On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, two-time Attorney General William Barr has given his resignation letter to President Trump. He fought for the law, and the president and was no Jeff Sessions. Barr was prevented by rule 6.e which prevents the Attorney General from releasing information about ongoing grand jury investigations, which included Hunter Biden. Barr was an excellent Attorney General, a real class-act and this program salutes him. Then, on January 6th, 2021 the Archivist of the United States will transfer the electoral votes to a joint session of the US Congress. In 1960 Hawaii challenged the electoral votes in the race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The fraud was evident but Nixon chose not to rock the boat, per se. Finding the 2020 election fraud is like a game to the media and Democrats akin to hide-and-seek. Later, the founders feared two kinds of tyranny — the mob (pure democracy) and the monarchy (the central government)! The Democrats are systemically destroying the Constitution on a state by state basis since they don’t have the momentum to get a constitutional amendment passed in Congress. So they have used unconstitutional means like lawsuits and judicial activism to circumvent the rules and now there isn’t a court in America with enough courage to stand up for the Constitution because so many of them have been compromised.
THIS IS FROM:
Twitter
AG Bill Barr Resignation Letter
Archives
Electoral College Timeline of Events
Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Hawaii was the ‘Florida’ of 1960 election (November 18, 2020)
The Blaze
Horowitz: Now the federal judiciary has forfeited its right to determine ALL political questions
Newsbusters
FLASHBACK: Four Years Ago, ABC Was Excited Hillary Wasn’t ‘Going Away’
Fox News
Joe Biden promises to ‘cure cancer’ if elected president (June 11, 2019)
Reuters
U.S. expects to have immunized 100 million against COVID-19 by end of March –Slaoui
The Blaze
Flashback: Experts, media orgs said it was ‘impossible’ to develop a vaccine by the end of the year
Daily Caller
Hunter Biden Called His Father And Chinese Business Partner ‘Office Mates’ In September 2017 Email
The Post Millennial
Progressive watchdog Media Matters paints China as victim of GOP “fearmongering”
MRC TV
TV Journalists Flat-Out Lying About Hunter Biden’s Laptop
Fox News
Warnock praised Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam as ‘important’ in 2013 speech
Washington Times
Omar, Tlaib, Sarsour to headline Georgia Senate event as Warnock fights anti-Semitism claims
Breitbart
Bill Gates: We Won’t Be Back to Normal Until Early 2022
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Chip Somodevilla
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
This is our last week. Until I take off for two weeks in a row, and so I hope you’ll stick with us this week, a lot’s already happening. I happen to be a big fan of Bill Barr. It was just announced that he will be stepping down, I believe, on Christmas. This is the second time he’s become attorney general. And I think he’s been a terrific attorney general. I really do. People don’t understand that an attorney general cannot announce an ongoing investigation if he does, he’s committed a felony, he’s obstructed justice. It’s that simple. We may not want it that way, but it is that way. It is that way. So he was not going to reveal information that was going on in front of a grand jury because that would be a crime. And so he couldn’t make an announcement. It is a problem, maybe that law needs to be changed the law. Particularly as it relates to a presidential election, but Barr couldn’t change it. And I think he fought hard for justice, I think he fought hard for the rule of law and I think he fought hard for the president. Which are the requirements of an attorney general when you compare his tenure to Jeff Sessions? You can understand what I mean. The way he confronted Mueller in the Mueller report. What they tried to do to Bill Barr, including hold him in contempt. You remember that hearing in front of a House Judiciary Committee? Remember? So I will not be counted among those who trash Attorney General Bar, I happen to think he did a fantastic job and there’s few others who could have withstood the attacks that he did, just like the president, the few others that could withstand the attacks against him. And I’m going to read you a letter that Attorney General Barr submitted to the president of the United States. And you’ll see what a class act he is, as is the president. And, of course, the media, anonymous sources, was talking about how they hate each other. Clearly they don’t. The president issued a very positive tweet about 30 minutes or so, give or take, and he also attached the attorney general’s letter. And what I’ve seen these two men together, just so you know, and I have on several occasions, they seem to truly like each other and respect each other. And I also happen to know the Pilbara decided to come back into the Justice Department a second time as attorney general because he was very concerned about way the president and the administration was being treated. He’s a very wealthy man. He didn’t have to come back and deal with any of this, but he chose to. So put