November 20, 2020

November 20, 2020

On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, regarding election evidence and those ignorant of civil litigation, expedited discovery can be ordered by the court as an immediate remedy. Discovery has not even occurred in this case. Affidavits from credible individuals that raise a reasonable question are enough to establish a need for expedited discovery per the rules of civil procedure. Concerning the Constitutional challenges, per Article II Section II Clause II, each state’s legislature has the power over election laws. State courts, County officials, Governors, or their appointees do not. Moreover, all voters must be treated the same under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. How will history remember us during this time? Will history say that we are judicious and wise or that we abdicated our responsibility to protect our republic?  Also, it’s not easy to take on the government, but Sidney Powell has done it before and she’s doing it again. It’s bad enough when the usual enemies try to destroy someone like Powell, but it’s unconscionable when others do the same thing. We need to let her do her job and let the chips fall where they may. She deserves our thanks, not our disdain. Then, even the ancient philosophers like John Stuart Mill never imagined communism or anything like it ever succeeding. Forcing the will of the government on the people is only supported by the worst parts of human nature. Later, Joe Biden will not support any funding for government-run schools like charter-operated public schools or school choice. Teachers’ unions support these limitations on parents and students.  Afterward, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker calls in to discuss election results and irregularities in Wisconsin.. Walker added that absentee ballots must be requested, not handed out as they were in certain counties.


Washington Free Beacon
Proposed Biden Gun Tax Could Top $34 Billion

LA Times
Face mask trial didn’t stop coronavirus spread, but it shows why more mask-wearing is needed

Mark Levin Show
Sidney Powell’s a terrific lawyer

Embarrassing: Lapdog Biden Journalists Debase Their Profession in Latest Presser

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Image used with permission of Getty Images / Tom Williams

