Texas Files Lawsuits in Four States | December 9, 2020 | Hour One
Here's your conservative, not bitter host, Todd Ha. That is right. You're listening to them with conservative, not bitter talk. Yes, I am your host, Todd Huff, email, Todd, The Todd Huff show.com facebook.com. slash The Todd Huff Show for those that want to watch the program live or on demand here this morning. I want to start. I want to start by talking about this. Well, a couple of Supreme Court, I guess updates, if you will, yesterday. Yesterday, the Supreme Court said that they were not hearing the Pennsylvania case. Pennsylvania case the case that Ted Cruz had said he would be willing to argue before the Supreme Court. Now, there's I would say a bit of conflicting reports out there because some folks say that this is the court saying they will not hear this at all. Jenna Ellis chimes in folks, this is stuff we're now into the I guess we're into the part of the we've reached a level that we kind of need the experts. I I don't know at some point. You don't know what exactly where exactly things stand. Jenna Ellis says that the Supreme Court she tweeted this out loud. late yesterday, yesterday evening, I guess. The Supreme Court only denied the emergency injunctive relief. It did not deny the whole case altogether. In fact, she said that Mike Kelly's lawsuit is still pending before the US Supreme Court. So in other words, she's saying all the court did was say we're not going to effect if you read the order. It's just a simple, simple, one sentence. One sentence order here, and this is what it says. It says after the date and of course the name of the case it says the application for injunctive relief presented on justice, excuse me present presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the court is denied on injunctive relief. So basically, the emergency hearing it quickly, they're not going to hear it in an emergency sort of situation, they still have the case pending before so says so says Jenna Ellis part of Trump's legal team, that team so but that's just part of the news. The other part of the news is that Texas, the state of Texas, as you know, has sued the states. So we have a state that's now suing other states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Texas is suing those states, which in the jurisdiction those when you have states that are suing one another. The jurisdiction begins, I think maybe all cases maybe maybe there's some exceptions. I bet in general, that those are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not in an appellate sort of situation. You know, normally you file a court court case it goes to the court system, you have to appeal it appeal at appeal at the various levels of federal court and so forth. It gets to the US Supreme Court at which time the US Supreme Court can decide whether or not they hear a case they have that discretion. They get petitioned many times to hear cases and there's only a handful of cases that you can that they can hear. I will say this I've had the good pleasure. I don't know if any of you have ever had the pleasure of witnessing oral arguments at the supreme board is quite The it's quite the experience, I went there again, and it was the spring of 99. In fact, well, I'm gonna tell that story. But anyway, we, we went in the spring of 99. When I was at American University, one of the things that we did in our program was attended sopro to attend a two supreme court hearings. I think it was in April. And we, you know, we went to the court really early, and waited in line we got in, we sat down. And it's quite, it's quite a remarkable experience to see the justices walk in the nine justices taking that bench and hearing arguments from from both sides, there's a clock, I don't remember now that I, I don't know if it's 30. Each side gets 30 minutes, maybe someone who follows us more closely would have the tell me there's a clock and that that when the clock dings when the timer goes off, so to speak, that's the end of it. Right? So the the court gets filings and documents prior to the case being heard, arguments and so forth. It's the only time in my life I've ever, by the way felt a little bit bad for an attorney. The only time is when they started. They started making their arguments from one of the in one of the cases, Justice Scalia who was on the bench on the court when I was present mech in 1999. About 14 seconds into it started peppering this attorney with questions and then became rapid fire. And it was interesting to watch that dynamic. He had Clarence Thomas, down at near one end of the bench. That was something I wasn't prepared for either. I didn't realize, until I saw it myself that Clarence Thomas, when he listens to oral arguments, he actually put the finger on Facebook, you can see this, he puts his head back and closes his eyes, looking at the ceiling, eyes closed. If you didn't know any better, if he does glanced up there, you would think man, this guy fell asleep. But that's not what he's doing. He's saying I don't want to be impacted by anything else that's going on. I just want to listen to what's being said and try to apply the law. as best I know how fairly in an unbiased situation, but to watch this all happen and just to see it unfold. And then of course, you get the people that are trying to interpret, you know, what, what's being why questions are being asked how one justice may be trying to influence another justice through the questioning and through the the rhetoric and all this back and forth