Big Moves Taking Place In The Last 48 Hours Concerning This Election – Tune in now for an important update on the 2020 election! 18 States have now joined Texas in challenging the election results, and more updates of the last 48 hours!

Air Date: 12/11/2020

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note: As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

 

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live, where we’re talking about today’s hottest topics on policy and faith and the culture. We appreciate you joining us so we can take a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective to all those things, especially the election right now, more than a month later, still battling it out and some big moves in the last 48 hours in the Supreme Court cases, and other people filing in those cases, so a lot of things happening. We’re here with David Barton and Tim Barton, my name is Rick Green, and we’re going to catch you up. Yesterday, we didn’t get to cover much, so we’re going to dive into what’s been happening across the country. Guys, let’s start with well, once again, Pennsylvania.

David:

Yeah, Rick, we talked about Pennsylvania, and actually, I want to talk about the Texas version that was filed at the Supreme Court original jurisdiction. We talked about that how go straight to the court. And Texas is actually challenging what happened in four states, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and Arizona, and Pennsylvania. And so what’s happened is the Pennsylvania attorney general has responded to the Texas lawsuit. And so the Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, he has really come out against Texas and the lawsuit. And I love what he says here because of how ridiculous it is. He says that this lawsuit is an attempt to disenfranchise large swaths of voters and undermine the legitimacy of the election. He said, “Texas request is for the court to exercise its original jurisdiction, and then anoint Texas as preferred candidate for president. That request is legally indefensible. It’s an affront to the principles of constitutional democracy.” And then he argued that just because Texas doesn’t like the results of the election, it can overturn it. Timeout.

Texas didn’t sue over the results of the election, it sued over the fact that those four states arbitrarily changed election law on the eve of election without going through the legislature, which what the election clause of the Constitution requires. There’s nothing that filing about, we don’t like the way the election ended up because of the outcome. We don’t like the process. We don’t like violating the law. So when I read this from the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, I went back to, Rick, you probably got this in Basic Law School 101 back when you’re in law school. But the adage, I remember the adage says “When the law is on your side, argue the law, when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts or the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack.” And that’s exactly what he did. You didn’t have anything to do with the law or the facts of the case. I just don’t like what they’re doing, they might win, and that would overturn the election. I thought that was a humorous claim by the Attorney General Pennsylvania. But that happened the last 24 hours.

Tim:

Well, guys, and also looking at this, it’s not far-fetched to think that some people would look at what these challenges are, and think that people are just being bad sports, they don’t want to see Joe Biden become the president. I do see where people could have that impression. But only really you get that impression if you don’t look at what the lawsuits are actually about, because the details are very, very clear. In fact, looking at the Texas law suit as we’re discussing right now, there have been a multitude of states that have joined with Texas signing on, saying that we support what’s happening.

In fact, earlier this week, it was announced, it was up to 18 states right now that have joined with Texas, and challenging the way, dad as you mentioned, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, you said arbitrarily changed the rules. Ultimately, we’re talking about a non-legislative process where you had whether it was state election officers, or a judge or somebody in the capacity outside the legislature was changing the law for how the election was going to take place. And that’s where the challenge comes down is much more with the process of what happened in the election, not the outcome of the election. And as mentioned, there are 18 Republican states that have joined with Texas in this process. They’re still several Republican states that have not joined the process. And it’s possible some of them will come out in support in a little bit. But at least right now, it does seem to be getting a lot of headway going to the US Supreme Court.

Rick:

And if I could get picky for a second, just to say, the process is very important. David’s one of the things that you’ve taught me over the years, and the fact that that attorney general in Pennsylvania said constitutional democracy…

David:

I know.

Rick:

…right, instead of constitutional republic.

David:

I thought the same thing, I said that is exactly right. You want a democracy where the people make every decision on everything, you don’t have a Constitution. We want a republic where the Constitution actually wrote, you’re exactly right.

Rick:

And that’s what we’re arguing to be upheld here is that the Republican form of government would be allowed to take place that the legislature is supposed to make those laws, not some Secretary of State.

