Ted Cruz Leads Group of Senators Opposing Election Certification

This is Jay Sekulow breaking news. Twelve Senators led by Senator Cruz move to challenge the election.

Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. Look, we're at an extraordinary time in our country's history. We went into this election with the country deeply divided, deeply polarized, and we've seen in the last two months unprecedented allegations of voter fraud. Phone lines are open for your questions right now.

Call 1-800-684-3110. And that's produced a deep, deep distrust of our democratic process across the country. I think we in Congress have an obligation to do something about that. We have an obligation to protect the integrity of the democratic system. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hey, everybody.

Welcome to the broadcast. And we are really two days from what is usually the final act in the selection of a President, and that is when the Congress certifies the election. Now, that is scheduled to take place on Wednesday. We now know that several Senators led by Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, two separate approaches here, are going to file objections to the certification coming in from the states.

What does that mean? That means that what we will see happen is that as the envelopes are open, there's a call for certification. I'll let them walk through the particulars on that in a moment. There's going to be formal objections filed. By the way, not the first time in history that's happened.

In fact, in the Bush versus Gore era, George Bush won the presidency after a Supreme Court challenge. It went to the Senate for the certification, and Barbara Boxer led an objection. So this happens.

We're going to walk through what that means. But here, the objection is going to be that an emergency electoral commission be appointed to conduct a 10-day audit, and then those states that, after the audit's complete, think they need to change their electoral college status, can do that. Now, what's interesting about that, frankly, is that there's right now 12 Senators talking about this. So to get it to where it would actually happen, you'd have to get the House and the Senate fan to agree on that.

Not a likely scenario. Not a likely scenario, Jay, but what is going to happen when these 12 Senators object and join more than 140 members of the House in objecting is both chambers will have to debate the merits. So they will then recess back into their own individual chambers, and they will debate for a couple of hours the objections. And Jay, you mentioned that this is not unprecedented, that it happened during the George W. Bush election. Jay, there have actually been four times where Democrats have objected in one chamber or the other. And by the way, while there wasn't a Senator that joined the last time around, Jay, there were members of the House that objected to the very last Presidential election of Donald J. Trump.

In fact, Sheila Jackson Lee repeatedly objected during that. So this is a process that is laid out in the Constitution. We now know that members of both bodies will object. There will be debate. And Jay, on this Wednesday, we'll see this process play out. The American people will watch this debate in both chambers, and it will come to resolution.

The objection is going to be the appointment of Electoral Commission. Andy, next segment we'll get into the particulars, excuse me, on that. But as it relates to history, there is a history on this. It's not the first time this happened.

We'll get into it in greater detail. But there is history on this. Yes, there is history. And it goes back to the 19th century in the race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, where the Electoral College votes were challenged and the commission appointed consisting of senators and representatives and members of the Supreme Court voted along party lines.

And Rutherford Hayes was elected President of the United States by one, one electoral vote in that election. So these are not new things. It's just that we know more about them now. We hear more about them. We see more about them.

They're more in front of us in the media, and they're things that we are more aware of than we were in the middle of the 19th century, the latter quarter of the 19th century. Yeah, I think, look, this is going to be, we want your comments on all this at 800-684-3110. The legal challenges are pretty much done.

You don't really, there's no real path there. This isn't a constitutional approach. Will it be successful? The numbers just don't, don't look like it will be. I mean, just based on the numbers that are out there, just does not seem possible. Anything's possible, though, in the body politic. You never know.

But I mean, it just does not seem possible. We'll talk about what all that means and what's left on all of this. We come back from the break.

We'll take your calls at 800-684-3110. Let me take the last couple of seconds here of this segment to say thank you to our ACLJ members. What a December month we had a record, I was going to say a world record, was a world record for the ACLJ.

Largest month of sport we've ever had. I want to thank each of you for that. We really appreciate your support of the American Center for Law and Justice.

Back with more in a moment. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. All right, so here's what's going to happen. And, Fan, let's walk first through what happens on Wednesday the 6th. What is the actual process that will happen? And then we're going to go through what Senator Cruz and Senator Hawley are doing.

But let's walk through what the process is. Sure, so on Wednesday at 1 o'clock, Jay, there will be a joint session of the Congress. This is, for people watching, this is going to look very much like a State of the Union address. It will be in the House of Representatives. Members of Congress, members of the United States Senate will be present. The Vice President will be chairing that meeting.

Speaker Pelosi, who was just barely re-elected as Speaker, will be up on the dais as well. But the Vice President will be opening the votes, the electoral slates that have been sent from the states, Jay. And, you know, typically what happens is it's just a mere counting of those votes. I know you're going to walk through this process, but where... Well, who counts the votes, actually?

