On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, The Supreme Court of Philadelphia has seized authority which it arguably does not have under the federal Constitution to change existing election laws, something that only the state legislature can do. The US Supreme Court agreed to review if they’ll take up this case, but not on an emergency basis. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh opined that the case should be brought and that the schedule should be shortened. Then, today’s hearings on the oligopoly that big technology has become, revealed the bias that tech CEO’s have for dissenting political opinions. When questioned by Senators, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that calls for violence from the Ayatollah were not against Twitter’s terms of service but the NY Posts reporting on Hunter Biden was. Dorsey also said the NY Post was able to tweet from their account, this statement is not supported by fact. Later, the materials submitted to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security by Tony Bobulinski have been vetted and are considered to be credible. This documentary evidence includes the creation of a shell corporation and an unsecured forgivable loan to the Biden’s, which is in effect a gift. Afterward, Blaze TV videographer, Elijah Schaffer, calls in to describe his coverage of the Philadelphia race riots. Schaffer was attacked by a mob of looters and explains how he feared for his life during the attack.
THIS IS FROM:
Breitbart
Miles Taylor Admits He Was ‘Anonymous’ WH Official Behind NYT ‘Resistance’ Op-ed
CNN
See what Miles Taylor said when he was asked if he was ‘anonymous’ in August
Right Scoop
Ted Cruz SCORCHES Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over NY Post Hunter Biden censorship
Legal Insurrection
SCOTUS again denies relief 4-4 in Pennsylvania late ballot case, Barrett doesn’t participate in decision
NY Mag
In Appeal to Hard Left, Bloomberg Praises Chinese Communism (December 2, 2019)
Right Scoop
“It’s chaos out here!” – Another night of terrible looting by Black Lives Matter in Philadelphia
Blaze
BlazeTV reporter beaten while filming the looting inside Philadelphia store
AP
Supreme Court allowing NC absentee ballots to be received and counted up to 9 days after election
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Robert Alexander
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
I was born in Philadelphia and I’m from Philadelphia, and the final hour of this program, we’re gonna get into this. What’s going on in Philadelphia? We have a very courageous young man, Elijah Schaefer, who is a reporter for The Blaze. And you may have seen this on the Internet as he was taking video and reporting on the looting that was taking place. He was brutally assaulted by a number of the BLM membership who are looting and assaulting people. And Joe Biden. Joe Biden couldn’t put out a strong statement condemning them. They always have to talk about injustice. So we need to examine the situation and so forth and so on. The Democrat Party, America is incapable of denouncing looting. And brutality. It won’t do it. Something will be said in passing. On a rare occasion and an appointment, see, we said something. But it is a problem. We’ll get back to that. Number two, Pennsylvania. Again. I’m from Philadelphia, I’m from Pennsylvania. The second time now efforts have been made by Republicans to go to the United States Supreme Court to stop the state Supreme Court from violating Article 2 of the federal Constitution, which is, you know, if you listen to this program provides that the legislatures shall determine the means by which electors are chosen in the Electoral College system. In order to choose a president and a vice president. But the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has seized authority under the federal constitution in violation of the federal Constitution to rewrite election laws, to extend the date on voting, to extend the date on counting the votes. To rule that if signatures don’t match, they’re gonna be counted anyway. That if ballots come in after the deadline and we can’t read the ballot, that is the date of the ballot. There’s still going to be counted. Mostly Democrats on this court. But now the Republicans have joined them because they’re weak. They’re elected. But Alito, Gore, and Thomas put out a very strong statement. A very strong statement, I might add. Cavanaugh is in the for to that. That has been saying this case should be taken up. And what they said was. The question presented by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision calls out for review by this court. As both the state Republican and Democrat parties agree. When the former applied for a stay. But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election. Here’s the kicker. That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review. Although the court denies the motion to expedite the petition for assertion, that is the petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case remains before us. And if it is granted. This case can then be decided under a shortened schedule. So what they’re saying is they’re hoping that this case is granted review by the Supreme Court. They will shorten the schedule. And they will decide whether the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania acted ultra virus that is without authority. In addition, the courts deny all the motion to expedite is not a denial of a request. For this court to order that ballots received after the Election Day be segregated. That if the state Supreme Court’s decision. They’re with me. Cuts off there. In other words, what they’re saying is we might decide. But the ballots counted. Under the state Supreme Court’s order