A (2:44)

I can't wait for 2020 to be over. This year has been not a good one. It's been a pretty awesome year for us in some ways on this program. We've been very blessed, but the country has suffered a lot. We've lost friends, we've lost family members. We have seen the cost of the lockdowns. We saw our entire electoral system compromised in front of us. It has not been a good year overall. But of course, in all years like 2020, there's plenty of things to take away and learn from and plenty of things that hopefully we'll never do again. But I want to congratulate somebody. I want to congratulate Senator Josh Hawley. Senator Josh Hawley is now going to officially be more hated than Senator Ted Cruz. It's pretty incredible when you think about it. I think Senator Josh Hawley is about to become the most hated United States senator in America. Now, that really says something because the activist media have. They've gone out of their way to demagogue and attack Rand Paul and Ted Cruz throughout the years. Today, Senator Josh Hawley has announced that he will object to the Electoral College results on January6. Josh 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. Senator 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. They were praised by Democratic leadership and the media when they did this, and they were entitled to do so. But now those of us concerned about the integrity of this election are entitled to do the same. Senator Josh Hawley continues by saying, quote, I cannot vote to certify the Electoral College results on January 6 without raising the fact that some states, in particular Pennsylvania, failed to follow their own state election laws. And 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 of Joe Biden. At the very least, Congress should investigate allegations of voter fraud and adopt measures to secure the integrity of our elections. But Congress has so far failed to act for these reasons. I will follow the same practice Democrat members of Congress have in years past. And to object during the certification process on January 6th to raise these critical issues. Now this is in direct defiance to Senator Mitch McConnell. This is in direct defiance to Senate leadership. There were many articles published over the last couple days kind of as warning shots towards Republican senators, basically saying, do not do this, do not go down this path. You're saying, what are you talking about? I thought the election is over. Wasn't that happened in early November? Or some of you are probably saying, isn't that what the Electoral College is for? What does Congress now have to do with this? So let me begin by saying this. This is not an ideal set of circumstances. I don't love the fact that Congress is now getting involved in our elections. I don't. This is not something that I have great delight in. This is not something that should be taken lightly. Because as soon as you give the power of elections to a legislative branch, you almost become a parliamentary system. You lose the idea of a republic and a state based republic as that. That's a very dangerous road to head on. However, unusual times call for unusual measures and nothing that is being discussed right now in any way whatsoever is unconstitutional. Some 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, it definitely has not been done in the last hundred and fifty years, but it's not unconstitutional. Now there is an argument to be made that Congress does not have this authority that has not been decided by the U.S. supreme Court. I'm gonna do that argument from a devil's advocate standpoint, but let's just go through the process. Just for all of you that are saying, I'm confused, what does a senator from Missouri have to do with election results from Pennsylvania? Fair question. Okay, so when you vote on election day, you're not actually voting for president, you're voting for electors to go vote for president for you. So you go vote for human beings that then go represent you in the Electoral College. According to the United States Constitution, those electors are chosen by state legislatures. But it is the people that directs it. Okay, so the Electoral College met in December. The state certified their results. We know that should not have happened, but it was weak Republicans that were trying to save face. The Electoral College certifies the results. Now, typically in a kind of fourth grade civics class, that's kind of where the conversation would end. But let's go to the AP level, right? Let's go to the higher graduate course level of American civics. There's one more step that typically is just a procedural step, and it's a very important one. It's in the Constitution. Let me read this word for word. So you have all these electoral College results, And then on January 6th, a bunch of people wearing dark suits carry in the results in boxes, literally, and they follow this protocol, quote, the President of the Senate. Let's stop there. Who's the President of the Senate? If you just said Mitch McConnell, you're wrong. The President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States. The President of the Senate is Mike Pence. He is the only member of the executive branch who also has a leadership role in the legislative branch. Dick 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. Anyway, the President of the Senate is Mike Pence. So 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. The person having the greatest number of votes for for president shall be President. So it's majoritarian shall 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. So there is a lot there. Let's take this piece by piece because there's gonna be a lot of conjecture and quite honestly, a lot of bluster in the next couple days. And 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 feeder. This is a very big deal. He says, I'm objecting to the results. What? What does that mean? Well, 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? And is this wishful thinking? What is the process here? Okay, 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. Person having the most votes becomes President from the Electoral College. Okay, we know how the Electoral College works. That part's kind of completed. Okay, so Senator Josh Hawley is saying, I'm going to object. We already have Congressman elect Madison Cawthorn, who in four days will become the youngest Congressman ever elected to the US Congress. Who's objecting? Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, and I think Louie Gohmert is as well. And so the way that the statute is written, let me be very clear, statute, not law. The statute, which is House rules, it's precedent. If a singular member from the House and a singular member from the Senate objects, then it goes into two hours of debate. Now, according to one constitutional scholar that I spoke to, it's two hours per objection. So if Madison Cawthorn and Matt Gates and Mo Brooks and Louie Gohmert all object, that would be eight hours of debate. Okay. And other people have said that as well. We've heard that dozens could potentially be joining. If that's true, it could be 130 hours of debate per member, two hours per objection. That remains to be seen. Now, the paragraph that everyone is zeroing in on is admittedly open to interpretation. The only precedent that we have is the election of 1876, the election of a little bit, maybe 1960, if you want to stretch it a little bit. But 1876 is probably the best example of this. In 1876, you had Rutherford be his 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. And so it went to the House and the Senate just like it's about to, and they became gridlocked. And 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. And so that compromise was because of the gridlock in Congress. Okay? And so let's read this word by word. This is super important because this is about to be the number one news story. And only here on the Charlie Kirk show are we actually diving into this. Okay? The 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. That sentence is about to be torn apart, dissected and interpreted by every