Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:07.000]  I'm Dave Champion. I was recently accused, in the light of SARS-CoV-2 for the last nine or ten months,
[00:07.000 --> 00:09.000]  of being a one-trick pony.
[00:09.000 --> 00:16.000]  And the follower of the Dr. Reality page said, you know, there was a day when you used to talk about all sorts of things.
[00:16.000 --> 00:18.000]  Now all you talk about is this damn virus.
[00:18.000 --> 00:22.000]  Well, yeah, okay, so it probably is the predominant news item.
[00:22.000 --> 00:24.000]  But right now I'm going to talk about something else.
[00:24.000 --> 00:29.000]  And when I ask for suggestions, people are all like, they put like political things in.
[00:29.000 --> 00:33.000]  And look, nobody wants me to talk about politics.
[00:40.000 --> 00:43.000]  One area of study throughout my lifetime has been the law.
[00:43.000 --> 00:45.000]  So I am willing to talk about the law.
[00:45.000 --> 00:49.000]  And this particular issue of the law touches upon politics.
[00:49.000 --> 00:53.000]  So I know I'm going to be an evil bastard to those people over there as soon as I open my mouth.
[00:53.000 --> 00:59.000]  The issue is the state of Texas filing suit in the United States Supreme Court against a slew of other states
[00:59.000 --> 01:06.000]  claiming that they violated their statutes or they violated their constitutions and how they ran their elections.
[01:06.000 --> 01:14.000]  So the United States Supreme Court has to set aside or invalidate a large swath of their ballots.
[01:15.000 --> 01:23.000]  Okay, so if somebody has not looked at hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits,
[01:23.000 --> 01:27.000]  especially when they involve government in coming before various courts and arguing issues,
[01:27.000 --> 01:36.000]  it would take a lot of education to get to the point where you would understand why the Texas case is nonsense.
[01:36.000 --> 01:43.000]  And I was just reading Donald Trump's motion to intervene in that case.
[01:43.000 --> 01:49.000]  I'm trying to figure out the best way to sort of distill down why it's nonsense.
[01:49.000 --> 01:58.000]  Because I know people who adore Donald Trump, they don't understand the issues, but they'll tell you the suit is valid.
[01:58.000 --> 02:03.000]  It's like, no, sorry, it's not, which is what you're going to see from the Supreme Court here shortly.
[02:03.000 --> 02:08.000]  They're going to dismiss the action on any one of several grounds.
[02:09.000 --> 02:14.000]  It's just one of the nuttiest lawsuits ever filed.
[02:14.000 --> 02:20.000]  And by the way, I'm not the only one to say that people who've spent their life, decades of their lives,
[02:20.000 --> 02:27.000]  as practicing attorneys in constitutional law are like, what the fuck is this?
[02:27.000 --> 02:32.000]  Okay, so it's an abortion pretending to be a lawsuit.
[02:32.000 --> 02:35.000]  And I read Donald Trump's motion to intervene.
[02:36.000 --> 02:43.000]  You know, I want to share with you something that I sent to a friend of mine, a text,
[02:43.000 --> 02:47.000]  that I sent to him because it kind of sums this up for me.
[02:47.000 --> 02:53.000]  The hodgepot of meaningless personal opinion, sans evidence, will be disposed of as have the previous 51 cases.
[02:53.000 --> 02:56.000]  I honestly don't know what the game is.
[02:56.000 --> 02:59.000]  Certainly the lawyers know this is nonsense.
[02:59.000 --> 03:01.000]  So what's the end game?
[03:01.000 --> 03:04.000]  Okay, so that was not produced for you.
[03:04.000 --> 03:09.000]  It was produced in a texting dialogue with a friend of mine several hours ago.
[03:09.000 --> 03:12.000]  And I just thought I would share it with you because it's my genuine sentiments.
[03:12.000 --> 03:14.000]  I don't know what the end game is.
[03:14.000 --> 03:17.000]  This suit is nonsense. It's childish.
[03:17.000 --> 03:21.000]  It's a sure bang dismissal.
[03:21.000 --> 03:26.000]  And it relies on many of the same assertions as the earlier cases
[03:26.000 --> 03:30.000]  where attorneys didn't bring any evidence into the courtroom.
[03:30.000 --> 03:34.000]  I think the big one for me was everybody was screaming after there was this.
[03:34.000 --> 03:39.000]  I think we were up to like 46 or 48 losses, something like that.
[03:39.000 --> 03:46.000]  And the pro-Trump people were screaming, you wait till Sidney Powell files her lawsuit.
[03:46.000 --> 03:51.000]  Wait till they release the crack and some bullshit like that.
[03:51.000 --> 03:56.000]  And I'm like, no, because she doesn't have any evidence either.