as opposed to under state law. That those ballots won’t be counted or they’ll be altered in terms of the overall count. It was very, very important for. Republicans to bring this matter to a second time before the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, three justices in a row before. Kevin, all three justices said it’s still before us. We’re going to want to look at this if we get the number of justices, we need to accept that it only takes four. And we’ll make a decision, and if that decision rules at the state Supreme Court conducted itself in violation of Article 2 of the federal Constitution, then that will in fact have consequences for Pennsylvania. So you can thank the state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and the Democrats on high court. And now the Republicans. For creating this scenario. And this is one of the reasons the Democrats fought against Amy Coney Barrett being on the court. If she, in fact, is an originalist. She will be tested by fire. Because the originals would hold that article to. Applies to all courts, including the state Supreme Court in Virginia. Now, that court had absolutely no authority under Article 2 to change the existing election laws in the state of Pennsylvania. Only the legislature can do that. So this was a huge, huge day in the Supreme Court. There were no oral arguments. The case is not taken up at this time and on an expedited emergency basis. But the case may well be taken up. So my hat’s off to those Republicans who supported this case, and I know there were Republicans who opposed it. I know there were legal counsel that opposed it. Foolish. Foolish, foolish. The bringing of the case is very important and it’s sitting there in the Supreme Court. For the Supreme Court to take. After the election, this was a big deal. You’re going to hear the Democrats now because I raised a jump up and down. But this is a big deal. Hat tip to write scoop for tipping me off to what was taking place here, I wasn’t aware the decision. It’s very important that the federal constitution not be trumps. And then we get through this election with our constitution intact. Some other news before we jump in. Miles Taylor is anonymous. Miles Taylor, whose Miles Taylor is a nobody. He was chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security under Kirsten Nielson. In other words, he was a Schedule C, a political appointee. He was not a senior staffer in the White House, as The New York Times had suggested. He painted. He penned that 2018 op ed published by The New York Times describing the president impetuous, adversarial, petty, ineffective. Said it was just one of many officials working against the president and was aware of this. And so he was not. He was not. A senior White House official, a day to day activity with the president, the United States. Apparently that didn’t mind matter to The New York Times. Miles Taylor on August 21st, 2020 on CNN because he’s a commentator now on CNN, as you can imagine, lied through his teeth. When he was asked by of all people, Anderson Cooper, if he was anonymous cut. Twenty-three go there was not bad. There was a book by someone calling themselves Anonymous. Are you aware of who that is? I’m not looking. That was a parlor game that happened in Washington, D.C. if a lot of folks trying to think of who that might be. I’ve got my own thoughts about who that might be. But, you know, we’re not. You’re not a president. And I certainly don’t want to. I wear a mask for two things, Anderson. Halloween’s and pandemics. So now Nick Kelly lies through his teeth. Mr. Producer. And there were a lot of people out there where there were guesses being made about who might be. About who that might be, including Victoria. In the including people in the national security staff who deserve an apology. But no, it was Miles Taylor. And he writes this book and he writes this op ed as if he’s a senior official at the White House with regular contact with the president, the United States, who was none of those things. He was a relatively low level political appointee. In the Department of Homeland Security, under a dismissed cabinet secretary. And look, Kelly was promoted. Look, look how the media promoted in The New York Times in particular. He writes a book. And he knows nothing. Then he’s on CNN. Two months ago. He specifically asked, he not only lies through his teeth. Look how deceitfully is. He was trying to think about who that might be. He’s got his own thoughts on who it might be. It was him. Him. And the Times defended running the anonymous op ed, writes Breitbart, noting that it adds significant value to the public’s understanding of what is going on in the Trump administration from someone who is in a position to know. That’s what they said at the time. And it fueled weeks of cable news, speculation about the identity. Waste of the time of the American people. Guy was a fraud from day one, he didn’t know crap other than gossip and other things have probably told him by his former cabinet secretary. That’s the nature of the media today. In the meanwhile, the Biden family corruption story has exploded. And these same news outlets have no interest whatsoever. The New York Times, CNN and all the rest of them. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