major Cable news constitutional pundit, because that sentence could go any way and the Supreme Court has not really ever ruled on what that sentence actually means. So let's, let's dive into this. In the presence of the Senate and the House open all the certificates and the votes shall then be be counted. So 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. We don't have the constitutional authority to interject or to intercede. But then that asks the question is why would the Founders have you there if they didn't want you to have any sort of power? Why would the Founders want the Senate and the House to be present if it's nothing more than just a spectator sport? The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House open all certificates and votes shall then be counted. So the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States is in charge of accepting the electoral college results in Congress. Now, by a matter of statute, the members of the House and the Senate have the ability have the freedom to object. Now this is not in the U.S. constitution. That is statute. It has never been litigated up to the US Supreme Court and has never been challenged. Now the election of 1876 did show that we have precedent that Congress can be a last line of defense against electoral college results. Now let me be very clear. I don't like the idea of a legislative body all of a sudden becoming the determining factor for a presidential election. I don't like that it is not the system of government that our Founders intended. However, alongside of that, the Founders put in this fail safe for extraordinary measures, we have the election of 1800, 1876 and 1960 to show us that Congress can get involved and should get involved. So 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. And to just make their argument for them, they'll say that this paragraph, the President of the Senate shall, and the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives open all the certificates and the vote shall then be counted at hard stop. They'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. So. Right. However, 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 Sotomayor Kagan nonsense that they'll write is this is that if the Founders wanted the House and the Senate to be there, did they really want them to be there with no power at all whatsoever? I find that very hard to believe. The only arguments as to why the Founding Fathers and the Framers would want the House and the Senate members to be there without any power is, is just so that they could witness the results and they could go back to the people and say the results were actually counted correctly. They were not counted in a corrupt fashion. However, the power really does rest and lie on the President of the Senate. So the President of the Senate, the Vice President has an incredible amount of power in this regard. In the election of 1960, it was John F. Kennedy versus Richard Nixon, a very famous election for a variety of different reasons. It 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. It was the young Catholic Kennedy versus the establishment Richard Nixon, who was actually Vice President at the time. It's a very important point. And 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, original election results showed that Richard Nixon, then Vice President, had won the state of Hawaii. The Governor's signature and the Governor of Hawaii actually certified the election results for Richard Nixon, not for jfk. JFK challenged the election results and went to a recount. Nixon was up 141 votes. But after a recount JFK pulled ahead. Now this actually happened after the results were sent to Washington. So Nixon was the President of the Senate in 1960. He was the Vice President. He was Dwight D. Eisenhower's number two guy. So what did Nixon do? Nixon 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, Nixon, in defiance to federal law, ordered that the Democrat candidates certificate gets counted because they also ceded Democrat electors and ignore the accompanying Republican certificate. Now what's the significance of this? A couple things. Number one, while Republicans were playing nice, Democrats were licking their chops for power. And they did get power. But number two, it actually shows the President of the Senate can do whatever he wants. There's really no check and balance against Mike Pence on January 6th. Do I like that? No. Is it the framing of how it is, yes. Thomas Jefferson in the election of 1800 with highly contested election results in Georgia, when he was running up against John Jay and others. Guess what Thomas Jefferson was at the time, you guessed it, Vice President. He was the president of the Senate overseeing this process. And the Virginia law records show that Georgia was a hotly contested election. It's kind of funny how this all comes full circle, right? And Thomas Jefferson decided to put Georgia in his category. Despite the controversy. Thomas 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. Same in 1876. So Pence has what is called a plenary power, which is a fancy legal way to say absolute. Nixon basically saw the results from Hawaii and said, I don't like him. I'm giving him the Kennedy and actually hurt him. He wanted to do the gentleman thing, the honorable thing. Whether or not he was correct in that is up for Nixon historians to come on this program maybe at a different time and debate. However, there is no check and balance against that. And so there's precedent, there's constitutional authority. Mike pence's power on January 6 will be plenary and unappealable. As President of the Senate, every objection comes directly to him, and he can rule any objection as out of order. Accepted. Denied. You get more debate. He's kind of king of the Senate. Now, why did the Founders design it this way? I'm gonna have to dive back into the Federalist Papers to explain that comprehensively. However, 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. The reason that they included a member from the executive. To be involved in legislative affairs is to prevent a parliamentary system from ensuing. Now, this is a high threshold. Do I like the idea that one day a Republican might win an election and there might be a Democrat vice president? And what they might do? Not really. However, we'd be fooling ourselves to think they wouldn't do this, as if they're only going to do it because we have the courage to. To stand up against it. And let me be very clear, what we are building out on this program is not some sort of lust for power, is not some sort of insatiable appetite to get another four years. What 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 now as objections come up state by state. And again, there's a lot of questions about this. So there's a significant amount of pressure on my friend Mike Pence. A lot. And let me be clear, I do not envy his position here. I don't. Because no matter what he does, he will come under immense criticism and some of it will be unwarranted because there really is no modern day political playbook to how to navigate all of this. However, we do know that the President of the Senate will call it to order. And if there is an objection for each state, does that mean that each state gets two hours of debate? Does that mean that the whole point of order gets two hours of debate? Does that mean that every objection gets two hours of debate? It would be my personal opinion that the healthiest way to do this is do it state by state. That's the electoral system. Take it by Arizona, take it by Georgia, take it by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. And I don't think anyone's going to object to Florida's results. I don't. The President of the Senate is the closest thing to ultimate power that we will see when it comes to a presidential election. Nixon showed us you could just decide not to follow federal law and do whatever you want in favor of a Democrat. Same when it came to Jefferson in 1800 and in 1876. And Democrats actually have objected before, despite their moral gallivanting that they're doing right now.