How is that done? The clerk? So the clerk counts it, the Vice President opens it, and then the counting clerk counts the votes of the states. You know, Jay, if there were no objections, typically what happens is they're just counted up and then the winner is announced. However, I think it's important to go back to what you mentioned in the last segment of the broadcast. The last time that there was an objection, Jay, it's not like it was 1876, even though I think that's the most relevant analogy, the last time there was an objection was the last election. 2017, Sheila Jackson Lee went down to the floor and objected time and time again, as did others. Now, in order for the objection to be heard and debated on, Jay, it has to be presented in writing and signed by both a member of the House and a member of the Senate.

And that's where we get to this next stage that you want to talk about. If an objection is heard in writing, signed by a member of the House and the Senate, then each of those objections is debated on and voted. Some have speculated that the Vice President could simply say, I'm not going to accept these electors, that he has the authority to do that under the Constitution. I actually don't think that's what the Constitution has in mind. If that were the case, any Vice President could refuse any election.

Yeah, that's not the case at all. I think what it is... It's more of a ministerial procedural function. It is a ministerial procedural function. And I actually watched Vice President Biden presiding at the Electoral College certification of President Trump last time. And it is more than him making the choice of who the President's going to be. He has to abide by the United States Code, which gives the procedure, if anyone is interested, is three United States Code section five, counting electoral votes in Congress. And it just lays out in great detail, not only how the procedure is, but what time it has to start.

It even says it has to start at one o'clock in the afternoon on the specific day, which is sixth day of January. So everything is laid out very, very clearly in the law as to what has to be done and when it has to be done and the procedure that has to be followed. So this is what Senator Cruz has proposed.

Let me read it. It says, to which Congress should immediately appoint an electoral commission with full investigatory and fact-finding authority to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the commission's findings and should convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote if needed. Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not regularly given and lawfully certified. That's the statutory requirements.

Were they regularly given and unlawfully certified unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is complete. Cruz is working separately from Republican Senator Josh Hawley. His efforts to challenge the electoral college are also going forward.

What is his focusing on, Van? Well, Senator Hawley essentially just wants to reject the certification of the votes outright, Jay. Look, that approach is not going to move forward.

I think that the approach by Senator Cruz, while I think you accurately describe it as a very uphill fight, Jay, I think that's the only one that might have some light of day because for two reasons, mainly. One, there's clear precedent for this. This exact thing did happen in 1876 when multiple states actually submitted multiple slates of electors. We don't have that here, Jay, but in 1876, there were multiple slates submitted in several states and the Senate wanted to actually, they wanted advice from the commission on which one they should accept. But that commission is what Senator Cruz and these other 11 senators are proposing. If it got a majority of both the House and the Senate, that commission would be set up. They would have 10 days to act. And if it followed the mold of 1876, Jay, there would be five senators, five members of the House, and then five Supreme Court justices.

There's a majority-minority breakdown there, but that's the simple mold of it. And here's the second reason why I think it probably has more traction than the one from Senator Hawley, Jay. It leaves authority with the states. So what would happen is when the commission was done with its work, it would submit its findings back to the states in question and give the states one final opportunity to say, do you want to submit a new slate of electors?

Jay, it's a real long shot, but that's how it would play out. If the commission were there and it did give advice, it would go back to the states and then the states would decide what to do with that information. But to get it to that point, to get the commission in place, the House and the Senate would have to agree.

That's correct. There would need to be a majority of both chambers. And so, look, just the bare reality of this, you would need Democrats in the House of Representatives. I don't see that, Jay.

No, I don't either. I just don't see, I don't think you're going to get all the Republicans in the Senate. I mean, quite frankly, I mean, you may, but I, you know, I mean, some, well, you won't, because I mean, some have already come out and said no. I think Ben Sasse said no. Murkowski said no.

Murkowski said no. So I mean, I'm trying to give you the, look, we're 48 hours away from this process really getting underway. I'm going to give you reality. You watch this program, you listen to us on air because you want reality. So let me give you the reality. The reality is this is a constitutional process that Ted Cruz is putting forward. I don't question that at all. It's been done before.

We're going to get into that in the next, the last segment of the first half hour, we're going to say what happened in 1876. But realize the process. The process would require all, the majority of the House and majority of the Senate to agree.

And the chance of getting, that doesn't mean don't bring the challenges, by the way. I think it's a worthy effort. It's certainly a constitutional effort, but there's also this rumor running around or this theory running around that Mike Pence himself can simply declare the winner and pick the alternate slate. And I just don't see that in the United States Constitution. And folks, at the end of the day, with all of the allegations of fraud and all of the issues we've dealt with, at the end of the day, we have to abide by the Constitution. We're a constitutional republic. So I'm trying to look at what are the legal options here and what are the political options.

I think what Senator Cruz is doing is the, is the, is a politically constitutional approach. Let's go ahead and take a call though. Faye's calling from Wyoming on line three.

We're taking your calls at 800-684-3110. Hi, Faye. Hi. Good morning. Hi. You're on the air. Okay. I just have a question.