I get e-mails about how people repeat the little one liners I use. It’s just very bizarre. One of the things I’ve said is that Joe Biden under the standard they used against the current president, the United States. If, God forbid, he’s elected president, is going to be impeached or can be impeached immediately. Course, the Republicans have controlled the House for all that’s been going on with this scandal involving Ukraine. Russian, of course, his son. So I understand somebody today mentioned impeachment. Yes. I mean, it’s true. But the Democrats don’t care because they’re ignoring completely. This massive scandal and in fact, today the Biden campaign will not even respond, not never respond to the on the record in person comments that were being made by Tony Bobulinski. Now we’re gonna get to this story in the second hour. But this hour, I want to talk about big tech. This isn’t a free market issue because big tech is protected by the federal government last time I checked. That’s not a free market issue. Big tech, this oligopoly, if you will, has protection. It’s called that rule to 30 that needs to be repealed so they can be subjected to the same kind of potential lawsuits that broadcast companies are subjected to publishing houses. It’s still a high a high bar, but at least there’s a bar. At least there’s a bar. Not the case. With these high tech companies now, there are a couple of periods of questioning that were really quite good. By Ted Cruz. Byron Johnson in particular. Mike Lee. And they really pressed them. And by the way, this Twitter guy, Jack Dorsey, what? What’s with that beard? My God, he looks anyway. That’s a whole ‘nother story. So the oligarchs were, in fact. Testifying today, although mostly virally, makes it much, much harder, much more difficult. But let’s begin this somewhat continue after the bottom of the hour as well. Jack Dorsey is most of he knows the Twitter CEO, he’s had a Senate hearing today. The Senate Judiciary Committee. And Ted Cruz begins the questioning. Hat tip, right, scoop. Got to go. This Twitter have the ability to influence elections. No, you don’t believe Twitter has any ability to influence elections. Now, we are one part of a full spectrum of communication channels that people have. So you testified to this committee right now that that Twitter, when it silences people, when it censors people, when it blocks political speech, that has no impact on elections. People people have a choice of other communication channels, but we’re not. Not if they don’t hear information. If you don’t think you have the power to influence elections, why do you block anything? Well, we have policies that are focused on making sure that more voices are possible. We see a lot of abuse and harassment in terms of silencing people and having them leave. All right, Mr. Dorsey, I find your opening questions, door opening answers absurd on their face. Yep. How much time do I reach? We’re going to continue with this when we come back, because the next clip is two minutes and we don’t have enough time. You can see how conniving and slippery. This guy Dorsey actually is, and you can see how intellectually dishonest he is and the others are, they know exactly what they’re doing. They know that their sensors are quite liberal on. This is only happening to the Trump campaign. I’ve seen nothing happen to the Biden campaign. It’s only happening to conservative voices. I know of no prominent liberal voices that have been treated the same way by Twitter. But even more, if they’re going to be considered a public platform, they shouldn’t be making any of these decisions. None of them. It’s one thing if people are threatening other people online or people are actually defaming legally defaming people online. Things of that sort. I get it. But when you’re talking about The New York Post and The New York Post, breaking stories involving hundred Biden’s laptop and hard drive and e-mails that clearly effect Biden, Joe Biden and his family. That’s a cover up. And it is indeed censorship. More when I return.
Hour 1 Segment 3
Now there’s a larger write up in a legal insurrection about what took place on the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania. Let me share it with you. Professor Jacobs there writes, Roberts joins the liberals again in denying relief from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling allowing ballots even without valid postmarks to be counted if received. Three days after Election Day, they’ve also made other changes, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. But as the dissent notes, the issue doesn’t go away. If Pennsylvania makes the Electoral College difference, if the vote is close and late ballots matter, expect legal mayhem as everybody awaits the United States Supreme Court decision challenging those ballots. And you can thank John Roberts, who’s one of the most political justices in American history, for doing exactly this. Now, people who wonder where was Amy Coney Barrett? While she wasn’t on the court yet. She wasn’t on the court yet. And it’s expected that she will not recuse herself as she has no reason to recuse herself. She has no past relationship with this case. She didn’t serve on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. There’s no reason for her to recuse any more than there’s any reason for the Democrats who were appointed by Obama on the Supreme Court. That is Obama with his vice president Biden to recuse themselves. So the court just issued its order denying expedited consideration for actively ending the effort since the election is just days away. As I said once again, Roberts voted with the wrong side and a barrel was not participating. Alito joined by Thomas in corsets. Alito is a spectacular justice, issued a dissent, noting that it’s better to have the issue resolved before the election, not after the election. Of course, he’s right. Sets a postelection challenge already in the Supreme Court. In other words, the case is still there. All they decided is that they’re not taking it up right away to invalidate ballots received after the legislative deadline. He said the court’s handling of the important constitutional issue raised by this matter has needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious post-election problems. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office. You see Alito and Thomas and Gore such, and I have to believe Cavanaugh and Barrett. They all read the same constitution we read and I believe they take the same position that I do. The framers were emphatic. And the states that adopted the Constitution were emphatic. That the legislatures were going to make these decisions. There is no way that the delegates at the constitutional convention would involve courts in such political decisions, an overriding state legislatures. There was no way the states themselves, the state legislators ratifying the Constitution. Would authorize the courts to do so, as a matter of fact, they did not. They were very specific about what part of the government and at what level this decision is to be made by state legislatures. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania swoops in and changes the statute. Why? Because it wants to. Well, you don’t get to do that. And so if Pennsylvania makes the difference. In a close election. Pennsylvania will wind up. Being decided in the Supreme Court after the fact and again, Justice Roberts created this situation. He’s done it twice now. He’s becoming increasingly a political hack. To be perfectly honest with you, I just saw a report that said the court now will be 6 to 3 conservative and then about 90 seconds into the reporting by reporter. He says that Justice Roberts has disappointed conservatives on many recent key decisions. Well, then it’s not a 6 to 3 conservative court. Why did they keep saying that? But I want to alert you to this. I want to be among the first to alert you to this. I was the first to alert you to it in the first Pennsylvania decision, and I’ve been the first to alert you to Article 2 of the federal constant. I love I love hosts knows. Like I told you 13 years ago. Like I told you, they never told you crap. Period. But I wanted you to be aware of this. Let’s get back. The senator grew the crews examining a Jack Dorsey in his testimony, the Twitter CEO. Cat 3, Mr. Brutus, three go two weeks ago, Twitter and to a lesser extent Facebook crossed a threshold that is fundamental in our country. Two weeks ago, Twitter made the unilateral decision to censor The New York Post and a series of two blockbuster articles, both alleging evidence of corruption against Joe Biden, the first concerning Ukraine. The second concerning communist China. And Twitter made the decision no one to prevent users, any user from sharing those stories. And number two, you went even further and blocked The New York Post from sharing on Twitter its own reporting. Why did Twitter make the decision to censor The New York Post? We had a hack materials, but when was that policy adopted? In 2018, I believe in 2018. Go ahead. What was what? What was the policy? So the policy is around limiting the spread of materials that are hacked. We do not want Twitter to be a distributor for hacked materials. We have. Let’s stop. Things are not hacked materials. We know exactly what took place here. The laptop was there for over 90 days. The owner of the computer Fix It shop based on an invoice and a contract that 100 Biden signed, then became the owner of the laptop and the hard drives said nothing was hacked. Go ahead. The New York Post because it showed the direct materials screenshots of the correct materials. And it was unclear how those were obtained that it felt that it fell under this policy now. So in your view, if it’s unclear, the source of a documented in this instance, The New York Post documented what it said the source was, which it said it was a laptop owned by Hunter Biden that had been turned into a rock repair store. So they weren’t hiding what they claim to be the source. Is it your position that Twitter, when you can’t tell the source blocks, blocks, press stories? No, not at all. We are our team made a fast decision. The enforcement action over of blocking URLs in tweets and in D.M. indirect messages we believe was incorrect and believing changed it could. They believe it was incorrect, but there’s still blocking The New York Post today, aren’t they, Mr. Pitt? The New York Post has no activity on Twitter right now. Cut for. Today, for now, The New York Post is still blocked from tweeting. Two weeks later, yes, they have to log into their account, which they can do at this minute. Delete the original tweet, which fell under our original enforcement actions and they can tweet the exact same material to the exact same article and it goes through. So, Mr. Dorsey, your ability is you have the power to force a media out. Let’s be clear. The New York Post isn’t just some random guy tweeting. The New York Post has the fourth highest circulation of any newspaper in America. The New York Post is up 200 years old. The New York Post was founded by Alexander Hamilton. And your position is that you can sit in Silicon Valley and demand of the media that you can tell them what stories they can publish. You can tell the American people what reporting they can hear. Is that right? No. This was disclosed. Every person, every account, every organization that signs up to Twitter agrees to the terms of service. In terms of service, it is our media outlets must genuflect and obey your dictates. If they wish to be able to communicate with readers, is that right? No, not at all. We you know, we recognized an error in this policy and specifically the enforcement. You’re still blocking their posts. You’re still blocking their posts right now. Today, you’re blocking their posts. We’re not blocking the post. Anyone can tweet. And the New York. He said anyone can tweet it. That’s not true. Mr. Producer, is it? That’s simply