sort of stuff. And this is what people do. I who I guess follow the Supreme Court, but it's a fascinating thing. So the court has agreed to hear this case, the state of Texas suing Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Now, I've heard some folks, I mentioned earlier that the Supreme Court has discretion on which cases they heard. I've heard some folks who said that this case. Now I'm not saying this is right. I've just seen lawyers say this. I've seen some lawyers say that they had to hear this case. I don't know that that's the case in general. It is certainly the case of the court can deny or reject any case whatsoever. But since it's between states, and it's a rare occurrence, and it's starting with not at an appellate level, but rather having the original jurisdiction or whatever the legal term is, this is this is where we are. This is where we are supreme court hearing this case, I want to kind of go through this fact I'm referencing an article in Breitbart right now. The State of Texas filed a lawsuit says the article directly with the US Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the constitution. Texas argues that these states have violated the electors clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. We have discussed this on here. You have seen this discussed or referenced elsewhere. But we definitely talk about here you don't hear about this in the media. If you do, you'll hear written about in ways like well, I read a USA Today article. I might do Talk about that as well. But when they talk about it, they said, Look, as we get COVID we get COVID out there. These these bureaucrats, they don't call them bureaucrats, of course, these are, these are election officials, you know, to the average person, they hear an election official, they they think, well, this person can make up the rules, right? This is their job. Actually, it's not an election officials job is to follow the rules that had been voted on by these states legislature. That's the way it's supposed to work. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are. This is the whole This is the whole point of you can say, those of us who have problems with judicial activism, for example. Our whole problem with it is not even if they make a decision that makes sense meaning, meaning the law says what the law says sometimes the law doesn't even make sense. In fact, in fact, you heard Kevin also, I think it was Kevin all during his nomination process for SCOTUS justice. He said, If there's if there's not cases, or decisions that you make, that you don't find yourself, you know, personally, at odds with meaning I make this decision because it's what the law says, I don't really like it. Then you're not doing your job as a justice. Sometimes the law says what an individual may prefer that it not even a Supreme Court justice. But the law says it. And it's not the job of the court to change it. It's the job of the legislature to change it. See how this works is everybody has a job. Everybody has a lane to stay in. founders did this intentionally. And so we've talked about this on here how courts didn't or states through courts, or through bureaucrats or a combination thereof. They made up arbitrary rules, they extended deadlines, they you know, for receiving ballots, they waive certain requirements for what's normally the case for folks who vote by absentee ballot or mailing ballot or whatever. They broke many laws. They broke them, they didn't follow them. This is very simple. It's it's the it is as clear cut as. And this this, by the way has nothing to do with proving any allegations of fraud. This has to do this has to do with saying they didn't do their job. They the legislature makes the laws that passed by majority. And then they gave those laws. That direction to the executive branch via that executive branch is bureaucratic division, which is a whole nightmare, at least federally, and I would argue at many state levels are in many states as well. But then those bureaucrats those election officials are supposed to follow those. And they didn't. And so Texas is saying look that violates the electors clause of the US Constitution. On top of that, Texas argues going back to the article here in Breitbart that there were differences in voting rules and procedures and different counties within the states violating the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. So there's two claims in this lawsuit. If you have some self righteous, ultra leftist, no at all today in the office, and it's it's over and done with Trump's one, one for 96 or whatever number of cases they're claiming. They're claiming now, this claim this case, by the way, brought to you by the state of Texas, not by Trump's legal team, who have they have three cases, Trump's legal team. They did I don't know if they filed. They have a handful of cases. Now there's this one. There's this one as well. So they say there's two clauses of the Constitution that's been violated. The Constitution is agreement is an agreement is a is a pact is a sort of a contract of of sorts between between the states. Yeah, this is what we're agreeing to the state of whatever the state of Wisconsin agrees with the state of Texas agrees with the state of Connecticut. This is this is how our government's going to function. This is what's written in this document is how we're going to work together in a lot of different ways, but in particular, in forming our federal government, we're all going to have to be some rules and those branches