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour 1 Segment 1

One very strange thing, talking to a friend of mine and he asked me if I would sign a copy of his book, Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism. This is a book that I wrote in 2016, came out in 2017. So I did and I decided to read the back cover. I don’t always go back and read my books. Maybe I should. And here’s what the back cover this book says. And by the way, the great professor Paul Kengor is going to be using this course excuse me, this book in a course that he teaches at Grove City Goodman. And here’s part of what I put in the epilogue, the epilogue three years ago. I confess that I often wonder what America will become in 50 or 100 years. I should have taken a zero off of that. But here you go. What will the future hold for our children and grandchildren? Will they be free, happy, prosperous, independent and secure? What will be left of our constitutional system or the Bill of Rights have the force of law. What about property rights? Will they matter? How many will remember or care to learn about our founding principles as concisely and brilliantly set forth in the Declaration of Independence? How many remember or care today? And what are the civil society or the social compact, will it have frayed beyond repair? Well, we have been conquered from within as Thomas Jefferson, Joseph Stalin, Abraham Lincoln feared might be our fate. Well, we have avoided the doom of Athens and Rome. If we’re honest with ourselves, we must agree that the outcome is unclear. The reason a century or so of progressive governance and schemes targeting the uniqueness of America, including its founding principles and Republican system. Future generations will look back on what we have done to know the answers. They will draw their judgments about this generation and record them in their history books, what lessons will they have learned? What will they say about us? Well, they say that we were a wise and conscientious people who understood and appreciated the blessings of our existence and surroundings and prudentially and conscious and conscientiously cared for them. Well, they say that we were a self-indulgent, inattentive people, easily shepherded in one direction or another, who stole the future from our own children and generations yet born and squandered an irreplaceable heritage. It’s on the back cover, the rediscovering Americanism. I worry that we’ll be able to answer many of those questions, depending on how recent events turn out. Now, I want to talk a little bit about evidence. A little bit about as evidence, we keep hearing demands for evidence, we hear it from left wing reporters, we hear it from Democrats and Republicans, we hear it from our friend Tucker. We hear from everybody. I understand. Where’s the evidence? Not just evidence, overwhelming evidence. I want to explain something and I’ll do it on the Sunday show as well. To file a civil complaint, that’s what we’re talking about, civil litigation and what concerns me is the ignorance of people on TV and radio and obviously the Democrat Party media and the ignorance or the unwitting deception of former federal prosecutors and professors on television. To file a civil complaint, you need a reasonable basis, in fact, and law allegations can be made on information and belief. Now, motion to dismiss by the defense test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. So assuming everything in the complaint is true, this is how the judge looks at does it state a claim upon which relief can be granted? So for a motion to dismiss, everything is assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are granted to the plaintiff. We’ve had some cases dismissed that were very solid cases out west, among other places that all these commentators really haven’t looked at and they haven’t read. And so judges need to follow the rules and in some cases they’re not. But that’s a side point. Expedited discovery, expedited discovery can be granted by court, and it often is when injunctive relief is sort of a temporary restraining order and or preliminary injunction, depending on the need for prompt resolution, that discovery can be ordered immediately right in court. From the judge sitting in his chair, courts have the power to speed discovery along and very fast. So you don’t have to go and most people don’t go into court file civil complaint with reams and reams of quote unquote evidence. Do you want to know why? Because there hasn’t been discovery yet. They’re trying to gather enough information where it looks like a reasonable basis exists, in fact, and law to the allegations that are being made now, it’s great if you can have sworn affidavits and the Trump campaign has hundreds and hundreds of sworn affidavit. But you don’t have to have sworn affidavits and you certainly don’t have to have a ton of evidence when you hear people on TV and radio going on and on, where’s your evidence, where you’re at, where your discovery hasn’t even taken place? And then they say, well, then what’s your point? They don’t even understand how the civil litigation side of our justice system works. What do you mean? What’s the point? I have enough information here to make an allegation based on a reasonable basis, in fact, and law. And we want the opportunity to pursue our lawsuit and to conduct discovery, return, discovery, document demands, depositions, whatever it takes. And we’d like to conduct discovery very, very quickly on a very fast schedule. And at that point, you can, in fact, get subpoena’s. Right now, none of that exists unless a court allows it to exist. So, again, the next time you hear a twenty-five year old reporter or a host demand, where’s the