David:

Now, interestingly, while 18 states are joined on the Texas, 22 states have filed a brief opposing Texas. And as you can imagine, it’s all the Democrat states and they’re making the same thing. They said Texas is trying to overturn the election. This is a last minute attempt to throw out the results of an election and they go on and on the same way the attorney general from Pennsylvania did.

Now, it’s interesting, Tim mention six Republican States did not go along with the requests of the other Republicans and one of those was Ohio. And the Ohio Attorney General said, hey, we completely side with what Texas is arguing that non-legislative officials can’t change law. He said, however, our objection is we don’t think the Supreme Court should be making the laws for the states either. So we agree with what Texas is saying, we just don’t think the Supreme Court is the one who make the decision. You know what? I can understand that and I don’t have a whole lot of constitutional problems except somebody who’s got to kick this thing off dead center at some point.

The other five states that have not jumped on is Alaska and Idaho, and Kentucky, New Hampshire and Wyoming. And amazingly, the governor of Alaska said, well, we didn’t have time to read the brief and get on with it. Wait a minute, we’ve had several days go by and other states are joining days later. And by the way, while the governor of Alaska said he didn’t have time, the legislature in Alaska apparently did have time. And we talked to some of the legislators, they’ve already filed a brief on behalf of the legislature. So it’s interesting that it is becoming polarized even that case as being presented to the Supreme Court.

Tim:

Well, as you mentioned, the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, not being the exact position of Texas with what he filed for the US Supreme Court. He did argue that in the process, federal courts, just like other courts lack authority to order legislators to appoint electors without regard to the results of an already completed election. But here’s what’s significant. He acknowledges that it supposed to be the legislative process that happens, but that’s what the entire Texas case is about, is that the legislative process was not followed. And this is where the idea is that there’s a level of check and balance.

And when people are not following the Constitution, this is one of the things the Supreme Court can do. Actually, even under original jurisdiction, this is something directly from the Constitution that when states have problems with their states, they can go to the Constitution to help find a resolution remedy. And so this is where, even though we appreciate the sentiments of the Attorney General from Ohio, we would argue that he’s missed part of the concept, because the challenge is that the legislative bodies did not change the law and that’s why Texas is bringing this suit before the US Supreme Court.

Rick:

Yeah, and I have to say, guys, this guy in Alaska, not having time to read the brief, I mean, come on, this is probably the most important brief you’re going to read for the next few years, the fate of the Republic is at stake here, upholding the Constitution is at stake. I will admit, I read it, I had to read it at one o’clock in the morning, but I found time to read it. It’s that important. And in fact, we ought to encourage our listeners to read it as well. We could even put it on the website today because it really does break down everything the three of us have been saying for the last four or five weeks. This case actually articulates all of those different points that we’ve been talking about. So it’d be a good read for our listeners.

Tim:

And the question would be, what were you doing with all of your time as a state legislator if you didn’t have time to read this, what did you think was more important? Because I might grant you yes, family, spouse, kids, okay, that I’m going to give you, that takes precedent. Beyond that, this is your job. What else are you doing? And so this is where it is. It does seem much more political when someone says, I don’t really have time to read that so I’m not going to weigh in on this. Well, then you make time to read it, right?

Rick:

It sounds more like I’m not touching that with a 10 foot pole. I don’t want to get weighed into this thing, doesn’t want to take a position, doesn’t want to take a stand. Hey, quick, right, guys, we’ll come back. Congress is getting involved in this and Ted Cruz, little news on Ted Cruz’s involvement in this particular case. Stay with us, folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

BREAK:

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. America is a special and unique nation. The average length for a Constitution in other countries is only 17 years. But we’ve had ours for over two centuries, and our 4% of the world’s population produces 24% of the world’s gross domestic product. And every year, we produce more inventions and technology than the other 96% of the world combined.

In 1831, Alexis de Tocqueville of France came to America, travelled the country, and in his famous book, “Democracy in America” reported, “The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one. This is the origin of the phrase ‘American exceptionalism’ and affirms that America is unique because of the distinctive ideas on which we had been based including inalienable rights, individualism, limited government, and the importance of religion and morality.”

