Mark Levin: ‘100s and 100s’ of affidavits, ‘more than they ever had in the Russian collusion hoax’

by WorldTribune Staff, November 24, 2020

[Transcript from Mark Levin’s recent monologue on the Trump campaign legal team’s fight and the civil litigation process.]

One of the things that troubles me greatly, is that a number of the cases that the Trump campaign brought have been dismissed, and in my view should not have been dismissed. And what the media do, is rather than explain the nature of the case, or what it is that the Trump campaign is alleging, they just say, oh well, the case was dismissed. Why?

Now, let’s talk about discovery. Expedited discovery. So, you bring a case, you have to pass the motion to dismiss standard, which typically is fairly easy, you don’t need all this evidence for a court to accept the case as I explained, and then you can seek expedited discovery so you can gather all the evidence that you think is out there.

Expedited discovery can be granted by a court and it often is when injunctive relief is sought by temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. Depending upon the need for prompt resolution, that discovery can be ordered immediately. Courts have the power to speed discovery along. And very fast.

Now let’s talk about, as an example, this Dominion voting system.

Unexplained significant deviations from expected results–mathematical inconsistencies supported by experts–should be more than sufficient to establish a reasonable basis to file a complaint and justify fast discovery.

So it’s all wrong when you hear legal analysts and hosts say, “Where’s all the evidence?” This is a civil suit. So you have the bar you need to pass so your case isn’t dismissed, then you conduct discovery.

Written discovery, document demands, depositions and so forth on an expedited level. That’s how it’s supposed to work. That is why it’s frustrating to me to listen and to watch people who have no experience in civil litigation, know nothing about civil litigation, who are former federal prosecutors and professors who should know better, saying this same thing, or political operatives with white boards or without white boards saying, “Well I’m afraid there’s no evidence, we don’t have any evidence, there’s no evidence.”

So, if judges prevent the Trump campaign from going forward, for example, involving the Dominion voting system, they’re never going to gather the quote unquote evidence that is necessary in a trial, in a court proceeding, where you are seeking some kind of remedy or relief. Because you don’t go to court with boxes and boxes full of evidence. Sometimes you can, but you aren’t required to.

So all this talk from Republicans, Senators who have no idea what they are talking about, Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, who was just elected so he’s not all worked up about anything, Adam Kinsinger, saying it all over already, maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t, but why won’t they embrace our legal system? Why won’t they embrace our constitutional system? Why won’t they encourage the courts to go ahead, patiently, to act on these cases so we can get to the bottom of it?

There’s reasons to be concerned, Ladies and Gentlemen, there are different kinds of cases the Trump campaign is bringing. Number one, as I said, they want to test this machine system either now or in the very near future with a filing. They are getting their experts lined up and they’re getting the affidavits lined up. Do you want to know how I know? Because unlike most, I’ve asked them. Number two, you’ve had cases of actual fraud. The Trump campaign in various cities and states have collected hundreds and hundreds of signed affidavits under penalty of perjury, from election workers, from state officials, from civilians, hundreds and hundreds. That’s hundreds and hundreds more than they ever had in the Russian collusion hoax.

These are serious cases that they are bringing, I can’t help it if judges are getting nervous and they don’t want to pursue, or they are Obama appointees or whatever they are, or leftwing rogue justices, a majority, like you have on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania just like you had in Florida in 2000 on the Supreme Court of Florida.

Now what other kinds of cases are being brought, constitutional cases, very serious cases. Under U.S. Const. Article II Section 1 Clause 2, with the United States Supreme Court, Associate Justice Sam Alito has already reached down into Pennsylvania twice and ordered them to protect certain ballots in case the courts rule that what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did may be unconstitutional. Now what am I talking about?

U.S. Const. Article II Section 1 Clause 2 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature,” They specifically say the legislature, you won’t find that in many places in the Constitution, where they’re specific about it, “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 state legislature makes election laws, and I can tell you from my own research way, way back, there’s no way the framers of the Constitution or the ratification conventions would have approved this Constitution, if the legislature themselves weren’t in charge of the voting systems. If they weren’t setting the laws. You need to understand that there was no federal government, they created this federal government, and the states had to buy into it, and one of the areas where the states said, “we’ll only buy into it if you protect our authority. And underscore our authority to determine what the election laws are.”

So when you have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or you have a consent decree in Georgia, you have a federal judge in Michigan, and things of that sort going on, interfering with decisions by the state legislatures, that is unconstitutional and that should be raised, and how many ballots does that affect? Nobody knows, it could be hundreds of thousands.

Now, as was pointed out by ABC News some time ago, let’s talk about these changes that have come. Do you want to know why there’s litigation going on? Do you want to know why this is taking so long? Because the Democrats and their surrogates in the Biden campaign brought over 200 to 300 lawsuits in the lead up to the election to change the voting systems in each state. And the Trump campaign is trying to address them now, confront them, and deal with them because all of these cases involved the Democrats who intended to make fraud easier, if not, institutionalize it.