not true. That is an utterly false statement. Go ahead, post on their Twitter account. If they go into their account, now is your answer to that? No. No. Unless they are attacking and agree with your dick. And you can’t just retreat it. I don’t know. They’re talking about what he’s talking about. Finally, in this exchange, Cruz and Dorsey cut five go didn’t Twitter block the distribution of The New York Times, a story a few weeks ago that purported to be based on copies of President Trump’s tax returns? We didn’t find the violation of our terms of service and his policy tickler because his reporting about the material, it wasn’t distributing, OK. Well, that’s actually not true that they posted what they purported to be original source materials and federal law. Federal statute makes it a crime, a federal felony to distribute someone’s tax returns against their knowledge. So that material was based on something that was distributed in violation of federal law. And yet Twitter gleefully allowed people to circulate that. But when the article was critical of Joe Biden, Twitter engaged in rampant censorship and silencing. And again, we recognize there isn’t that policy. We change that within 24 hours. This is your what, The New York Post. You haven’t changed it. We have changed that. They can log into their account, delete their recovery, forcing the political reporter to take down his post about The New York Post as well. Is that correct? Within that 24 hour period. Yes. But we know as a policy has changed. Anyone can tweet Senator Clinton. Thank you, Senator. The New York Post, you censor Politico. Presumably you can censor The New York Times or any other media outlet. Mr. Ghazi. Who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report and what the American people are allowed to hear? And why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary? Your Political Buzz is very well done, very well done by one of the best litigators in front of the Supreme Court. That’s really a unanimous view of Ted Cruz. We’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
This is a very, very important topic, so we’re going to continue to go through it and then we’ll pick up with the next important topic, which is the corruption of the Bidens and they are corrupt as hell. Jack Dorsey Twitter is questioned by Senator Ron Johnson. Cut six go OK for both Mr. Zuckerberg and Dorsey, who censored censored New York Post stories or throttled them back either. What did you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation or that those e-mails aren’t authentic? Do you have any any information whatsoever? They’re not offended. Believe me, a Russian disinformation, Darcy, we we don’t know. So so why would why would you censor it? Why did you prevent that from being 78? And your platform is supposed to be for the free expression of ideas and particularly true ideas. We believe to Philip Hall over hacking materials policy. We judged Mr. Javid was hacked. They weren’t hacked. We we judge them the moment it looked like it was hacked material. You were wrong. Surfacing. And. And we updated our policy and our enforcement within 24 hours. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi questioning Zuckerberg. Cut seven. Go. Let me let me just make sure I understood the answer. Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg. Mr. Dorsey, did I understand you to say that you have no information indicating that The New York Post story about Hunter Biden is his has a Russian source? Did I understand correctly that? Yes. Not that I’m aware of. And is that also your answer, Mr. Zuckerberg, that you have no information at all to indicate that that Russia was the source of this New York Post article? Senator, I would rely on the FBI to make that assessment. But you you don’t have any such information, do you? I do not myself. So why would you rely on the FBI? You’re making a business decision. Genius. And now Jack Dorsey’s question by Cory Gardner. Senator of Colorado, this is really a shocker. Cut a go. I know we’ve established many content. Moderation can have certain upsides like combating terrorism. But Twitter has chosen to approach content moderation from the standpoint of combating misinformation as well. So it’s strange to me that you flag the tweets from the president, but haven’t hidden the ayatollahs tweets on Holocaust denial or calls to wipe Israel off the map. And you can’t recall off the top of your head hidden or deleted tweets from other world leaders. I would appreciate that that list. I think it’s important that we all hear that. That brings my next question to the front. Does Twitter maintain a formal list of certain accounts that you actively monitor for misinformation? No. And we don’t have a policy against misinformation. We have a policy against misinformation in three categories which are manipulated media, public health, specifically coded and civic integrity, election and election interference and voter suppression. That is all we have policy on for misleading information. We do not have policy or enforcement for any other types of misleading information that you mentioned. So somebody’s denying the murder of millions of people or instigating violence against a country as a head of state is not categorically falling in any of those three misinformation or other categories. Twitter has not misinformation, but we do have other policies around incitement to violence, which which may some of some of the tweets you mentioned of the examples that you’re mentioning. All right. So if somebody denies the extermination of 6 million Jews, that does not violate the Twitter misinformation policy. But apparently, the Biden story does violate the Twitter misinformation, violence. I’ll be right back.