For more information about American exceptionalism, go to wallbuilders.com

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us today. A lot happening in the election we’ve already talked about. The Texas case seems to be the main focus right now, guys, all almost every state either saying for it or against it and weighing in to the US Supreme Court. But it’s not just the states that are weighing in.

David:

Yeah, also weighing in are a bunch of Republican congressmen and you can imagine why. We talked about this two days ago. If the results in Pennsylvania change if they throw out late voting, and they came in after the deadline, but that the judge ordered counted anyway if you take that out, it’s very possible, three congressional seats in Pennsylvania would flip to the Republican side. So no surprise that about 100 and some, I think 106 Republican signed unto a brief in the Supreme Court case saying they think this is really important that the laws be followed the way they are written and they’re agreeing with the Texas brief. And Rick, as you said this brief from Texas, reading that brief, it’s a really good brief. It lays out the arguments, the legal arguments. It’s not about were whining because we didn’t win the election. This is about the future. Because if you can change election laws at will not being a legislator, man, thank what that means for every election coming down the pipe, not just this one. So this is a big issue.

Rick:

Hey, and let’s not forget what people are asking for. They’re asking for free and fair elections, transparency, and verification. And like you said, those three races in Pennsylvania, what if those need to be redone? That’s okay. We did that North Carolina just last year over very, very similar claims that ballot harvesting and all of that caused us to not really know for sure who won. If it was okay to do that in a congressional race last year in North Carolina, why couldn’t they do that in these three races in Pennsylvania? And remember, last year, it was Democrats asking for the election to be redone and the judge agreed to do it. And so you know, it’s about getting the right outcome in terms of a fair outcome and knowing that the legal votes were counted, and not illegal.

Tim:

And just a few details to make sure everybody’s still on the same page. This was something filed by Ken Paxton who is the Attorney General of Texas. And there have been some reports this week, just in the last couple of days that it looks like in Brookhaven, Texas before the break that Ted Cruz might very well be the guy to argue this. It was reported that President Trump had actually called Ted Cruz and asked if he’d be willing to do this? And Ted Cruz has argued many cases before the US Supreme Court as the Solicitor General of Texas, which is the role he had before he was a US senator.

So it’s not a new thing for Ted Cruz to be before the US Supreme Court. And it looks like that he very well could be the guy going back there. And we’ve known Ted Cruz for years. And guys, he is certainly someone that in the Senate, we would say is one of the senators who understands, respects, and tries to uphold the Constitution better than virtually any other senator. So if you’re going to have somebody from Washington, D.C. argue this case, Ted Cruz certainly is a very good option.

David:

There’s not many people who have argued nine cases before the US Supreme Court, and Ted Cruz has argued and won cases at the Supreme Court. And Tim, in addition to him looking at arguing the one for Ken Paxton, which appears that he’s greed to do, we mentioned a couple days ago, they’d also agreed to argue the case coming out of Pennsylvania on behalf of the two congressmen there who sued and that case is before the court. That’s the one that Justice Alito one of the arguments own earlier, so we’re waiting to see what happens with that, whether they take cert or not.

And word went out that the Supreme Court denied the injunction for Pennsylvania and people thought that meant they denied the case, and that’s not what happened. Part of the case was we want an injunction right now against Pennsylvania, and by the way, we want quick relief, and then we’ll argue the case. What the court did was say, no, we’re not going to have quick relief, let’s argue the case. So that case, contrary to what a lot of people thought, the Supreme Court did not reject the Pennsylvania case, at least not yet. They’re still looking to hear that case and they’ll decide what they want to grant cert on that that is accepted or not. But that’s another case, it looks like Ted Cruz has agreed to argue.

Tim:

And guys in the midst of this case, talking about Ted Cruz and looking at those four states and issues they’ve had, this is not the only case going on. We’ve talked about there’s many lawsuits being filed by lots of different attorneys. Sidney Powell is continuing her fight in Wisconsin. On Wednesday, she had one of her lawsuits thrown out that was suggesting, accusing that there was a lot of fraudulent activity, both from eyewitnesses, from statistical anomalies, from experts that came to testify that things just didn’t make sense. And so she is seeking relief, and then a quick review on an appeal process. And so these are things continue to happen.