And they write at ABC News:

Thanks to legal challenges from voting rights advocates, some states that typically require ballots to be received by polls closing time will accept ballots postmarked by Election Day for the 2020 election.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said, “we don’t even care if there’s a postmark, we don’t care if there’s a signature, we don’t care if the signatures don’t match.”

That was a case brought by, really the Democrat Governor who really couldn’t get these things from the Republican legislature. So they went to court and got it from the Democrats on the Supreme Court.

In the three ‘BlueWall’ states the president won in 2016–Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin–judges have recently issued rulings that extend the deadline for mail ballots to be received.

Judges! The text of the Constitution says that’s unconstitutional! Judges don’t get to make that decision whether they are state judges or federal judges. That’s in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In Michigan, a court of claims judge ordered clerks to accept ballots that are postmarked by Nov. 2 and receive within 14 days of the election, the deadline for results to be certified. These ballots have to be counted as provisional ballots.

(A court of claims judge is the lowest judge in the state.)

The legislature didn’t pass that, the Republicans didn’t agree to that.

In Wisconsin, a U.S, district judge ruled that ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 can be counted as long as they are received by Nov. 9.

The legislature didn’t do that in Wisconsin. These are all Republican legislatures that are being overruled by courts by these “voting rights advocates” Democrats that are bringing these cases.

And in Pennsylvania, not only will mailed ballots that are postmarked on or before 8 p.m. on Election Day and received by 5 p.m. the Friday after it be counted, due to a ruling from the state Supreme Court, but any ballots that arrive within that time frame without a postmark, or with an unreadable postmark, will be presumed to have been sent before the cutoff point, unless evidence indicates otherwise.

That is a violation of the Federal Constitution. State law did not provide for that.

In Minnesota, ballots postmarked by Election Day and received within a week after the election will be counted. Both Massachusetts and Kentucky are allowing postmarked ballots received by Nov. 6 to be counted.

It goes on and on and on, these changes have been taking place. Notice this, I don’t know a single newsroom that has put a chart on the monitor to show you all the changes that occurred in the last year or so, even in the last 90 days.

In these states, by court order, or by Secretary of States, or boards of elections, to get around Republican legislatures.

This is a highly abusive and controversial action across the country.

In Georgia, a federal judge ruled that ballots postmarked by Election Day will count if election officials get them by the third day after the election, but the secretary of state, the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party are challenging this order in court.

But you have courts stepping in and changing election laws, and this is really quite shocking.

…The Trump campaign lost its lawsuit in Nevada seeking to stop the state from mailing out ballots, among other pursuits.”

Nevada changed its mail-in procedures, that they are mailing it to the election rolls, 60 days before the election, they put in ballot harvesting, they put in a very controversial way of checking signatures, that of course excluded any Republican observer. And you can go on in New Jersey and these other states.

These are very serious matters, so when you have politicians who are out there saying, like Romney, Romney has no idea what I’m talking about, he hasn’t looked at a single thing, neither does Sasse, “Mr. Constitution,” he’s not “Mr. Constitution.”

Now what should happen in these states? What should have happened, and should happen, is that these Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia and so forth, they should have issued a resolution early on stating that, “we, under the federal Constitution, have an oath and a duty to ensure that Article II is upheld. That we make the election laws, not anybody else, period. And that the election laws that were in place, but changed by federal and state courts or by fiat or by the Secretary of State, are null and void, and all counts should be based on election law that the legislature put in place, but were unconstitutionally altered. Any votes beyond that are illegal and unconstitutional.”

If you are gonna cry about disenfranchisement, blame the Democrat courts and the people who did that.

That’s how you have a Constitutional vote. That’s why that matters.

And I also fault Chief Justice John Roberts. He could have killed this right away. Several weeks ago, when he should have voted with the others originalists, and so should have Kavanaugh, instead of letting Pennsylvania get away with what they did.

What they should have ruled for Pennsylvania and for any other state. The Constitution, Article II, leaves it for the legislatures. Any changes by any court, local, state, or federal, done by any public official, Governor, Secretary of State, or members of any boards of elections, are per se unconstitutional and all arguments will be based on the federal constitution what the state legislatures have passed.

If they had done this, almost none of this would be going on.

So those people who say, Biden won, let’s get over it, let’s move along…if you believe in the rule of law, if you believe in the constitution, if you believe in the nature of civil litigation, that there needs to be some discovery with Dominion voting system and other activities that took place. We literally have hundreds and hundreds of affidavits of fraud. If you believe in that system, then it shouldn’t be cut short. Otherwise the entire integrity of your franchise is called into question. And it will happen in ’22 and ’24…

Intelligence Brief __________ Replace The Media

You must be logged in to post a comment Login