News Source: Ken Starr on Mark Levin Show on Nov 8; Published：11/10/2020
Video Transcription: Wade; Short comments: TCC; Proofread: Roberts/TCC; Final check TCC; Page: Connor54
After President Trump announced that he has received a recorded 71 million votes at the 2020 Presidential election, I guess it will just need time to iron out the “irregularities” to announce his win. On November 8, 2020, Mark Levin interviewed Judge Ken Starr, a former US circus judge and the 39th Solicitor General of the US, on Mark Levin Show for recent election irregularities, specifically on what happened in Philadelphia. With Judge Starr’s “reasonably educational” explanation, we realized clearly what happened in Philadelphia about the process to change their state voting system after disapproval of the state legislature right before the election is unconstitutional. If this is successfully challenged and should be done at the US Supreme Court, all the mail-in-ballots were illegal and should not be counted in Philadelphia. Will this have a ripple effect impacting on the current election and future elections?
Levin [Question 1]: Because there’re news organizations who are making declarations about who’s won the election and so forth. I want to unravel this slowly but surely because we’re living in a constitutional system, not a PR system, not a left-wing system, but a constitutional system.
Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution provides as the follows, I quote in pertinent part “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”.
In other words, the state legislatures determine how to select their electors. Isn’t that what that mean?
Starr: That’s exactly what it means Mark. And it got lost in the Pennsylvania shuffle.
The founding generation sitting in Philadelphia undoubtedly thought, “well, should we have the state supreme court make the determination?”
No, we want what this is a very democratic with a small ‘d’ approach. We want the legislatures, those closest to the people, the state legislatures. They’re the bosses, not the governor. And what happened in Pennsylvania over these recent weeks is a constitutional travesty.
Governor Wolf tries to get his reforms, his vision, as he’s entitled to do through the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He failed. He then goes to the state supreme court, which by a divided vote, accepted the substance of what the governor Wolf was doing, and added their own nooks and crannies as well.
Happily, in recent days we’ve seen Justice Samuel Alito stepped in. As a single justice, he has the power to do it, and essentially in a very short order, [it] says the legislature is the boss. [Note: Sam Alito, a Justice of the Federal Circus Court, was nominated and elected by President Bush in 2005. He ordered that Pennsylvania’s votes received by mail after November 3 should be counted separately.]
What the governor did, this is my interpretation, is utterly unconstitutional. What the Pennsylvania supreme court did is utterly unconstitutional. It’s just clear as the words you just read exactly right. In fact, to count every vote, may be a crime. It may even be a crime under Federal law. It’s definitely a crime under State law.
If that is said, here’s the key word, illegal. And that’s why you see and it’s shameful that Vice President Biden’s people and VP himself are saying to count every vote and selling a lot of T-shirts. That’s a potential and an invitation for absolute lawlessness.
I know of a situation very quickly, where a recently widowed woman knew how her late husband would vote. He was deceased, that’s a human tragedy. What’s a travesty is she cast his vote for him. We call that an absentee ballot. No, we call that an illegal ballot.
Levin [Question 2]: They say to count every legal vote, except, of course, they have and there’s widespread reporting on this ‘push’ the republicans out while they’re counting illegal votes in the city of Philadelphia.
I’m told by the Speaker’s office there that they have over 100,000 provisional ballots. You don’t hand out provisional ballots like lollipops. There are again conditions for those. I’m gravely concerned, Judge Starr, that [what] was happening here is all of the checks and safeguards that have been built into the electoral process by the constitution, by state constitutions or by state legislatures, are being litigated away.
You know Donald Trump is the selected president in 2016. We knew he had won. He wasn’t actually selected at 2 am or 3 am the next morning, but we knew he had won because it was overwhelming.
They’re still counting votes now, they’re still counting votes now because that the chaos seem to be the objective. The more chaos you can create, the more uncertainty you can create. The democrats, Judge Starr, seem to want to vote earlier and earlier, and count later and later. What’s the point of that?
Starr: Yeah, both ways. Well it doesn’t bode well for confidence in the election process.
Everyone uses the word ‘integrity’. I think on the Republican side, we’re using it with every breath that we take. Can’t we have honesty, transparency, openness and so forth? And I must say I’ve been disappointed at some of the reporting that has gone about the process, willfully blinding themselves some of the reporters to the reality of what’s happening before them.
So yes, what’s happening I think in a limited number of cities, but they’re all large cities, and certainly two of those large cities have a history. Detroit and Philadelphia [have an] assorted history of voter fraud and convictions.
We’re not talking about allegations and political rhetoric. We’re talking about judicial process having resulted in criminal convictions, including in times passed, the sitting state senate’s majority leader, who hailed from Philadelphia, went to jail because of voter fraud, so failing to insist on checks and balances. Sunshine! Please let the sunshine in and that’s in the form of these observers who have meaningful access. It’s not accessed, right, Mark? If you’re in the Convention Center and you really can’t see 60 yards away what’s going on. That’s form over substance.
Levin [Question 3]: The US supreme court, so this matter, presents itself to the US supreme court. So, in my mind three things can happen.
One they don’t take it up in full, even though I strongly feel they should, hopefully there’s four justices as I understand it that required.
Number two, Samuel Alito, and hopefully, a majority will say, okay, those segregated votes they were segregated out and those [votes] are unconstitutional. Don’t blame us [and] don’t blame the legislature. You can blame the governor [and] you can blame your state court.
Or, number three that nobody’s thinking about and I don’t particularly like it. The court could say, look, those segregated votes from our perspective are unconstitutional, but we’re going to leave it to the US congress to determine whether they’re unconstitutional or not. And the state legislature is free to send its own list of electors based on the original statutory election laws. We’ll now know how many because they’re segregating the votes.
If in fact, the President of the United States won under the existing law before it was changed by the state supreme court; in other words, there could be two sets of electors. Set one certified by the governor [and] one certified by the legislature under the Federal constitution. And congress can sort it out. What do you think of those three possibilities?
Starr: Right, heaven forbid two of them. On the one that I think is the more or most likely is that now the supreme court will now do its duty in the Pennsylvania case. Because it was very clear from the outset that what the governor did and what the state supreme court did was utterly unconstitutional, so it’s a lawless act.
And at this stage the supreme court has a solemn duty in light of the nature of the issue and stakes at hand and has to take the case.
I think, by the way, the earlier determination by Justice Alito, to call a halt to any counting if that had begun, of these set aside ballots…. The ones that I view is illegal. They’re just illegal and they don’t and should not count.
His determination to do that is a signal. It’s not insurance but it’s a signal that the majority of the supreme court would uphold what Justice Alito has done. We’ll see, that’s a guess, but it’s a reasonably educated guess.
Edited by：【Himalaya Hawk Squad】