C (28:24)

Protecting my family is my number one

A (28:26)

priority, but I want to do it safely.

C (28:28)

The people at Taser believe that safer self defense is better self defense. Taser'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. Guns carry unnecessary risks for you and those around you. And even pepper spray can harm you as much as an attacker. And it's often ineffective. Taser products are safer and easy to use. They 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. Taser devices come loaded with features like laser assisted targeting and emergency Dispatch, which will send response teams to your GPS location upon firing. More than 237,000 lives have been saved with the Taser network of devices, apps and personnel. Now you can have your own Taser device, the number one choice of law enforcement agencies. Taser is available without a permit in most US states. Give the Taser Pulse plus or Taser

A (29:29)

Strike Light@taser.com with the promo code CHARLIE,

C (29:32)

spelled T-A S E R.com promo code CHARLIE. Restrictions apply. See the site for details.

A (29:41)

So 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. As I've said earlier in this program, this is not something I take lightly. This is not something that I think should become routine. But while we're at it, while we are talking about this, the Democrats are inevitably going to be saying, this is unprecedented. This is an assault on the Constitution. This is wrong. This is terrible. How dare you. They're gonna be screaming. Activists in the streets, activist media. And all we have to do is play cut 29 over and over and over and over and over. Play tape.

D (30:40)

Our very democracy depends again on the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our electoral system. So my colleagues, please don't talk about this about a conspiracy theory. It's not about that. It's not about conspiracy. It's about the Constitution of the United States.

