorizing terrorists is nothing new. So for all domestic terrorists out there that are involved in antifa other activities, you might go to federal prison. Well, probably not because we don't actually do that anymore, but if we had a Justice Department, you would go to federal prison. But at least you'll get a nice piece in the Washington Post where they're almost sympathizing with that behavior. But what does this have to do with January 6th? Josh Hawley in their mind is to blame for the constitutional measures to object to the Electoral College votes. They want to make an example out of him. They're screaming through their bullhorns, we're not going to allow our democracy to be threatened. Those are, of course, code words. Antifa 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. And I'll explain the difference either later in the show. It's a longer podcast. I've done this many times on the Charlie Kirk show podcast so you can check it out. The point is this is that antifa is trying to say you're not gonna usurp what is right in the world. Nonsense. They're trying to make you back down. They're trying to make all of us back down. That's what last night was all about. And if we learn the lesson from Brett Kavanaugh, you know what we should do? We should double down our efforts. Where are the other establishment Republicans all of a sudden finding their spine like they did against Kavanaugh? Because Kavanaugh and the fight against Kavanaugh is a teaching lesson for us all. We're gonna get into that in just a second. Trending on Twitter. President Trump tweeted this morning the vice president has the power to reject fraudulently chosen electors. That's correct. We have said this on our program the last couple days. I think our team here on the Charlie Kirk show deserves a lot of credit. We 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. It's been done before. He has power and he has precedent to do this. I was, let's just say, written up on Media Matters, which is a wonderful badge of honor. So thank you for that. It's terrific for suggesting this. And I do think that we have been the leading broadcast that has been explaining exactly what can be done. On January the sixth. There 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. Now, I'm not recommending this lightly. I 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. And there's a variety of different recommendations of how it can be done. With Vice President Mike Pence, we are going to be joined exclusively on the live stream and we will turn it into a flash podcast. So 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. And by the way, we did not come up with this, but I think it's fair to say that we largely popularized it. Is that fair? I think that's a fair way to word it in the last couple days. And we have been leading with it. And 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. I think that's actually a very interesting and probably constitutionally sound measure. However, 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. They're not. This is only really been done in the last couple decades once in the election of 1960 with Richard Nixon. And Richard Nixon was not in any form of legal or let's say judicial cases following his action to do this. Now, if Mike Pence does not have this authority, then the United States Supreme Court will rule on that. However, don't we owe this to our country, owe this to our electors, to at least exhaust every single constitutional option? And again, constitutional option where the Democrats, when they don't, when they don't get what they want, they immediately go to illegal options. They launch coups against a president, they spy on presidents, they don't actually ever work through the Constitution. They illegally listen to phone calls like Shmirella did, which triggered the impeachment fight earlier this year. Everything that I am arguing is not necessarily in any way whatsoever through a Machiavellian moral paradigm. I am not saying that the ends justify the means. I'm not. That's the Democrats, that's the left. They will burn cities down to the ground. They'll go to United States senators homes. They will intimidate, they will extort, they will target. I'm not saying any of that. Instead 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. Anyone that tells you that this is not constitutional is probably reading the French Constitution, because I don't see what they are reading. This has not been ruled on, this has not been decided. Parts of this is just statute, not, not in the Constitution. You have to look at the election of 1876, the election 1960 and 1800. History is a guide for those of us that want election integrity. January 6th is coming. There's a lot more to unpack about it. We have to take a break. We'll be right back. Hello, everybody. Charlie Kirk here, host of the Charlie Kirk Show. The main debate on January 6 is whether or not Mike Pence has the power to count votes or not count votes. The main part of the argument from Those people that say it's unconstitutional is the Electoral Count act of 1887. Let's just take a timeout really quick. This is not part of the United States Constitution. It's not an amendment. It is an act passed by Congress. Now it is a law. Got it? And we should, of course, take that very seriously. But to act as if this is part of the United States Constitution is. Is a false descriptor, false description. I should say the Electoral Count act came as a consequence of the highly contested election, heavily contested election, I should say, of 1876. We talked about this quite a lot. We 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. The country was bitterly divided, and Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats controlled the House. Went to contested kind of split. And the unfortunate result of this was the end of Reconstruction in the south and a Republican president becoming President. And the end of Reconstruction was obviously not something that was good for our country in any way whatsoever. As a consequence of this, in 1887, the electoral count act was passed. There are lots of different ways to interpret it. Some people do consider this law to be precedent where it says that the Vice President's role is simply ceremonial. Now, this is a very, let's say, unclear interpretation. Constitutionally, this was kind of the main reason behind Congressman Louie Gohmert's lawsuit against Mike