And one of the things that we have tried to say fairly consistently from the beginning is what we need to pay for is that God helps bring to light more of the fraudulent activity if there was in whatever degree there was. Because if you’re going to go to court, although affidavits can be viable on some level, if the only thing you have is affidavits, if you don’t have any hard proof, it makes it much more difficult for a judge to weigh positively in your favor. And so in the midst of all these lawsuits being filed, this is certainly something that because of all the smoke, it looks like there’s a lot of fire, there’s a lot of fraudulent activity, a lot of cheating that took place.

But in the midst of some of these cases being thrown out and this is where Sidney Powell is right now, she hasn’t had success with many of her lawsuits because they haven’t been able to show more than the statistical anomalies or the affidavits of what people saw and their sworn testimony. And even though those things should have credibility on some level, it’s going to take a little bit more for a Judge to weigh in and change the outcome of these elections. And so that certainly is a [inaudible 14:40] direction for us going forward.

David:

You know, Sidney Powell had some cases thrown out, but a lot of the other cases have also been thrown out. In Nevada, the update from Nevada is the Supreme Court there rejected doing anything with, the case has been going there. A District Court had already ruled in Nevada that the Trump campaign, there wasn’t fraud, they couldn’t prove fraud, and they weren’t going to overturn the election. And so the Trump campaign appealed this to the Nevada Supreme Court, and the Nevada Supreme Court said, we’re not going to do this either. I mean, we’re not going to overturn it.

And Tim, even going back to the Wisconsin case, you had the federal Judge said, , this is a quote from the federal Judge, he said “Federal Judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs which was Sidney Powell, one wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal Judge to do this. What, to appoint the president? I don’t think that’s what the case was about. After a week of sometimes odd and often harried litigation, the court is no closer to answering the why.

Now, this is what’s really interesting, though, we’re seeing at least the plaintiffs complaint in every case. And going back to Nevada, in Nevada, this was the plaintiffs there, the Nevada GOP said, “We’re not afforded an opportunity to write our brief or argue the case in front of the court. Full denial of legitimate due process in appellate rights is truly unprecedented, shocking, and extraordinary.” And that’s the line I keep seeing from every one of these states, is the courts are not picking it up. They’re not even letting us present the evidence. They’re not having a hearing. They’re not conducting like a trial. They’re having oral briefings for an hour, and then decide now we don’t want to overturn the case.

And so what’s happening is they’re not getting to present evidence, or at least, and now I’m not the attorney here, Rick, you’re the attorney, and it could be that plaintiffs think that they’re going to get more opportunity to present evidence in what the court’s going to give them. But nonetheless, at this point, that is a common complaint and came out of Wisconsin and Nevada in past 24 hours as well.

Rick:

You know, David, you said months ago, about a month into the whole COVID thing that virtually every part of the Bill of Rights had been violated. And specifically, the First Amendment, we talked a lot about all five of those had been violated. And what you just described is now a lot of the due process is being violated. So let’s just think of all the areas of the Constitution that based on COVID. We don’t have Republican form of government in these states, we have dictatorships; don’t have due process when we challenge them on that even in this case with election law being overturned or ignored, so a lot of excuses for ignoring the Constitution.

So it’s always a good thing to remind people, even as some Justices have in all of this that the Constitution does not sleep during a pandemic and we’ve got to stop this willingness to give up our constitutional rights just because there’s a pandemic. Quick break, , guys, our final segment, we’ve got some more news on the election from across the country. So stay with us, folks, you’re listening to WallBuilders Live.

BREAK

Have you noticed the vacuum of leadership in America? We’re looking around for leaders of principle to step up and too often, no one is there. God is raising up a generation of young leaders with a passion for impacting the world around them. They’re crying out for the mentorship and leadership training they need. Patriot Academy was created to meet that need.