that we're going to elect, we're gonna send people from our states to fill seats at the federal level in the US Congress that are in the US Senate, we're going to send people there. And we're going to also vote for a president. And we have an agreement as to what that looks like. You can't just arbitrarily change it. You can't, you can't have a list of laws on the books in your state as to how you're going to go about doing it. And then suddenly change those without going through the process. You can change them, but the only group that can change those laws is the state legislature. So Texas is saying what's up with this? Right, this is this is undermining. This is undermining the entire election process. If states can arbitrarily change these rules, without going through the legislative process, what stops him from changing any others? What stops? I mean, what what sort of us have firm foundation do we have here as to how we the states have agreed to choose our own electors? We have the right to choose our own electors. But we we've said that our the process by which we change our electors is outlined by through law outlined by the our state legislature. If the administrative branch or if a court changes that, then suddenly the agreement that we have between the states through this pact to this constitution to this agreement to this contract, suddenly isn't what we signed up for. There's a problem with this on top of that, on top of that is troubling, Texas says from a constitutional standpoint, that depending upon where you lived in the States, your vote was counted differently. You've heard about some of these, some of these counties, would you fill in information that wasn't provided on a on the on the ballot or on the envelope or whatever other counties wouldn't? You had some that would call and give certain individuals the ability to correct their ballots, even though those ballots weren't even supposed to be open yet, according to state law, yet all sorts of flagrant violations of of the law. And this, this is not alleging any fraud, just divide the election supposed to look like this in Michigan, and it looks like this. It's not the same thing. The election was supposed to be handled like this in the state of Arizona or started state of Georgia. And it wasn't, it's not the same thing. You can't your electors, the electors that are going to go to the Electoral College, supposedly on December 14 to vote for the President of the United States, by the way, by the way, affects Texas, affects Indiana affects Nebraska affects Utah affects all the states. You have violated the way that you have your legislature said you're going to choose a electors this is a problem. It's clearly a problem. What's the court going to do about it? That's where the speculation I'm not going to speculate. I think speculation while can be interesting from time to time, look I I don't know. Right? You supposedly have six? Yeah, you have five conservatives on the court. You can I think you can clearly move john roberts off of that list. He occasionally stumbles his way into agreeing with the conservatives, but by and large, he really wants to be liked in Washington, DC. And he really wants to try to find a way to agree with Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan. Stephen Briar, right so but you have you have solid constitutionalists on there as well. And we'll see what they think about these arguments. A lot more to say about this, but a timeout is necessary here. On the program, sit tight. We'll be back here in just a minute.
Keep hearing this term Plenary Power this is this is a fundamental power of state legislators is according according to the Constitution. The election is messed up the electors to legislators are responsible ultimately, for choosing electors. Many legislators have simply said we're going to let the people vote and however they vote is how we're going to assign the electors. But what happens if your election laws were not followed? Right? It's like, I mean, if there was a an NFL football game, I saw there was an NFL football game last night. There's football games all the time, because they're being rescheduled because of COVID, and whatever else, but at some point, there's rules to the game if the rules are not followed so much, right? If suddenly you're driving down the field and you get to the 50 yard line, and they say touchdown, say wait a minute, that's not a touchdown. That's the 50 yard line. Nope, it's a touchdown, because because of COVID. We don't want people running 100 yards, we just want to run a 50 yards. Okay? So it's a touchdown, they put points on the board at some point, someone's got to make a man make make sense of all this. Someone scores a touchdown. Well, we want to give you three points instead of six for that touchdown. At some point, someone's got to come in and clean up the mess. And you have to say, look, we don't even know what the score really would have been because the team got to the 50 yard line. They gave him six points and they made him kick the ball off to the other team that gave him a touchdown. You know what, at some point, we don't even know what the outcome is because it was not followed and the rules were not followed at all. I think again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is certainly has something worth it's a very valid argument in my in my estimation, so timeout is unnecessary. quick timeout here. You're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd Huff back here in just a minute.