Sure. Why doesn't the county attorneys of these local counties that are having this fraud, why are they not bringing charges against the people in their county? Well, there are some fraud cases that have been opened up, I know, by the Georgia Secretary of State and the Division of Elections.

So there are individual cases that are being prosecuted, but you're talking about widespread fraud manipulation. And I'm going to tell you what my sense is that from, based on what has been presented, Andy, and you are a local DA. I mean, I am a special district attorney for Georgia.

I handle the cases for DAs. You got to have evidence. I mean, you got to have compelling evidence to get an indictment.

Right. You can't just come in and make an allegation without being supported by compelling evidence. And in Georgia, it's not the county attorneys, by the way, it's the district attorneys. But the main election official in Georgia is the Secretary of State acting through the Attorney General of Georgia who has to bring these actions for election fraud and voter fraud.

And I understand from what I read and hear that Raffensperger, the Secretary of State, is investigating instances of voter and election fraud in the various counties. Which is an outcome determinative. Which is, but it's not going to make a difference in the final outcome of the case. No, that's right.

All right. So, Danette on YouTube asked this. I understand that this is a long ship, but why did the senators just decide this weekend before? And Dan, I think the answer to that is they were waiting to see what the legal challenges were going to do.

Yeah, I think that's the answer. And I also think they didn't have a role until this stage of the process. Now, maybe they could have gotten the ball rolling sooner and talked about it sooner, but Jay, the constitution and the relevant statutes here only bring the federal office, the House and the Senate into play on January 6th for the counting of the votes. They can't actually select any of the electoral slates. And this gets to your point about Vice President Pence, Jay. He's got no authority to submit a slate of electors for any given state.

That's an authority that comes from the state. Now, it would be a little bit of a different issue if, you know, Andy was talking about Georgia and there are Republican officials there. If some of the Georgia officials looked at the evidence and thought that the slate was invalid, the legislature there could have submitted a second slate of electors.

They did not do that. If they did, Jay, and there were two slates of electors from the state of Georgia say in front of Mike Pence, he probably would be looking for guidance on which one to accept. But Jay, on Wednesday, when he opens those envelopes and the clerk is about ready to count them, there's only going to be one slate before them from the state of Georgia. To get people to understand that there are alternative slates voted, but they did not vote under the sanction of the secretaries of state or under the state legislatures.

So, when those ballots are opened by the vice President, he's not going to be left with here are my two slate of options. So, I mean, I think it was a wise move for these other slates to engage. They did that in case one of the courts were to in fact have done something. They didn't.

It does not appear they're going to at this point. So, you got to deal with this. You know, someone said, well, you know, if they... So, stealing an election is constitutional.

No. Proving that they steal an election is what courts do and what lawyers are supposed to do if they have the evidence to support it. Here, the problem was the mail-out ballots in the first place, I think, created a whole host of problems and lack of verifications. But proving that is very difficult. I mean, it's just, you know, I'm not going to sit here and tell you it's a done thing and there's going to be something pulled out of the air January 6th. I mean, anything can happen.

I just don't see it. All right, we're going to be taking a break. We'll take your calls when we come back.

800-684-3110, 1-800-684-3110. Senator Cruz, his approach, time-tested, actually. We're going to talk about that in the election of 1876 when we come back. We're going to take a break. We're going to take a break.

We're going to take a break. All right, so Senator Cruz is proposing an electoral college panel, basically a commission, electoral commission to review with full fact-finding authority. In 1876, there was a disputed election, and this was the exact process they utilized.

Andy's looked at it. But this is, again, this is not a, by the way, they mentioned this, that in the last election cycle, there was a challenge. Sheila Jackson Lee, I think you said, Van, did that against President Trump.

Barbara Boxer did it against President Bush. And then, of course, in 1876, that was the big one. Yeah, the electoral commission was a temporary body that was created in January of 1876.

In January of 1877, by the Congress to resolve the disputed Presidential election between Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who, by the way, was the first President to ever use a telephone, and they were the main contenders in the election. Tilden won 184 votes, electoral votes, so one short of 185 needed to win. Hayes had 125, and 60 electoral votes from four states were unresolved.

So that was going to tip what the balance was. Both Tilden and Hayes electors submitted votes from these states, and each claimed victory. And the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate formed this bipartisan electoral commission to settle the election. Van mentioned it consisted of 15 members, five each from the House and the Senate, and five Supreme Court justices. Eight were Republicans, seven Democrats.

The vote commission voted along party lines to award all of the 20 disputed votes to Rutherford Hayes, thus assuring his electoral margin by one electoral vote, 185 to 184. And going into it, he was at 165. That's right.

He was behind. That's right. And so he wins the 20 votes from these four contested states, and they affirm the decision, and he is declared the winner by one electoral vote. So there is a process that is historically based in what Senator Cruz is trying to do right now. It wouldn't be something new and untested or untried before unprecedented. It has happened, and it is an idea that does bear looking at. The issue on this, Van, is to get it to that stage, you have to have consent of the two bodies of the Congress.