[03:56.000 --> 03:58.000]  So she filed two cases.
[03:58.000 --> 04:03.000]  Both of them were dismissed in warp speed.
[04:03.000 --> 04:08.000]  One of them because she was making a first year law school error,
[04:08.000 --> 04:14.000]  which she asked the court to provide a remedy relief for her client.
[04:14.000 --> 04:16.000]  The court didn't have the authority to...
[04:16.000 --> 04:21.000]  That's one of the legs of jurisdiction for a court when we talk about legs of a stool.
[04:21.000 --> 04:25.000]  So one of the legs of the stool as far as jurisdiction
[04:25.000 --> 04:31.000]  is that the court has to be able to provide the remedy the plaintiff is seeking.
[04:31.000 --> 04:33.000]  And Powell is an experienced enough attorney.
[04:33.000 --> 04:35.000]  She knew that case was going to get...
[04:35.000 --> 04:37.000]  So I don't know what the angle is. She knew that.
[04:37.000 --> 04:40.000]  She knew she was asking for something the court could not give her.
[04:40.000 --> 04:43.000]  Therefore, one of the legs for the court to assume jurisdiction was missing,
[04:43.000 --> 04:46.000]  so it was going to dismiss. She knew that.
[04:46.000 --> 04:49.000]  The other one, the judge says, you don't have any evidence.
[04:49.000 --> 04:51.000]  You're out of here.
[04:51.000 --> 04:54.000]  And she's an experienced enough attorney that she knew that too.
[04:54.000 --> 04:57.000]  She knows what evidence is for Christ's sake,
[04:57.000 --> 05:00.000]  so she knew she was going in there with no evidence.
[05:00.000 --> 05:04.000]  So I do wonder what the end game is.
[05:04.000 --> 05:09.000]  So this Texas suit, the one that Donald Trump just filed his motion of intervention today
[05:09.000 --> 05:15.000]  with the Supreme Court, this is going to be another lickety split dismissal.
[05:15.000 --> 05:19.000]  There is no attorney involved in any of these cases,
[05:19.000 --> 05:22.000]  the 51 that have been lost now.
[05:22.000 --> 05:25.000]  There's no attorney involved in any of these
[05:25.000 --> 05:27.000]  that have looked at whoever the client is,
[05:27.000 --> 05:31.000]  whether it's a state GOP organization, a county GOP organization,
[05:31.000 --> 05:33.000]  the Trump campaign.
[05:33.000 --> 05:36.000]  I typically wrap them up all under the umbrella of Trump
[05:36.000 --> 05:39.000]  because they're all working in the interest of Donald Trump.
[05:39.000 --> 05:42.000]  So the Trump side, the attorneys that are working,
[05:43.000 --> 05:47.000]  that are going into court and arguing these cases,
[05:47.000 --> 05:49.000]  they're not idiots.
[05:49.000 --> 05:53.000]  They know they're walking into court with losing cases,
[05:53.000 --> 05:56.000]  51 of them to date.
[05:56.000 --> 06:00.000]  51 losing cases.
[06:00.000 --> 06:02.000]  Help me out, okay?
[06:02.000 --> 06:04.000]  Usually I'm coming here and I'm telling you something.
[06:04.000 --> 06:05.000]  In this case, I'm not.
[06:05.000 --> 06:07.000]  I'm telling you it's going to lose.
[06:07.000 --> 06:08.000]  The Texas case is going to lose.
[06:08.000 --> 06:10.000]  I'm telling you the other 51 lost.
[06:10.000 --> 06:12.000]  By the way, there was a single victory,
[06:12.000 --> 06:14.000]  and it was on a very trivial point
[06:14.000 --> 06:18.000]  that ironically affected absolutely no votes.
[06:18.000 --> 06:20.000]  It's like, why did you bring this suit?
[06:20.000 --> 06:22.000]  You're not changing any of the votes.
[06:22.000 --> 06:27.000]  So 51 losses, and we're going to have 52 here in the next couple of days.
[06:27.000 --> 06:30.000]  You know, I asked somebody on my personal Facebook page recently,
[06:30.000 --> 06:36.000]  I said, so what is your game here?
[06:36.000 --> 06:39.000]  I said, do you think that all these attorneys
[06:39.000 --> 06:41.000]  that represent all these various entities
[06:41.000 --> 06:43.000]  underneath the umbrella of Trump,
[06:43.000 --> 06:45.000]  do you think they've really got a bunch of evidence
[06:45.000 --> 06:47.000]  and they're just holding it back
[06:47.000 --> 06:50.000]  and not bringing it to the courtroom?
[06:50.000 --> 06:52.000]  Because why?