I think it's clear that we have all sorts of all sorts of evidence that shows that there's extreme voter fraud, and what he's supposed to do what he's supposed to do. If you have extreme, extreme voter fraud in a state, you can't be sure what the election results really are, in spite of what these states are doing. Rudy Giuliani is out there saying these states are these states are approving these states are, you know, certifying numbers that they know or not right. You can't You can't certify numbers that aren't right. Yes, you can because they're doing it. This is the place that we've gotten. What are we supposed to do the left says just Hey, doesn't matter how much fraud we've seen or haven't seen, because we don't pay any attention. The media doesn't report on it. They act like there's no evidence they ignore 5000 affidavits. They ignore the testimonies before legislative branches around this country, they they miss, characterize what happens in these cases, they act as though these judges are listening to the evidence. The judges are not listening to the evidence. They're throwing these cases out on technical technicalities. The one recently was Sidney Powell. Her case was thrown out because the court says we should you know, you don't have they questioned their standing the standing of electors. They also questioned why she didn't file the case earlier. before it happened, which is a crazy bizarre thing for me, just from a practical perspective, how do you file the case before something happens? What do you what do you evidence do you have at that point? Well, that could happen. I mean, it could happen. It didn't happen. What didn't happen because it hasn't had the chance to happen yet. I can just imagine. Well, the court says the court would say of course it hasn't happened. You can't bring a case to me, says the court. Unless there are damages, something happened nothing happened. Of course, nothing happened. Nothing happened because the opportunity for that to happen hasn't occurred yet. So that we just have it's a Bizarro universe. You bring it to early reminds me This reminds me of Seinfeld. Remember when Seinfeld they took they're even on the show. But this is really what they did in real life, too. They took they took their show to executive producers at NBC. And they said, What's the premise? And George says nothing. What do you mean nothing? Nothing happens, says George to the NBC executive. Well, something better happen. No, no, no, nothing happens. This is the idea. What's the idea? I don't still don't understand what the idea is. The NBC executive producer says that's because the idea is nothing. What do you mean nothing? People watch nothing on TV all the time? Not yet. They don't. So the NBC executive, this is what I feel like, as I listened to this rationale and logic, Father case you found the case to light Sidney Powell. I mean to light the case happened the election was a month ago, too late. Should have filed it earlier. You could have found it before it happened. I could have thought of before I happened. I could have filed a case that hadn't had the that hadn't happened yet. I could have found it before it happened. Yep. Says the court. The media and the Democrat Party want you to think that she went in there with their evidence. And they said, this is all made up fantasy. That's not what happened. Anyway. Lots yet to go here. In this election. electors are supposed to meet and vote next. What is it next? The 14th whenever that is next week. So anyway, timeout is an order here Sit tight back in just a minute.
Welcome back. So I want to say I want to say is we've had some technical difficulties here for those on social media this morning. My apologies about that. I think we've got it figured out. But you know, I express on a regular basis that I have a lot of respect, and just strong feelings for those of you in this audience. that have made this program possible. You know, for a guy, I started in the bedroom closet my wife's bedroom closet. No, that's not right. Our bedroom has multiple closets, the one that belongs to my wife, she said you can use my closet isn't that nice of her. So that's where I started podcasting five years ago. And so starting from there and being able now to, you know, reach the point where we're encounter you have opportunities to share with you I I am blessed and this is I'm I just love hearing from folks I really genuinely do. But I'm going to say this occasionally. Occasionally, I hear from some whack jobs. And, and they're the minority. But I want to tell you, if you're going to take the time to call into the huff hotline, 317-455-5250, which I know I got to get better at playing some calls from matter if you're going to email me about something or send me a message. Make it count. You know, this is an example. This is a call, I got yesterday, a call a call I got yesterday, I have done nothing but laugh about this. So someone just takes this look, this is not representative. There's probably 0.0000001% of the audience that would do something like this. But I get this call on the hotline yesterday. You're gonna enjoy this. We had to bleep it out. I hadn't asked pedals. I had to say pedals. Can you bleep this word out? Because I can't play that on the air. First pedals is cut it out pedals. You don't cut it. He put the Bleep sound over it. So here it is. This is the voicemail message I get yesterday. I thoroughly just have enjoyed enjoy it. Don't do that. I look. I just ignore stuff like this. But this one tickled me so much. I had to I had to share here we go on to take live phone calls you coward. You blanken coward. That's what he says. Because I don't take a lot. There's a reason I don't take live phone calls. Part of the reason is, you've paid attention ever to other morning shows people don't particularly like to call in at this time. The other part is, there's a couple of technical things I've got to do. So that we could phone screen of course, we have the technology, I know how to do it. And I think at some point we might But anyway, the point is, if you're going to make take the time to call in make it count, as I know, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of you would I just got tickled by this. I gotta take a break. You're listening to conservative, not bitter talk. I'm your host, Todd, back in a minute.
Folks, I don't know any more than you do about where this election or more this court case, I should say is heading. I do know that it's heading to the Supreme Court for a hearing but I don't know beyond that. I don't know what they're gonna make of this. I don't know how they're gonna interpret this. I don't know how this is going to be argued specifically. But I do know that there is certainly something here. And I do know that we certainly have a ton of problems. election fraud, even though that's not what this case is about, but a lot of things to be concerned with. But hang in there be tough. We'll see. Get our way through this StG. See you soon. Take care