That's right. So here's how it would work, Jay. I mean, they go through one state at a time and open these slates of electors. The first state that's open that is challenged, let's say it's Georgia. There will be an objection. It will be presented in writing, signed by a member of the House, signed by a member of the Senate. And at that point, Jay, both of the chambers must debate the objection. So you will have debate in the House, you will have debate in the Senate, and then both chambers will have to vote on them. In order for the objection to stand in that state that is currently being objected to, in this case, it would be Georgia, both the chambers, both the House and the Senate would have to have a majority of the members of that body support the objection.

Now, Jay, I'm here to tell you, I don't think that's going to happen, but let's play it out. Let's just say hypothetically, there was a majority in both chambers. Those electoral votes from that state that was being contested would not count, and they would proceed through the count. So at the end of the count, if you had six states, say, where the electoral votes were not counted, and then this Electoral Commission were formed, they would convene for 10 days, they would look at the evidence, and they would send their findings back to those six states for those states to determine whether or not they wanted to submit a new slate of electors. Jay, that's how it would have to play out if there were to be any change in the outcome of the election. Do you see any of these states doing that?

Andy, I don't see it. No, I do not see any changes. If there was going to be a change in Georgia, it would have happened. Brian Kemp, the governor, would have not certified the election, and the legislature would have met, and it's a Republican-controlled legislature, and they could, under the Constitution, have submitted their own slate of electors. That could have happened way back. It did not happen. I don't think it's going to happen.

I don't think any of the electoral votes are going to change. All right, Julie's calling from California on Line 6. Hi, Julie, welcome to the broadcaster on the air. Hi, Jay.

Hey. First of all, I again love your show. Thanks. I contributed during your match and challenge. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. With this commission that Senator Cruz is calling, what are they allowed to investigate, and will the states actually cooperate with them and say, well, no, that's private information. We can't give it to you. Well, what he's calling for, Senator Cruz is calling for an audit. Now, what that looks like, you know, I'm not sure. Are they going to have subpoena power? I guess they could.

Yeah, I mean, that would be the idea. He said that he wants them to have full investigatory, in fact, finding authority to conduct an emergency 10-day audit. So, Jay, in my view, the trouble is not so much giving them the authority to investigate and maybe having the states cooperate. The trouble here is the 10-day window. I mean, look, I think you would have to have something brand new and earth-shattering, because remember, before the commission can even open that investigation, even if they're given the full power of both chambers, you have to have votes from Democrats in the House of Representatives. Jay, I mean, that is going to take something that we just don't have on the table right now. It's Monday.

This happens on Wednesday. Unless something happens in that 48 hours, you're not going to get Democrat votes in the House of Representatives. Let me tell you the most important thing is you've got an election in Georgia tomorrow. Now, I'm never going to tell you how to vote. You vote whoever candidate you want, because if you want Joe Biden to have an unchecked authority, then you'll vote for Ossoff and Warnock, because if you want them to have an unchecked authority, if you want to have a check on that authority, you would vote for Loeffler and for Perdue.

I'm not telling you who to vote for, but that's just the fact. Now, let me tell you what you should not do in Georgia is not show up. If you have not voted yet, you should show up and vote, because literally, the control of the United States Senate is at the hands of the citizens of the state of Georgia. You control which way this Congress goes, and I don't think I can overstate that.

No question about it. The people who are telling voters not to go to the polls or to boycott the election do not have the best interest of Georgia voters in Vine. Georgia voters control their own destiny. They get to choose their two senators. It's a very rare occasion that both senators are up at once, and they are the only ones entitled to make that choice.

People to tell them to stay away from the polls aren't looking out for their best interest. I would tell you this, Jay, if the control of the Senate were to shift, if Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock were to win both of those races, here's what you'd have. You'd have a President of the Senate, Kamala Harris.

You'd have a leader, Chuck Schumer, and you'd probably have a chairman of the budget committee named Bernie Sanders. Now, look, Georgia voters can select that if they want, but that's what's on the ballot. Here's what Senator Cruz said about the significance of this Georgia election. I think these two Georgia Senate races on January 5th are without exaggeration the most important Senate races of our entire lifetime. If we see a Democratic majority, a Chuck Schumer majority, I think they will do generational damage.

It will empower the extreme angry leftist voices in the Democratic Party. There you go, and I think that's not an overstatement because these are two candidates that are very left of center. Again, if that's what you want, that's what you should vote.

If that's not what you want, you should vote for the two Republicans. Let me tell you a couple of things. We're going on a break. When we come back, we're going to get more into the Georgia race. We're going to talk about the realistic outcome in the Congress.