the spin doctors away, put the anonymous sources away, I want to read you the letter from the attorney general to the president. Dear Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to update you this afternoon and the department’s review of voter fraud allegations in the 2012 election and how these allegations will continue to be pursued. At a time when the country so deeply divided is incumbent on all levels of government and all agencies acting within their purview to do all we can to assure the integrity of elections and promote public confidence in their outcome. I am greatly honored that you called on me to serve your administration and the American people once again as attorney general, I am proud to have played a role in the many successes and unprecedented achievements you have delivered for the American people. Your record is all the more historic because you accomplished it in the face of relentless, implacable resistance. You’re 20 16 victory speech in which you reached out to your opponents and called for working together for the benefit of the American people. Was immediately met by a partisan onslaught against you in which no tactic, no matter how abusive and deceitful, was out of bounds. The nature of this campaign was the effort to cripple, if not ouster, administration with frenzied and baseless accusations of collusion with Russia. Few could have weathered these excuse-me attacks, much less forge ahead with a positive program for the country. You built the strongest and most resilient economy in American history, one that has brought unprecedented progress to those previously left out. You restored American military strength by brokering historic peace deals in the Middle East. You have achieved what most thought impossible. You’ve curbed illegal immigration and enhanced the security of our nation’s borders. You have advanced the rule of law by appointing a record number of judges committed to constitutional principles. And with Operation Warp Speed, you delivered a vaccine for coronavirus on a schedule no one thought conceivable, a feat that will undoubtedly save millions of lives. During your administration, the Department of Justice has worked tirelessly to protect the public from violent crime, a crime worked closely with leaders in Mexico to fight the drug cartels, crackdown on China’s exploitation of our economy. And workers defended competition in the marketplace, especially the technology sector, and supported the men and women of law enforcement who selflessly and offer this often fecklessly with risked their lives to keep our communities safe. As discussed, I will spend the next week wrapping up a few remaining matters important to the administration and depart on December twenty third, wishing you, Malani and your family a merry Christmas and a blessed holiday season. God bless. Sincerely, William P. Barr. What a class act. And I, for one, am thankful he was the attorney general for the remaining years of the president’s at least first term. Yeah, he was a class act and he is a class act. And I consider him a friend, even though we’re not bosom buddies, I consider my friend and I admire him a great deal. And so that is that and by the way, because of that letter, he will now be attacked by the media who will now be attacked by the pseudo conservatives who will now be attacked by the never Trump. He could have done what the others do, Madison and Kelly and Bolton and so forth, and started trashing the president. He didn’t do any of that because he’s a class act. He understands the problems going on in this country. I’m going to read something to you I want on the website of the National Archives. Why does that matter? Because the National Archives is involved in the Electoral College process. Did you know that? The archivist of the United States collects the electors votes. And then he or she turns those votes over a joint session of Congress. Here’s the process that not a single newsroom has shared with you. December eight, which is past, of course, states are typically resolving controversies. They make final decisions over the appointment of their electors six days before the meeting of the electors. So the electoral votes will be presumed valid when presented to Congress. This is why you saw these lawsuits, and it was absolutely unconscionable. And I’m going to get into this deeply today for these courts to do what they did, dismiss one after another, particularly the constitutional challenges. And that’s what I’m going to focus on. December 14th, today, the electors meet in their respective states and vote for president or vice president on separate ballots, the electors record their votes on six certificates of vote, which are paired with the six remaining certificates of ascertainment. The electors sign SEAL and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one certificate of ascertainment and one certificate of assets in the weeds. I’m just telling you. December 23. Electoral votes arrive, electoral votes called the certificates, a vote must be received by the president of the Senate and the archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. If votes are lost or delayed, the archivist’s may take extraordinary measures to receive duplicate originals. Owner before January three, twenty twenty one, the archive has transferred certificates to Congress as the new Congress assembles on January 3rd. The archivist transmits sets of certificates to Congress. This generally happens when the Senate does not receive its set of certificates on time. Now, here’s the key date. January 6th is the key date. Not today, and you’re not going to hear this anywhere else. I’m not trying to give you false hope. I’m not trying to give you anything. Here’s the fact. Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The vice president is president of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The president of the Senate, who is the vice president, then declares which persons, if any, had been elected president and vice president of the United States. If any objections to electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate would draw to the respective chambers to consider the merits of the objections and the procedures set up by federal law. If no presidential candidate wins at least seventy seven electoral votes, a majority of 538. Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the House of Representatives decides the presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the president by majority vote, choosing from among three candidates received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by the state, by the state, which each state having one vote. So in other words, what would happen in the House is each delegation gets one vote. The point being, there’s a majority Republican delegations, if no vice presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes under the 12th Amendment, the Senate elects the vice president if necessary. The Senate would elect the vice president by majority vote. Each senator having one vote. Now, as this process goes on, it does become harder and harder and harder to reverse course. But the final step is on January 6th. January 6th. Now, Pennsylvania. In Georgia, the Republicans in those states have set have sent alternative. Votes. Or to the archivist of the United States, the Democrat electors have met and they have voted that Joe Biden won their electoral votes. And that will be sent to the archivist of the United States. However. The Republican Party elector’s. Have decided at the request of the White House that they’re going to send their votes and their electors also to the archivist of the United States. So now you have a set. Of electors sent by Pennsylvania from the Republicans and a set of electors sent by Georgia, the Michigan Republicans were going to do exactly the same thing. But the fascistic governor there literally had state troopers block the legislative entry. So the electors couldn’t meet the Republican electors to send their electors to the archivist, I suppose they could meet somewhere else. So she wants to decide the whole thing rather than Congress. I want to take you back to a little history lesson. 1960. I’m telling you, that’s why I’m telling you, you should listen to this, because you’re not going to hear it anywhere else. You’re just going to hear the same about in. New states electoral votes went to Nixon first and then the Kennedy. This is a piece. November 18, 2000, 2010, the Honolulu Star Bulletin editorial. The 1960 race here in the islands, the first election Hawaii faced as a state made Electoral College history when Hawaii elected one president, then reversed itself during a bitter recount, forcing two different sets of electoral delegates to cast votes. In 1960, the Electoral College consisted of 537 members of which Hawaii had three, the majority to win then was 269. The initial results are the. Moderate election showed Vice President Richard Nixon with one hundred and forty one votes ahead of John Kennedy, in a way. One hundred and forty one votes, and so the new state’s three electoral votes were officially cast with Nixon. But the Democrats didn’t give up. The Hawaii vote was so close that a recount was inevitable, both parties made charges of voter fraud, although a court investigation later showed no evidence of tampering. Electors nationwide were scheduled to cast their ballots on December 19 that year. But the Hawaii recount was still underway when that date approached. Hawaii’s Republican electors cast votes that day for Nixon. And one minute later, Democratic electors cast their three votes for Kennedy. Although the Hawaii attorney general’s office declared that the only official electoral votes will go to Nixon and that the Hawaii recount itself would need a recount if results showed Kennedy ahead, Governor William Quinn, a Republican, notify Congress that Hawaii’s votes were Republican. The recount was completed by Christmas, December 25th, and showed Kennedy carrying Hawaii by 115 votes. Notice how they always find votes. The circuit court ruled that Hawaii is three electoral votes should go to the Democrats. But the governor’s office waffled on making the notification by the time it was decided a new certificate was necessary. Only two days remain before Congress convening on January six. A letter to Congress saying a certificate was on the way it arrived. Both sets of electors were sent and they chose the Kennedy electors. I’ll explain more about this when I return.