Patriot Academy graduates now serve in state capitals around America, in the halls of Congress and business, in the film industry, in the pulpit and every area of the culture. They’re leading effectively and impacting the world around them. Patriot Academy is now expanding across the nation and now’s your chance to experience this life changing week that trains champions to change the world. Visit Patriot academy.com for dates and locations.

Our core program is still for young leaders 16 to 25 years old, but we also now have a citizen track for adult, so visit the website today to learn more. Help us fill the void of leadership in America. Join us in training champions to change the world at Patriotacademy.com

Rick:

Welcome back to WallBuilders Live. Thanks for staying with us as we keep you updated on the election. If you visit our website today, wallbuilderslive.com, you can get links to those previous programs where we’ve been covering more of the election. And also, that’s the place you can make that contribution to WallBuilders Live. Help us to speak truth even more loudly and reach more people with it. Let’s get to some more of that truth. What’s happening in Arizona, Tim?

Tim:

Well, this is another state that had another lawsuit that has been thrown out. This one was filed by the Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman, Kelli Ward and she was challenging a lot of the process of the states. And this initially was thrown out by a lower court on December 4th, and it was challenged to the Arizona Supreme Court and it also was thrown out, this one on December 8th. And this is another situation where they were alleging that there was a lot of fraudulent activity, a lot of fraudulent ballots. They were duplicated ballots. There were machines that when they were printing out ballots, it would pre-fill Biden’s name on the ballots more often than it did for Trump.

And her lawsuit led to a court ordered inspection of 1,600 ballots, but then stuff got shut down and thrown out. And so she came out and said she’s very disappointed that not more happened with this. They wanted to do a deeper dive, a deeper inspection to see if there was more stuff there. And so at this point, there are some unresolved questions at least in many people’s mind in Arizona what happened. But right now, the state Supreme Court has thrown out the petition from the state party Chairwoman there in Arizona.

David:

Yeah, it’s interesting that Kelli has some of the same kind of language we were talking about. She was saying it’s disappointing, the court would not permit us to look behind closed doors to review additional material for similar mistakes. And this is what we’re finding everywhere, is that the Secretary of State says, nope, we’ve done it. We’ve had a recount. We’re done. Well, wait a minute. Did you check all the ballots? Did you check that the software? And the courts are just basically saying we’re not going to let you do that.

And so whatever the Secretary of State has said, is kind of where the courts are going. And so it’s not surprising that Sidney Powell is appealing the dismissal of her lawsuit there in Arizona, she’s appealing it. And it’s headed on up the track. She says he’s going to try to get it fast track to the Supreme Court. But again, as we pointed out, there’s already four cases at the Supreme Court. I don’t think the court is short of an opportunity. And quite frankly, I think the Texas opportunity may be the strongest of the four that’s there. And so we’ll see what happens. I don’t know if the court will pick up the case from Pennsylvania that we’ve been talking about. But I think the court would if they picked up the Texas case, they have a lot more stuff they can address constitutionally. And so that might be where they go. But nonetheless, Sidney Powell is appealing the case on up the ladder.

Rick:

And let’s not forget that Arizona is not even one of the defendants in that Texas case. Right? So you don’t need Arizona for the election to potentially be flip. And of course, the claiming against those four states is all about the process and the laws. It’s not even about the fraud. It’s about the fact that election officials broke the law. Like we’ve said from the beginning, you don’t even have to prove the fraud to throw out those states, you can just show that the law was broken. So even without Arizona, any three of those four states that are defendants in the Texas case would change the election.

Tim:

And guys, one of the things we talked about earlier this week, I think it was this week, maybe was last week, they’re kind of running together at this point, I’m not totally sure. But in Michigan, the State Senate Oversight Committee more specifically had called the CEO of Dominion, John Poulos and said you need to come testify. And they said, essentially, if he wasn’t going to respond, they would issue a subpoena and they were going to force him to be there. And so he responded this week, and said that he would send somebody, a representative of the company to go and testify.