How does this go forward on January 6th? But I also want to tell you something. We appreciate the support that you all gave the American Center for Law and Justice in December. It was a record month for us, the biggest month we've ever had in the history of the ACLJ, and I want to thank you in the middle of a pandemic. I want to thank you for that.

God was very good and your support made a huge difference. Also, let me say this. We are on Facebook, of course. We want you to subscribe to our channel, like us, share it, share this feed with your friends. On YouTube, which is a little bit newer for us, we want you to subscribe and hit the bell right there on that page so that you get the alerts when we're on and share it with your friends. We've got a whole new audience we're developing on YouTube, which is great, but we want more subscribers, trying to get to 300,000 in January, so we encourage you to do that.

And we'll be back with more, including your phone calls at 800-684-3110 in just a moment. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines, protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live.

And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. So Senators Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Senators-elect Lummus, Marshall, Hagerty, and Tuberville have joined with Senator Cruz in proposing that a resolution be passed where a challenge be made to the election. So this is going to be a actual way this is going to work is that these Senators intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from the disputed states as not, quote, regularly given and fully certified, which is the statutory language, unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is complete. They're proposing a 10-day audit. They want Congress should immediately appoint an electoral commission with full investigatory and fact-finding authority to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states.

Once completed, individual states would evaluate the commission's findings and can convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their votes if needed. Accordingly, this morning, the Senators, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from the disputed states as not regularly given and lawfully certified unless and until emergency the emergency audit is completed. Now, Thanh, realistically, how many Senators do you expect to join that in addition to these? Well, we know they're going to be 12. I think there is a possibility there might be a handful of others. I think the majority of Republicans will not join that effort, Jay. The list that have already said that they're not going to include Leader McConnell, John Thune, Roy Blunt, Tom Cotton, Ben Sasse, Lindsey Graham, and a few others, Jay. So I think probably that number will be somewhere between 12 and maybe 16 or 18.

But here's really the relevant answer. It only takes one. It takes one House member and one Senate member to trigger the debate, the two-hour debate that will happen. However, no matter how many object, Jay, then it takes a majority of both chambers to actually reject the slate of electors and then set up this possibility for a commission. So while I'm very certain that the objection is going to happen and that the debate is going to happen in both chambers, I just don't see a scenario where the House of Representatives especially is going to approve or reject any of the electoral slates. And, Jay, just to be honest with you, I expect the Senate to reject the objection as well.

Yeah. So, I mean, realistically, folks, while the process, Andy, is constitutional, what Senator Cruz and these others are proposing, the political reality of the situation is it's not likely to prevail because in the House alone you'd have to have a majority. The votes are just not there.

I mean, you have to be realistic about these things. You'd have to have a majority in the House and you'd have to have a majority in the Senate and the votes are simply not there. The process that Senator Cruz and his associates are suggesting is perfectly constitutional, perfectly appropriate. It is not new. It is not unprecedented.

It has happened before. It's a way to look very carefully at the electoral slates that have been presented by the states and to give the legislatures an opportunity, if it goes through, to look again at whether the electors that they certified, all they want to continue to certify in the Presidential election. But the reality is, and we have to be realists about these things, is that the votes in the House and in the Senate are simply not there to enact this commission and to get this through.

It's not there. That doesn't mean they can't make the challenge and it doesn't mean they shouldn't make the challenge. They have the right to make the challenge and, as we've said, it's been done in recent elections. Let me also say this, that there's going to be a lot of protests in Washington on Wednesday. Protests are fine. Civil protests are fine. What's not fine is violence. We criticize with reason violence engaged in by the left.

I will criticize violence if it's engaged in by the right as well. This is not a time for violence. We are a country of laws. We live by the rule of law. We are a constitutional republic. We got to remember that. The Constitution will survive this. We just have to remember that playing by the rules, sometimes the other side may not.

We should still do it because ultimately that's how the Constitution survives. All right, we come back from the break. I'm going to take your calls.

Let me say thank you again. Look, folks, I'm giving you the reality. I could have come in here and said this plan by Senator Cruz is going to – listen, I think it's perfectly valid and legitimate, but I'm giving you what I think the outcome is going to be. I don't think the outcome is going to be what a lot of you want. I don't see the votes there. The court cases have not turned up the evidence.

And I don't think an electoral commission will get appointed, let alone succeed. Take your calls when we come back. The challenges facing Americans are substantial. At a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack, it's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights, in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. You know, Senator Cruz, who's leading the efforts in the Senate, which I think are valid, I don't think there's anything, I don't think anybody would say it's not a valid or constitutional approach. It's a constitutional approach. But listen, some of you are hearing and repeating their calls for violence.

Let me tell you something. That is a really bad idea. First of all, you're breaking the law. Second of all, that's not the way the Constitution works.

Third, we live in a constitutional republic. And the way to handle this is not to take violence and go into the streets. Listen to what Senator Cruz, who is leading the effort on this, actually said.