Hour 1 Segment 2
We only have a minute, so we’ll listen to a little bit when we come back, I want to talk about the grave and I mean grave failures of the United States Supreme Courts and our judiciary, how they let down the American people, how they undermined a very simple clause of the United States Constitution, whether it’s Pennsylvania or Georgia or Michigan or a number of other states that unconstitutionally change their voting requirements and their election rules, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do its job and defend the United States Constitution. And I want to delve into this in more detail when we return.
Hour 1 Segment 3
All right, let’s get down to business. Smartest audience of audiences anywhere probably know this by memory. Article two. Of your Constitution section, section one, clause two. It’s in plain English, so even John Roberts and Sotomayor. Embraer. Kagan and the others can understand it, I don’t know how much more clearly the framers of the Constitution could have been each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct. A number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress. So you add up the number of senators and members of the House for purposes of the Electoral College. That’s how many votes they have. Now, what is the purpose of the Electoral College? Does anybody know? Yes, we know. They will count the votes. They will determine if the votes are proper. That is Congress, and then they will confirm or not the president and vice president of the United States. What is perplexing to me is the incoherence, an intentional, misleading, perhaps. We the people, by they, the media, by rhinos, by Democrats and all the rest of the reprobate. There’s an electoral college for reason. Jake Tapper won’t understand this. In fact, I don’t think virtually anybody in newsrooms understand this or care to understand it. Our presidents are not chosen by the popular vote. They’re chosen by an electoral college and then they’re checked by the new Congress. There was a great fear early in our republic. About two kinds of tyranny, the mob. And the monarchy. The mob, pure democracy, the monarchy, centralized, iron fisted government. The framers of the Constitution were enlightened men. And they debated hard how this constitution should be constructed. This Electoral College was one of the issues that took up most of their time. That in the office of the presidency. The nature of the judiciary in the Supreme Court took up almost none of their time because they figured. They figured it wouldn’t figure that big into our system, but it has, of course. The Democrats have made it clear they want to remove the Electoral College short of removing it. That is short of getting an amendment to remove it. They are destroying it. State by state. But in order to destroy it state by state, you got to get around the state legislatures. This past election in Pennsylvania, in Georgia, in Michigan and in other key states, that’s exactly what the Democrats did. How do they do it? They went into these states and they identified who their friends were and who their enemies were. Stacey Abrams in Georgia brings a lawsuit as to a number of her surrogates. Because they believe in good government, it’s because they believe in the Democrat Party, so they try and change the rules to advantage them. Not to prevent fraud, but to enshrine it. Why in the world would you weaken the signature requirement in Georgia, unless your purpose is to ensure that people vote who shouldn’t be voting so they institutionalized fraud votes that previously that is before the consent decree. Would have been cast the way they were cast after the consent decree would have been fraught, they would have been rejected. This election, they recounted, this is why the president of the United States is so furious with the governor of Georgia who can call an emergency session, bring in the Republican legislature and put that requirement back. That’s Stacey Abrams and the secretary of state removed unconstitutionally. And there’s not a damn court in the country that wants to hear that case, not one. Pennsylvania was even worse. Putting aside the unbelievable violations of their own state constitution by the state legislature, failing to amend their constitution for the mail and vote, putting that aside is a secondary issue at this point. For the argument I’m making. The governor, the secretary of state and the Democrats on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania elected. Change the election laws, are any of them part of the legislature, not one of them, they eliminated signatures, they eliminated signature comparisons, they eliminated postal dates, they extended the voting time and more. They eliminated effectively the ability of Republicans to observe counts in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia being one of the most corrupt cities on the face of the Earth. Why did they do that? Because they wanted. They wanted ballots to be counted that previously were not counted. But they clearly violated Article two, Section one, clause two of the United States Constitution. That’s two states. Same things happened in Michigan and other states. And the United States Supreme Court would not take it up. They wouldn’t take it up, each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct. The