A (31:02)

Cut 28. Nancy Pelosi objects to the Ohio electoral votes after the 2004 election. Remember what they say. As Ohio goes, the nation goes. She says people must have every confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted. She objected in 2004. Playtape.

D (31:22)

People must have every confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted. But 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. As elected officials, we have a solemn responsibility to improve our election system and its administration. We cannot be here again four years from now discussing the failings of the 2008 election.

A (32:02)

Madison Cawthorn should write down every word she just said and give that exact speech during his floor time when he objects word for word because of ever changing vote tallies in the state of Pennsylvania and irregularities people cannot trust. So 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. That's right, yeah. When the Democrats took back the House, if 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. Now would have went to the House. I don't know who would have been the winner of that. It might have been John Kerry. I don't know who would have won that. However, Pelosi, Minority Leader 2004, decided to have a full frontal attack on the reelection of George W. Bush. She said, it's not a conspiracy. It's about the Constitution of the United States. Okay, Nancy, buckle up, because we're about to have a constitutional fight on January 6th. And it seems that Democrats are increasingly nervous about that. Back 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. That 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. But let's go as recently as 2017, you see, Democrats are about to slander Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorn, Josh Hawley and many others. However, they themselves were speaking out in favor of objecting to President Trump's victory in 2016 and swearing in in 2017. Let's go to cut 30 of Congresswoman Jaya Paul her objecting to a certificate from Georgia. Play cut 30. Mr. President, I object to the certificate from the state of Georgia on the grounds that the electoral votes were. No debate.

B (34:32)

There's no debate. Section 15 and 17 of Title 3 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.

A (34:42)

Now, the interesting part is that's Joe Biden who is saying the debate is over on this. Now, one of the main reasons why is because Joe Biden did not have a U.S. senator that stepped up and objected. Also, 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. Let's go to cut 31. Sheila Jackson objecting in 2017.

B (35:20)

Mrs. President, I object under section Mr.

A (35:25)

President, I rest on the massive voter

B (35:27)

suppression debate is not in order to counting is not an order. Ballots that were provisional that denied individuals access to polling places. No woman will suspend.

A (35:38)

You see how they call him Mr. President. They're not misspeaking like Joe Biden does. It's because he's the president of the Senate. So as Joe Biden was disallowing debate in 2017, Mike Pence can allow debate in 2020 if a senator signs onto it. How about Raul Javolara referring to votes from Trump from North Dakota. Is that right? Let's play cut 32.

B (36:02)

Mr. Brady, Mr. President, the certificate of electoral vote of the state of North Dakota seems to be regular, informal and authentic. It 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,

A (36:20)

objecting to election results. Now, Bernie Sanders is going to be someone that speaks out about how this is an assault on democracy. What was he saying in 2004 when he was objecting to George W. Bush's election results? What was his stance back in 04? Placott38 but I agree with millions of American citizens that no American should have to wait four hours to cast a vote. I 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. Sounds so familiar to what Republicans are about to say. And the clips continue because Democrats did object to These results back in 04. Back in 2016 and back in 2017, the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, holds the power in this process. It's not Mitch McConnell, it's not Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, and Vice President Pence is the one that calls the shots here. As Nancy Pelosi said back in 2004, quote, Please don't talk about this as a conspiracy theory. It's not about that. It's not a conspiracy. It's the Constitution of the United States. Let's go to cut 39. If Maxine Waters objecting, I do not wish to debate.

B (37:52)

I wish to ask, is there one

A (37:54)

United States Senator who will join me in this letter?

B (37:57)

There is no debate. There is no debate. Gentlewoman will suspend.

A (38:03)