This is bite five. I think everyone needs to calm down. I think we need to tone down the rhetoric. This is already a volatile situation.

It's like a tinderbox and throwing lit matches into it. And so I think the kind of hyperbole we're seeing, the kind of angry language, you know, yesterday when I released my statement with 10 other senators, I had multiple Democrats urging that I should be arrested and tried for the crimes of sedition and treason. Now, look, that's not helpful at a time when this country, when we're pitted against each other.

Just relax and let's do our jobs. There was a lawyer calling for Mike Pence to be, you know, brought before a tribunal for, you know, basically disloyalty to the United States and treason. And that was, you know, absurd, outrageous, violation of law and order against everything we stand for because the vice President is not going to do something he does not have the authority to do because that'll give you a better result. It's not the country you want to live in when people are taking vigilantism into their own hands.

This is dangerous stuff. What they should have done is actually presented facts in court. Apparently that wasn't accomplished. I wasn't involved in those.

It's hard for me to speak at them because I was very tangentially involved in one case that went to the Supreme Court that we got to stay. But they didn't establish it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. It means it wasn't established. And things can happen, Andy, and if it's not established, guess what? The court doesn't intervene.

That's right. These were judges put forward by Donald Trump. Look, Alito and Thomas said they weren't going to give the relief that Texas wanted. So we just got to deal with reality here, folks, and reality is tomorrow you got an election in Georgia. Let's go to the phones on this. Ken's calling from Tennessee. Ken?

Hey, Jay. You know, I'm tired of hearing about this thing about disenfranchised voters. You know, we have the technology for everyone to have a legal voter ID and all it takes is good responsible citizens to go out and vote, do their job.

Listen, I agree with you. It's hard for me to believe that they still can't add votes. They still can't count votes and they still have problems with that.

But they do. I mean, it is an issue. And it's, you know, electoral integrity, fan, I think is something going forward that has to be looked at.

There is no federal standard because the Constitution gives this to the states, but there needs to be some overlook or some approach to ensure election integrity here. And by the way, Jay, that's an outcome from this debate that's happening on Wednesday that can and must happen. Look, you played the sound earlier from Ted Cruz saying 39% of the American people think that the election was rigged, including 17% of Democrats.

Well, then, Jay, we need to fix that. I mean, the Electoral Commission of 1876, that was one of the things, one of the reasons that the Electoral Count Act was passed in 1887 to try to make some of those reforms. So look, I don't think anybody's saying you look at the problems that happened and you look at the disregard for state law that happened and for the latitude that executives and state supreme courts took and say, just walk away from it.

Exactly the opposite, Jay. This needs to be a moment where the American people get more confidence in the process of their election. And they do that by airing the problems that happened during this election and then calling on their state legislatures to clean those acts up. Look, regardless of whether your candidate won or lost, the American people deserve to know that the right candidate won the election.

Right now, today, as we sit, Jay, the American people don't have that. That's an outcome that needs to happen out of all this. No, you don't know.

I mean, you do not know. That is true. What Trent said is very true. Because I do think there was election fraud. And I think that election fraud was the lack of verification in the mail-in ballots.

And I mean, the problem is establishing it, but my goodness, there were no checks and balances. And changing the dates upon which the ballots could come in, all of that was unconstitutional. The problem is the court precedent on this is not that clear. In other words, when people rely on the state supreme court's decision, the Supreme Court of the United States can be very reluctant to disenfranchise or whatever you want. Take away that vote that's been cast pursuant to a state supreme court decision. So that makes it very difficult.

Renee is calling online for... Hi, Renee. I guess my question is, if we can't win this or turn this around in any way, why are they even going through doing all of this? Well, I think it's perfectly legitimate what they're doing. They're raising the issue. Election integrity has to be an issue now.

You don't ever want to have this happen again. So by bringing this to light, you'll do that. It's going to be over with in a couple... How much time do they get for debate? Is it a couple of hours? It's two hours per objection.

And I think, Jay, they're going to object to six states. So it'll be a long day. Yeah. So, okay. So it'll go all day. And I think it's valid to do that. I mean, it's perfectly valid.

But let me tell you what you got tomorrow. You got the US Senate being determined in the state of Georgia, not just for the two senators for Georgia, but for who has control of the United States Senate. And I think that's dangerous. The other thing is, I think that bringing these charges up, you raised a good question. Why are they logging these charges and challenges? Because they think something was wrong and they have the constitutional authority, the senators, to do this. And here is the reason why. This is what Senator Cruz says by number six. Dismissing these claims, I think, does real violence to our democratic system. We ought to have a serious, fair process and tribunal to consider these claims, consider them quickly, consider them expeditiously. We can do it in 10 days before the inauguration. I think that would take major steps towards reestablishing trust in our democratic process. And I believe that should be a bipartisan objective. We may be too divided today for that to happen, but Democrats should be interested in Americans having confidence in our electoral system just as much as Republicans should be.