evidence? Where’s the evidence? And there’s not enough evidence. You know, in many cases, they’re ignoramuses who do not understand the process. I’ll give you another example. Let’s take this Dominion voters system or any of these voting systems, pick any of them. An unexplained, significant deviation from expected results, mathematical inconsistency supported by experts, experts who look at the information, true experts. Who file affidavits and file reports. That should be more than sufficient, more than sufficient if they’re credible individuals, filing credible reports, raising questions. To establish a reasonable basis to file a complaint and justify first discovery. I only point this out because I’m getting so frustrated and worn out by watching so-called legal analysts on TV and then individuals who have neither a law background. Nor a comprehensive or any understanding of how litigation works, pounding their fists on the table, demanding evidence, I must have the evidence. Well, if you have the evidence, you don’t need discovery. And yet discovery is what’s needed. That’s why they’re going to court, that’s why they’re providing information on allegations based on information and belief, a reasonable basis, in fact, and law. To pursue discovery. And judges need to comply with the law, too, that the rules of procedure. That’s all the campaigns are asking for. And so you have that that deals with allegations of fraud and it also deals with a desire to look at these voting systems. To make sure they’re accurate and if you have experts coming out of Princeton, experts at the security measures, experts on statistics, mathematical inconsistencies and so forth and so on, that should be enough. Where is your evidence where it went there? Well, then they get to pursue discovery. The wonderful somebody handed them one hundred and fifty thousand ballots and said, look at this. These are all printed in China, it never works that way, so that’s just stupid. So this is the test that applies and the fraud cases and this this is the test that would apply with Dominion voting systems and the other voting systems. OK. No, to a constitutional claim, this is a separate bucket. The Constitution says that Article two, Section one, clause two in this audience, you’ve memorized this already. 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. In other words, the electors to the Electoral College is going to be the Democrat electors of the Republican electors. Now, what does that mean exactly? Why would the framers of the Constitution and the ratifiers in the states want this specific language? Because it focuses on the legislature? Because, ladies and gentlemen, the fact is that the framers of the Constitution knew that they would have to focus on the legislature because otherwise the state conventions would never have ratified this constitution. Remember, the states were creating this new federal government. They were not going to abandon or surrender their power over setting election laws. How do I know that? Because I went back and I read I read some of the debates and discussions at the ratification conventions. That’s why that language is in there. There’s nothing about state judges, federal judges that governor, secretary of state boards of elections would say never heard of before. No, no, no, no. Not even the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislature has the final say. And so what you have and there’s a reason for that. Among other things, what you have in Pennsylvania and what you have in Georgia with a consent decree are changes in the election laws, the status quo that were set in place by the state legislature, as is required under the federal constitution of changes being made by courts, by governors, by secretaries of state and by bureaucrats. All of which are unconstitutional. And for John Roberts to take a pass on this three or four weeks ago is appalling. What the Supreme Court should still say is it is a violation of Article two, Section one, clause two for anybody but the legislature. To create the state election laws, otherwise we’re going to have chaos for the rest of time and people are not going to trust the outcome of these elections and I don’t blame you. Number two is the equal protection clause. It’s in the 14th Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, as applies to the states. It’s in the 14th Amendment, Bush versus Gore, they even raised it, the five to four majority. Well, what does that mean? That means you that you must treat voters the same. You can’t have special privileges and special information for certain voters and not others. And so in several of these states, they changed the rules again, again in Pennsylvania as an example, one example. You had the radical Democrat secretary of state telling the various election boards in the various counties that are Democrat, mostly counties like in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, to cure the ballots, that is to open them before Election Day, which have already violated state law. If their problems contact the voter and have them either file a new ballot or correct the ballot that was filed, that was not done in Republican areas. For the most part, that’s a clear violation of the equal protection clause. And there are several other examples of this. Now, shouldn’t we pursue these things or should we just stop? George says he’s done the recount, they didn’t check the signatures, all they did is count the same ballots. Now, they came up short a few thousand, but all they did is count the same ballots. That’s not what the Trump administration is seeking. They want to know if the signatures match, among other things, they’ve been told to bad. More when I return.