Will we have a senator now? His name is Josh Hawley. I don't think he's gonna be agreeing with Maxine Waters. But 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? Nope. Not even Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas will join you. We actually see now that there is a senator that is willing to join. Now, that opens a completely different process. But the point of playing all that tape is to show that Democrats, they've been the ones that have been objecting. And so any Republican that now objects is perk perfectly within legislative and congressional precedent. What is unprecedented and what might be unprecedented, but not necessarily unconstitutional is Mike Pence saying, you know what, I've heard the arguments, I've seen all this. We're going to put Georgia's votes aside, we're going to put Arizona's votes aside, we're going to put Pennsylvania's votes aside. Now, mind you, the ultimate unconstitutional measure here is the fact that Georgia changed their election law unconstitutionally without consent of the state legislature. That's the true issue here. Now, there is a playbook very clearly of what happens when someone does not hit the 270 vote threshold, goes to the House of Representatives. Now, you might say, well, Charlie, that doesn't do anything. It doesn't mean anything. It actually is very significant because every single state gets one vote. And if they were all to vote the way that we would anticipate them to vote, Donald Trump would serve four more years. Now, there's a lot of work that has to get to that point. The country would metaphorically and literally explode. But it's pretty much this is how it's going to work. Mike Pence says, I've heard the arguments in regards to voter fraud and irregularities in Arizona. We are going to temporarily suspend the counting of those electors. Not even count them for Trump, by the way, just 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. As we saw in 1960, Richard Nixon, the president, the Senate can do basically whatever he wants. Now, I'm not saying that that should be taken lightly. I'm not saying that Mike Pence should all of a sudden just impart his own opinion. What 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, maybe open up for more debate. January 6th, deadline's important, but all of a sudden, if you get debate after debate, maybe we can actually get to the correct conclusion. We just got a great question here that we just had emailed. Freedomarliekirk.com hey, Charlie, what happens after the debates? Do both chambers need to vote against certain certification or for it or not at all? Would you need a 51 vote majority or 60? It's a phenomenal question. And the answer is we really don't know. We don't know because we're all just kind of playing in Mike Pence's world here. There 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. However, there might be some parliamentary precedent that I am unaware of, and I'll stand corrected if that's the case. But I think Mitch McConnell is kind of irrelevant in this equation. The president of the Senate should oversee all the rules, all of the process. It says it very clear in the US Constitution that it's the president of the Senate that is overseeing the vote counting and tabulation process. So 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. So it's really his program. So it's the president of the Senate, all the power is on him. Does he then all of a sudden say, I'm only gonna count them if we get 61 votes? Now, mind you, a lot of this would probably be instantaneously litigated if they were not happy with the way that Mike Pence handled this. However, the question's a good one. Would it take 51 votes? Would it take 60 votes? Can he just unilaterally decide to do something? We 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. So the question is a very good one. So 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. This is going to send both chambers, we know this much, both chambers into debate for at least two hours per objection. I would not be surprised if more senators start to sign on in the coming hours and the coming days. Let's go to cut 35, where Mo Brooks has said that dozens of House members back the effort cut 35, notwithstanding

B (43:54)

that there are dozens in the House of Representatives who have reached that conclusion, as I have. We're going to sponsor and co sponsor objections to the Electoral College vote returns of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and maybe more.

A (44:09)

And 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, again, Nancy Pelosi back in 2004 was leading the charge of this. We played this earlier. I want to play this again. Cut 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. Cut 28.

D (44:37)

People must have every confidence that every vote legally cast will be legally counted and accurately counted. But 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. As elected officials, we have a solemn responsibility to improve our election system and its administration. We cannot be here again four years from now discussing the failings of the 2008 election.

A (45:16)

Sounds awfully familiar. And what did Nancy Pelosi say when people called her a conspiracy theorist?

D (45:20)

Play cut 29 our very democracy depends again on the confidence of the American people and the integrity of our electoral system. So my colleagues, please don't talk about this about a conspiracy theory. It's not about that. It's not about conspiracy. It's about the Constitution of the United States.

A (45:45)

So I want to get into the congressional precedent here as a lot of questions are pouring in@freedomarliekirk.com as you heard there, Nancy Pelosi thinks it's perfectly okay to do this. It says, upon such reading of any such certification or paper, the President of the Senate, the Vice President, shall call for objections, if 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 when all objections so made to any vote or paper from a state shall have been received and read.

C (46:24)

49% of Americans say their top New

A (46:26)

Year's resolution is to save money in the next year.

C (46:28)

I agree.

A (46:29)

Well, let's get that handled right. Right now, when your Family switches to

C (46:32)

PeopleTalk from AT&T Verizon or T Mobile, you could save over $800 a year. That's real money every single month right

A (46:41)

back in your pocket.

C (46:42)

And you don't have to sacrifice coverage. PearTalk is on the same network as one of those big carriers, but they charge you half.

A (46:49)

That's right.

C (46:49)

No gimmicks, no fluff added to your bills.

A (46:52)

Which is why peertalk is the top

C (46:53)

rated wireless company by consumer affairs right now.