I think he's right. I mean, this is, look, this was an unorthodox election. We had the pandemic and unfortunately that pandemic was used to change the rules. And that's where the election irregularities took place. They used the pandemic to change the rules.

That's exactly right, Jay. The pandemic was an excuse, an excuse to change the rules into these very, very perilous waters of mail-in ballots where the signatures are not verified on the ballot against the envelope, against the voter registration card, and that turns around the election. If mail-in ballots were used in some states and have been used in some states successfully, Oregon, I think, but they have gone through years and years of looking at this, Florida and other jurisdictions. I'm not talking about absentee ballots.

I'm talking about mail-in ballots, but that was used, the pandemic was used as an opportunity to tread into waters that were very perilous, let's say, and to do things that should not have been done. And I think what Senator Cruz is trying to do is perfectly legitimate. And the fact that it may not succeed doesn't mean it can and shouldn't be tried because everything that is constitutional, everything that is legal, everything that is within the purview of what our republic stands for should be tried to ensure the integrity of an election, and that's what he's trying to do here. Establish this commission, give it 10 days, give it investigatory power, let the legislatures hear from these bipartisan commissioners and determine whether they want to stick with their electoral slate or change their electoral slate. And I think it's an important thing to do in order to give confidence to this process. Look, we're electing the President of the United States.

Ten days to look at this is not an unprecedented or an unreasonable thing to ask for. That's why I think it's legitimate for Senator Cruz to raise these issues and Senator Hawley to do this, and in the House too. There was also a lawsuit filed by Louie Gohmert against Mike Pence, saying that Mike Pence should have the authority to declare the election null and void basically.

That was wrong. And the judge that threw the case out was a judge appointed by President Trump, who's a constitutional conservative. And the Vice President of the United States cannot nullify an election. My goodness, if that was the case, you know, it would have been the election in the last four years? Hillary Clinton, because Joe Biden would have simply said, you know what, I don't think this was fair.

I don't think she won the popular vote. I'm going to go ahead and give the election as the Vice President and the President of the Senate. I'm going to give it and the presiding officer for these proceedings for the certification.

I'm going to go ahead and give it to Hillary Clinton. So all those people that are saying Mike Pence can fix this, think about that. We got to do a lot of thinking as we're dealing with this. We got to defend the Constitution. We got to defend these election integrity.

I think that's going to be going forward a gigantic issue. And you've got a big day tomorrow in Georgia. The fate of the United States Senate rests in Georgia. And no matter what you think of the governor or the secretary of state or whatever side you're on, if you haven't already voted, you need a vote. It is critical for election integrity that you vote.

And Andy, you were just there when we only got 20 seconds. It's an acrimonious campaign. There are attack ads and terrible things on both sides. But look, if I can plead for you to do one thing, it's vote. Don't not vote because you feel that the election was rigged and wrong.

Vote. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our religious, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.

ACLJ.org. We're on a lot of stations in Georgia. It's an important state. I grew up a lot of my formative years in Georgia, went to college in Georgia. Pam was born in Georgia.

We lived in Georgia for a long time. You've got a big burden tomorrow, and that is you're determining for whatever reason, it has now become Georgia's decision on the control of the United States Senate. And that is a big, big decision.

And I want to tell you something. The polling numbers, and I don't know because they're all within the margin of error. So the Real Clear Politics average has Ossoff up by 0.8, which is interesting because Purdue actually won, but they're basing it on turnout and averages. That's the Real Clear Politics average. Trafalgar has it plus two, RCP average 0.8 for Ossoff. Fox 5 has Purdue up plus one, and Emerson had Purdue up plus three.

Then you can go to the earlier ones. I think the polling at this point, Van, doesn't matter because it's been a lot of early voting. Not as many that came in, by the way, as the general election, but there has been a lot. And it's going to be, the Republicans will win if there's a turnout tomorrow.

Yeah. I mean, all of the polling is within the margin of error. You know, what else was within the margin of error was the November 3rd results. David Purdue did win over John Ossoff, but he won by 2%. All of the Republicans combined in that special election against all of the Democrats combined, all of the Republicans won by about 1%, Jay.

So it's just very, very close. About 3 million people have already voted. And Jay, about half a billion dollars have already been spent in the race. It is the most expensive Senate race in US history already. So look, I don't think the polls mean a whole lot, but I'm here to tell you, Jay, both of these races could go either way. And the party that turns out the most unified base, Jay, that party is most likely going to win both these seats.

Yeah. You know, what's interesting here also, you know, we've not talked about this much, but the libertarian candidate in Georgia got about, I think it was 112,000 votes, something like that, 90 to 112,000 votes. That could have swayed the election because most libertarians would have tended to go for Donald Trump just based on political philosophy.