legislature sets the election laws, the legislature and only solely, unequivocally the legislature. Determines. How elections are to be held, the legislature determines how electors are to be chosen, even whether there’s an election or not. The legislature decides, but no longer. No longer. By not acting, the United States Supreme Court acted. By counting the electors that the Democrats are presenting as part of the Electoral College, the archivist of the United States and the Congress of the United States on January six. There no longer is an Article two, Section one, clause two of the Constitution, the Supreme Court just eliminated it. Because of the Democrats. They eliminated in Pennsylvania, they eliminated it in Georgia, they eliminated in Michigan, they eliminated it in Nevada and Arizona and Wisconsin. Because they don’t want to disenfranchise people. Those votes. Were illegal and unconstitutional until these so-called public officials took their unconstitutional actions. So now they’re counted and now we can’t disenfranchise votes that months ago. Would never have been counted, no, by all means. And then we play this game fraud, let’s find the fraud. Now, there’s tons of fraud out there, but this case was presented to the United States Supreme Court, a straightforward, flat out federal constitutional question, federal constitutional case. And they wouldn’t take it. They wouldn’t take it. Friend of mine, as I was walking, Marty, our dog comes up to me, it’s not a lawyer. He says, what’s the point of a Supreme Court if they can’t even stand up to this? And we know this court and the other courts, for instance, we have these judges, including on the Supreme Court and elsewhere, they take illegal, unconstitutional acts like dakka that was created by Obama, clearly illegally writing legislation from the Oval Office. And through his agencies, they come up with a cockamamie argument thanks to the chief justice of the United States about the Administrative Procedures Act. Now, we have a federal judge that directs the president of the United States to institute Dacca, directing the president of the United States to institute an unconstitutional act that was never passed by Congress. That’s OK. Massachusetts versus EPA, as I talked about, what was that, 2005 or six or seven? There, the Supreme Court gives standing to a state that has no standing. Because they like the outcome five to four, they want carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, even though any third grader that’s taken a basic science class knows it’s not, but it didn’t matter. Standing was conferred on somebody that didn’t have it. Texas brings a case. Oh, you don’t have standing, even though specifically in the Constitution, it says when you have a conflict with the states, its original jurisdiction. Well, not in this Supreme Court, it’s not. You have repeated violations of Article two, Section one, clause two of the United States Constitution that says only that state legislatures can make the law when it comes to elections and selecting electors. How many more briefs does the damn Supreme Court need? But they ducked. And now you have the same disgusting, unconscionable, putrid left wing Democrats dressed up as journalists going on and on about how Trump is a poor loser. He needs to to quote the. Al Gore, the big one, give up the ghost, we have legal analysts at National Review and on TV digging into the to the niceties of footnotes in the in the litigation to show how smart they are when they don’t even pick up the damn constitution and read it. You know why the Supreme Court wouldn’t take up this case? They didn’t take it this case, because three of the justices make it four, including the chief justice of the United States, one of the result, Roberts despises Trump and the three Democrats on the court. They do whatever the hell they want and they pretend it’s constitutional. Who else? Gorsuch is a gutless wonder Pavano, who you fought for, gutless wonder. Next election. What do you think the Democrats and the left are going to do in these states, this is now the new baseline. They’re going to determine what they need to win the states and they’ll make the changes and the Supreme Court’s now created the precedent. Our doors are locked, they are locked. Don’t you can come here with an article to claim we want nothing to do with you? So one of the most vital aspects of our Republican system. Which the framers of the Constitution spent days debating to protect the country from the mob and the monarchy. Is gone. Thanks to the justices of the Supreme Court. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