Hour 1 Segment 2

In this Sunday’s Life, Liberty and Levin, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, I have one guest, Victor Davis Hanson. I opened the show with a with a monologue, which I normally don’t do. I usually close it with one and I’ll close it with a short one as well. But I open it with a 15 to 20 minute monologue on the election and the litigation that’s taking place. And I hope I really hope you’ll be able to listen to it if you can listen to it live. Well, you can DVR, listen to it later. But I try to walk through this in a careful way so people understand there’s been a ton of misinformation and disinformation out there about how litigation works. Some of the reporters on all the stations have been absolutely awful. Some of the hosts are venting and pounding tables and making demands because they don’t understand how this works. And you need to take the time to really understand it. You don’t just look at this. Evidence doesn’t work that way. You hope it does, but it does. All right. More when I return.

Hour 1 Segment 3

I think I’m going to dip in and out of philosophy as we go forward in the program because I think it relates. John Stuart Mill over here. John Stuart Mill, a brilliant man, he wrote on Liberty and as I write again and rediscovering Americanism, I’m not encouraging you to buy, not to buy anything. I’m handling this right here. He was writing an alive around the time that Marx and Engels were Hegel Rousseau, who really believed in the the abandonment of the individual for the state, even though they would argue that it was for the individual and will mill witnessed in the eighteen hundreds the growing influence and tyrannical threat of the so-called reformers. And what would later include the progressives and he address them like this? He said some of those modern reformers who have placed themselves in strongest opposition to the religions of the past have been no way behind either churches or sex. And their assertion of the right of spiritual domination, their aims at establishing a despotism of society over the individual surpasses anything contemplated in the political ideal of the most rigid disciplinarian among the ancient philosophers. He’s saying even the ancient philosophers, the great thinkers of mankind, never imagined communism or things like communism. He said, in fact, as Mel was writing his books and essays, I said the ideologies of Rousseau, Hegel and Marx, among others, were taking tangible political form at the urging of intellectuals throughout the world, including in the West, including in the United States. Marxism, Hagelism, Rousseauism, ladies and gentleman, gave birth to the modern Democrat Party to the so-called progressives. It runs completely contrary to our founding principles in our Constitution, M. wrote, apart from the peculiar tenants of individual thinkers. There is also in the world at large, an increasing inclination to stretch unduly the power of society over the individual, both by the force of opinion and even by that of legislation. And as the tendency of all the changes taking place in the world is to strengthen society and diminish the power of the individual. This encroachment is not one of the evils which tend spontaneously to disappear, but on the contrary, to grow more and more formidable. This disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow citizens to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want to power. And as the power is not declining but growing, unless a strong barrier of moral conviction can be raised against this mischief, we must expect in the present circumstances of the world. To see it increase. I’d say he was prescient, wouldn’t you, Mr. Producer? It’s about one hundred and seventy years ago, give or take. He saw it as much as the framers thought, the tyranny not just of the monarchy, but the tyranny of the mob. When you have The Washington Post writing a really barely literate tome and its editorial page to get rid of the Electoral College, that tells you everything you need to know. This is not a democracy. It must never be a democracy or we won’t have a bill of rights, people don’t get the vote up or down on the structure of the Constitution, on whether you have unalienable rights in that this is where we’re headed when they’re talking about effectively burning down the Supreme Court, burning down in the United States Senate, burning down this, that and the other institution in order to advance the neo Marxists and Marxist ideology today called progressivism. But it’s not you must eliminate the barriers that are set up in a republic and in our republic. It’s set up in the Constitution. You must destroy them. This is why I get angry, more than frustrated, angry when I hear Republicans. Oh, come on, let’s get over that with a vote. There are legitimate challenges taking place. They’re ready to surrender at every turn. We’re fighting for our republic. And as I said at the beginning of the show, one of our children and grandchildren are going to say, what are future generations going to say? What are they going to write about us? As I say, during the course of this Friday program, I’ll be touching on philosophy here and then rather than straight through. It was a great honor to interview the president of the United States on September 20th, seems like yesterday. And I do seriously consider him one of the great presidents for reasons that will be written about when we live in more sober times. We now know a vaccine is going to be available literally in days, maybe weeks, but likely days for distribution. As a result of Operation Warp Speed, the administration working with the private sector, the administration clearing out the red tape and all the clutter. That exists at the FDA and the NIH and the infectious disease office and all the rest of it. President and his people did this despite the fact that they were under endless attack. They were mocked. They are people who know nothing. And he already has. Produced tens of millions of vials and syringes and units for the vaccine even before they knew if it was effective. Just assuming it might be and multiple vaccines are made at. Very difficult in terms of transportation, the Pfizer vaccines have to be 70 degrees below zero. Well, then you don’t just throw them in the back of a pickup truck and deliver them, deliver the medicine. A vaccine has to be at Fresen again. It requires special transport. And so all this has been worked out already. And unfortunately, was all announced after the election, and I believe that was intentional. And so the man who is responsible for leading this effort. Is now fighting in the courts. To uphold the constitution, this whole vaccine issue at the time, the way the Democrats were treating it, was really appalling. It was unconscionable with a president is literally trying to save lives beyond masks and social distancing and all the rest. He understood the president that it’s going to take a vaccine and it’s going to take therapeutics to address this viral enemy. So here, I want you to listen to this in my interview with the president on September 20th. Got to go, I want to start with the vaccine, I’m watching the news coverage, and for some reason, the media and the Democrats are very hostile to vaccine. They’re very hostile to vaccine coming out quickly. They’re trying to politicize this. The nine CEOs