[06:52.000 --> 06:54.000]  I said to him, well, you think Donald Trump
[06:54.000 --> 06:58.000]  also has these mountains of evidence?
[06:58.000 --> 07:02.000]  He's keeping all the evidence secret
[07:02.000 --> 07:07.000]  as he loses five cases, 10 cases, 20 cases,
[07:07.000 --> 07:11.000]  40 cases, 50 cases, 51 cases.
[07:11.000 --> 07:13.000]  He loses all these cases,
[07:13.000 --> 07:15.000]  but he's got a mountain of evidence right there.
[07:15.000 --> 07:17.000]  Who fucking believes this?
[07:17.000 --> 07:20.000]  I think it is very, very safe to say
[07:20.000 --> 07:23.000]  for a rational human being
[07:23.000 --> 07:27.000]  that there is no evidence.
[07:27.000 --> 07:32.000]  Not only has there been 51 cases lost or dismissed,
[07:32.000 --> 07:34.000]  but I've been watching them.
[07:34.000 --> 07:35.000]  I've been reading the briefs.
[07:35.000 --> 07:38.000]  I've been reading the court documents.
[07:38.000 --> 07:41.000]  It's not like there's all these corrupt judges.
[07:41.000 --> 07:43.000]  Some of them are Trump appointees,
[07:43.000 --> 07:46.000]  and they're saying, no, you don't have any evidence.
[07:46.000 --> 07:47.000]  Goodbye.
[07:47.000 --> 07:50.000]  Quit wasting this court's time.
[07:50.000 --> 07:55.000]  I don't get why a party would go into court time and again
[07:55.000 --> 08:00.000]  and say, I say so.
[08:00.000 --> 08:01.000]  The judge is sitting up on the bench.
[08:01.000 --> 08:02.000]  Okay.
[08:02.000 --> 08:05.000]  Where's the evidence?
[08:05.000 --> 08:12.000]  Well, it's true, Judge, because I say so.
[08:12.000 --> 08:14.000]  The judge.
[08:14.000 --> 08:15.000]  Okay.
[08:15.000 --> 08:16.000]  You didn't answer my question.
[08:16.000 --> 08:19.000]  Where's the evidence?
[08:19.000 --> 08:23.000]  Well, it's in the filing.
[08:23.000 --> 08:24.000]  No.
[08:24.000 --> 08:29.000]  There was a lot of supposition, allegations, accusations
[08:29.000 --> 08:31.000]  without the evidence to back them up.
[08:31.000 --> 08:33.000]  I'm asking you for the evidence.
[08:33.000 --> 08:38.000]  Well, you have what we have, Your Honor.
[08:38.000 --> 08:39.000]  Okay.
[08:39.000 --> 08:41.000]  Case dismissed.
[08:41.000 --> 08:46.000]  Why would the Trump side do this
[08:46.000 --> 08:51.000]  again and again and again and again and again and again and again?
[08:51.000 --> 08:55.000]  I admit, maybe the light bulb's going to come on for me in a day or two.
[08:55.000 --> 08:57.000]  I'm going to be like, ah.
[08:57.000 --> 09:04.000]  But right now, whatever Trump perceives his advantage,
[09:04.000 --> 09:09.000]  not advantage, his gain to be from all of this,
[09:09.000 --> 09:13.000]  it certainly isn't the election, and it certainly isn't winning in court.
[09:13.000 --> 09:20.000]  There was a UC Irvine, I think I've got it here, stand by.
[09:20.000 --> 09:22.000]  Yes.
[09:22.000 --> 09:23.000]  Okay.
[09:23.000 --> 09:26.000]  Quote from Richard L. Hassan,
[09:26.000 --> 09:29.000]  a law professor at University of California Irvine,
[09:29.000 --> 09:32.000]  and he called the Texas filing,
[09:32.000 --> 09:34.000]  that's where Texas filed with the United States Supreme Court,
[09:34.000 --> 09:39.000]  quote, a press release masquerading as a lawsuit.
[09:39.000 --> 09:41.000]  And I couldn't agree with the professor more.
[09:41.000 --> 09:48.000]  I'm sure attorneys have told him, Mr. President, this cannot win.
[09:48.000 --> 09:50.000]  I'm sure they've told him this time and time again.
[09:50.000 --> 09:52.000]  So what's he doing?
[09:52.000 --> 09:53.000]  What's the game?
[09:53.000 --> 10:00.000]  He's allowing himself to lose again and again and again and again and again
[10:00.000 --> 10:01.000]  and again and again.
[10:01.000 --> 10:05.000]  There's got to be for him some gain.
[10:05.000 --> 10:12.000]  I honestly cannot possibly imagine what it is.
[10:18.000 --> 10:19.000]  Thank you.