But again, it's a free country. People can vote the way they want to vote, but you cannot underscore, you can't overstate rather, and you should underscore the role that Georgia plays on judges, on committee chairmanships, on international treaties if that comes to that. I mean, there's just a lot at stake here and you're going to have two different, very different political worlds. So while everybody's worried about what's going to happen on January 3rd in the United States Senate on the President, I think that's going to be a much harder challenge for the President to win on any of those because of just the sheer numbers. Georgia is literally up for grabs, Andy. I mean, literally up for grabs is outcome determinative on the United States Senate.

It really is. And I can't emphasize that enough. And as I said earlier, it has been an acrimonious, vicious campaign.

The ads on both sides have been very vicious. But as Jay said earlier, if you want conservative government, if you don't want the Green New Deal, if you don't want higher taxes, if you want America first, if you want those things, then there's a certain way you vote. If you want the opposite of that, there's another way you vote. If you want the control of the Senate and confirmation of judges to be in the hands of the Republicans, there's a certain way you vote. Ambassadors, the confirmation, the way cabinet members are confirmed, there's a certain way you vote.

And I can't say this enough. This is my home state of Georgia. The important thing that you've got to do is not be swayed by the idea that, oh, the election was rigged. This was a fake election. The President was, the election was stolen from the President.

We're staying home. No, that's not what Americans do. Americans go to the polls and vote their conscience and their beliefs.

In Georgia, you now have control of the Senate and in fact of the government because with the control of the Senate one way or the other, you have control of the government. Vote. I cannot emphasize that enough, Jay. Senator Kamala Harris knows the importance of tomorrow's election.

Here's what she said. The new year really, I think 2020 is not over until we get through the end of Tuesday, January 5th. Then we can really celebrate the new year. I mean, so they know it too. I mean, they know what's at stake here. Well, maybe Kamala Harris more than anyone, Jay, because she would have a tie-breaking vote in the United States Senate if the Democrats win both of those seats. Look, there's just so much at stake. We've talked about the personnel, Jay, but just the legislative agenda set forward by the United States Senate, it is 100% on the line. And by the way, we've talked a lot during the course of this broadcast about election reform. Well, look, if evidence in these states and other states continues to come forward and we know the ramifications of state Supreme Court's changing statutory guidelines, if we want the United States Senate to look at those things, Jay, well, guess what?

That's dependent on the outcome tomorrow in Georgia as well. You know, here's the other thing, and I'm going to take William's call from Texas. Some people are criticizing Ted Cruz for a waste of time. I don't think that's right. It's highlighting the problem, and he has the constitutional right to do this and the statutory right to do this, and he's doing it with other senators.

They have the right to do this. William. Yeah. Hey, I have a question. So I have two questions and a follow-up.

I'm a knowledge is power, I say. So in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania comes up and the senator and the governor vote, can Ted Cruz, even though he's out of the state of Texas, can he object to Pennsylvania? He could say that he could vote to not certify that. He could say that the electors from those states were not regularly given, this is what the statute requires, and lawfully certified. And that's what he's going to say until an audit's done. So he is not going to vote in favor of certification because he thinks that they were not lawfully certified and regularly given. Andy, that's the statutory language, and that's what Ted Cruz is proposing.

That's right. He can do that for any state. And he can do that for any state. He doesn't have to just be from the state. He doesn't have to just vote for Texas because he's from Texas. He is a United States Senator, and he has the right to vote with respect to the certification of any state that comes before the Senate. You know, I'll tell you this, and it's an interesting aspect of this, and I think you've got to just be clear on this, and that is the reality that Ted Cruz is doing this is based on the Constitution. But let me tell you what he's not saying. He's not saying that he then will determine whether these votes are certified or not. He's saying he's going to turn it back over to the states to relook at it. And then if the states decide to change their slate, that's up to the states, which is kind of how the Constitution reads here.

So, Than, I mean, even that, people need to understand what's really... You know, you're not like... Some of you are not happy with me because I'm giving you the evidence of the law, what the law actually is. But what Ted Cruz is actually saying is he's going to vote no to certification on this round. He's going to say it wasn't lawfully given. He's going to say it wasn't regularly given, rather, and was not done unlawfully certified by the states. But then he's sending it back to the states after this investigation takes place for 10 days, and then those states will decide. That's what he's saying, Than.

That's right. He's not sure it's going to succeed. He thinks it's an uphill battle. But he says, look, I think the irregularities are significant enough. We should take every opportunity to look at it. We've got 10 days to look at it. I want them to look at it. But then, Jay, he's not taking control of those electoral votes from Pennsylvania. He's saying to Pennsylvania, the state officials, here's the evidence the commission found.

Take another look and tell us what you want to do with it. That's the plan. Look, tomorrow, big day. We're going to cover the Georgia election race very closely tomorrow because that's literally the fate of the United States Senate again. Thank you for your support of the ACLJ in December. It was monumental, and we appreciate that very much.

Have a great day. Georgia, make sure you're voting tomorrow. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org.