Pence. Congressman Louie Gohmert was not suing Mike Pence for defamation or for slander or because he didn't like Mike Pence, he 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. I think that's probably the most fair way to say that. And so there's a couple points of interest around the January 6th date, especially when it comes to the Electoral Count Act. The one that really everyone kind of conveniently avoids is the election of 1960. It's not inconsequential. It's actually, I think, the most important part of this entire debate in the election of 1960, as we have covered many times, Nixon won Hawaii on election Day. And 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. So 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. However, this was in complete and total defiance of the Electoral Count act of 1887. Whether this was the right thing or not, we don't really know. But we know he did it. And I don't like hyper focusing on Wikipedia. I've been through plenty of points and complaints there, but I think this is super instructive though of how Wikipedia actually describes this. Somebody sent this to me@freedomarliekirk.com Listen really carefully and closely to how it describes Richard Nixon in 1960 under the 1887 Electoral Count Act. Richard Nixon in 1960 graciously made a ruling allowing late filed votes against him. Huh. So graciously. It's okay to break the law if it's in favor of a Democrat. It's okay to break the law if it favors jfk. I just find that interesting because kind of the COVID 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 and I feel the need to repeat this. I don't take any of this lightly. I don't like being in pseudo parliamentarian waters here. I don't like handing over elections simply to Congress. But I'm also a constitutionalist. This is here for a reason. Thomas Jefferson used his power as the President of the Senate in 1800. Thomas Jefferson, who by the way, framed our entire country philosophically in the Declaration of Independence. The laws of nature and Nature's God mentions God four times in the Declaration. Thomas 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 he was participating in. And so here's the question that has yet to be answered by any constitutional expert out there. Why did no one sue Richard Nixon in 1960 and clarify the Electoral Count act of 1887? Answer is probably this because they liked the outcome and they considered Richard Nixon to be doing the gracious thing. And no one thought that there was any need to tie this up in the courts or for clarification. However, that's not the way law works. That's not the way justice works. Right? We don't believe in this moving of the goalposts, constantly changing of the window social justice. If 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. And I'm sure a lot of you are saying, well, Charlie, why the hyper fixation on 1960? It's actually the last time that we've seen something like this and it's actually relatively recent. And I think it reinforces our argument here that what we're dealing with here is not something that happens every election, nor should it. This election was more interfered with. This election was more tampered with. This election was more flawed than any election in my lifetime and arguably in American history. And 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. If 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 never becomes president and Kamala Harris might be the President of the Senate one day? Wouldn'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. Isn't this the opportunity now to find out if the Electoral count Act of 1887 actually is binding precedent? I'm making this argument for my friends out there that disagree with the approach we've been taking on this show. I'm not gonna. It's not even worth saying any names. These are really good people that just have a difference of opinion constitutionally, but actually think there's no binding for their argument. And 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. Instead, 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, it's actually completely irrelevant. All that matters is how those nine justices rule on the High Court, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has unappealable power. That's why they're called the Supreme Court. So wouldn't you want to know straight from the Supreme Court whether or not the President of the Senate has this power? And I believe he does. I believe he does have the power to do this. And 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. When 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. Rusty, it's close. All of these measures are designed to have checks and balances. If the President of the Senate's role in Congress sitting there was simply ceremonial, why didn't they get rid of it in 1887? If it was simply theatrics, pageantry, going to the streets, why even have that certification? Why not just end the process with the Electoral College? Why not create a constitutional amendment to end it once and for all? The reason is this is 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. You 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. This winner take all model of states did not come until a couple elections afterwards. We'll get the exact election. I think it was James Monroe or Andrew Jackson anyway. The first couple elections in American history was each elector represented a congressional district. Therefore, 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, the Senate, the vice president, just to have a kind of Rose bowl parade theatric. Look at me, I'm opening the envelopes. No, no, no, no. This. The 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 Representative members represented the states, but they weren't part of the state government. That's why this clause was in there. Can you tell me one other part of the United States Constitution that is simply theatric when it comes to the appointment of leaders? If 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. Is the First Amendment ceremonial and theatrical? I need a list of everything that is theatric and literal. And 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. We're talking to Jenna Ellis here, who's A lawyer to the President. I love your perspective. I hope you help us build it out of what you think Mike Pence should do tomorrow in regards to state legislators and electors. Please help build that out.