A (46:57)

Get unlimited Talk, text and 2 gigs of data for just 20 bucks a month. And if you go over on data usage, they don't charge you for it. Grab your mobile phone and dial £250

C (47:06)

and say Charlie Kirk. When you do, you'll save 50% off your first month.

A (47:10)

Again, dial £250 and say keyword Charlie Kirk.

C (47:13)

Peertalk is simply smarter wireless.

A (47:19)

So we're not allowed to talk about voter fraud or else YouTube magically is going to make our entire livestream disappear. However, I saw a story this morning from the D.C. report and raw Story, 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. After initially focusing on the surprisingly lopsided results of the senatorial election in Kentucky, D.C. report broadened our scope to look at the electronic vote counting software and electronic voting systems that we rely on to tally our votes. Hold on a second. Timeout, Timeout. Is this a left wing investigative outlet that's looking into voting machines? I thought we're not allowed to talk about Dominion Voting systems. Hammer, Scorecard. All of these are triggers by the tech companies and by anyone in polite society saying, you're not allowed to say that. Here's a entire story all about how voting machines might be corrupted in Republican states. By the way, you might be right. I'm all for it. Look into all the machines. However, 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. What we found was a revolving door. This is them. Between government officials and ES&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. It says here. This is just so funny. Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell have been making such bold and naked claims against ESNS competitors like Dominion Voting Systems without any substance or evidence. Team Trump has been so vigorous in going after Dominion that it prompted us to look into how ES and S operates. Owned by a private equity firm, ESS has been elusive about identifying the people in its ownership. A number of ESS executives and lobbyists have ties to top GOP election officials and politicians. Interestingly enough, Minnesota and Arizona, two states that we thought Trump would do very well in, use ess. You know what other state uses you ess? Pennsylvania. So by the left's own logic, this is a flawed election. Based on this story, it 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. DC Report placed numerous calls and emails to ESS at its headquarters on John Galt Boulevard in Omaha. It says, understanding the software. This is really fascinating that all of a sudden the left is super interested in voter irregularity, machine fraud. We're not even allowed to talk about it. When it comes to how ESNS or Dominion Voting Systems might be used in states that Joe Biden won, someone here didn't quite get the memo. It says here our democracy now relies on private companies which build proprietary electronic systems to reliably count our votes. It seems reasonable, if not crucial, to understand who is behind these companies as a standard to ensure election integrity. Without such knowledge, we run the risk that zealots are 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. Can I just give a round of applause for Ross Story? I completely agree. That's been a massive focal point for us the last month and a half. Yet 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, one of the major concerns is providing junkets and gratuities to election officials as uncovered in 2018 by McClatchy for 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. It goes on to say that ess, by the way, I think that they actually did some good work here. I think that they did some good work looking into this, I'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. I'm not saying that in any way whatsoever that none of this is out of the ordinary. What 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. Interestingly enough, it links to a story in the New Yorker by Sue Halprin, how Voting Machine Lobbyists undermine the democratic process. Georgia's 2018 election result is noteworthy because it was overseen by Brian Kemp. Interestingly interesting goes into how Brian Kemp is corrupted by this. This is about a 2,000 word piece and it says this at the end. This is by a left wing blogosphere. We think the issue of who counts our votes, how they are counted, and what ties the companies to selling these systems have the politicians deserve more attention. We agree politicians 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. We 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. The integrity of voting systems and especially the ability to audit vote counts has been the subject of public debate for more than four decades. But most of the recent attention has been focused only on Dominion voting systems because of Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Pout. But it's simply a distraction. So there's nothing to see there with Dominion, but with ESS because we don't like the results. Totally corrupt. Can't wait for the activist media to call everyone that talks about this conspiracy theorist. 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. And by the way, there might be merit to their inquiry. That's the point. I'm open minded to any of that. Remember when Joe Biden said he wanted paper ballots? Let's go to cut 33, where Joe Biden says that we need a federal law to have a paper trail for voting machines for every federal election. Cut 33.

B (54:20)

How are you going to keep it from us being able to be in a position where you can manipulate the machines, manipulate the records. The 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.

A (54:37)

Let'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.

