Joining us tonight is John Solomon. He’s the editor in chief of just the news he’s bestselling author. And John let’s start out with Jim banks. Uh, you know, he’s always had, I had a bit of a milk toast, uh, demeanor, uh, when it came to the president, I never thought a full on Gusto was, uh, was, is a watch word.
But again, it came to, uh, Yeah, I it’s all it’s appalling. See a man say that because a it’s just untrue and B it makes him look weaker than, uh, you know, 1% skim milk. Yeah. You know, it’s funny all these Republicans, particularly those who won by large margins and, and the entire caucus picking up seats in this election owe it to the extraordinary effort that president Trump did in the final couple of days.
The last couple of weeks of this election, he whipped up a frenzy among voters. He got. Uh, low propensity voters out to the polls and big numbers. And, you know, the success that Kevin McCarthy and his team had, it started with them and the good recruitment of candidates, but it ended with Donald Trump’s ability to mobilize this incredible block of voters that came out in record numbers for a Republican.
And any Republican who doesn’t recognize that either has their head in the stand or is a, is a, uh, a never Trumper because it’s air, air refutable, the impact the president had with his final two weeks of, uh, election. And now I talked to Lee Zeldin today, Congressman from New York, you know, he’s all in. He understands the role that president Trump made.
He understands the importance of Congress and these state legislators starting to investigate these election irregularities. So there are many of them out there and they’re becoming more vocal every day. Yeah, it was his transformation. I thought was extraordinary Lee Zeldin because he went from being a never Trumper, uh, and a milk toast.
If you will, uh, a rye, a rhino, if you prefer to get even stronger about it. To being all in with the president and the result is he’s reelected and he’s on the path to glory. Uh, it’s good to see because he’s a good and decent man. Uh, the Trump campaign today, an hour and a half, the legal team laying it out.
Uh, this give us your sense of what’s required here for them to prevail. Now, from your perspective, Not just a legal perspective, but from your perspective, because this president, once again is, uh, at the, at the, at the forefront, he’s the tip of the spear. And sometimes he’s the whole damn spear. Um, and that’s usually more than enough to get done.
What needs to be done? Your thoughts? Uh, the presence of tartar force and, and he’s got a legal team that’s full of energy and, uh, and, and intention to get this done missing component, or the part that has to step in next is they’ve set up great constitutional arguments that there’s been a dual system on equal protection.
You can prove it in Pennsylvania. You can prove it in Wisconsin. You can prove it in Michigan and other States. They need to show the scope of votes that are. Potentially been changed because of this misconduct or rule changes or fraud. And to later tonight on just the news, we’re going to be able to give a it’s an affidavit from a data scientist who took a look at a pool of votes in Pennsylvania alone, where he sees a hundred thousand potential votes, but approximately a hundred thousand votes.
That are potentially dubious fraudulent misreported. That is a huge pull of the way larger than any numbers that we’ve been talking about. That’s the sort of evidence that has to come in to the next phase of this legal case of the courts say, listen, all right, I get the idea that we screwed up the system.
Show me the votes. And I think this affidavit tonight from disrespected data scientists will break some ground when you’re talking about a hundred thousand votes block and just one state, you can see how these States can be called into question. It’s there’s an interesting, I illegal caution, at least interestingly to me, I don’t know whether the court will find it such, but their chief justice, John Roberts had an opportunity to prevent the fraud of the sort that we’ve seen in Pennsylvania very specifically.
And he could have done so before the election, but demured. Played cue and acquiesce, acquiesce to a nurse rather than taking a strong stand against fraud, which you could have done. Uh, is that going to be replicated, do you think by the chief justice in his, uh, in his, uh, thinking, you know, if you’ve never been able to figure it.
Yeah. I’ve, I’ve never been good at figuring out John Roberts. I, all I can say is John Roberts is no Rehnquist, right? He’s a very different justice than chief justice that said there are in his rulings indications that if this issue became right, meaning you can show me there was misconduct. You can show me votes for counted.
That shouldn’t have been I’m likely to engage, but he may become irrelevant with justice. Amy Coney Barrett on the, uh, on the court, you’ve got a five, four majority, even if John Roberts sides with the liberal. So. I think the Supreme court is in a good spot for the president. If he can show that the breadth of votes are large enough, that they could have changed the outcome of the election.
That’s the fulcrum on which this final question is going to turn. It’s interesting. You talk about a five, four rather than six, three. Uh, in my opinion, this should be nine zero. There is a, there is a demand now and, and a hunger in this country to get beyond this level of political corruption that has overtaken even the federal judiciary, the justice department, the FBI or intelligence agencies.
If we cannot rise above that are certainly enough. Our Supreme court cannot, uh, we were in for even more trouble, uh, and, uh, ever-growing trouble. Uh, John’s on one. Thanks for being with us. We appreciate it. Look forward to your reporting this evening.