of these pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, said we’re not cutting corners. We’re following the science. What do you think? There’s such hostility from the Democrat Party, from my perspective and the media about getting a vaccine in record time. They want to denigrated. This started about three weeks ago because they started hearing rumors that we were going to have this vaccine and super record time. So instead of saying, wow, that’s great, it’s going to save a lot of lives and people are going to be protected and this whole thing will end faster. It’s going to end anyway, but it’s going to end faster. They start to denigrate I noticed that about three weeks they started denigrating. And the reason they’re doing that is because they think I’ll get credit if we have a vaccine anywhere near the election, but certainly before the election. But essentially, we’re there now anyway and we’re ready to distribute very rapidly. So what they’re doing is trying to make it like that’s not such a big deal when actually it’s one of the greatest things that anyone has done. And I’m not saying me, I’m saying anyone. It’s so incredible. It’s so important. And they’ve done it in record time. If this were a typical administration, this vaccine wouldn’t be ready for two or three years because of the FDA process. I have totally changed the FDA process, same safety, but the speed is from a different world and we should have the vaccine approved very soon up and approved. Plus, we have many companies doing it. Great companies, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Moderna. We have many companies doing it and almost all of them are having these so far, seemingly very good results there in phase three trial. That means to a right of the end of the process, really looking good and could be really early. And so all of a sudden onset of saying, wow, this is great news, we’re going to have the vaccine early, they’re saying, oh, the vaccine coming out too soon, it’s going to be unsafe. It’s going to be all of these things has nothing to do with the safety of these are great companies. They’re not going to put themselves on the line. They would have tremendous liability. He was so right. And what was being done to him in this effort was so. Unconscionable. It’s the only word I can think of. And the president today at the White House. Again, absolutely right, cut three go. This is not an easy thing to do. Big Pharma ran millions of dollars of negative advertisements against me during the campaign, which I won, by the way. But, you know, we’ll find that out. Almost seventy four million votes. We had big pharma against us. We had the media against us. We had big tech against us. We had a lot of dishonesty against us. But Big Pharma alone ran millions and millions of dollars in ads. In fact, I looked at it. I said, who is it? They have never seen anything quite like it because I told them, I’m going to have to do this. You know, I was put here to do a job and Pfizer and others were way ahead on vaccines. You wouldn’t have a vaccine if it weren’t for me for another four years because FDA would have never been able to do what they did, what I forced them to do. And Pfizer and others even decided to not assess the results of their vaccine. In other words, not come out with a vaccine until just after the election. Now, let’s stop right there. This is what’s so disgusting. This is what’s so outrageous, and rather than Mitt Romney, who is another media whore out there throwing bricks at the president of the United States, demanding that he concede Mitt Romney, who really has always been kind of a stupid guy, to be perfectly honest with, he was always in his father’s shadow. Most of what he has accomplished was a result of his father, both in business and politics. But that aside. Be nice had Mitt Romney. Had used his position to also talk about the vaccines that were coming, but he wouldn’t be nice. Ben Sasse, Mr. Phony Constitutionalist, rather than attacking the president, would have been supportive of this effort and will be speaking out about it now. I despise these people, and each day that goes by despise them even more. They contribute nothing to this society, just a bunch of big mouths, they contribute nothing to the health and well-being of this country, there are self-righteous blowhards. That’s exactly what they are. There is no way a Mitt Romney would have been able to run an operation warp speed, he would have been devoured by the bureaucracy in two seconds. There’s no way a Ben Sasse would have been able to do it either. He’d still be looking for the men’s room. I don’t know of any president, Republican or Democrat, who would have been able to achieve this none. And here I’m interviewing him about what is it, seven weeks, give or take before the election, he’s telling the American people, we’re very close, we’re very close. And he was accused by the Democrats of politicizing the vaccine. That he was doing it too fast, that he was avoiding health and safety concerns and he was doing it because of his election and as it turns out, he was doing it to save lives. And it was the companies who sat on the results until after the election, Moderna and Pfizer. Moderna and Fizer and I don’t know the amount from a turn off the top of my head, but I got one point nine dollars billion in your dollars. And the reason why they’re going to be distributing this vaccine in a matter of days, if not weeks, is because it’s been produced. The government under Donald Trump already paid for millions and millions. Of units of this vaccine and the delivery technologies. It was in the works this summer. There is no way Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or any of the Marxists and neo Marxists or the front people for the Marxist or the neo Marxists would have done any of this. They’d be busy nationalizing these companies. They be busy locking down the economy, demanding you wear masks, telling you not to go to Thanksgiving, telling you not to travel because they don’t know what the hell to do other than use the iron fist and God forbid, if they take over the presidency and the Senate. Because we the people will pay a price, almost 74 million of us are going to pay the price of the ignoramuses who voted for tyranny. Let’s hope not. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 4

You know, when you read as much as I do, like, for instance, this weekend, what am I going to do? Read? Research study. This is what I do when you do as much of that as I do and you do it your entire life. And you see the horizon of mankind, you see almost the beginning of mankind, even since then, the ancients and you move into towards our period here, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which isn’t that long ago. And then you look at the United States and you say, my God, this is this is the hope diamond of civilization for thousands of years. And then you realize you’re one election away from destroying it. It’s hard to sleep at night. I can tell you that right now it’s hard to sleep at night and to know that we might be outnumbered. It’s just it’s just a shocking wake up call, what from here on, we’re one election away, one election. We can’t win every single election for the Senate or the presidency and so forth. And they’ve even fixed that system. I don’t mean reformed. I mean fixed it toward a certain outcome.