B (54:45)

We can't mandate, as you know, state elections. We 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. So in a nutshell, I think we should be mandated. Mandating that we have a paper ballot with a standardized machine, standardized requirement, mandating

A (55:08)

the paper ballot going 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. Instead, the joint session is suspended. This is January 6th. While each house meets separately to debate the objection and vote, whether, based on the objection, to count the vote or votes in question, both Houses must vote separately to agree to the objection. Otherwise the objection fails and the votes or votes are counted. These procedures have been invoked twice since the enactment of the 1887 law. The first was an instance of what has been called the faithless elector problem. In 1969, and 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 in Speragnew, instead cast his vote for George Wallace. Both chambers met and voted separately to reject the objection. So when the joint session resumed, the challenge electoral vote had counted as cast in 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 preceding it. It says, upon the reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections. 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 of Representatives before the same shall be received, when 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. And the speaker of the House shall, in like manner, submit any objections to the House of Representatives for its decision. The President of the Senate is overseeing all of this, the Vice President of the United States. And 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, where we see clearly what exactly happened. Where Bernie Sanders in 2004 said, I agree with tens of millions Americans who are worried when they cast a ballot, there is no paper record to record it. Nancy Pelosi says she wanted to object to the state of Ohio certifying the results. Richard Nixon himself, as the President of the Senate, discarded the governor certified results in his own favor and put them in JFK's favor. That was 1960. Similar action in the 1876 election and even 1800 election. Congress will be meeting on January 6th, overseen by the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence. Whatever Mike Pence does, I'm sure, will be in coordination and approval from the President of the United States, President Trump. We have gone through, I think, very thoroughly exactly what this process entails. But even through all of the letter of the law, all of the statute, basically the best reading that I could take away is this. It's up for Mike Pence to decide. There is so much power given, plenary power to the vice president in this case, that it's really on him. And whatever he does and whatever he decides in coordination with President Trump will be the right decision. But there are a lot of options. I want to do our final segment here on a story that has really been bothering me and irritating me. Let'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 days. Just an inconceivable story. And it really sums up a cultural rot we have in our country that must be addressed and removed. Cut 25.

B (59:18)

One of her classmates waited for her to be accepted by university before publicly releasing a four year old social media video in which she used a racial slur. The video went viral and destroyed her life. She was forced to withdraw from her college and was kicked off a cheer team. She was publicly humiliated on the Internet and by the press.

A (59:43)

So if you haven't heard of this story, it's, it's stunning. So there's this young lady, I'm gonna get her name. I can't remember her name. 15 years old, does a 3 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. It'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. That's not exactly breaking news. So I believe she was singing alongside. Her name is Mimi Groves singing alongside this song. And 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. So Mimi Groves has to explain why she was singing rap lyrics when she was 15 years old. The 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. They're 15 years old. Who cares if they were 19 years old, it wouldn't make any difference. So this Jimmy Galligan, this black kid who, who came out and decided to ruin her life, publicizes it and almost enjoys it. This kid, this punk is what he is. Jimmy Galligan says, quote, I'm gonna remind myself, you started something, you taught someone a lesson. See how good of a person he thinks he is because he got Mimi Groves removed from college on the cheerleading roster. A national news story. Now all of this is just the story because the New York Times wrote a long piece about this basically glorifying assassination culture. Don't call it cancel culture. I hate that term. It's assassination culture. It is completely Irrelevant. What Mimi did when she was 15 years old. That's what 15 year olds do. Stupid things. You grow up, you mature, you learn from it. So she now has to spend the rest of her life explaining that she's more than a three second video. Of course she is. Where this punk Jimmy Galligan acts as if he's a good person because he shares a three year old video to destroy this young lady's life. This Jimmy Galligan kid should be kicked out of college for doing this. Instead, the New York Times platforms him. Do 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? The 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 that is nonsense, race baiting crap. From the New York Times. So 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. And we need to stand up against this wherever it comes. And this punk Jimmy Galligan, I hope he learns his lesson. And if you are associated with the University of Tennessee Divest all of your money. They are an immoral, cowardly institution. And that's what we're doing at Turning Point USA through Divest U. Thank you guys for listening. If you want to email us your questions, you can do that@freedomarliekirk.com Please check out charliekirk.com for the latest news and information. And if you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com that's tpusa.com where we play offense with a sense of urgency to win America's culture war. Get engaged, get involved with the work we are doing on high school and college campuses across the country@tpusa.com thank you guys so much for listening. God bless. Speak to you soon.