There’s a great piece at The Blaze by our friend Daniel Horowitz, we finally discovered an instance in which the courts will enforce requirements for standing and refuse to adjudicate broadly political questions. Now it’s time for conservatives to treat every court decision that violates rules of standing and the principle of federalism as null and void. Well, all these principled conservatives who are cheering the court’s decision in Texas lawsuit stand with us in opposing judicial supremacism in all its forms. In recent years, the federal courts have waded into every political issue imaginable. They prevented states from enforcing federal immigration law when not only greenlighting states to criminalize federal law, but preventing the federal government from cutting off funding to sanctuary cities. They prevented states from defining marriage, upholding basic sexuality or placing common sense health regulations on abortion clinics. They prevented states from cleaning out homeless encampments and from simply declining to fund castration surgery in prison or through Medicaid funding. They’ve also prevented states from requiring able bodied Medicaid recipients to even attempt to seek employment. For a while, it appeared there was nothing a state or even the feds could do without a federal court violating the rules of standing to give some straw man third party organization, often on behalf of illegal aliens, standing to sue to overturn an outcome of a fundamentally political issue and decide it with finality. Those same courts have no problem when states thumb their noses at federal immigration law, when they violate every individual right known to man in under the guise of fighting the coronavirus. In other words, these judges believe in states rights when the outcome benefits the left and they believe in a strong federal government with final court adjudication. When it benefits the left, they believe in protecting rights, so-called, when they are invented, but not real rights spelled out in the Constitution. Heads the left wins. Tails we lose. There’s one problem, the only reason we are in the position we are today with a broken election system full of mail in ballots and ballot harvesting, is precisely because the federal courts officially commandeered state election laws for the past generation. Yes, the federal courts are button into every state decision on election law, except those interventions were OK because they benefited Democrats. Republicans have controlled many key state governments in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan from 2010 to twenty eighteen and pass. Voter integrity laws are enforced, existing ones during those years, every step of the way, federal courts gave standing to strawman plaintiffs to block every election integrity measure imaginable. In fact, to this day, Democrats hold the governorship in North Carolina solely because of ballot harvesting that is prohibited under state law but forced upon them by the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. To this day, photo I.D. is not required in North Carolina, despite conservatives working hard to enacted into law the same sports circuit. Got it. It Democrats also hold two extra House seats thanks to the Fourth Circuit destroying the election map. Likewise, in Arizona, Republicans controlled state government for as far as one can remember. But over the past generation, nearly every voter integrity law has been thrown out by the 9th Federal Circuit, often in cases where the laws of nature were approved by ballot initiative with overwhelming support. And the Supreme Court has sided with the wayward lower court most of the time. Every time Arizona has tried to stem the tide of illegal aliens, the courts have come after the state. This has created a cascading effect of illegal aliens being able to remain in large urban areas and be counted in the census. Numerous pieces of federal legislation have been passed by a margin that is entirely garnered through counting of illegal aliens in the census. How is that lawful? The entire premise and precedent for the current electoral model that Democrats abused this year was created wholesale by the lower federal courts that the pathetic Supreme Court has failed to police. Specifically in this election, the League of Women Voters suit in federal court to have Pennsylvania signature validation process on mail in ballots countermanded. As a result of that federal lawsuit, the Pennsylvania secretary of state made a settlement that unilaterally gutted state law allowing hundreds of thousands of extra ballots to be counted without proper verification, which is likely why the rejection rate this year for mail in ballots was implausibly low. Similar settlement resulting from a federal lawsuit took place in Georgia as well. As always, the federal courts tampered with every aspect of North Carolina’s election process, but that Democrats came up slightly short, although suspiciously close. This brings us to the court, the Supreme Court notice a pattern here. There never seems to be a problem of federalism in Article three standing when lower federal courts want to shred existing state law in order to benefit Democrats. Somehow, the Supreme Court rarely reverses these opinions before elections. Then when we seek redress for the fallout that was largely enabled over the last 10 years and during this particular election from the federal judiciary’s foray into state powers in the first place, we’re told the Supreme Court wants to stay in. As we speak, a federal judge in Georgia is considering whether to add 200000 voters to the Georgia voter rolls prior to the runoff. This isn’t about Trump. It’s not even about future elections. This is about a fundamentally rigged federal judiciary and political system that has one rule of engagement that’s consistent heads that Democrats win, tails the people lose. There’s your damn court and your damn Supreme Court. Of course, they’re not political. Ladies and gentlemen. No, no, no, no, no. They don’t want to get involved.