And what he said is against the continuing malicious and widespread disinformation campaign. He said, “I appreciate the opportunity to correct the baseless and defamatory claims being made about our systems. They’re harmful, not only to Dominion, but also the countless hardworking election officials across the state, as well as Michigan public officials elected through a fair process.” So he is absolutely holding the position that all of these accusations are baseless.

We happen to know some of the white hat hackers who have claimed that they were able to hack into some of Dominion machines. And so maybe it’s not quite as secured as he thought. It would be interesting to see some of this unfold when the representative from the company does get there. I really hope it’s not like when Google or Twitter or Facebook leaders go before the US Congress or the US Senate and all they do is repeat their couple of sentences and really are dishonest in what they do. Hopefully, we’ll get a little more information from the representative from Dominion. But that’s at least information going forward that there’s a chance we’ll find out more about Dominion, the process, and at least they’ll have a chance to respond to some of the allegations of the corruption and the susceptibility and hackability of their machines.

David:

Going to jump over to Georgia. In Georgia, we know about the election, what’s been happening there and the recounts that have been done, three recounts and what the governor is saying and asking for ballot audits, etc. Well, an outside newsgroup in Georgia, called the Georgia Star News has used the FOIA or the Freedom of Information Act to go to the counties there and say, we want to see the chain of custody evidence that you have on the ballots that were cast there. There’s a whole lot of ballots that were cast absentee. And by law, you have to show the chain of evidence. And chain of evidence just means it has to go from the right hands. If you’re in a criminal trial, the evidence has to be taken by the police and handed off the right people. If some citizen got it in the meantime, they could add stuff to it or take stuff away from it, contaminate it. And you don’t know that it’s really what the police had. And so a lot of times that kind of ends the case at that point, if you can’t show the chain of custody.

Well, there’s 83% of those mail-in ballots in Georgia where they can show the chain of custody, they can’t provide the chain of custody at least so far. They haven’t been able to show that from the time those ballots were delivered or dropped off, whoever they were that all the time till we finish counting them, they were in the hands of election officials only and nobody else got hold of them. And that is a big issue. Because if they were handed over to somebody privately that marked extra ballots or counted them four times or five times or ran them with the machines, which we heard some affidavits claiming that. If you can’t show chain of custody, you got a real issue here. And so that is the new thing up in Georgia is apparently at this point, at least based on freedom of information request, there’s about 83% of those mail-in ballots that they can’t show a chain of custody to.

Tim:

And guys, in the midst of the craziness with the election and the uncertainty of what’s going to happen going forward, a lot of prayers still needs to be going at in the midst of what’s going on. But it is Friday and traditionally on this program, it’s Good News Friday.

Rick:

That’s right.

Tim:

And one of the really cool piece of good news came out this week related to the Abraham Accords, what President Trump has been working on to help normalize relations with Israel and other nations over in the Middle East. This week, Morocco came out, and they are now the fourth country to join in saying that they want to have normalized relations with Israel. And to me, it was very interesting that came out this week, because it does seem like if there’s going to be a change in administration, there’s a lot of uncertainty that some of those nations in the Middle East might be having question marks and saying, no, wait a second, Biden comes in, if Biden picks up the Iran deal, if things change, right, you would seem to think that they might be hesitant to come out and show support of Israel. But that is not what we have seen to this point.

So it is really good news in the midst of craziness of the election, uncertainty again, we need to be praying, fasting for all that’s going on, for God to help bring exposure to the corrupt things and transparency to happen. But there are still good things happening around the world and this Abraham Accord is just one example of it.

Rick:

Well, folks, if you were looking for more good news on our Friday, then go to the website, wallbuilderslive.com, click in the archive section there and go back to some of those previous Good News Friday programs. We load them up every Friday. So check it out at wallbuilderslive.com. And we just ask everybody out there, pray over the weekend, pray for our nation, pray for our US Supreme Court to have wisdom in these very, very big cases that are going to be decided in the coming days. This is going to be a short leash, guys. This is all going to happen in just the next week or two. So please be praying for our country and for wisdom in our leaders as these decisions are made. Again, visit wallbuilderslive.com today.

Thanks so much for listening to WallBuilders Live.